alternet--2020-10-29--Why Trump's collapsing poll numbers could scuttle plan to take vote count to court: legal experts

President Trump has repeatedly tried to cast doubt on the results of the presidential election and signaled that he hopes the Supreme Court 's conservative majority can deliver him a win — but election law experts say that scenario is increasingly implausible because Trump has fallen so far behind in the polls .
`` It is unlikely the Supreme Court will decide the 2020 elections because it would have to be so close in a state pivotal to the Electoral College that litigating could make a difference , '' Rick Hasen , an election law expert at the University of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Salon .
`` That 's what happened in 2000 and it could happen again , but odds are against it .
If cases do get to the court , we have seen the court divide along ideological and party lines in some key election cases .
I hope that would not be the case in 2020 . ''
Trump has said that his campaign 's litigation over mail voting expansions in key swing states could `` end up in the Supreme Court '' and the court 's recent decisions have raised fears that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a dispute over ballot rules .
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett 's confirmation is likely to further stack the deck in Trump 's favor unless she recuses herself from election-related cases .
Even before Barrett 's confirmation , the court voted 5-3 to block a district court from extending Wisconsin 's mail-in ballot deadline .
The court split 4-4 on a decision that allowed Pennsylvania to extend its mail-in ballot deadline , but the state 's Republicans have already filed another request for the court to hear the case after Barrett 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ separate ballots sent in after Election Day to make it easier to reject them if the court decides to block Pennsylvania 's deadline extension after all .
These rulings could certainly affect the outcome of certain states ' elections , if a large enough percentage of ballots are affected .
`` Focusing just on how [ the Supreme Court ] might rule after Nov. 3 , when the initial tallies have already come in , misses something important : It could be that the critical ruling that will decide the 2020 race has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a court or elections official somewhere , '' said Michael Geruso , a professor at the University of Texas at Austin who studies the Electoral College .
`` Judges and elections administrators have already made dozens of decisions in Pennsylvania and elsewhere about how and where ballots will be accepted .
These decisions have already affected voters ' behaviors .
Almost certainly , they have affected whether some voters have voted at all . ''
Geruso said that rulings made before Election Day can be just as important as a post-election ruling like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` Regardless of whether SCOTUS rules on an election case after Nov. 3 , it could still be the case that earlier , lower rulings — as well as judgment calls by local or state election officials in Pennsylvania and elsewhere — are affecting which ballots are cast and which ballots are counted , '' he said .
`` If these decisions could affect a few thousand votes , then the courts and officials , not the voters , could be deciding the presidency in 2020 . ''
Conservatives on the court like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ controversial theory about near-absolute power of state legislatures to set rules in federal elections , '' Hasen wrote in a Washington Post op-ed .
`` If Barrett does not recuse herself from election disputes next month , there 's every reason to worry that a 5-4 court could interfere in the election to help Trump if a case that might swing the outcome gets before the court . ''
Hasen said there was a `` small chance '' that the court would take up the Pennsylvania case a second time , but said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the court would intervene in a case that affects the outcome of the election .
But even a small chance and a small number of votes could impact hundreds of millions of people .
A study by Geruso and fellow UT Austin economist Dean Spears found that there is greater than a 10 % chance that just `` 20,000 votes or fewer could decide the Electoral College winner in a typical election year . ''
A `` one-in-10 chance of something happening that could precipitate a legitimacy crisis is something to be concerned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you thought there was a one-in-10 chance of your plane crashing , you would n't want to get on that plane ! ''
But a lot of things would have to happen for the election to come down to 20,000 votes .
First , Trump , who trails nationally by about 8.5 percentage points , would have to make up enough ground in other states for the election to come down to a single state like Pennsylvania , where the president trails by about five points .
Any litigation would have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system and the Supreme Court would have to agree to hear the case .
`` I have to think that at least one of the [ conservative ] justices would have real qualms about upsetting the apple cart this late , '' Stephen Vladeck , a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin , told the Washington Post .
`` The court would be doing this literally on the eve of the election … past the point where at least some Pennsylvania voters would be able to cast a lawful ballot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have made eyebrow-raising decisions in election cases already , making a break from longstanding tradition more likely .
`` It is conceivable that if it all comes down to the counting of late-received ballot in Pennsylvania , the court could be dispositive , '' Richard Briffault , a professor at the Columbia School of Law , told Salon .
Trump has repeatedly argued in court that `` courts or administrators have changed the rules beyond what the state legislature has authorized , and that those changes should not be allowed to take effect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have had some success with this argument when the change was due to the decision of a lower federal court . ''
Briffault said it is also possible that `` millions of ballots will be disqualified '' based on the `` normal 1-2 % disqualification '' rate of mail-in ballots for issues like missed deadlines and signature issues .
`` It might be the case that a lower court or state elections system might accept ballots that arguably 'should have been ' rejected , either for lateness or a signature problem , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court , '' he said .
`` Of course , in a close election , rejecting thousands of ballots would be enough . ''
But Hasen stressed that `` it is far from likely that the election would come down to Pennsylvania — or , even if it did , that Pennsylvania will be within the margin that litigation of the election could swing . ''
Beyond the 2020 election , however , `` it is hard to escape the fact that the Supreme Court is poised to allow Republican states to engage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the name of protecting the rights of state legislatures , '' he said .
Geruso , who with Spears authored an earlier paper showing that the Electoral College heavily favors Republicans in close elections , noted that concerns about whether courts will determine the election winner could be alleviated in the future by switching to a national popular vote system .
`` It is very , very unlikely that a small number of votes would separate the candidates nationally , '' he said .
`` Even in the closest races , hundreds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the candidates .
For 2020 , there 's uncertainty about the Electoral College outcome , but very little uncertainty that the popular vote spread will be enormous .
Projections today suggest that Biden will win the popular vote by millions .
A Biden popular vote win in the millions is likely to occur regardless of whether judicial decisions about mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania ultimately decide who becomes president . ''

President Trump has repeatedly tried to cast doubt on the results of the presidential election and signaled that he hopes the Supreme Court's conservative majority can deliver him a win — but election law experts say that scenario is increasingly implausible because Trump has fallen so far behind in the polls.
"It is unlikely the Supreme Court will decide the 2020 elections because it would have to be so close in a state pivotal to the Electoral College that litigating could make a difference," Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California Irvine School of Law, told Salon. "That's what happened in 2000 and it could happen again, but odds are against it. If cases do get to the court, we have seen the court divide along ideological and party lines in some key election cases. I hope that would not be the case in 2020."
Trump has said that his campaign's litigation over mail voting expansions in key swing states could "end up in the Supreme Court" and the court's recent decisions have raised fears that it would side with the president in a dispute over ballot rules. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation is likely to further stack the deck in Trump's favor unless she recuses herself from election-related cases.
Even before Barrett's confirmation, the court voted 5-3 to block a district court from extending Wisconsin's mail-in ballot deadline. The court split 4-4 on a decision that allowed Pennsylvania to extend its mail-in ballot deadline, but the state's Republicans have already filed another request for the court to hear the case after Barrett's confirmation. Republicans asked a court to separate ballots sent in after Election Day to make it easier to reject them if the court decides to block Pennsylvania's deadline extension after all.
These rulings could certainly affect the outcome of certain states' elections, if a large enough percentage of ballots are affected.
"Focusing just on how [the Supreme Court] might rule after Nov. 3, when the initial tallies have already come in, misses something important: It could be that the critical ruling that will decide the 2020 race has already, today, been made by a court or elections official somewhere," said Michael Geruso, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin who studies the Electoral College. "Judges and elections administrators have already made dozens of decisions in Pennsylvania and elsewhere about how and where ballots will be accepted. These decisions have already affected voters' behaviors. Almost certainly, they have affected whether some voters have voted at all."
Geruso said that rulings made before Election Day can be just as important as a post-election ruling like the 2000 Bush v. Gore case.
"Regardless of whether SCOTUS rules on an election case after Nov. 3, it could still be the case that earlier, lower rulings — as well as judgment calls by local or state election officials in Pennsylvania and elsewhere — are affecting which ballots are cast and which ballots are counted," he said. "If these decisions could affect a few thousand votes, then the courts and officials, not the voters, could be deciding the presidency in 2020."
Conservatives on the court like Justice Brett Kavanaugh have "advanced a controversial theory about near-absolute power of state legislatures to set rules in federal elections," Hasen wrote in a Washington Post op-ed. "If Barrett does not recuse herself from election disputes next month, there's every reason to worry that a 5-4 court could interfere in the election to help Trump if a case that might swing the outcome gets before the court."
Hasen said there was a "small chance" that the court would take up the Pennsylvania case a second time, but said it is "extremely unlikely" that the court would intervene in a case that affects the outcome of the election.
But even a small chance and a small number of votes could impact hundreds of millions of people. A study by Geruso and fellow UT Austin economist Dean Spears found that there is greater than a 10% chance that just "20,000 votes or fewer could decide the Electoral College winner in a typical election year."
A "one-in-10 chance of something happening that could precipitate a legitimacy crisis is something to be concerned about," Geruso said. "If you thought there was a one-in-10 chance of your plane crashing, you wouldn't want to get on that plane!"
But a lot of things would have to happen for the election to come down to 20,000 votes. First, Trump, who trails nationally by about 8.5 percentage points, would have to make up enough ground in other states for the election to come down to a single state like Pennsylvania, where the president trails by about five points. Any litigation would have to make its way through the federal court system and the Supreme Court would have to agree to hear the case.
"I have to think that at least one of the [conservative] justices would have real qualms about upsetting the apple cart this late," Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin, told the Washington Post. "The court would be doing this literally on the eve of the election … past the point where at least some Pennsylvania voters would be able to cast a lawful ballot."
But conservatives on the court have made eyebrow-raising decisions in election cases already, making a break from longstanding tradition more likely.
"It is conceivable that if it all comes down to the counting of late-received ballot in Pennsylvania, the court could be dispositive," Richard Briffault, a professor at the Columbia School of Law, told Salon.
Trump has repeatedly argued in court that "courts or administrators have changed the rules beyond what the state legislature has authorized, and that those changes should not be allowed to take effect," he said. "They have had some success with this argument when the change was due to the decision of a lower federal court."
Briffault said it is also possible that "millions of ballots will be disqualified" based on the "normal 1-2% disqualification" rate of mail-in ballots for issues like missed deadlines and signature issues.
"It might be the case that a lower court or state elections system might accept ballots that arguably 'should have been' rejected, either for lateness or a signature problem, and that could be challenged to the Supreme Court," he said. "Of course, in a close election, rejecting thousands of ballots would be enough."
But Hasen stressed that "it is far from likely that the election would come down to Pennsylvania — or, even if it did, that Pennsylvania will be within the margin that litigation of the election could swing."
Beyond the 2020 election, however, "it is hard to escape the fact that the Supreme Court is poised to allow Republican states to engage in all manner of voter suppression in the name of protecting the rights of state legislatures," he said.
Geruso, who with Spears authored an earlier paper showing that the Electoral College heavily favors Republicans in close elections, noted that concerns about whether courts will determine the election winner could be alleviated in the future by switching to a national popular vote system.
"It is very, very unlikely that a small number of votes would separate the candidates nationally," he said. "Even in the closest races, hundreds of thousands or millions of votes typically separate the candidates. For 2020, there's uncertainty about the Electoral College outcome, but very little uncertainty that the popular vote spread will be enormous. Projections today suggest that Biden will win the popular vote by millions. A Biden popular vote win in the millions is likely to occur regardless of whether judicial decisions about mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania ultimately decide who becomes president."


alternet--2020-10-29--All 7 whistleblowers who accused Texas AG of criminal violations have resigned, been fired or put on

All 7 whistleblowers who accused Texas AG of criminal violations have resigned, been fired or put on leave

Editor 's note : This article has been updated with comment from Ryan Bangert confirming his resignation .
The last of the seven top aides who accused Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton of criminal violations has resigned from the agency .
Ryan Bangert , who served in one of the agency 's highest posts as deputy first assistant attorney general , resigned Wednesday , he told The Texas Tribune .
The attorney general 's office did not respond to a request Wednesday seeking to confirm Bangert 's employment status .
“ It has been my honor and privilege to serve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Office of the Attorney General , '' Bangert said in a statement .
The Dallas Morning News first reported the information .
Two of the other whistleblowers were fired last week , two more were put on leave , and two others have already resigned — leaving the sprawling agency without seven of its top officials .
A spokesman for Paxton denied that the firings were retaliation , citing unspecified violations of agency policy .
Bangert and six of his colleagues alerted law enforcement weeks ago that they had a “ good faith @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bribery and abuse of office by using the agency to serve the interests of a political donor , Austin real estate investor Nate Paul .
Paxton has called the employees “ rogue '' and their allegations “ false . ''
But documents and media reports have shown several highly unusual instances when Paxton 's office got involved in separate legal matters that involved Paul .
The attorney general 's office did not respond to a request Wednesday seeking to confirm Bangert 's employment status .
Bangert , who was hired in 2019 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most senior posts , and leaves as the agency is hemorrhaging top staff .
In addition to the seven whistleblowers , the agency recently said goodbye to Katherine Cary , its chief of staff , who resigned .
In the immediate aftermath of the accusations against Paxton , it was Bangert who sent an agency-wide email assuring the roughly 4,000 staff members that “ In light of recent events reported in the media … the executive team remains committed to serving you , this office , and the people of Texas . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to this office and the people of the State , who we serve , to ensure the agency continues its important work without interruption , '' he wrote the afternoon of Oct. 4 , a Sunday .

Editor's note: This article has been updated with comment from Ryan Bangert confirming his resignation.
The last of the seven top aides who accused Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton of criminal violations has resigned from the agency.
Ryan Bangert, who served in one of the agency's highest posts as deputy first assistant attorney general, resigned Wednesday, he told The Texas Tribune. The attorney general's office did not respond to a request Wednesday seeking to confirm Bangert's employment status.
“It has been my honor and privilege to serve alongside the men and women of the Office of the Attorney General," Bangert said in a statement. The Dallas Morning News first reported the information.
Two of the other whistleblowers were fired last week, two more were put on leave, and two others have already resigned — leaving the sprawling agency without seven of its top officials. A spokesman for Paxton denied that the firings were retaliation, citing unspecified violations of agency policy.
Bangert and six of his colleagues alerted law enforcement weeks ago that they had a “good faith" belief that their boss had committed bribery and abuse of office by using the agency to serve the interests of a political donor, Austin real estate investor Nate Paul.
Paxton has called the employees “rogue" and their allegations “false." But documents and media reports have shown several highly unusual instances when Paxton's office got involved in separate legal matters that involved Paul.
The attorney general's office did not respond to a request Wednesday seeking to confirm Bangert's employment status.
Bangert, who was hired in 2019, served in one of the agency's most senior posts, and leaves as the agency is hemorrhaging top staff. In addition to the seven whistleblowers, the agency recently said goodbye to Katherine Cary, its chief of staff, who resigned.
In the immediate aftermath of the accusations against Paxton, it was Bangert who sent an agency-wide email assuring the roughly 4,000 staff members that “In light of recent events reported in the media … the executive team remains committed to serving you, this office, and the people of Texas."
“Together, we owe a duty to this office and the people of the State, who we serve, to ensure the agency continues its important work without interruption," he wrote the afternoon of Oct. 4, a Sunday.


alternet--2020-10-29--Trump's massive rallies amid COVID-19 pandemic are backfiring in key battleground states: poll

It is no secret President Donald Trump loves to bask in MAGA glory at his rallies , but a new survey shows his campaign blitz may be backfiring as voters wonder if the president bears responsibility for hosting potential super-spreader events while COVID-19 batters the Midwestern United States .
A new survey , compiled of voters in six battleground states—Arizona , Florida , Michigan , North Carolina , Pennsylvania and Wisconsin—found that a great number of voters view Trump `` much less '' or `` somewhat less favorably '' due to his continued behavior amid the coronavirus pandemic , reports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases across the Midwest , Trump has continued to visit vulnerable states and hold massive rallies all while disregarding COVID-19 mitigation practices .
Over the last few weeks , footage and photos have captured hundreds , and sometimes thousands , of mask-less Trump supporters standing shoulder to shoulder at the president 's in-person rallies .
Despite contracting COVID-19 and being hospitalized for the virus , Trump has not changed his campaign practices to protect his supporters .
Guy Cecil , chairman of Priorities USA , weighed in on Trump 's actions admitting that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his antics .
`` Bad public health policy is bad politics , and voters are onto this , '' Cecil said .
Below is the survey breakdown , according to the publication .
`` In Arizona , 56 % saw Trump less favorably because of his rallies compared to 26 % who saw him `` much more '' or `` somewhat more '' favorably ; in Florida , the split was 58 % unfavorable to 22 % favorable ; in Michigan , it was 57 % unfavorable to 25 % favorable ; in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unfavorable to 25 % favorable ; in Pennsylvania , the divide was 58 % unfavorable to 22 % favorable ; and in Wisconsin , it was 55 % unfavorable to 25 % favorable . ''
The state-of-the-race report comes just days ahead of Election Day .
Based on the findings , Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden appears to be in a positive position to win the election .
States that appear to be solidly or favorably Democratic have reached a tentative total of 334 Electoral College votes .
Trump , on the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 126 Electoral College based on states solidly Republican which may make his road back to the White House more of an uphill battle .
While Trump believes his rallies are working in his favor , he could be in for an upset on November 3 if the election results suggest his plan backfired .

It is no secret President Donald Trump loves to bask in MAGA glory at his rallies, but a new survey shows his campaign blitz may be backfiring as voters wonder if the president bears responsibility for hosting potential super-spreader events while COVID-19 batters the Midwestern United States.
A new survey, compiled of voters in six battleground states—Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin—found that a great number of voters view Trump "much less" or "somewhat less favorably" due to his continued behavior amid the coronavirus pandemic, reports US News. Despite alarming upticks in cases across the Midwest, Trump has continued to visit vulnerable states and hold massive rallies all while disregarding COVID-19 mitigation practices.
Over the last few weeks, footage and photos have captured hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of mask-less Trump supporters standing shoulder to shoulder at the president's in-person rallies. Despite contracting COVID-19 and being hospitalized for the virus, Trump has not changed his campaign practices to protect his supporters.
Guy Cecil, chairman of Priorities USA, weighed in on Trump's actions admitting that it appears voters are catching on to his antics.
"Bad public health policy is bad politics, and voters are onto this," Cecil said.
Below is the survey breakdown, according to the publication.
"In Arizona, 56% saw Trump less favorably because of his rallies compared to 26% who saw him "much more" or "somewhat more" favorably; in Florida, the split was 58% unfavorable to 22% favorable; in Michigan, it was 57% unfavorable to 25% favorable; in North Carolina, it was 55% unfavorable to 25% favorable; in Pennsylvania, the divide was 58% unfavorable to 22% favorable; and in Wisconsin, it was 55% unfavorable to 25% favorable."
The state-of-the-race report comes just days ahead of Election Day. Based on the findings, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden appears to be in a positive position to win the election. States that appear to be solidly or favorably Democratic have reached a tentative total of 334 Electoral College votes.
Trump, on the other hand, appears to have a total of 126 Electoral College based on states solidly Republican which may make his road back to the White House more of an uphill battle. While Trump believes his rallies are working in his favor, he could be in for an upset on November 3 if the election results suggest his plan backfired.


alternet--2020-10-29--MAGA rally activist threatens Driver to vote for Trump: 'We got your plates and we got you’

At a grassroots roadside rally for President Donald Trump in Beverly Hills , supporters waved huge American flags , a QAnon conspiracy cult flag , banners that said `` Trump 2020 , '' and `` Californians for Trump , '' and handmade and printed signs that read `` Asians for Trump , '' `` Latinos for Trump , '' and `` Challenge your beliefs . ''
One social media user filmed the event from inside a car , capturing a man who threatened them to vote for President Trump .
`` We got you now , '' said the man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump flag at the end towards the driver .
`` Your mother voted for Trump . ''
`` Your mother loves Trump – I asked her .
We got your plates – we got you , '' the Trump supporters says , as a young woman in a tight-fitting tank top emblazoned with the American flag and holding a Trump flag over her shoulder walks by , giving the driver the finger .
The man walks to the front of the car , points , and returns to the passenger window .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know who you are now .
You 're going to vote for Trump whether you like it or not .
You got no choice ! ''
`` You can not resist Trump , we got you .
We f*cking got you , '' he threatens .
As the car drives off a man , off camera says , `` We got her plates . ''

At a grassroots roadside rally for President Donald Trump in Beverly Hills, supporters waved huge American flags, a QAnon conspiracy cult flag, banners that said "Trump 2020," and "Californians for Trump," and handmade and printed signs that read "Asians for Trump," "Latinos for Trump," and "Challenge your beliefs."
One social media user filmed the event from inside a car, capturing a man who threatened them to vote for President Trump.
"We got you now," said the man, pointing a small sword with a Trump flag at the end towards the driver. "Your mother voted for Trump."
"Your mother loves Trump – I asked her. We got your plates – we got you," the Trump supporters says, as a young woman in a tight-fitting tank top emblazoned with the American flag and holding a Trump flag over her shoulder walks by, giving the driver the finger.
The man walks to the front of the car, points, and returns to the passenger window.
"We got your plates baby. We know who you are now. You're going to vote for Trump whether you like it or not. You got no choice!"
"You cannot resist Trump, we got you. We f*cking got you," he threatens.
As the car drives off a man, off camera says, "We got her plates."
Watch:
A CNN Senior National Security Correspondent weighed in:
Politico reporter:
A few more responses:


alternet--2020-10-29--Kayleigh McEnany's new volunteer role with the Trump campaign raises multiple ethics questions

President Donald Trump 's White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany appears to have supplemented her government work with a new role as a senior adviser to the president 's re-election campaign .
McEnany , who left her job as Trump campaign spokesperson to join the administration , was introduced in a Tuesday segment on Fox Business as `` Trump 2020 senior adviser and White House press secretary . ''
During a second appearance on the same day , Fox Business Network host Stuart Varney said the press secretary was `` serving now as adviser for the Trump campaign '' as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both the White House and the Trump campaign logo behind her .
A Trump campaign spokesperson told Salon that the campaign had instructed the cable news shows not to refer to McEnany with her White House title in advance .
The new shadow role , which the Daily Beast first reported on Tuesday , triggered criticism among government ethics watchdogs , who pinned it as a continuation of the history of the intercourse between Trump 's government administration and his ostensibly separate political arm .
`` People will probably be surprised to learn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FEC ] and the Hatch Act allow White House employees to campaign for federal candidates as long as they do it on their own time and do n't use any White House resources , '' Brett Kappel , a top government ethics expert and attorney at Harmon Curran , told Salon in reference to the federal rule that bars government employees from politicking on the clock .
However , Kappel added that the nature of McEnany 's duties at the White House — including on-demand rapid-response to urgent news and regular media interviews @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line .
`` Given that working in the White House is a 24/7 proposition , '' he said , `` it is hard to see how it would be possible to maintain the separation required by the Hatch Act . ''
Jordan Libowitz , spokesperson for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ( CREW ) , echoed Kappel 's point .
`` People like Kayleigh McEnany can volunteer for the campaign , but obviously can not appear for the campaign in their official government capacity or using their government authority , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's essentially providing the same role for each , it raises questions about what efforts she is taking to prevent government resources from being used for her campaign activity . ''
`` Ultimately , I think we need a little more information about what 's going on here , '' he added .
`` But I 've never seen something like this before . ''
A Trump campaign spokesperson confirmed to Salon that McEnany `` appears in her personal capacity on a volunteer basis , '' and she speaks only `` as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House role .
But on Varney 's show , McEnany discussed official administration policy , including offering insight to elements that `` we 're providing '' in the ongoing negotiations for a new coronavirus relief bill .
`` The chances are slim when you have someone like Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the House , '' she said .
`` If we 're providing stimulus relief for the American people , it should be just that — for American people , for United States citizens — not a wish-list from the liberal left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relentless flak from ethics advocates for repeated violations of the Hatch Act , most recently for hosting the extravagant Republican National Convention in August , in which numerous administration officials stumped for the president , who himself accepted the party 's nomination from the White House lawn .
Former senior White House adviser Kellyanne Conway had been accused of violating the rule 50 times on Twitter alone — before 2019 — a pattern so brazen that the Office of Special Counsel recommended her removal .
The White House , which appears to bask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , declined to act .
While the White House waived McEnany 's ethics pledge ahead of her Republican National Committee appearance , Kedric Payne , the general counsel and senior ethics director at the Campaign Legal Center , told Salon that her role as former campaign spokesperson complicated that rationale — and smacked of desperation .
`` White House officials are generally permitted to volunteer for the campaign , but McEnany 's ethics pledge was intended to bar her from working with the campaign because it is her former employer , '' Payne @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House gave for waiving the pledge is that it does n't matter that this raises ethics questions , because her services are desperately needed .
Ethics does not appear to be the priority this close to an election . ''
In July , Salon reported that the campaign had continued to pay McEnany for two paycheck cycles after she went to work for the White House .
McEnany and the campaign insisted that the funds had been restored and properly accounted for , in spite of Salon 's joint review of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts .
`` The campaign overpaid me , and I immediately paid them back , '' McEnany said , claiming that `` every penny has been paid back in the overlap . ''
Neither McEnany nor the campaign provided documentation that the campaign had received the money .
`` Campaign funds are meant for bona fide campaign expenditures , '' Ciarra Torres-Spelliscy , campaign finance law expert at Stetson University and former fellow at Brennan Center for Justice , told Salon at the time .
But Torres-Spelliscy , pointed out exceptions .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — `` Salary of Government officials and employees payable only by United States '' — prohibits officials and employees of the U.S. government from being paid `` by someone other than the United States for doing their official Government duties , '' but it includes a carveout for `` special government employees '' and `` employees serving without compensation . ''
Such examples include former Ambassador Kurt Volker , who served the administration as an unpaid `` special envoy '' to Ukraine while keeping his full salary as an executive at the lobbying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reverse that arrangement : serving the administration in a paid capacity while volunteering outside of it .
Weeks after Salon published its July 27 report , a refund from McEnany dated mid-July appeared in the Trump campaign 's financial statements filed with Federal Election Commission at the end of that month .
Salon asked the campaign to explain the 10-week lag between McEnany 's alleged repayment and the campaign 's documentation but received no response .
Two campaign finance experts told Salon that given data included with the filing itself , the entry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that a set of unusual but still-unknown circumstances could explain it .
The campaign has still not provided documentation to Salon .
You can watch McEnany 's appearance on Fox Business below via YouTube : McEnany : We 'strongly encourage ' people to wear masks at Trump rallies

President Donald Trump's White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany appears to have supplemented her government work with a new role as a senior adviser to the president's re-election campaign.
McEnany, who left her job as Trump campaign spokesperson to join the administration, was introduced in a Tuesday segment on Fox Business as "Trump 2020 senior adviser and White House press secretary." During a second appearance on the same day, Fox Business Network host Stuart Varney said the press secretary was "serving now as adviser for the Trump campaign" as he introduced her with an image of both the White House and the Trump campaign logo behind her.
A Trump campaign spokesperson told Salon that the campaign had instructed the cable news shows not to refer to McEnany with her White House title in advance.
The new shadow role, which the Daily Beast first reported on Tuesday, triggered criticism among government ethics watchdogs, who pinned it as a continuation of the history of the intercourse between Trump's government administration and his ostensibly separate political arm.
"People will probably be surprised to learn that both the Federal Election Commission [FEC] and the Hatch Act allow White House employees to campaign for federal candidates as long as they do it on their own time and don't use any White House resources," Brett Kappel, a top government ethics expert and attorney at Harmon Curran, told Salon in reference to the federal rule that bars government employees from politicking on the clock.
However, Kappel added that the nature of McEnany's duties at the White House — including on-demand rapid-response to urgent news and regular media interviews — made it difficult to draw the line.
"Given that working in the White House is a 24/7 proposition," he said, "it is hard to see how it would be possible to maintain the separation required by the Hatch Act."
Jordan Libowitz, spokesperson for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), echoed Kappel's point.
"People like Kayleigh McEnany can volunteer for the campaign, but obviously cannot appear for the campaign in their official government capacity or using their government authority," Libowitz told Salon. "Since she's essentially providing the same role for each, it raises questions about what efforts she is taking to prevent government resources from being used for her campaign activity."
"Ultimately, I think we need a little more information about what's going on here," he added. "But I've never seen something like this before."
A Trump campaign spokesperson confirmed to Salon that McEnany "appears in her personal capacity on a volunteer basis," and she speaks only "as a private citizen" unrelated to her White House role.
But on Varney's show, McEnany discussed official administration policy, including offering insight to elements that "we're providing" in the ongoing negotiations for a new coronavirus relief bill.
"The chances are slim when you have someone like Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the House," she said. "If we're providing stimulus relief for the American people, it should be just that — for American people, for United States citizens — not a wish-list from the liberal left."
The White House has caught relentless flak from ethics advocates for repeated violations of the Hatch Act, most recently for hosting the extravagant Republican National Convention in August, in which numerous administration officials stumped for the president, who himself accepted the party's nomination from the White House lawn.
Former senior White House adviser Kellyanne Conway had been accused of violating the rule 50 times on Twitter alone — before 2019 — a pattern so brazen that the Office of Special Counsel recommended her removal. The White House, which appears to bask in the controversy stirred by Hatch-related controversies, declined to act.
While the White House waived McEnany's ethics pledge ahead of her Republican National Committee appearance, Kedric Payne, the general counsel and senior ethics director at the Campaign Legal Center, told Salon that her role as former campaign spokesperson complicated that rationale — and smacked of desperation.
"White House officials are generally permitted to volunteer for the campaign, but McEnany's ethics pledge was intended to bar her from working with the campaign because it is her former employer," Payne said. "The overlooked legal rationale the White House gave for waiving the pledge is that it doesn't matter that this raises ethics questions, because her services are desperately needed. Ethics does not appear to be the priority this close to an election."
In July, Salon reported that the campaign had continued to pay McEnany for two paycheck cycles after she went to work for the White House. McEnany and the campaign insisted that the funds had been restored and properly accounted for, in spite of Salon's joint review of the campaign's filings with campaign finance experts.
"The campaign overpaid me, and I immediately paid them back," McEnany said, claiming that "every penny has been paid back in the overlap." Neither McEnany nor the campaign provided documentation that the campaign had received the money.
"Campaign funds are meant for bona fide campaign expenditures," Ciarra Torres-Spelliscy, campaign finance law expert at Stetson University and former fellow at Brennan Center for Justice, told Salon at the time.
But Torres-Spelliscy,pointed out exceptions. For instance, 18 U.S.C. § 209 — "Salary of Government officials and employees payable only by United States" — prohibits officials and employees of the U.S. government from being paid "by someone other than the United States for doing their official Government duties," but it includes a carveout for "special government employees" and "employees serving without compensation."
Such examples include former Ambassador Kurt Volker, who served the administration as an unpaid "special envoy" to Ukraine while keeping his full salary as an executive at the lobbying firm BGR. McEnany's dual roles reverse that arrangement: serving the administration in a paid capacity while volunteering outside of it.
Weeks after Salon published its July 27 report, a refund from McEnany dated mid-July appeared in the Trump campaign's financial statements filed with Federal Election Commission at the end of that month. Salon asked the campaign to explain the 10-week lag between McEnany's alleged repayment and the campaign's documentation but received no response.
Two campaign finance experts told Salon that given data included with the filing itself, the entry might have been backdated, but allowed that a set of unusual but still-unknown circumstances could explain it.
The campaign has still not provided documentation to Salon.
You can watch McEnany's appearance on Fox Business below via YouTube:


alternet--2020-10-29--'Destruction without limit': Psychologists warn of 'rage' and 'terror' if narcissist Trump loses

There is agreement among psychologists — and , for that matter , anyone who has been abused by narcissistic personalities — that President Donald Trump fits the psychological profile of a narcissist .
What does that mean for the upcoming election , particularly if Trump loses , as polls suggest ?
Psychologists tell Salon that pathological narcissists who do not get their way tend to react abusively — which could lead to one of several devastating political scenarios for the nation in the election 's aftermath .
`` One does not have to diagnose to recognize pathological or toxic narcissism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a psychiatrist who has taught at Yale and authored the new book `` Profile of a Nation : Trump 's Mind , America 's Soul , '' told Salon by email .
`` This is behavior , not a diagnosis — and the media need not fixate so much on 'the Goldwater rule , ' which applies to only 6 % of practicing mental health professionals ( that is , members of the American Psychiatric Association , the only association in the world with this rule ) . ''
The so-called Goldwater Rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement . ''
However , the rule does not apply to describing obvious narcissistic behavior in a public figure , any more than it would disqualify someone from describing celebrities who spend most of their days drinking liquor as having an alcohol problem .
`` Those with pathological narcissism are abusive and dangerous because of their catastrophic neediness , '' Lee explained .
`` Think of a drowning person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just may push you down in order to save one 's own life .
In the manner that the body needs oxygen , the soul needs love , and self-love is what a toxic narcissist is desperately lacking .
This is why he must overcompensate , creating for himself a self-image where he is the best at everything , never wrong , better than all the experts , and a 'stable genius . '
'' Dr. Ramani Durvasula , a licensed clinical psychologist and professor of psychology who is noted as an expert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , agrees that Trump is narcissistic and believes this makes him very dangerous .
As Durvasula explained , many of Trump 's seemingly inexplicable actions as president make sense when viewed through the lens of a `` narcissistic or antagonist personality style . ''
These include `` validation and admiration seeking , '' as manifested by his `` endless campaign rallies despite the associated danger , needing to be taken on a ride around the hospital when he had COVID-19 so people could wave to him , repeatedly requiring validation on the number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Trump also displays denial , as seen by his response to the pandemic , and vindictiveness , as demonstrated by his obsession with reversing Barack Obama 's legacy `` seemingly just to punish him '' as well as by his threat to `` withhold federal funds from California for wildfire destruction because he perceives the state is against him . ''
In addition , Durvasula pointed out that Trump shows extreme sensitivity to criticism through the erratic and malicious content he frequently posts on Twitter , but at the same time reveals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discourse about the diverse citizenry of this country – racial and ethnic minorities , specific religious groups ( e.g .
Muslims ) , women , and separating families at the border . ''
Trump , Durvasula said , is also manipulative , as he panders to a constituency that he appears to `` have contempt for . ''
Durvasula cited his gaslighting , too— meaning trying to alter or deny memories of basic facts — is revealed in how `` he has often been caught by fact-checkers in his lies , and denies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most ominous of the symptoms that Durvasula identified , though , is `` triangulation . ''
As she explained , `` this is the infliction of chaos created by turning groups against each other .
Doing this centralizes the power in the narcissist and creates a blind alliance between some of the polarized groups and him ; the country is terribly polarized on numerous dimensions , to the point where families are bearing a toll of divisiveness based on the antagonistic rhetoric . ''
Now , experts and pollsters seem to agree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election .
So what happens when a narcissist does n't get their way ?
Lee explained that narcissists who can not get the love they crave will frequently seek adulation as a substitute .
Because no amount of adulation will ever satisfy them , though , `` the usual course of an unconstrained pathological narcissist is to seek positions of ever greater power and celebrity . ''
Yet , as Lee explains , because `` reality never matches one 's fantasy , dissatisfaction grows at greater pace . ''
Therefore , if Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the outcome could be be `` frightening . ''
`` Just as one once settled for adulation in lieu of love , one may settle for fear when adulation no longer seems attainable , '' Dr. Lee told Salon .
`` Rage attacks are common , for people are bound to fall short of expectation for such a needy personality—and eventually everyone falls into this category .
But when there is an all-encompassing loss , such as the loss of an election , it can trigger a rampage of destruction and reign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nation that has failed him . ''
She added , `` It is far easier for the pathological narcissist to consider destroying oneself and the world , especially its 'laughing eyes , ' then to retreat into becoming a 'loser ' and a 'sucker ' — which to someone suffering from this condition will feel like psychic death . ''
In a sense , the best analogy is that of a narcissistic family member abusing other family members .
Metaphorically , Trump has already abused America .
`` This personality pattern has taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been quite abusive , '' Durvasula says .
`` It has eroded trust , left a nation confused and unsupported , and deeply divided and insecure .
These same adjectives can be used to describe a marriage or a family which is suffering the challenges of a difficult narcissistic personality in its midst . ''
If Trump loses , Durvasula says it will be like watching a three-year-old refuse to go to bed .
`` They will just stand there , poignantly in their Superman pajamas and say NO , I am NOT @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ground and scream , '' she explained .
`` Plan on an adult version of that .
As is often the case when a difficult personality style like this faces disappointment we tend to see a cascade of reactions – oppositionality , denial , rage , despair , paranoia , more rage , entitlement , victimhood , and vindictiveness . ''
The next question , then , is what Trump could actually do in his vindictive rage to punish an America which he may believe has consigned him to `` loser '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are usually regarded as failures — and Trump would be the first one-termer in 28 years ) .
As political activist and former Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader wrote in August , Trump could pressure the Justice Department to issue bogus subpoenas in order to punish his critics and opponents , pull out of contracts with businesses and individuals who he feels wronged him , refuse to work with Biden 's transition team in handing over power and ( of course ) `` intensify the use of the Justice Department and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , obstructive way the results of the election in selected states , no matter what the margin of his defeat . ''
Trump could also pick winners and losers in terms of who receives federal help during the pandemic and recession , helping those who sided with him and exacting vengeance against those who did not .
He could egg on his supporters into committing acts of violence or , at the very least , do everything in his power to make sure they do not accept the legitimacy of a Biden presidency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to try to drive up interest rates and stop supporting the stock and corporate bond markets , actions that would tank the American economy ( and which Trump would most likely attempt to blame on Biden ) .
Most ominous of all , a narcissist like Trump could simply refuse to leave office when his term ends on January 20 , 2021 .
America has never had an incumbent president flat-out defy the results of an election — John Adams , John Quincy Adams , Martin Van Buren , Grover Cleveland , Benjamin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Gerald Ford , Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush all overcame their disappointment and accepted that they had lost .
If Trump refuses to leave because of his narcissism , it will be unprecedented .
It will be abnormal .
And it will all have been very , very predictable .

There is agreement among psychologists — and, for that matter, anyone who has been abused by narcissistic personalities — that President Donald Trump fits the psychological profile of a narcissist. What does that mean for the upcoming election, particularly if Trump loses, as polls suggest? Psychologists tell Salon that pathological narcissists who do not get their way tend to react abusively — which could lead to one of several devastating political scenarios for the nation in the election's aftermath.
"One does not have to diagnose to recognize pathological or toxic narcissism," Dr. Bandy X. Lee, a psychiatrist who has taught at Yale and authored the new book "Profile of a Nation: Trump's Mind, America's Soul," told Salon by email. "This is behavior, not a diagnosis — and the media need not fixate so much on 'the Goldwater rule,' which applies to only 6% of practicing mental health professionals (that is, members of the American Psychiatric Association, the only association in the world with this rule)."
The so-called Goldwater Rule holds that "it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement." However, the rule does not apply to describing obvious narcissistic behavior in a public figure, any more than it would disqualify someone from describing celebrities who spend most of their days drinking liquor as having an alcohol problem.
"Those with pathological narcissism are abusive and dangerous because of their catastrophic neediness," Lee explained. "Think of a drowning person gasping for air: a survival instinct just may push you down in order to save one's own life. In the manner that the body needs oxygen, the soul needs love, and self-love is what a toxic narcissist is desperately lacking. This is why he must overcompensate, creating for himself a self-image where he is the best at everything, never wrong, better than all the experts, and a 'stable genius.'"
Dr. Ramani Durvasula, a licensed clinical psychologist and professor of psychology who is noted as an expert on narcissistic personality disorder and narcissistic abuse, agrees that Trump is narcissistic and believes this makes him very dangerous.
As Durvasula explained, many of Trump's seemingly inexplicable actions as president make sense when viewed through the lens of a "narcissistic or antagonist personality style." These include "validation and admiration seeking," as manifested by his "endless campaign rallies despite the associated danger, needing to be taken on a ride around the hospital when he had COVID-19 so people could wave to him, repeatedly requiring validation on the number of people present at his inauguration." Trump also displays denial, as seen by his response to the pandemic, and vindictiveness, as demonstrated by his obsession with reversing Barack Obama's legacy "seemingly just to punish him" as well as by his threat to "withhold federal funds from California for wildfire destruction because he perceives the state is against him."
In addition, Durvasula pointed out that Trump shows extreme sensitivity to criticism through the erratic and malicious content he frequently posts on Twitter, but at the same time reveals a lack of empathy through "his discourse about the diverse citizenry of this country – racial and ethnic minorities, specific religious groups (e.g. Muslims), women, and separating families at the border." Trump, Durvasula said, is also manipulative, as he panders to a constituency that he appears to "have contempt for." Durvasula cited his gaslighting, too— meaning trying to alter or deny memories of basic facts — is revealed in how "he has often been caught by fact-checkers in his lies, and denies things he actually said."
Perhaps the most ominous of the symptoms that Durvasula identified, though, is "triangulation." As she explained, "this is the infliction of chaos created by turning groups against each other. Doing this centralizes the power in the narcissist and creates a blind alliance between some of the polarized groups and him; the country is terribly polarized on numerous dimensions, to the point where families are bearing a toll of divisiveness based on the antagonistic rhetoric."
Now, experts and pollsters seem to agree that Trump is likely to lose this election. So what happens when a narcissist doesn't get their way?
Lee explained that narcissists who cannot get the love they crave will frequently seek adulation as a substitute. Because no amount of adulation will ever satisfy them, though, "the usual course of an unconstrained pathological narcissist is to seek positions of ever greater power and celebrity." Yet, as Lee explains, because "reality never matches one's fantasy, dissatisfaction grows at greater pace."
Therefore, if Trump loses to Biden, as seems likely, the outcome could be be "frightening."
"Just as one once settled for adulation in lieu of love, one may settle for fear when adulation no longer seems attainable," Dr. Lee told Salon. "Rage attacks are common, for people are bound to fall short of expectation for such a needy personality—and eventually everyone falls into this category. But when there is an all-encompassing loss, such as the loss of an election, it can trigger a rampage of destruction and reign of terror in revenge against an entire nation that has failed him."
She added, "It is far easier for the pathological narcissist to consider destroying oneself and the world, especially its 'laughing eyes,' then to retreat into becoming a 'loser' and a 'sucker' — which to someone suffering from this condition will feel like psychic death."
In a sense, the best analogy is that of a narcissistic family member abusing other family members. Metaphorically, Trump has already abused America. "This personality pattern has taken a toll on this country, and been quite abusive," Durvasula says. "It has eroded trust, left a nation confused and unsupported, and deeply divided and insecure. These same adjectives can be used to describe a marriage or a family which is suffering the challenges of a difficult narcissistic personality in its midst."
If Trump loses, Durvasula says it will be like watching a three-year-old refuse to go to bed.
"They will just stand there, poignantly in their Superman pajamas and say NO, I am NOT going to bed, and drop to the ground and scream," she explained. "Plan on an adult version of that. As is often the case when a difficult personality style like this faces disappointment we tend to see a cascade of reactions – oppositionality, denial, rage, despair, paranoia, more rage, entitlement, victimhood, and vindictiveness."
The next question, then, is what Trump could actually do in his vindictive rage to punish an America which he may believe has consigned him to "loser" status. (Indeed, one-term presidents are usually regarded as failures — and Trump would be the first one-termer in 28 years). As political activist and former Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader wrote in August, Trump could pressure the Justice Department to issue bogus subpoenas in order to punish his critics and opponents, pull out of contracts with businesses and individuals who he feels wronged him, refuse to work with Biden's transition team in handing over power and (of course) "intensify the use of the Justice Department and his personal lawyers to challenge in every frivolous, obstructive way the results of the election in selected states, no matter what the margin of his defeat."
Trump could also pick winners and losers in terms of who receives federal help during the pandemic and recession, helping those who sided with him and exacting vengeance against those who did not. He could egg on his supporters into committing acts of violence or, at the very least, do everything in his power to make sure they do not accept the legitimacy of a Biden presidency. He could pressure the Federal Reserve to try to drive up interest rates and stop supporting the stock and corporate bond markets, actions that would tank the American economy (and which Trump would most likely attempt to blame on Biden).
Most ominous of all, a narcissist like Trump could simply refuse to leave office when his term ends on January 20, 2021. America has never had an incumbent president flat-out defy the results of an election — John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, Grover Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison, William Taft, Herbert Hoover, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush all overcame their disappointment and accepted that they had lost.
If Trump refuses to leave because of his narcissism, it will be unprecedented. It will be abnormal. And it will all have been very, very predictable.


alternet--2020-10-29--Vermont official says Justice Kavanaugh should correct his false Supreme Court opinion

Vermont Secretary of State Jim Condos asked Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday to correct his flawed opinion issued on Monday .
In that opinion , Kavanaugh had falsely claimed that Vermont was among the states that had n't changed its election rules to accommodate the challenge of voting during a pandemic .
`` States such as Vermont , '' he wrote , `` have decided not to make changes to their ordinary election rules , including to the election-day deadline for receipt of absentee ballots . ''
But this was false .
( As I documented , Kavanaugh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by many and was riddled with errors . )
Condos pointed out that , in fact , the state changed its rules to allow every voter in the state to receive a mail-in ballot .
`` Vermont is not an accurate comparison for the assertion Justice Kavanaugh has made , '' Condos said in a letter the the clerk of the Supreme Court .
`` First , beginning on Sept. 18 , Vermont mailed every active registered voter a ballot and a prepaid return envelope .
Second , given that more Vermonters are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a typical election year , I authorized Local Election Officials to begin processing such ballots confidentially and with strict security protocols during the 30 days preceding the election in order to facilitate timely results , '' he wrote .
`` These two actions factored significantly in our decision to hold to existing law requiring the election day receipt of mailed ballots rather than extending returns beyond election day based on postmark . ''
He concluded : `` I respectfully ask that the record is corrected to reflect that . ''

Vermont Secretary of State Jim Condos asked Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday to correct his flawed opinion issued on Monday.
In that opinion, Kavanaugh had falsely claimed that Vermont was among the states that hadn't changed its election rules to accommodate the challenge of voting during a pandemic.
"States such as Vermont," he wrote, "have decided not to make changes to their ordinary election rules, including to the election-day deadline for receipt of absentee ballots."
But this was false. (As I documented, Kavanaugh's opinion was deemed "sloppy" by many and was riddled with errors.)
Condos pointed out that, in fact, the state changed its rules to allow every voter in the state to receive a mail-in ballot.
"Vermont is not an accurate comparison for the assertion Justice Kavanaugh has made," Condos said in a letter the the clerk of the Supreme Court.
"First, beginning on Sept. 18, Vermont mailed every active registered voter a ballot and a prepaid return envelope. Second, given that more Vermonters are voting early and by mail than in a typical election year, I authorized Local Election Officials to begin processing such ballots confidentially and with strict security protocols during the 30 days preceding the election in order to facilitate timely results," he wrote. "These two actions factored significantly in our decision to hold to existing law requiring the election day receipt of mailed ballots rather than extending returns beyond election day based on postmark."
He concluded: "I respectfully ask that the record is corrected to reflect that."


alternet--2020-10-29--Trump humiliates a vulnerable GOP senator in her home state

While campaigning in Arizona on Wednesday , President Donald Trump gratuitously humiliated a vulnerable ally who is desperately trying to keep her Senate seat .
He spoke first at a large rally of supporters , but he realized that Republican Sen. Martha McSally should get the opportunity to speak as well , given that she 's underwater in her fight against Democrat Mark Kelly .
Trump did n't seem happy to share the stage , though .
`` Just come up fast .
Fast , fast , '' he said .
`` Come on .
Quick .
You got one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They do n't want to hear this , Martha .
Come on .
Let 's go .
Quick , quick , quick .
Come on . ''
Obviously , he had a somewhat jokey tone to his voice .
But joking about the state being uninterested in hearing a vulnerable senator talk is quite damning for a political rally .
If he really had faith in her , he 'd be joking that the state loves her more than him .
Trump has surely heard about the many polls in which she 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump 's treatment of McSally was .
`` He 's calling her like a dog , and then she scampers to him , it 's one of the most humiliating things i have ever seen in politics , '' said New York Magazine 's Jonathan Chait .
`` Trump regularly tosses shade at Martha McSally in Arizona , '' said Vox 's Aaron Rupar .
`` He does n't really seem to respect her and has long been resigned to her losing . ''

While campaigning in Arizona on Wednesday, President Donald Trump gratuitously humiliated a vulnerable ally who is desperately trying to keep her Senate seat.
He spoke first at a large rally of supporters, but he realized that Republican Sen. Martha McSally should get the opportunity to speak as well, given that she's underwater in her fight against Democrat Mark Kelly.
Trump didn't seem happy to share the stage, though.
"Just come up fast. Fast, fast," he said. "Come on. Quick. You got one minute! One minute, Martha! They don't want to hear this, Martha. Come on. Let's go. Quick, quick, quick. Come on."
Obviously, he had a somewhat jokey tone to his voice. But joking about the state being uninterested in hearing a vulnerable senator talk is quite damning for a political rally. If he really had faith in her, he'd be joking that the state loves her more than him. Trump has surely heard about the many polls in which she's trailing Kelly.
Many noted how embarrassing Trump's treatment of McSally was.
"He's calling her like a dog, and then she scampers to him, it's one of the most humiliating things i have ever seen in politics," said New York Magazine's Jonathan Chait.
"Trump regularly tosses shade at Martha McSally in Arizona," said Vox's Aaron Rupar. "He doesn't really seem to respect her and has long been resigned to her losing."
Watch the clip below:


alternet--2020-10-29--Fox News' Tucker Carlson inspires mockery as he claims 'damning' Biden documents have 'vanished'

Tucker Carlson has been attempting to do the dirty anti-journalistic , pro-fascist work , of carrying the hoax water of Hunter Biden-gate for Trump .
He 's teased out an interview with Tony Bobulinski , Hunter Biden 's `` ex-business partner . ''
Surprisingly , even though his Bobulinski interview was going to be explosive and a must-see for American citizens , Tucker decided to tease out the interview , so far , over a few days .
I guess American national security needs to compete with Tucker 's pointless ratings .
I mean , the MyPillow guy is buying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Now , on Wednesday , a shocking , deep-state revelation !
The special secret documents that Tucker had , showing Hunter Biden 's wheeling and dealing with international companies has `` vanished . ''
VANISHED !
!
!
!
Tucker went on his show to say that this package , sent to California , where he was interviewing Bobulinski , was opened and its contents had disappeared .
But the mystery deepens from there .
According to Tucker , this `` major carrier '' did its due diligence and tracked the package @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to Tucky , this unnamed postal service even interviewed everyone who `` touched the envelope we sent , '' and they `` combed the entire cavernous sorting facility .
They went `` above and beyond '' int heir search for these super secret documents .
But , once again , according to Tuckeyfered they `` vanished . ''
In fact , `` this trove of materials , '' disappearance has left executives at this secret postal service seemed to Fox News ' to be `` baffled and deeply bothered by this .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It sounds like ghosts .
Or gremlins .
Or maybe President Obama , in Florida , used special telepathic powers only granted to secret-Muslim communists who were born in Kenya , to make these documents vanish into another dimension ?
I mean , hey , Occams razor , right ?
Tucker Carlson Tells Viewers a Package Sent from NY - LA Was Tampered with and Contents Went Missing

Tucker Carlson has been attempting to do the dirty anti-journalistic, pro-fascist work, of carrying the hoax water of Hunter Biden-gate for Trump. He's teased out an interview with Tony Bobulinski, Hunter Biden's "ex-business partner." Surprisingly, even though his Bobulinski interview was going to be explosive and a must-see for American citizens, Tucker decided to tease out the interview, so far, over a few days. I guess American national security needs to compete with Tucker's pointless ratings. I mean, the MyPillow guy is buying ads no matter what, right buddy?
Now, on Wednesday, a shocking, deep-state revelation! The special secret documents that Tucker had, showing Hunter Biden's wheeling and dealing with international companies has "vanished." VANISHED!!!! Tucker went on his show to say that this package, sent to California, where he was interviewing Bobulinski, was opened and its contents had disappeared. But the mystery deepens from there.
According to Tucker, this "major carrier" did its due diligence and tracked the package at every point. In fact, according to Tucky, this unnamed postal service even interviewed everyone who "touched the envelope we sent," and they "combed the entire cavernous sorting facility. They went "above and beyond" int heir search for these super secret documents. But, once again, according to Tuckeyfered they "vanished." In fact, "this trove of materials," disappearance has left executives at this secret postal service seemed to Fox News' to be "baffled and deeply bothered by this."
I mean, they should be. It sounds like ghosts. Or gremlins. Or maybe President Obama, in Florida, used special telepathic powers only granted to secret-Muslim communists who were born in Kenya, to make these documents vanish into another dimension? I mean, hey, Occams razor, right?


alternet--2020-10-29--Mississippi Republican Senator gives a baffling answer when pressed on anti-racist protests

Incumbent Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith is running with a strong lead over Democratic challenger Mike Espy in Mississippi 's U.S. Senate race .
Despite the wave of support Espy has received in the wake of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 's passing , as of Oct. 28 , Hyde-Smith is still projected to retain her seat .
Her jokes about hanging coupled with a long cultural history of segregation-family values and fetishizing the Confederacy have not made the dent one might hope .
Not unlike the rest of the Republican field , Sen. Hyde-Smith has been ducking away from having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a debate .
She has done this because , by her own admission , she 's winning and can only lose if she is challenged on her ideas , her policies , and her record .
However , she has made appearances local news broadcasts to take questions , without challenge , from local news reporters .
WAPT 's Mississippi Matters had the senator on Tuesday evening , and host Erin Pickens asked her a few questions .
One of the questions was about police and community relations .
Pickens gave the example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in June , in downtown Jackson , Mississippi .
Hyde-Smith 's response was a concoction of bizarre and frightening and racist .
Pickens ' question finishes by asking , `` As an elected leader , what are your thoughts about two sides coming together and working together to enact change ? ''
Hyde-Smith begins by saying , `` That is exactly what we are about .
That 's exactly what we need to be doing . ''
Fantastic !
So then we can probably have a constructive conversation abou— As my colleague Jennifer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it all .
If you are a tad more masochistic you can watch the whole interview here .

Incumbent Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith is running with a strong lead over Democratic challenger Mike Espy in Mississippi's U.S. Senate race. Despite the wave of support Espy has received in the wake of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's passing, as of Oct. 28, Hyde-Smith is still projected to retain her seat. Her jokes about hanging coupled with a long cultural history of segregation-family values and fetishizing the Confederacy have not made the dent one might hope.
Not unlike the rest of the Republican field, Sen. Hyde-Smith has been ducking away from having to face off with her challenger in a debate. She has done this because, by her own admission, she's winning and can only lose if she is challenged on her ideas, her policies, and her record. However, she has made appearances local news broadcasts to take questions, without challenge, from local news reporters. WAPT's Mississippi Matters had the senator on Tuesday evening, and host Erin Pickens asked her a few questions. One of the questions was about police and community relations.
Pickens gave the example of a peaceful protest held by activists in June, in downtown Jackson, Mississippi. Hyde-Smith's response was a concoction of bizarre and frightening and racist.
Pickens' question finishes by asking, "As an elected leader, what are your thoughts about two sides coming together and working together to enact change?" Hyde-Smith begins by saying, "That is exactly what we are about. That's exactly what we need to be doing."
Fantastic! So then we can probably have a constructive conversation abou—
SEN. CINDY HYDE-SMITH: And we worked very hard to make sure that now and in the future, we can come together, because everybody wants a safe Mississippi.
Okaaaaaaaay.
SEN. HYDE-SMITH: Everybody wants to see their First Amendment rights protected and, you know, we have to continue on that path. To work together. To strengthen the military, that also improves the security.
Wait, what?
SEN. HYDE-SMITH: And that is one of my top priorities is to make sure that we support the veterans. That we strengthen that military. That we get to the position that we truly have peace through strength.
Whoa.
SEN. HYDE-SMITH: Because if you don't have a solid military you are so vulnerable to the rest of the world. And that is incredibly important to me.
As my colleague Jennifer Hayden wrote, Pickens' face says it all.
If you are a tad more masochistic you can watch the whole interview here.


alternet--2020-10-29--Trump wants to completely unleash greedy corporations — and workers will pay with life and limb

Nick Miclaus realized just how much his Goodyear colleagues appreciated rigorous COVID-19 safety measures when they started recommending them to friends and family working at other companies .
Yet Miclaus , the United Steelworkers ( USW ) safety coordinator for Goodyear plants across the U.S. , knows that his efforts to protect workers from the coronavirus and other dangers hang in the balance because of Donald Trump .
As Trump wielded his office on behalf of corporations seeking greater deregulation and higher profits , American workers increasingly struggled to safeguard themselves not only against COVID-19 but the everyday hazards that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ callous employers look the other way .
`` There are some employers who will say , ' I just need this done .
I do n't care if you do n't wear a mask .
I do n't care if you do n't wear safety glasses , ' '' observed Miclaus , a member of USW Local 2L , which represents hundreds of workers at Goodyear 's Akron , Ohio , location .
The federal government long ago created various agencies to protect workers ' rights and safety .
But Trump turned them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inspectors and other dedicated experts who want to do their jobs as effectively as they did in the past .
Trump 's Environmental Protection Agency , for example , rolled back rules requiring chemical-related companies to take proactive steps to protect workers and the public from chemical disasters and to comprehensively investigate deadly incidents when they occur .
It also failed to thoroughly evaluate the risk of dangerous chemicals used at job sites , helping employers cut corners on safety while exposing workers to substances that could sicken or kill them decades down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enjoy their retirement because they 're fighting an illness that could have been prevented , '' Miclaus said of the potential long-term impact .
Under Trump , the Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( OSHA ) —the agency ostensibly responsible for workplace safety—left workers to fend for themselves long before the pandemic struck .
The Trump political cronies running the agency let key vacancies go unfilled for years , and the number of OSHA inspectors dropped to 1975 levels even while America 's workforce continued to expand .
As vigorous enforcement plummeted , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ injury , removing a list of workplace fatalities from its homepage and burying a less-detailed record of deaths deep in its website .
`` Before , OSHA was good to lean on when a company was n't being a good actor , '' recalled William Wilkinson , president of USW Local 560 , which represents about 1,400 workers at the Bobcat plant in Gwinner , North Dakota .
But now Wilkinson has difficulty just getting OSHA to respond to concerns .
`` They 're not there anymore , '' he said .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in hand with the companies . ''
When the pandemic hit , the USW and other unions repeatedly demanded that OSHA implement an emergency , temporary infectious disease standard .
A standard would require all employers to take consistent , commonsense steps to slow the virus ' spread .
Instead , the agency let companies do as little as they wanted , even as infection rates across the country skyrocketed .
Just as Miclaus did at Goodyear , Wilkinson ensured that Bobcat provided hand sanitizer , adopted social-distancing practices and took other precautions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump 's corporate-rigged National Labor Relations Board wants to silence them and other workers who advocate for safety .
Peter Robb , the career union buster whom Trump handpicked to be the NLRB 's general counsel , sided with a nursing home that fired three workers just because they called out COVID-19 lapses that threatened their colleagues and patients .
A longtime corporate lawyer , Robb also determined that employers have no obligation to bargain over new health and safety issues in the middle of a contract—even when a pandemic creates life-threatening conditions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regular negotiations .
Wilkinson was fortunate to have won COVID-19 safety measures for his coworkers before Robb 's determination .
Otherwise , Wilkinson observed , `` we would have gotten nothing '' from Bobcat .
`` The NLRB is no friend of workers anymore , '' he observed .
`` They 're clearly for the companies . ''
It is n't just OSHA and the NLRB that let workers down .
Twice a year , the Mine Safety and Health Administration ( MSHA ) inspects the mines on Minnesota 's Iron Range .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ outside experts not only diligently worked to identify problems but had the authority to require safety improvements .
But USW Local 1938 President Steve Bonach , who represents about 1,300 workers at U.S. Steel 's Minntac mine , said those inspections seem less thorough since Trump took office .
And instead of defending citations , MSHA often backs down when the company challenges them .
`` Trump basically lowered the boom on them , '' Bonach said of MSHA , noting the company exploits the Trump administration 's pro-corporate stance by challenging more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Bonach worries that Trump will cut MSHA 's budget even though the agency already needs more resources than the administration currently provides .
Once he no longer needs workers ' votes , Trump will feel free to ramp up his deregulation campaign , just like greedy corporations desperately want .
And workers will pay with life and limb .
Miclaus , for example , worries that OSHA will water down a `` lockout/tagout '' standard that spells out the procedures companies and workers must take while servicing certain kinds of equipment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ estimated 120 lives and averts about 50,000 injuries each year .
But if the agency eases the requirements—or gives employers the option of using best practices instead of insisting they follow them—many corporations will take shortcuts and put workers at risk .
`` I can see more people getting very seriously injured and killed with the weakening of this standard , '' Miclaus said .
`` That 's very concerning . ''
Tom Conway is the international president of the United Steelworkers Union ( USW ) .
This article was produced by the @ @ @ @

Nick Miclaus realized just how much his Goodyear colleagues appreciated rigorous COVID-19 safety measures when they started recommending them to friends and family working at other companies.
Yet Miclaus, the United Steelworkers (USW) safety coordinator for Goodyear plants across the U.S., knows that his efforts to protect workers from the coronavirus and other dangers hang in the balance because of Donald Trump.
As Trump wielded his office on behalf of corporations seeking greater deregulation and higher profits, American workers increasingly struggled to safeguard themselves not only against COVID-19 but the everyday hazards that kill, sicken and maim them while callous employers look the other way.
"There are some employers who will say, 'I just need this done. I don't care if you don't wear a mask. I don't care if you don't wear safety glasses,'" observed Miclaus, a member of USW Local 2L, which represents hundreds of workers at Goodyear's Akron, Ohio, location.
The federal government long ago created various agencies to protect workers' rights and safety. But Trump turned them into appendages of corporate America, hamstringing inspectors and other dedicated experts who want to do their jobs as effectively as they did in the past.
Trump's Environmental Protection Agency, for example, rolled back rules requiring chemical-related companies to take proactive steps to protect workers and the public from chemical disasters and to comprehensively investigate deadly incidents when they occur.
It also failed to thoroughly evaluate the risk of dangerous chemicals used at job sites, helping employers cut corners on safety while exposing workers to substances that could sicken or kill them decades down the road.
"They can't enjoy their retirement because they're fighting an illness that could have been prevented," Miclaus said of the potential long-term impact.
Under Trump, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)—the agency ostensibly responsible for workplace safety—left workers to fend for themselves long before the pandemic struck.
The Trump political cronies running the agency let key vacancies go unfilled for years, and the number of OSHA inspectors dropped to 1975 levels even while America's workforce continued to expand.
As vigorous enforcement plummeted, deaths increased. OSHA added insult to injury, removing a list of workplace fatalities from its homepage and burying a less-detailed record of deaths deep in its website.
"Before, OSHA was good to lean on when a company wasn't being a good actor," recalled William Wilkinson, president of USW Local 560, which represents about 1,400 workers at the Bobcat plant in Gwinner, North Dakota.
But now Wilkinson has difficulty just getting OSHA to respond to concerns. "They're not there anymore," he said. "They're nonexistent. They're hand in hand with the companies."
When the pandemic hit, the USW and other unions repeatedly demanded that OSHA implement an emergency, temporary infectious disease standard. A standard would require all employers to take consistent, commonsense steps to slow the virus' spread. Instead, the agency let companies do as little as they wanted, even as infection rates across the country skyrocketed.
Just as Miclaus did at Goodyear, Wilkinson ensured that Bobcat provided hand sanitizer, adopted social-distancing practices and took other precautions to protect workers. But now, Trump's corporate-rigged National Labor Relations Board wants to silence them and other workers who advocate for safety.
Peter Robb, the career union buster whom Trump handpicked to be the NLRB's general counsel, sided with a nursing home that fired three workers just because they called out COVID-19 lapses that threatened their colleagues and patients.
A longtime corporate lawyer, Robb also determined that employers have no obligation to bargain over new health and safety issues in the middle of a contract—even when a pandemic creates life-threatening conditions that couldn't have been anticipated during regular negotiations.
Wilkinson was fortunate to have won COVID-19 safety measures for his coworkers before Robb's determination. Otherwise, Wilkinson observed, "we would have gotten nothing" from Bobcat.
"The NLRB is no friend of workers anymore," he observed. "They're clearly for the companies."
It isn't just OSHA and the NLRB that let workers down.
Twice a year, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) inspects the mines on Minnesota's Iron Range. Miners—and their families—long took comfort knowing that outside experts not only diligently worked to identify problems but had the authority to require safety improvements.
But USW Local 1938 President Steve Bonach, who represents about 1,300 workers at U.S. Steel's Minntac mine, said those inspections seem less thorough since Trump took office. And instead of defending citations, MSHA often backs down when the company challenges them.
"Trump basically lowered the boom on them," Bonach said of MSHA, noting the company exploits the Trump administration's pro-corporate stance by challenging more citations than it did in previous years.
Bonach worries that Trump will cut MSHA's budget even though the agency already needs more resources than the administration currently provides.
Once he no longer needs workers' votes, Trump will feel free to ramp up his deregulation campaign, just like greedy corporations desperately want.
And workers will pay with life and limb.
Miclaus, for example, worries that OSHA will water down a "lockout/tagout" standard that spells out the procedures companies and workers must take while servicing certain kinds of equipment.
Right now, that standard saves an estimated 120 lives and averts about 50,000 injuries each year.
But if the agency eases the requirements—or gives employers the option of using best practices instead of insisting they follow them—many corporations will take shortcuts and put workers at risk.
"I can see more people getting very seriously injured and killed with the weakening of this standard," Miclaus said. "That's very concerning."
Tom Conway is the international president of the United Steelworkers Union (USW).
This article was produced by the Independent Media Institute.