truthout--2020-10-04--Louisiana Official Gets Industry Cash to Push Pipeline Through Local Communities

This story was originally published by Southerly .
Dorothy Ingram is among dozens of Raceland , Louisiana residents who say they ’ ve received few details about a proposed natural gas pipeline that would cut through historic Black churches and graveyards in their community , which sits about 40 miles west of New Orleans .
“ We have been treated unfairly and without meaningful involvement , ” Ingram wrote in a letter in August 2019 to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission , which approves interstate natural gas pipelines .
“ We as a community did not have a meeting in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” First proposed in April 2019 , the 280-mile Delta Express pipeline would be built through 14 parishes , connecting an existing natural gas pipeline in northern Louisiana to a liquid natural gas facility in Plaquemines Parish — Louisiana ’ s southernmost parish , where coastal erosion and sea level rise are expected to swallow up 55 % of land without coastal restoration projects .
The company , Venture Global , has not held a meeting to seek public comments in Lafourche Parish , which includes Ingram ’ s neighborhood .
The pipeline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permitting : Venture Global hasn ’ t submitted its formal application to FERC or acquired state permits .
But emails show that the company has tried to influence state and federal permitting agencies by employing a Louisiana lawmaker , Rep. Ryan Bourriaque , R-Abbeville , who is also vice chair of the House Natural Resources and Environment Committee .
Emails obtained through a public records request by the Energy and Policy Institute reveal that Bourriaque negotiated with the state ’ s Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority , or CPRA , about a separate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ levee CPRA is planning to elevate .
Bourriaque also sent a template letter for other Louisiana lawmakers to send to FERC in support of the Delta Express pipeline .
“ Regular citizens are having a harder time voicing their opposition to projects that impact them directly , ” said Energy and Policy Institute researcher Itai Vardi .
“ At the same time , you see that there ’ s an acceleration with industry insiders using their cozy relationship with elected officials to influence decisions.
” According to financial disclosure forms , Bourriaque started @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Venture Global shortly after he was elected in 2019 .
He reviewed CPRA provisions for allowing a liquid natural gas export project to be built along a Mississippi River levee before they were sent to the Plaquemines Parish permit coordinator .
CPRA Chairman Chip Kline emailed Bourriaque directly about the project .
“ I know this is important to Venture Global , and I completely understand the sense of urgency , ” Kline wrote .
“ I would be happy to meet in person next week or have a conference call to discuss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the process.
” Rachel Haney , the agency ’ s spokesperson , said that Bourriaque ’ s position on the House Natural Resources and Environment Committee did not influence communications with him about the project .
“ CPRA regularly coordinates with applicants to ensure concerns over levee impacts are adequately addressed and avoided , ” she said .
A letter from the CPRA to the parish ’ s permit coordinator states that the LNG project won ’ t compromise the proposed levee .
Bourriaque told Southerly that most legislators hold full-time jobs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considered a part-time position that pays a base salary of $ 16,800 .
Before Venture Global , he was the parish administrator for the Cameron Parish Police Jury .
But Bourriaque ’ s emails with the CPRA are evidence of an elected official lobbying state entities on behalf of private interests , said Naomi Yoder , a science review specialist for the environmental group Healthy Gulf .
“ I think that would be pretty standard if he was representing his district , ” Yoder said .
“ But he ’ s representing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wear both hats.
” Asked if he would support the project if community members in his district were opposed to it , Bourriaque told Southerly , “ I would rely on the relevant facts [ and ] feedback from constituents and make a determination on how to proceed accordingly.
” As of March , FERC has received 147 public comments on the Delta Express pipeline and LNG export facility .
Of those , nearly all — 127 — were from concerned citizens opposing it .
Some are landowners who don ’ t want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are elderly residents concerned about the project ’ s health impacts .
Most came from residents living in the predominantly Black neighborhood of Lewiston in Raceland ; many worry about damage to historic sites .
An attorney for the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana , a federally recognized tribe whose citizens mostly reside in Avoyelles and Rapides parishes , asked the federal permitting agency to expand its consideration of the pipeline ’ s impacts to environmentally and culturally sensitive areas .
The path of the proposed pipeline crosses the “ heartland ” of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Ray Martin , the tribe ’ s attorney .
FERC has already identified several potential issues with the pipeline , including impacts to wetlands , air quality , and environmental justice communities .
The Tunica-Biloxi also asked FERC to consider the pipeline ’ s impact on climate change and sea level rise — especially during the COVID-19 pandemic .
“ The tribe really has concerns about expanding fossil fuel use when we have a global respiratory pandemic occurring , ” Martin said .
While communicating with CPRA about the project , Bourriaque @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pipeline would cross , asking them to send letters of support for the Delta Express pipeline to FERC .
He included a template letter for them to mimic .
Among those who received the boilerplate letter were Louisiana House Republicans Clay Schexnayder and Johnny Berthelot .
FERC received nearly identical letters of support from them , as well as Sen. Richard Ward , R-Port Allen .
Neither Schexnayder , who is the House speaker , nor Ward , responded to requests for comment .
Berthelot left office in 2019 .
The fossil fuel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to show they have the support of local elected officials for projects is not new , according to Vardi , from the Energy and Policy Institute .
He called the practice “ anti-democratic , ” saying the letters are essentially industry documents meant to look as though they were written by lawmakers .
Bourriaque said he checked with the former Clerk of the Louisiana House to verify that sending the template was allowed under legislative rules .
But Louisiana Board of Ethics administrator Kathleen Allen said Bourriaque did not consult with her .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies frequently use such templates .
“ The template is just a suggestion , and of course it would be voluntary for that individual to submit a response , ” he said .
Louisiana lawmakers frequently align themselves with petrochemical companies , and the state has cracked down on opposition to oil and gas projects .
Louisiana made trespassing on “ critical infrastructure ” a felony in 2004 and added pipelines to that list in 2018 .
The federal government is also moving to make it more difficult to slow down pipeline construction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s administration moved to weaken the National Environmental Policy Act , or NEPA , which requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of infrastructure projects such as pipelines .
This could have a disproportionate impact on communities in the South , where most new interstate pipelines are being proposed .
The changes — like imposing a deadline for environmental assessments — are expected to make public participation in fossil fuel projects more difficult by giving residents less time to learn about projects and provide comments on their possible impacts , Vardi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Express pipeline are approved , residents who do not believe their concerns were addressed could file a lawsuit against the permitting agencies , but opponents have not yet mounted any such legal challenge .
The NEPA changes would allow agencies more “ wiggle room ” to argue that climate change impacts are too remote and speculative to require analysis , said Michael Burger , executive director of Columbia Law School ’ s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law .
“ The climate crisis is here , it is real , and it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is essential that the federal government assess and disclose how its permitting and licensing decisions contribute to climate change , and consider ways to avoid or mitigate those contributions.
” Public comments on the Delta Express pipeline can be mailed to Kimberly D. Bose , Secretary , Federal Energy Regulatory Commission , 888 First Street NE , Room 1A , Washington , DC 20426 .
Be sure to reference the project docket number ( PF19-4-000 ) with your submission .

Black and Indigenous community members say that they have not been asked whether they want the toxic infrastructure.
This story was originally published by Southerly.
Dorothy Ingram is among dozens of Raceland, Louisiana residents who say they’ve received few details about a proposed natural gas pipeline that would cut through historic Black churches and graveyards in their community, which sits about 40 miles west of New Orleans.
“We have been treated unfairly and without meaningful involvement,” Ingram wrote in a letter in August 2019 to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which approves interstate natural gas pipelines. “We as a community did not have a meeting in our area to participate in the plan.”
First proposed in April 2019, the 280-mile Delta Express pipeline would be built through 14 parishes, connecting an existing natural gas pipeline in northern Louisiana to a liquid natural gas facility in Plaquemines Parish — Louisiana’s southernmost parish, where coastal erosion and sea level rise are expected to swallow up 55% of land without coastal restoration projects. The company, Venture Global, has not held a meeting to seek public comments in Lafourche Parish, which includes Ingram’s neighborhood.
The pipeline is still in an early stage of permitting: Venture Global hasn’t submitted its formal application to FERC or acquired state permits. But emails show that the company has tried to influence state and federal permitting agencies by employing a Louisiana lawmaker, Rep. Ryan Bourriaque, R-Abbeville, who is also vice chair of the House Natural Resources and Environment Committee.
Emails obtained through a public records request by the Energy and Policy Institute reveal that Bourriaque negotiated with the state’s Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, or CPRA, about a separate Venture Global pipeline crossing a Mississippi River levee CPRA is planning to elevate. Bourriaque also sent a template letter for other Louisiana lawmakers to send to FERC in support of the Delta Express pipeline.
“Regular citizens are having a harder time voicing their opposition to projects that impact them directly,” said Energy and Policy Institute researcher Itai Vardi. “At the same time, you see that there’s an acceleration with industry insiders using their cozy relationship with elected officials to influence decisions.”
According to financial disclosure forms, Bourriaque started working as vice president of development for Venture Global shortly after he was elected in 2019. He reviewed CPRA provisions for allowing a liquid natural gas export project to be built along a Mississippi River levee before they were sent to the Plaquemines Parish permit coordinator.
CPRA Chairman Chip Kline emailed Bourriaque directly about the project. “I know this is important to Venture Global, and I completely understand the sense of urgency,” Kline wrote. “I would be happy to meet in person next week or have a conference call to discuss the path forward and the remaining steps in the process.”
Rachel Haney, the agency’s spokesperson, said that Bourriaque’s position on the House Natural Resources and Environment Committee did not influence communications with him about the project. “CPRA regularly coordinates with applicants to ensure concerns over levee impacts are adequately addressed and avoided,” she said. A letter from the CPRA to the parish’s permit coordinator states that the LNG project won’t compromise the proposed levee.
Bourriaque told Southerly that most legislators hold full-time jobs outside of public office, which is considered a part-time position that pays a base salary of $16,800. Before Venture Global, he was the parish administrator for the Cameron Parish Police Jury.
But Bourriaque’s emails with the CPRA are evidence of an elected official lobbying state entities on behalf of private interests, said Naomi Yoder, a science review specialist for the environmental group Healthy Gulf. “I think that would be pretty standard if he was representing his district,” Yoder said. “But he’s representing a company. He’s trying to wear both hats.”
Asked if he would support the project if community members in his district were opposed to it, Bourriaque told Southerly, “I would rely on the relevant facts [and] feedback from constituents and make a determination on how to proceed accordingly.”
As of March, FERC has received 147 public comments on the Delta Express pipeline and LNG export facility. Of those, nearly all — 127 — were from concerned citizens opposing it. Some are landowners who don’t want a pipeline crossing their land. Others are elderly residents concerned about the project’s health impacts. Most came from residents living in the predominantly Black neighborhood of Lewiston in Raceland; many worry about damage to historic sites.
An attorney for the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana, a federally recognized tribe whose citizens mostly reside in Avoyelles and Rapides parishes, asked the federal permitting agency to expand its consideration of the pipeline’s impacts to environmentally and culturally sensitive areas. The path of the proposed pipeline crosses the “heartland” of the tribe and could contain burial grounds, said Ray Martin, the tribe’s attorney.
FERC has already identified several potential issues with the pipeline, including impacts to wetlands, air quality, and environmental justice communities. The Tunica-Biloxi also asked FERC to consider the pipeline’s impact on climate change and sea level rise — especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. “The tribe really has concerns about expanding fossil fuel use when we have a global respiratory pandemic occurring,” Martin said.
While communicating with CPRA about the project, Bourriaque also emailed lawmakers representing 14 parishes the pipeline would cross, asking them to send letters of support for the Delta Express pipeline to FERC. He included a template letter for them to mimic.
Among those who received the boilerplate letter were Louisiana House Republicans Clay Schexnayder and Johnny Berthelot. FERC received nearly identical letters of support from them, as well as Sen. Richard Ward, R-Port Allen. Neither Schexnayder, who is the House speaker, nor Ward, responded to requests for comment. Berthelot left office in 2019.
The fossil fuel industry’s use of ghostwritten letters to show they have the support of local elected officials for projects is not new, according to Vardi, from the Energy and Policy Institute. He called the practice “anti-democratic,” saying the letters are essentially industry documents meant to look as though they were written by lawmakers.
Bourriaque said he checked with the former Clerk of the Louisiana House to verify that sending the template was allowed under legislative rules. But Louisiana Board of Ethics administrator Kathleen Allen said Bourriaque did not consult with her.
Bourriaque defended his actions, claiming that companies frequently use such templates. “The template is just a suggestion, and of course it would be voluntary for that individual to submit a response,” he said.
Louisiana lawmakers frequently align themselves with petrochemical companies, and the state has cracked down on opposition to oil and gas projects. Louisiana made trespassing on “critical infrastructure” a felony in 2004 and added pipelines to that list in 2018.
The federal government is also moving to make it more difficult to slow down pipeline construction. In July, President Donald Trump’s administration moved to weaken the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, which requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of infrastructure projects such as pipelines. This could have a disproportionate impact on communities in the South, where most new interstate pipelines are being proposed.
The changes — like imposing a deadline for environmental assessments — are expected to make public participation in fossil fuel projects more difficult by giving residents less time to learn about projects and provide comments on their possible impacts, Vardi said. If permits for the Delta Express pipeline are approved, residents who do not believe their concerns were addressed could file a lawsuit against the permitting agencies, but opponents have not yet mounted any such legal challenge.
The NEPA changes would allow agencies more “wiggle room” to argue that climate change impacts are too remote and speculative to require analysis, said Michael Burger, executive director of Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.
“The climate crisis is here, it is real, and it is happening,” Burger said. “It is essential that the federal government assess and disclose how its permitting and licensing decisions contribute to climate change, and consider ways to avoid or mitigate those contributions.”
Public comments on the Delta Express pipeline can be mailed to Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Be sure to reference the project docket number (PF19-4-000) with your submission.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-10-04--Reports Emerge Showing Trump “Knowingly Exposed” Those Around Him to COVID

Journalists and public health experts on Saturday raised questions over the mixed messages coming out of the White House and President Donald Trump ’ s medical team after Dr. Sean Conley , the president ’ s physician , told reporters Trump was “ 72 hours into the diagnosis ” of Covid-19 .
Observers quickly noted that this would mean the president first tested positive for the coronavirus on Wednesday , the day after the first presidential debate .
“ Did he attend a rally in Minnesota on Wednesday and then a fundraiser in New Jersey on Thursday AFTER his doctor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MSNBC anchor Ali Velshi .
An anonymous White House official told the Washington Post shortly after Conley ’ s briefing that the doctor “ misspoke , ” but even the White House ’ s attempts to correct Conley regarding whether Trump was diagnosed 72 hours before the Saturday press conference led to more confusion , as NBC News reported : Another doctor treating the president , Dr. Brian Garibaldi , said [ Trump ] had been treated “ 48 hours ” ago—Thursday morning—with antibodies .
But a White House official later disputed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thursday night and that the doctors meant Trump was on “ day 3 , ” not a full 72 hours in on his diagnosis .
The official also said that the antibody treatment was given later Thursday night , not a full 48 hours ago .
On Saturday afternoon , Conley issued a statement through the White House saying Trump had been diagnosed on Thursday night , and given the antibody treatment on Friday .
“ I incorrectly used the term ‘ seventy-two hours ’ instead of ‘ day three ’ and ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day two ’ with regards to his diagnosis and the administration of the polyclonal antibody therapy , ” Conley said in a statement .
Conley wasn ’ t the doctor who said Trump had been given antibodies 48 hours ago , though ; Garibaldi said that .
“ The problem is that we should know , we should have a better idea of what the actual status is of the president , ” Dr. Craig Spencer , an emergency medicine physician at Columbia University Medical Center in New York , told the Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientific update , as opposed to a political one.
” The confusion led some Minnesota residents who attended the president ’ s outdoor rally Wednesday night in Duluth to reconsider the gathering in hindsight , the Times reported — “ thinking back on how tightly the crowd was spaced , whom they might have spoken to , and whether the coronavirus precautions that organizers had arranged were sufficient .
Other Trump supporters who were in attendance dismissed safety concerns , taking on the attitude the president has publicly displayed for months — despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as February and March that the coronavirus was deadly and highly contagious through airborne transmission .
“ We ’ re not mask wearers , ” one attendee who was standing directly in front of Trump at the rally told the Times .
Kris Ehresmann , director of the Minnesota Department of Health ’ s Infectious Disease Epidemiology , Prevention , and Control Division , advised anyone who came near the president at the Duluth event to get tested for Covid-19 .
“ There is a potential risk that transmission occurred at the Duluth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s visit , ” Ehresmann said in a statement .
Trump critics wrote on social media that beyond potentially exposing well-connected Republican members of his circle to the virus by holding a White House event last Saturday in honor of Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett , in what has been called a “ superspreader event , ” the president and his team apparently this week exposed hundreds in not thousands of other people with far fewer resources to cope with the disease if they become infected .
Regardless of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , the president doubtlessly attended a fundraiser in Bedminster , New Jersey on Thursday after being exposed to his advisor Hope Hicks , who tested positive for Covid-19 that day .
“ This is a judgment issue , a fitness to lead issue , and Trump failed the test , ” tweeted former U.S. Attorney Joyce White Vance .
Journalist Rebecca Traister tweeted that Trump ’ s approach to the coronavirus crisis as well as a number of other closely-watched political issues during his presidency — with the Washington Post counting more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he took office , as of July — has led to an inability among public health experts and journalists to take the White House ’ s claims about Trump ’ s condition and prognosis at face value .
“ A thing that happens when you lie compulsively for years , ” tweeted Traister , “ is that NO ONE FUCKING BELIEVES YOU .
”

An emerging timeline suggests Trump likely exposed others or chose not to quarantine after exposure to COVID-19.
Journalists and public health experts on Saturday raised questions over the mixed messages coming out of the White House and President Donald Trump’s medical team after Dr. Sean Conley, the president’s physician, told reporters Trump was “72 hours into the diagnosis” of Covid-19.
Observers quickly noted that this would mean the president first tested positive for the coronavirus on Wednesday, the day after the first presidential debate.
Conley says we are 72 hours into the diagnosis. We were told around 1 am on Friday morning that POTUS was positive, which is only 36 hours ago. — Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) October 3, 2020
The White House needs to clarify the timeline ASAP. If, based on the timeline provided by Dr. Conley, the president was symptomatic on Thursday and had tested positive for COVID-19 72 hours ago and yet carried on with his normal schedule, that would be shocking. — Abby D. Phillip (@abbydphillip) October 3, 2020
Doctors say they are 72 hours into Trump’s diagnosis. That would be Weds 11am. Trump announced he had Covid Fri 1am. On Fri evening he said he was being tested. Did he attend a rally in MN on Wed & then a fundraiser in NJ on Thur AFTER his doctor thought he had coronavirus? — Ali Velshi (@AliVelshi) October 3, 2020
“Did he attend a rally in Minnesota on Wednesday and then a fundraiser in New Jersey on Thursday AFTER his doctor thought he had coronavirus?” asked MSNBC anchor Ali Velshi.
An anonymous White House official told the Washington Post shortly after Conley’s briefing that the doctor “misspoke,” but even the White House’s attempts to correct Conley regarding whether Trump was diagnosed 72 hours before the Saturday press conference led to more confusion, as NBC News reported:
Another doctor treating the president, Dr. Brian Garibaldi, said [Trump] had been treated “48 hours” ago—Thursday morning—with antibodies. But a White House official later disputed the timeline, saying Trump had been diagnosed Thursday night and that the doctors meant Trump was on “day 3,” not a full 72 hours in on his diagnosis. The official also said that the antibody treatment was given later Thursday night, not a full 48 hours ago. On Saturday afternoon, Conley issued a statement through the White House saying Trump had been diagnosed on Thursday night, and given the antibody treatment on Friday. “I incorrectly used the term ‘seventy-two hours’ instead of ‘day three’ and ‘forty eight hours’ instead of ‘day two’ with regards to his diagnosis and the administration of the polyclonal antibody therapy,” Conley said in a statement. Conley wasn’t the doctor who said Trump had been given antibodies 48 hours ago, though; Garibaldi said that.
“The problem is that we should know, we should have a better idea of what the actual status is of the president,” Dr. Craig Spencer, an emergency medicine physician at Columbia University Medical Center in New York, told the Times. “We need more of a scientific update, as opposed to a political one.”
The confusion led some Minnesota residents who attended the president’s outdoor rally Wednesday night in Duluth to reconsider the gathering in hindsight, the Times reported — “thinking back on how tightly the crowd was spaced, whom they might have spoken to, and whether the coronavirus precautions that organizers had arranged were sufficient.
Other Trump supporters who were in attendance dismissed safety concerns, taking on the attitude the president has publicly displayed for months — despite the fact that he knew as early as February and March that the coronavirus was deadly and highly contagious through airborne transmission.
“We’re not mask wearers,” one attendee who was standing directly in front of Trump at the rally told the Times.
Kris Ehresmann, director of the Minnesota Department of Health’s Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Prevention, and Control Division, advised anyone who came near the president at the Duluth event to get tested for Covid-19.
“There is a potential risk that transmission occurred at the Duluth rally and other events associated with President Trump’s visit,” Ehresmann said in a statement.
Trump critics wrote on social media that beyond potentially exposing well-connected Republican members of his circle to the virus by holding a White House event last Saturday in honor of Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett, in what has been called a “superspreader event,” the president and his team apparently this week exposed hundreds in not thousands of other people with far fewer resources to cope with the disease if they become infected.
The numbers of workers—clerical & domestic, who’ve been exposed by all these people in the past week….Their families, the healthcare workers who’ll be exposed, their families….people who’ll be bankrupted by hc costs, lost wages. The scope of the damage here is unfathomable. — Rebecca Traister (@rtraister) October 3, 2020
Its clear that Trump was trying to hide his illness. Then, on Friday, he became so ill that he had to go to the hospital. He willingly exposed hundreds (possibly thousands) of people to a deadly virus. HE KNEW. https://t.co/VOgVGxmrZX — Josh Fox BlackLivesMatter (@joshfoxfilm) October 3, 2020
Regardless of when Trump was diagnosed, some critics said, the president doubtlessly attended a fundraiser in Bedminster, New Jersey on Thursday after being exposed to his advisor Hope Hicks, who tested positive for Covid-19 that day.
Even if they’re telling the truth about the 72 hours thing, Trump still went to an indoor fundraiser/buffet KNOWING he’d been exposed to Hope Hicks. Didn’t care. To me this is the most damning part of this entire story. — Jon Favreau (@jonfavs) October 3, 2020
Here’s the real story: Trump knowingly exposed people to Covid after learning he’d been exposed. He should’ve quarantined immediately. This is a judgment issue, a fitness to lead issue & Trump failed the test. https://t.co/GEbQ2btoGm — Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) October 2, 2020
“This is a judgment issue, a fitness to lead issue, and Trump failed the test,” tweeted former U.S. Attorney Joyce White Vance.
Journalist Rebecca Traister tweeted that Trump’s approach to the coronavirus crisis as well as a number of other closely-watched political issues during his presidency — with the Washington Post counting more than 20,000 false or misleading statements since he took office, as of July — has led to an inability among public health experts and journalists to take the White House’s claims about Trump’s condition and prognosis at face value.
A thing that happens when you lie compulsively for years, including about the terrible disease that — no matter the timeline of this week — you have negligently permitted to spread, leaving millions sick, impoverished, grieving & dead, is that NO ONE FUCKING BELIEVES YOU https://t.co/hb6lDoodwE — Rebecca Traister (@rtraister) October 3, 2020
“A thing that happens when you lie compulsively for years,” tweeted Traister, “is that NO ONE FUCKING BELIEVES YOU.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-10-04--Amy Coney Barrett Would Ensure an Anti-Worker Supreme Court

The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has triggered a hasty search by President Donald Trump and Senate Republicans for a justice to fill the empty seat before the November presidential election .
Now Trump has chosen Amy Coney Barrett , of the two women at the top of his shortlist , as his Supreme Court nomination , but she has not yet been confirmed .
Barrett , a staunch conservative groomed by the Federalist Society , has been identified as a strongly anti-abortion nominee .
In employment cases that Barrett has seen , she has adopted largely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racially discriminatory — positions .
In 2017 , Barrett voted not to re-hear U.S .
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Autozone , in which a three-judge panel ruled in favor of an Autozone which had segregated its stores based on race .
In a 2019 case , she ruled against a Black Illinois Department of Transportation worker who had alleged that his firing was racially-motivated , given racist verbal harassment he experienced on the job .
And this year , Barrett ruled that GrubHub drivers could not file a class action lawsuit against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the rapidly expanding gig economy .
If appointed , Barrett would cement the conservative majority on a court that has already demonstrated a strong anti-worker tendency .
In two major labor cases in the last three years the Supreme Court ruled 5 – 4 to curb union and worker protections .
In Epic System Corp. v. Lewis , the Supreme Court determined that employers could contractually obligate workers to forgo their right to collectively sue the employer — before the decision , class action lawsuits were regarded as  “ protected concerted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NLRA .
And in Janus v. AFSCME , the court ruled that public-sector unions could no longer require represented workers to pay union fees , again voting along conservative-liberal lines .
In These Times spoke to James Gray Pope , a labor activist and legal scholar from Rutgers University , about the conservative court and labor .
In These Times : What kinds of labor litigation do you anticipate coming before the court ?
And what are the implications for labor when the court becomes so overwhelmingly conservative ?
James Gray Pope : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the whole range of issues that affect the working class , the Supreme Court is going to be in a fundamentally reactionary posture .
And we ’ ve been through a period like that , the so-called Lochner era , which refers to the late 19th and early 20th century Supreme Court trend of opposing legal regulations around working conditions .
The Lochner case itself involved a New York maximum hours law that the court struck down because it violated the individual freedom of contract of employers and workers to agree that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hours that they wanted .
And the court said it was illegitimate for a legislature to take into account imbalances of power in a contractual relationship , unless the protected individuals were somehow incapable of taking care of themselves , like children .
So , that being the basic ideological center-point for jurisprudence during that period , the court did a lot of intervention in terms of striking down worker-protective legislation , maximum-hours laws , minimum ‑age laws , union-rights laws , and laws outlawing yellow dog contracts .
And this period today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really the same , but the court can ’ t implement it with the kind of purity that it could implement it during the Lochner era , because labor statues are sitting there .
The statement of purpose of the National Labor Relations Act ( NLRA ) talks about inequality , bargaining power , and the need for full freedom of association of workers .
So they have to deal with that .
But you can see it in Epic Systems .
You can see right from the beginning of the opinion , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers there for bringing a suit against their employer after they had agreed not to .
So the idea here is that an individual worker , you know , sits down with an employer and is in an equal relationship in negotiating something .
Whereas , of course , as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says , in footnote two of her opinion , it didn ’ t happen that way .
The company just sends out an edict saying ,  “ You either agree to this or you lose your job.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Lochner era , individual liberty of contract .
In These Times : Beyond cases that deal directly with the NLRA , what is the kind of litigation that could come before the Supreme Court that would affect workers ?
James Gray Pope : I don ’ t think anything ’ s going to be so much different from the recent direction .
It ’ s just that it ’ s going to be more intense and consistent .
What ’ s going to be an issue here in terms of what the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the extent to which Supreme Court Justice John Roberts , who has some sense of history and some concern about what the historical verdict on his chief justiceship is going to be , is going to constrain the court in the labor law area .
I think he understands the need to constrain the court in the civil rights area , and even some of the other conservative justices have issued surprising pro-civil rights opinions .
The Supreme Court is like any political body in the sense that you spend political capital , @ @ @ @ @ @ @  “ Well , do we want to spend our political capital on this issue ?
Are we going to spend it on that issue ?
” And that ’ s going to be the big question now that they ’ re going to have .
If this nominee gets confirmed , conservatives are going to have a very strong majority .
And they ’ re going to have the power to transform the law immensely .
And so the question is , where are they going to put their energy ?
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ labor law , because labor laws are fundamentally weak anyway , but more in the area of voting rights and gerrymandering .
In These Times : How does the Federalist Society ’ s textualist or originalist tradition affect rulings on labor-related cases ?
James Gray Pope : Originalism initially was a purely conservative philosophy where basically you imagine setting a time machine back and asking the people who enacted the 14th Amendment , for example ,  “ Well , did you intend to give women equal rights to men ?
” And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s now referred to by more sophisticated proponents of original meaning as  “ original expected application , ” where instead of going after the original meaning you ’ re going back and you ’ re going after the ways in which people in that historical era would have applied the provision .
One of the big problems with originalism is , what happens if a body of precedent builds up that seems to contradict your view ?
In a way , the most dramatic illustration is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And this relates to labor .
Thomas thinks that the word  “ commerce ” is the Congress ’ s power to regulate interstate commerce , the word commerce just means the buying and selling of things .
And so , in his view , the decisions that upheld the Wagner Act and the National Labor Relations Act are wrong from an originalist point of view .
Well , the problem is that stare decisis—a judicial policy that courts generally follow earlier rulings ( precedent ) , sometimes even when the earlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : It ’ s a multi factor analysis that ’ s easily manipulable .
In These Times : Considering the fact that labor law in the United States is really weak , and workers ’ protections will likely be further eroded in the coming years , what are the ways that you might anticipate unions or workers organizations responding to that landscape , through the law or not ?
James Gray Pope : Broadly , I would say that politics are key .
And what ’ s really crucial is to get strong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point they can pack the court .
So if you want it to go through formal legal method mechanisms , that would be the way to do it .
And obviously , that ’ s an area that ’ s fraught right now with the gerrymandering opinion , the voter ID rulings , and Citizens United guaranteeing the right of money to skew the political process .
All of those things are going to make it very difficult to break through .
The last time this was a problem was around the Lochner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people were denied the right to vote , including not only African Americans in the South , but also poor whites in the South , and women .
So the democratic process was skewed then as well .
Ultimately , what was crucial was mass resistance .
And the strikes in 1934 — that was the period where you had general strikes and threatened general strikes in a number of cities , bringing about the perceived possibility of , if not revolution , something at least threatening the order .
And that got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opinion , that ’ s what got the NLRA upheld as constitutional along with President Franklin Delano Roosevelt ’ s threat to pack the Supreme Court with justices sympathetic to the New Deal .

The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has triggered a hasty search by President Donald Trump and Senate Republicans for a justice to fill the empty seat before the November presidential election.
Now Trump has chosen Amy Coney Barrett, of the two women at the top of his shortlist, as his Supreme Court nomination, but she has not yet been confirmed. Barrett, a staunch conservative groomed by the Federalist Society, has been identified as a strongly anti-abortion nominee.
In employment cases that Barrett has seen, she has adopted largely anti-worker — and on two occasions, racially discriminatory — positions. In 2017, Barrett voted not to re-hear U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Autozone, in which a three-judge panel ruled in favor of an Autozone which had segregated its stores based on race. In a 2019 case, she ruled against a Black Illinois Department of Transportation worker who had alleged that his firing was racially-motivated, given racist verbal harassment he experienced on the job. And this year, Barrett ruled that GrubHub drivers could not file a class action lawsuit against their employer — a blow to workers in the rapidly expanding gig economy.
If appointed, Barrett would cement the conservative majority on a court that has already demonstrated a strong anti-worker tendency. In two major labor cases in the last three years the Supreme Court ruled 5 – 4 to curb union and worker protections. In Epic System Corp. v. Lewis, the Supreme Court determined that employers could contractually obligate workers to forgo their right to collectively sue the employer — before the decision, class action lawsuits were regarded as “protected concerted activity” under Section 7 of the NLRA. And in Janus v. AFSCME, the court ruled that public-sector unions could no longer require represented workers to pay union fees, again voting along conservative-liberal lines.
In These Times spoke to James Gray Pope, a labor activist and legal scholar from Rutgers University, about the conservative court and labor.
In These Times: What kinds of labor litigation do you anticipate coming before the court? And what are the implications for labor when the court becomes so overwhelmingly conservative?
James Gray Pope: The big-picture point here is that throughout the whole range of issues that affect the working class, the Supreme Court is going to be in a fundamentally reactionary posture. And we’ve been through a period like that, the so-called Lochner era, which refers to the late 19th and early 20th century Supreme Court trend of opposing legal regulations around working conditions. The Lochner case itself involved a New York maximum hours law that the court struck down because it violated the individual freedom of contract of employers and workers to agree that the worker would work for any number of hours that they wanted. And the court said it was illegitimate for a legislature to take into account imbalances of power in a contractual relationship, unless the protected individuals were somehow incapable of taking care of themselves, like children. So, that being the basic ideological center-point for jurisprudence during that period, the court did a lot of intervention in terms of striking down worker-protective legislation, maximum-hours laws, minimum ‑age laws, union-rights laws, and laws outlawing yellow dog contracts.
And this period today is similar. The core ideology is really the same, but the court can’t implement it with the kind of purity that it could implement it during the Lochner era, because labor statues are sitting there. The statement of purpose of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) talks about inequality, bargaining power, and the need for full freedom of association of workers. So they have to deal with that.
But you can see it in Epic Systems. You can see right from the beginning of the opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch is irritated at the workers there for bringing a suit against their employer after they had agreed not to. So the idea here is that an individual worker, you know, sits down with an employer and is in an equal relationship in negotiating something. Whereas, of course, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says, in footnote two of her opinion, it didn’t happen that way. The company just sends out an edict saying, “You either agree to this or you lose your job.” That’s the present-day version of the Lochner era, individual liberty of contract.
In These Times: Beyond cases that deal directly with the NLRA, what is the kind of litigation that could come before the Supreme Court that would affect workers?
James Gray Pope: I don’t think anything’s going to be so much different from the recent direction. It’s just that it’s going to be more intense and consistent. What’s going to be an issue here in terms of what the court does, I think, is the extent to which Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, who has some sense of history and some concern about what the historical verdict on his chief justiceship is going to be, is going to constrain the court in the labor law area. I think he understands the need to constrain the court in the civil rights area, and even some of the other conservative justices have issued surprising pro-civil rights opinions.
The Supreme Court is like any political body in the sense that you spend political capital, and there’s an assessment: “Well, do we want to spend our political capital on this issue? Are we going to spend it on that issue?” And that’s going to be the big question now that they’re going to have. If this nominee gets confirmed, conservatives are going to have a very strong majority. And they’re going to have the power to transform the law immensely. And so the question is, where are they going to put their energy? And my fear is not so much for labor law, because labor laws are fundamentally weak anyway, but more in the area of voting rights and gerrymandering.
In These Times: How does the Federalist Society’s textualist or originalist tradition affect rulings on labor-related cases?
James Gray Pope: Originalism initially was a purely conservative philosophy where basically you imagine setting a time machine back and asking the people who enacted the 14th Amendment, for example, “Well, did you intend to give women equal rights to men?” And that was the kind of methodology that’s now referred to by more sophisticated proponents of original meaning as “original expected application,” where instead of going after the original meaning you’re going back and you’re going after the ways in which people in that historical era would have applied the provision.
One of the big problems with originalism is, what happens if a body of precedent builds up that seems to contradict your view? In a way, the most dramatic illustration is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on the scope of the Commerce Clause. And this relates to labor. Thomas thinks that the word “commerce” is the Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce, the word commerce just means the buying and selling of things. And so, in his view, the decisions that upheld the Wagner Act and the National Labor Relations Act are wrong from an originalist point of view.
Well, the problem is that stare decisis—a judicial policy that courts generally follow earlier rulings (precedent), sometimes even when the earlier rulings were erroneous — is totally manipulable: It’s a multi factor analysis that’s easily manipulable.
In These Times: Considering the fact that labor law in the United States is really weak, and workers’ protections will likely be further eroded in the coming years, what are the ways that you might anticipate unions or workers organizations responding to that landscape, through the law or not?
James Gray Pope: Broadly, I would say that politics are key. And what’s really crucial is to get strong progressives into elected office, from which point they can pack the court. So if you want it to go through formal legal method mechanisms, that would be the way to do it. And obviously, that’s an area that’s fraught right now with the gerrymandering opinion, the voter ID rulings, and Citizens United guaranteeing the right of money to skew the political process. All of those things are going to make it very difficult to break through.
The last time this was a problem was around the Lochner era, during which a lot of people were denied the right to vote, including not only African Americans in the South, but also poor whites in the South, and women. So the democratic process was skewed then as well. Ultimately, what was crucial was mass resistance.
And the strikes in 1934 — that was the period where you had general strikes and threatened general strikes in a number of cities, bringing about the perceived possibility of, if not revolution, something at least threatening the order. And that got the NLRA passed. And in my opinion, that’s what got the NLRA upheld as constitutional along with President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s threat to pack the Supreme Court with justices sympathetic to the New Deal.


truthout--2020-10-04--Abolition Is Not Merely a Demand, But a Long-Term Struggle

Recently , I received this text from a longtime comrade : “ You ’ re not gon na believe this but the governor is on TV saying they are going to shut down all the juvenile prisons in Illinois.
” Not exactly .
This text , and the statement by Illinois Gov .
J.B. Pritzker , was more than an overreach .
Preliminary reporting on this announcement is fuzzy .
Is Illinois really closing the juvenile prisons , or is the state creating a new network of smaller prisons ?
“ Kinder , gentler cages are still cages , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when California pushed to create a massive network of smaller “ gender-responsive prisons ” to address the overflowing and toxic conditions in prisons for women .
Braz was one of the founders of Critical Resistance , an international abolitionist organization that has been working for more than 20 years to end reliance on the prison-industrial complex .
Putting aside the question of the real outcome of the governor ’ s plan , this text sparked a jolt of joy , recognition and oddly , shame .
Roughly 12 years ago , the Chicago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and small abolitionist campaign called Leave No Child Behind Bars .
A play on the name of a dismal federal educational policy , this campaign was aimed at raising the visibility of the long history of failed reform efforts surrounding one youth jail in Chicago : the Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Center , locally known as Audy Home ( once the largest prison for young people on the planet ) .
Our campaign asked : Why continue to reform this prison when we could close it down and reinvest the resources in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were a small , exuberant and scraggly bunch .
With a hustled budget of maybe a few thousand dollars , we organized political education workshops and materials , and held meetings and a few public events .
To be generous , our events were unevenly attended .
While likely not even on the radar of any larger criminal legal reform organizations at the time , our abolitionist materials were an interruption in the status quo of mainstream organizing and service provision during that period and ignited some backlash .
Some folks who operated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of touch , our demand was unrealistic — even that we were offensive and rude .
More established groups pulled us aside to report that others who were in the right rooms had said we were operating with incomplete information , we should wait — we were creating problems .
Yet we knew we weren ’ t alone .
A small but strong network of radical Chicago collectives was growing — and yes , feeling — our way into an abolition practice , particularly feminists : The Young Women ’ s Empowerment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Women , Gender Non-Conforming , and Trans People of Color Against Violence ; Transformative Justice Law Project ; and Visible Voices .
Key individuals who animated this work included Jo-ann Archibald , Shira Hassan , Mariame Kaba , Dominique McKinney , Beth Richie and Ann Russo .
In classrooms , in street actions and innumerable workshops , this beloved community — notably overwhelmingly women , queer folks and/or people of color — gathered to learn and often to practice ways of responding to harm without prisons and policing , transformative justice and community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , queer liberation .
We are still listening , trying , experimenting and often “ failing.
” This iteration of Critical Resistance Chicago hummed along and then fizzled — largely because key members moved away ( growing abolition in other contexts ) .
After this chapter drifted apart , reports surfaced of a cisgender man associated with our chapter who was named as someone who made several women uncomfortable — he kept hitting on them and wouldn ’ t take no for an answer .
This too familiar organizing narrative , in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always attached to any break-up .
Ultimately , Leave No Child Behind Bars did not close the juvenile prison .
Fast forward to July 2020 : “ The 150-year-old punitive model simply doesn ’ t fulfill its mission , ” stated Governor Pritzker : a complicated win , because even as some of our language was used , it is also an example of the state ’ s deft ability to absorb , incorporate and reorient our demands .
This abbreviated recounting of one relatively recent snippet of Chicago ’ s organizing history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must continue to surface histories of collective abolitionist interventions — however temporal and flawed .
While the movement to close juvenile prisons didn ’ t start or end with this campaign , these often intentionally extinguished organizing histories remind us not that we were right , but rather that a commitment to ongoing and collective political action and education over the long haul is crucial .
Second , this history is a reminder to always stretch our vision : avoid the trap of limiting our demands and work to keep the whole struggle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in front of us .
For example , as I work alongside people in adult prisons , the “ bright line ” of age — almost all were over 18 years old at the time of their “ crime ” — seems to co-sign their indefinite imprisonment : death by incarceration .
How can we mobilize the current energy for “ defund the police ” or the proposed closure of juvenile prisons to dismantle the wider gulag across our state ( and globe ) — not simply for those under 18 years old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ huzzah !
Let ’ s celebrate and claim our collective victories and keep growing and learning from our strengths and challenges .
This campaign — and many , many others – reverberates : for instance , in the work led by the # NoCopAcademy organizers who pushed to defeat a proposed $ 95 million police academy in Chicago and those who are currently in the struggle to push the Chicago Public School to divest from policing .
We are building our analysis and tools , getting stronger and smarter , and this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out love to our collective struggles for the long , long , haul : the only way to make the world we need .

In the fight for abolition, losing an immediate demand should not deter us from the long-term struggle.
Part of the Series The Road to Abolition
Recently, I received this text from a longtime comrade: “You’re not gonna believe this but the governor is on TV saying they are going to shut down all the juvenile prisons in Illinois.”
Not exactly. This text, and the statement by Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, was more than an overreach. Preliminary reporting on this announcement is fuzzy. Is Illinois really closing the juvenile prisons, or is the state creating a new network of smaller prisons?
“Kinder, gentler cages are still cages,” as Rose Braz pointed out in 2006 when California pushed to create a massive network of smaller “gender-responsive prisons” to address the overflowing and toxic conditions in prisons for women. Braz was one of the founders of Critical Resistance, an international abolitionist organization that has been working for more than 20 years to end reliance on the prison-industrial complex.
Putting aside the question of the real outcome of the governor’s plan, this text sparked a jolt of joy, recognition and oddly, shame.
Roughly 12 years ago, the Chicago chapter of Critical Resistance ran a short and small abolitionist campaign called Leave No Child Behind Bars. A play on the name of a dismal federal educational policy, this campaign was aimed at raising the visibility of the long history of failed reform efforts surrounding one youth jail in Chicago: the Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Center, locally known as Audy Home (once the largest prison for young people on the planet). Our campaign asked: Why continue to reform this prison when we could close it down and reinvest the resources in supporting young people and communities?
We were a small, exuberant and scraggly bunch. With a hustled budget of maybe a few thousand dollars, we organized political education workshops and materials, and held meetings and a few public events. To be generous, our events were unevenly attended.
While likely not even on the radar of any larger criminal legal reform organizations at the time, our abolitionist materials were an interruption in the status quo of mainstream organizing and service provision during that period and ignited some backlash. Some folks who operated programs in Audy Home said we were out of touch, our demand was unrealistic — even that we were offensive and rude. More established groups pulled us aside to report that others who were in the right rooms had said we were operating with incomplete information, we should wait — we were creating problems.
History is a reminder to always stretch our vision: avoid the trap of limiting our demands and work to keep the whole struggle — not just the immediate fight — in front of us.
Yet we knew we weren’t alone. A small but strong network of radical Chicago collectives was growing — and yes, feeling — our way into an abolition practice, particularly feminists: The Young Women’s Empowerment Project; Project NIA; INCITE! Women, Gender Non-Conforming, and Trans People of Color Against Violence; Transformative Justice Law Project; and Visible Voices. Key individuals who animated this work included Jo-ann Archibald, Shira Hassan, Mariame Kaba, Dominique McKinney, Beth Richie and Ann Russo.
In classrooms, in street actions and innumerable workshops, this beloved community — notably overwhelmingly women, queer folks and/or people of color — gathered to learn and often to practice ways of responding to harm without prisons and policing, transformative justice and community accountability, and other forms of anti-racist, queer liberation. We are still listening, trying, experimenting and often “failing.”
This iteration of Critical Resistance Chicago hummed along and then fizzled — largely because key members moved away (growing abolition in other contexts). After this chapter drifted apart, reports surfaced of a cisgender man associated with our chapter who was named as someone who made several women uncomfortable — he kept hitting on them and wouldn’t take no for an answer. This too familiar organizing narrative, in a sense, deepened the confusion and shame always attached to any break-up. Ultimately, Leave No Child Behind Bars did not close the juvenile prison.
Fast forward to July 2020: “The 150-year-old punitive model simply doesn’t fulfill its mission,” stated Governor Pritzker: a complicated win, because even as some of our language was used, it is also an example of the state’s deft ability to absorb, incorporate and reorient our demands.
This abbreviated recounting of one relatively recent snippet of Chicago’s organizing history offers three reminders.
First, we must continue to surface histories of collective abolitionist interventions — however temporal and flawed. While the movement to close juvenile prisons didn’t start or end with this campaign, these often intentionally extinguished organizing histories remind us not that we were right, but rather that a commitment to ongoing and collective political action and education over the long haul is crucial.
Second, this history is a reminder to always stretch our vision: avoid the trap of limiting our demands and work to keep the whole struggle — not just the immediate fight — in front of us.
For example, as I work alongside people in adult prisons, the “bright line” of age — almost all were over 18 years old at the time of their “crime” — seems to co-sign their indefinite imprisonment: death by incarceration. How can we mobilize the current energy for “defund the police” or the proposed closure of juvenile prisons to dismantle the wider gulag across our state (and globe) — not simply for those under 18 years old?
Finally, abolitionists should take a huzzah! Let’s celebrate and claim our collective victories and keep growing and learning from our strengths and challenges. This campaign — and many, many others – reverberates: for instance, in the work led by the #NoCopAcademy organizers who pushed to defeat a proposed $95 million police academy in Chicago and those who are currently in the struggle to push the Chicago Public School to divest from policing. We are building our analysis and tools, getting stronger and smarter, and this is a win.
Let’s shout out love to our collective struggles for the long, long, haul: the only way to make the world we need.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-10-04--Trump Needs Accomplices at Every Level of Government to Pull Off a Coup

For months , Donald Trump has been mounting a preemptive strike against the democratic election process .
He signals his intent to manipulate — indeed , steal — the presidential election in the event that Joe Biden wins .
With no evidence to support him , Trump repeats the mantra “ voter fraud ” to lay the groundwork for political , legal and extra-legal challenges to a Biden victory .
In an unprecedented move , Trump refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power as he orders right-wing militias armed with assault weapons to “ stand back and stand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tested positive for COVID-19 , all bets are off .
After months of recklessly discouraging social distancing and mask wearing , the chickens have come home to roost .
Trump has tried mightily to change the subject away from the coronavirus and his criminal responsibility for more than 207,000 deaths and over 7 million people in the United States who have the virus .
But with Trump ’ s infection , that strategy is now dead .
The timeline of Trump ’ s positive diagnosis is unclear .
Trump remains hospitalized at Walter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House has issued conflicting and contradictory reports about his condition .
Doctors say we may not know the course of Trump ’ s illness for a week to 10 days .
If Trump ’ s symptoms worsen , he could temporarily hand over the presidential reins to Vice President Mike Pence under the 25th Amendment .
In the event that Trump becomes very ill and refuses to put Pence in charge , the 25th Amendment allows Pence and a majority of the cabinet , or a body Congress lawfully designates , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the presidency .
Pence would then take over .
If Trump tells Congress that “ no inability exists , ” two-thirds of the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives could decide that Trump is still unable to discharge his presidential duties , and Pence would remain acting president until after the election .
He could become the GOP nominee or the Republican National Committee could select a new nominee .
Ballots already cast for Trump in early voting would be transferred to his replacement .
Each state would decide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insufficient time to print ballots with the name of a new nominee .
If Trump dies , Pence would become acting president and if he is unable to serve , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is next in line .
The election will not be decided on November 3 .
Since there are an unprecedented number of people voting by mail-in ballots due to the pandemic , it could take weeks to finish resolving challenged ballots and counting the votes .
Nevertheless , Trump , mindful that mail-in ballots generally tilt toward Democratic candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declared on November 3 .
Trump could order postal inspectors to impound mail-in ballots by claiming forgery or foreign fraud , so they might not be counted .
The Trump campaign is mobilizing “ an army for Trump , ” calling on “ all able-bodied men and women to stop the election from being stolen by Democrats.
” Although it ’ s unclear just what this army is being recruited to do , a coalition of progressive organizations has mobilized more than 6,000 “ election defenders.
” Are we doomed to suffer a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years of Trump ’ s bullying , racism , misogyny , cruelty , lying and xenophobia ?
Or can his assault on the very essence of democracy be stopped ?
As Biden has been leading in the polls , Trump confirmed at a September 25 rally in Virginia that if he loses the election , “ We ’ re not going to stand for it.
” Reiterating his false claim of voter fraud from mail-in ballots , Trump told the crowd , “ We ’ re not going to lose this except if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Integrity Project ( TIP ) , “ Trump is likely to contest the result by both legal and extra-legal means , in an attempt to hold onto power.
” The bipartisan group of experts , which conducted a series of election crisis scenario exercises , warns , “ The potential for violent conflict is high , particularly since Trump encourages his supporters to take up arms.
” TIP ’ s report says “ there is a chance ” that “ Trump will attempt to convince legislatures and/or governors to take actions — including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote.
” The election is actually multiple elections .
Each state controls its own election process .
Harvard professor Daniel Carpenter described a scenario in which Biden “ wins a plausible victory and Republicans move to undermine it.
” He posed a hypothetical situation in Arizona or North Carolina where Biden wins a state majority but the state legislature decides to give their delegates to Trump .
Barton Gellman reported in The Atlantic that “ the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If states refuse to certify or report slates of electors to the Electoral College , that will result in “ underpopulation ” and force the election into the House of Representatives , according to Carpenter .
“ [ I ] f the Electoral College is underpopulated and the courts don ’ t intervene , or maybe even if they do , the election is thrown to the House , ” he said .
The states would then vote by delegations .
The Democrats have a majority of members , but the Republicans have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has equal voting power and there are more red states than blue states .
The electoral votes are to be opened before a Joint Session of Congress on January 6 , 2021 .
But the Electoral Count Act , which governs the counting of electoral votes , is rife with ambiguities .
A constitutional crisis could result if the legislature of a state submits a vote certificate that is different from that which the state ’ s Democratic governor submits , and the GOP-controlled Senate disagrees with the Democratic-controlled House .
The conflict @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court .
“ I would hope that the Supreme Court would make the winner of the Electoral College the President if it came to that , ” Erwin Chemerinsky , dean of Berkeley Law School , told Truthout .
“ If not , theoretically it could depend on the military .
I am skeptical that state governors and governments could do much.
” Trump wants Amy Coney Barrett on the high court to resolve just such a dispute in his favor .
Barrett did research and provided assistance with briefing for Bush v. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Supreme Court overturned the Florida Supreme Court ’ s order of a statewide manual recount in a very close election .
Barrett , who helped install George W. Bush as president , would likely be a loyal foot soldier in Trump ’ s army as well .
But Senate Majority Leader McConnell ’ s plan for a rushed Senate confirmation of Barrett by October 26 could be derailed by the loss of his slim Republican majority .
The GOP has a 52-48 majority in the Senate .
Thus far , two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mike Lee ( R-Utah ) and Thom Tillis ( R-North Carolina ) , have tested positive for coronavirus .
Sen. Ron Johnson ( R-Wisconsin ) also had a positive test .
Sen. Susan Collins ( R-Maine ) has indicated she would vote against Barrett ’ s confirmation and Lisa Murkowski ( R-Alaska ) opposes filling Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s seat before the election .
With five GOP senators not voting for confirmation , Barrett would not be confirmed .
Trump and Biden have unequal power to challenge the results of the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , contrasted Trump ’ s “ awesome coercive powers ” with Biden ’ s lack of power to contest the election results .
“ Joe Biden can call a press conference ; Donald Trump could call on the 82nd Airborne , ” Brooks told Geoffrey Skelley at FiveThirtyEight .
Will the Military Facilitate or Halt Trump ’ s Coup ?
But would the 82nd Airborne help Trump illegally overturn the election results ?
Service members have a duty to obey lawful orders .
But they also have a duty to disobey unlawful orders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or a federal statute is an unlawful order .
Indeed , Pentagon officials said in late September that top military leaders could resign rather than take on protesters in the streets in the event of election unrest .
On June 1 , Trump threatened to invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act and deploy active-duty troops to quell Black Lives Matter protests .
In response to Trump ’ s deployment of National Guard troops to Washington , D.C. , and his threats to deploy federal troops more widely , 89 former defense officials wrote on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at how the president is betraying [ his ] oath [ to support and defend the Constitution ] by threatening to order members of the U.S. military to violate the rights of their fellow Americans.
” They said that Trump gave governors “ a stark choice : either end the protests that continue to demand equal justice under our laws , or expect that he will send active-duty military units into their states.
” The former defense officials urged Trump “ to immediately end his plans to send active-duty military personnel into cities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to employ them or any another military or police forces in ways that undermine the constitutional rights of Americans.
” Although some congressional Republicans have pushed back against Trump ’ s suggestion that the winner of the election may never be known , it remains to be seen whether they will resist his attempted coup .
Thus far , they have walked in near unanimous lockstep with Trump , notably during his impeachment proceeding and his Supreme Court nomination of Barrett even as votes are being cast .
Although Trump ’ s COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the prospects for a peaceful transition to a Biden administration if Trump is in charge are dubious .
Ian Bassin , executive director of Protect Democracy , is optimistic , however .
“ For those worried that Donald Trump could single-handedly defy the election results and hold on to power , fear not — he can not do that , ” Bassin wrote in an email to Truthout .
“ In order to do that , he ’ d need accomplices at every level , throughout the country — in the executive branch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courts , in state legislatures , in the media.
” But a landslide in favor of Biden could make potential accomplices feel less confident in supporting Trump if he were to claim that the results are ambiguous or fraudulent .
Voting is absolutely critical for democracy .
But at the end of the day , stopping a coup attempt will depend on far more than the ballot , and will require creative and courageous acts of civic and political engagement from all of us .
Let ’ s get to it !

Part of the Series Human Rights and Global Wrongs
For months, Donald Trump has been mounting a preemptive strike against the democratic election process. He signals his intent to manipulate — indeed, steal — the presidential election in the event that Joe Biden wins. With no evidence to support him, Trump repeats the mantra “voter fraud” to lay the groundwork for political, legal and extra-legal challenges to a Biden victory. In an unprecedented move, Trump refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power as he orders right-wing militias armed with assault weapons to “stand back and stand by.”
Now that Donald Trump has tested positive for COVID-19, all bets are off. After months of recklessly discouraging social distancing and mask wearing, the chickens have come home to roost. Trump has tried mightily to change the subject away from the coronavirus and his criminal responsibility for more than 207,000 deaths and over 7 million people in the United States who have the virus. But with Trump’s infection, that strategy is now dead.
The timeline of Trump’s positive diagnosis is unclear. Trump remains hospitalized at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center and the White House has issued conflicting and contradictory reports about his condition. Doctors say we may not know the course of Trump’s illness for a week to 10 days.
If Trump’s symptoms worsen, he could temporarily hand over the presidential reins to Vice President Mike Pence under the 25th Amendment. In the event that Trump becomes very ill and refuses to put Pence in charge, the 25th Amendment allows Pence and a majority of the cabinet, or a body Congress lawfully designates, to declare Trump unable to discharge the duties of the presidency. Pence would then take over. If Trump tells Congress that “no inability exists,” two-thirds of the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives could decide that Trump is still unable to discharge his presidential duties, and Pence would remain acting president until after the election. He could become the GOP nominee or the Republican National Committee could select a new nominee. Ballots already cast for Trump in early voting would be transferred to his replacement. Each state would decide how to proceed as there is probably insufficient time to print ballots with the name of a new nominee. If Trump dies, Pence would become acting president and if he is unable to serve, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is next in line.
The election will not be decided on November 3. Since there are an unprecedented number of people voting by mail-in ballots due to the pandemic, it could take weeks to finish resolving challenged ballots and counting the votes. Nevertheless, Trump, mindful that mail-in ballots generally tilt toward Democratic candidates, has insisted that the winner be declared on November 3.
Trump could order postal inspectors to impound mail-in ballots by claiming forgery or foreign fraud, so they might not be counted.
The Trump campaign is mobilizing “an army for Trump,” calling on “all able-bodied men and women to stop the election from being stolen by Democrats.” Although it’s unclear just what this army is being recruited to do, a coalition of progressive organizations has mobilized more than 6,000 “election defenders.”
Are we doomed to suffer a coup d’état and four more years of Trump’s bullying, racism, misogyny, cruelty, lying and xenophobia? Or can his assault on the very essence of democracy be stopped?
A Looming Constitutional Crisis
As Biden has been leading in the polls, Trump confirmed at a September 25 rally in Virginia that if he loses the election, “We’re not going to stand for it.” Reiterating his false claim of voter fraud from mail-in ballots, Trump told the crowd, “We’re not going to lose this except if they cheat.”
According to the Transition Integrity Project (TIP), “Trump is likely to contest the result by both legal and extra-legal means, in an attempt to hold onto power.” The bipartisan group of experts, which conducted a series of election crisis scenario exercises, warns, “The potential for violent conflict is high, particularly since Trump encourages his supporters to take up arms.”
TIP’s report says “there is a chance” that “Trump will attempt to convince legislatures and/or governors to take actions — including illegal actions — to defy the popular vote.”
The election is actually multiple elections. Each state controls its own election process. Harvard professor Daniel Carpenter described a scenario in which Biden “wins a plausible victory and Republicans move to undermine it.” He posed a hypothetical situation in Arizona or North Carolina where Biden wins a state majority but the state legislature decides to give their delegates to Trump.
Barton Gellman reported in The Atlantic that “the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority.”
If states refuse to certify or report slates of electors to the Electoral College, that will result in “underpopulation” and force the election into the House of Representatives, according to Carpenter. “[I]f the Electoral College is underpopulated and the courts don’t intervene, or maybe even if they do, the election is thrown to the House,” he said. The states would then vote by delegations. The Democrats have a majority of members, but the Republicans have a majority of delegations because each state has equal voting power and there are more red states than blue states.
The electoral votes are to be opened before a Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021. But the Electoral Count Act, which governs the counting of electoral votes, is rife with ambiguities.
A constitutional crisis could result if the legislature of a state submits a vote certificate that is different from that which the state’s Democratic governor submits, and the GOP-controlled Senate disagrees with the Democratic-controlled House. The conflict would invariably end up in the Supreme Court.
“I would hope that the Supreme Court would make the winner of the Electoral College the President if it came to that,” Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of Berkeley Law School, told Truthout. “If not, theoretically it could depend on the military. I am skeptical that state governors and governments could do much.”
Trump wants Amy Coney Barrett on the high court to resolve just such a dispute in his favor. Barrett did research and provided assistance with briefing for Bush v. Gore, in which a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court overturned the Florida Supreme Court’s order of a statewide manual recount in a very close election.
Barrett, who helped install George W. Bush as president, would likely be a loyal foot soldier in Trump’s army as well.
But Senate Majority Leader McConnell’s plan for a rushed Senate confirmation of Barrett by October 26 could be derailed by the loss of his slim Republican majority. The GOP has a 52-48 majority in the Senate. Thus far, two Senate Judiciary Committee members, Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina), have tested positive for coronavirus. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) also had a positive test. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) has indicated she would vote against Barrett’s confirmation and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) opposes filling Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat before the election. With five GOP senators not voting for confirmation, Barrett would not be confirmed.
Trump and Biden have unequal power to challenge the results of the election. Rosa Brooks, co-founder of TIP, contrasted Trump’s “awesome coercive powers” with Biden’s lack of power to contest the election results. “Joe Biden can call a press conference; Donald Trump could call on the 82nd Airborne,” Brooks told Geoffrey Skelley at FiveThirtyEight.
Will the Military Facilitate or Halt Trump’s Coup?
But would the 82nd Airborne help Trump illegally overturn the election results?
Service members have a duty to obey lawful orders. But they also have a duty to disobey unlawful orders and a law that violates the Constitution or a federal statute is an unlawful order.
Indeed, Pentagon officials said in late September that top military leaders could resign rather than take on protesters in the streets in the event of election unrest.
On June 1, Trump threatened to invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act and deploy active-duty troops to quell Black Lives Matter protests. In response to Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., and his threats to deploy federal troops more widely, 89 former defense officials wrote on June 5, “We are alarmed at how the president is betraying [his] oath [to support and defend the Constitution] by threatening to order members of the U.S. military to violate the rights of their fellow Americans.” They said that Trump gave governors “a stark choice: either end the protests that continue to demand equal justice under our laws, or expect that he will send active-duty military units into their states.” The former defense officials urged Trump “to immediately end his plans to send active-duty military personnel into cities as agents of law enforcement, or to employ them or any another military or police forces in ways that undermine the constitutional rights of Americans.”
Although some congressional Republicans have pushed back against Trump’s suggestion that the winner of the election may never be known, it remains to be seen whether they will resist his attempted coup. Thus far, they have walked in near unanimous lockstep with Trump, notably during his impeachment proceeding and his Supreme Court nomination of Barrett even as votes are being cast.
Although Trump’s COVID-19 outbreak is the wild card here, the prospects for a peaceful transition to a Biden administration if Trump is in charge are dubious.
Ian Bassin, executive director of Protect Democracy, is optimistic, however. “For those worried that Donald Trump could single-handedly defy the election results and hold on to power, fear not — he cannot do that,” Bassin wrote in an email to Truthout. “In order to do that, he’d need accomplices at every level, throughout the country — in the executive branch, in the Congress, in the courts, in state legislatures, in the media.” But a landslide in favor of Biden could make potential accomplices feel less confident in supporting Trump if he were to claim that the results are ambiguous or fraudulent.
Voting is absolutely critical for democracy. But at the end of the day, stopping a coup attempt will depend on far more than the ballot, and will require creative and courageous acts of civic and political engagement from all of us.
Let’s get to it!
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-10-05--Campaign Spokeswoman Props Up Trump’s “Firsthand Experience” With COVID

The director of communications for President Trump ’ s reelection campaign , Erin Perrine , told Fox News that Trump ’ s COVID-19 infection makes him more qualified than his opponent , Joe Biden , for the presidency .
Perrine ’ s arguments came in spite of Trump ’ s repeated disregard for basic social distancing guidelines to ensure the safety of himself and those around him , including a recent “ joy ride ” in the presidential SUV , which drew outrage from medical professionals for putting special agents in the vehicle at high risk of contracting COVID-19 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ planned to “ change his messaging ” regarding coronavirus in light of his recent diagnosis last week .
She also asked if he would stop “ downplaying ” the pandemic .
Perrine said Trump ’ s recent hospital stay at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center would give him new insights into how to lead .
“ Firsthand experience is always going to change how someone relates to something that ’ s been happening , ” Perrine said .
“ The president has coronavirus right now .
He is battling it head on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump can .
And of course that ’ s going to change the way that he speaks of it because it will be a firsthand experience.
” When pressed on Trump ’ s lack of serious attention paid to the coronavirus when compared to other campaign issues , such as the economy , Perrine said his recent ordeal made him better qualified to run the country than his opponent .
“ He has experience as commander-in-chief , he has experience as a businessman , he has experience , now , fighting the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — Joe Biden , he doesn ’ t have those , ” she said .
Hours later , Trump announced he would be leaving Walter Reed and returning to the White House Monday evening .
In a tweet making the announcement , Trump did not appear to use his “ firsthand experiences ” to advise people in the U.S. to take COVID-19 more seriously .
“ Don ’ t be afraid of Covid .
Don ’ t let it dominate your life , ” Trump wrote .
In spite of Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical team later suggested to reporters that he wasn ’ t “ out of the woods ” quite yet , and the possibility of his condition worsening could last through this coming weekend .
Trump ’ s tweet appeared to minimize the risk of COVID-19 , consistent with his strategy he admitted privately to journalist Bob Woodward in March , when he said he “ wanted to always play it down ” to prevent a panic among the populace .
In February , Trump also described the disease to Woodward as being “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public remarks .
More than 7.6 million Americans have been infected with COVID-19 since the pandemic reached the U.S. , with nearly 215,000 having died from the disease so far .
Polling from over the weekend suggests that Trump ’ s diagnosis — and his “ firsthand experiences ” in being treated for it — have made Americans less sure of his aptness to lead on the issue .
A Morning Consult poll , conducted from October 2 to the 3 , found that 43 percent of voters became less confident in Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to his diagnosis , with only 15 percent saying it made them more confident in the president .
That same poll found that 59 percent of Americans strongly or somewhat disapproved of his handling of the crisis overall , with only 37 percent saying they approve of how he ’ s led the response to the pandemic .
Recent events have not caused pro-Biden voters to shift to Trump , with a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll showing the Democratic challenger leading the incumbent by 10 points — a margin that is wider than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of weeks .

A recent poll shows Trump’s COVID diagnosis made voters less confident in his ability to lead on the pandemic.
The director of communications for President Trump’s reelection campaign, Erin Perrine, told Fox News that Trump’s COVID-19 infection makes him more qualified than his opponent, Joe Biden, for the presidency.
Perrine’s arguments came in spite of Trump’s repeated disregard for basic social distancing guidelines to ensure the safety of himself and those around him, including a recent “joy ride” in the presidential SUV, which drew outrage from medical professionals for putting special agents in the vehicle at high risk of contracting COVID-19.
Fox anchor Sandra Smith asked if Trump planned to “change his messaging” regarding coronavirus in light of his recent diagnosis last week. She also asked if he would stop “downplaying” the pandemic.
Perrine said Trump’s recent hospital stay at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center would give him new insights into how to lead.
“Firsthand experience is always going to change how someone relates to something that’s been happening,” Perrine said. “The president has coronavirus right now. He is battling it head on, as toughly, as only President Trump can. And of course that’s going to change the way that he speaks of it because it will be a firsthand experience.”
When pressed on Trump’s lack of serious attention paid to the coronavirus when compared to other campaign issues, such as the economy, Perrine said his recent ordeal made him better qualified to run the country than his opponent.
“He has experience as commander-in-chief, he has experience as a businessman, he has experience, now, fighting the coronavirus as an individual. Those firsthand experiences — Joe Biden, he doesn’t have those,” she said.
The Trump campaign is now attacking Biden for…not contracting coronavirus. “He has experience — now — fighting the coronavirus as an individual. Those firsthand experiences, Joe Biden, he doesn’t have those." pic.twitter.com/Qk0Qc8l6q9 — Tim Hogan (@timjhogan) October 5, 2020
Hours later, Trump announced he would be leaving Walter Reed and returning to the White House Monday evening. In a tweet making the announcement, Trump did not appear to use his “firsthand experiences” to advise people in the U.S. to take COVID-19 more seriously.
“Don’t be afraid of Covid. Don’t let it dominate your life,” Trump wrote.
In spite of Trump’s rosy words, however, his own medical team later suggested to reporters that he wasn’t “out of the woods” quite yet, and the possibility of his condition worsening could last through this coming weekend.
Trump’s tweet appeared to minimize the risk of COVID-19, consistent with his strategy he admitted privately to journalist Bob Woodward in March, when he said he “wanted to always play it down” to prevent a panic among the populace.
In February, Trump also described the disease to Woodward as being “deadly,” which strikingly contradicted his public remarks.
More than 7.6 million Americans have been infected with COVID-19 since the pandemic reached the U.S., with nearly 215,000 having died from the disease so far.
Polling from over the weekend suggests that Trump’s diagnosis — and his “firsthand experiences” in being treated for it — have made Americans less sure of his aptness to lead on the issue. A Morning Consult poll, conducted from October 2 to the 3, found that 43 percent of voters became less confident in Trump’s ability to handle the pandemic due to his diagnosis, with only 15 percent saying it made them more confident in the president.
That same poll found that 59 percent of Americans strongly or somewhat disapproved of his handling of the crisis overall, with only 37 percent saying they approve of how he’s led the response to the pandemic.
Recent events have not caused pro-Biden voters to shift to Trump, with a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll showing the Democratic challenger leading the incumbent by 10 points — a margin that is wider than it has been over the past couple of weeks.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.