truthout--2020-06-24--DC Court Upholding DOJ’s Decision to Drop Flynn Case Is a “Travesty” Say Critics

A three-judge panel for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ruled that a lower court judge ’ s original demands , seeking out justifications from the government for why the Department of Justice ( DOJ ) was dropping its case against Michael Flynn , were inappropriate , in essence giving the DOJ the go-ahead to let Flynn go without any charges at all .
Flynn was originally charged with lying to the FBI about conversations he had with Russia ’ s ambassador to the U.S .
The bureau had been investigating the then-incoming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of its inquiry into Russia ’ s interference in the 2016 presidential race .
Flynn , who was President Donald Trump ’ s first National Security Advisor , was fired from that role less than a month into the president ’ s tenure .
He eventually pleaded guilty with the DOJ on the charges of lying to the FBI .
However , in May of this year , the DOJ abruptly moved to drop Flynn ’ s case , despite his guilty plea .
The reversal of the DOJ ’ s initial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ General William Barr said the FBI didn ’ t have a valid reason to question him at the time , in essence viewing any lies he told to agents as irrelevant to the investigation at hand .
The choice to drop the case was viewed by critics as motivated by political factors , as Trump has continued to support Flynn throughout the legal saga .
The judge overseeing that case , however , wouldn ’ t allow it to be dropped so quickly , pointing out that the DOJ didn ’ t give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do so , especially since the guilty plea had already been entered .
Judge Emmet Sullivan instead said he would appoint a retired judge to argue against the government ’ s decision to drop the charges against Flynn .
That prompted Flynn ’ s lawyers to appeal the case to the higher court .
The D.C .
Circuit Court ’ s ruling on Wednesday was a 2-1 decision , with Judge Neomi Rao , a Trump appointee , delivering the opinion of the court .
“ In this case , the district @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specific harms to the exercise of the executive branch ’ s exclusive prosecutorial power , ” Rao wrote .
“ The contemplated proceedings would likely require the executive to reveal the internal deliberative process behind its exercise of prosecutorial discretion , interfering with the Article II charging authority.
” There is a possibility that the decision could be appealed , however , to the D.C .
Circuit Court en banc , or in full , with all active judges on that court weighing in .
Some legal experts on social media suggested doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questionable grounds being cited in the opinion favoring the administration .
Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe , responding to a tweet from former DOJ lawyer Joshua Geltzer , expressed the need for an appeal because the ruling was “ astonishing ” and a “ travesty , ” in his mind .
Geltzer himself explained why the decision was particularly jarring to him , citing an excerpt of Rao ’ s opinion that stated the original decision from Sullivan “ threatens to chill law enforcement by subjecting the prosecutor ’ s motives and decisionmaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority calls a ‘ chill , ’ many of us call transparency , judicial responsibility , & Rule 48 , ” Geltzer said , referring to a federal rule that describes how the Department of Justice may drop a case .
Former United States Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal also called for further review of the circuit court ’ s decision .
“ This is a terribly weak , and profoundly antidemocratic , decision , ” Katyal wrote .
“ The full DC Circuit should hear the case immediately.
” Susan Hennessey , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a tweet , but in a critical way , from Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany , who said the dismissal was “ a VICTORY for justice and truth.
” That conclusion , Hennessey explained , was “ an exceptionally bizarre and dishonest reading ” of the ruling .
“ The issue is about a federal court ’ s ability to get answers regarding politicization and irregularity in DOJ decision making .
It is in no way a substantive vindication of Flynn , ” Hennessey said .
Others noted that the D.C .
Circuit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was never asked in the first place , ignoring the true point of the appeal in the first place .
“ The only real constitutional question in this case was what power does a judge possess after a guilty plea has been answered , and the DC Circuit just didn ’ t answer that question , ” University of North Carolina criminal law professor Carissa Byrne Hessick opined .
If an en banc appeal is pursued , there is a high possibility that the decision rendered on Wednesday may be overturned .
Of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Circuit Court , seven were appointed by former Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama .
Two were appointed by Trump , one by former President George W. Bush , and one by George H. W. Bush .

Michael Flynn, who served as Trump’s first national security adviser, had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.
A three-judge panel for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ruled that a lower court judge’s original demands, seeking out justifications from the government for why the Department of Justice (DOJ) was dropping its case against Michael Flynn, were inappropriate, in essence giving the DOJ the go-ahead to let Flynn go without any charges at all.
Flynn was originally charged with lying to the FBI about conversations he had with Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. The bureau had been investigating the then-incoming Trump administration official about those conversations as part of its inquiry into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential race.
Flynn, who was President Donald Trump’s first National Security Advisor, was fired from that role less than a month into the president’s tenure. He eventually pleaded guilty with the DOJ on the charges of lying to the FBI.
However, in May of this year, the DOJ abruptly moved to drop Flynn’s case, despite his guilty plea. The reversal of the DOJ’s initial decision to charge Flynn came after Attorney General William Barr said the FBI didn’t have a valid reason to question him at the time, in essence viewing any lies he told to agents as irrelevant to the investigation at hand. The choice to drop the case was viewed by critics as motivated by political factors, as Trump has continued to support Flynn throughout the legal saga.
The judge overseeing that case, however, wouldn’t allow it to be dropped so quickly, pointing out that the DOJ didn’t give ample reason, in his view, to do so, especially since the guilty plea had already been entered. Judge Emmet Sullivan instead said he would appoint a retired judge to argue against the government’s decision to drop the charges against Flynn.
That prompted Flynn’s lawyers to appeal the case to the higher court. The D.C. Circuit Court’s ruling on Wednesday was a 2-1 decision, with Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, delivering the opinion of the court.
“In this case, the district court’s actions will result in specific harms to the exercise of the executive branch’s exclusive prosecutorial power,” Rao wrote. “The contemplated proceedings would likely require the executive to reveal the internal deliberative process behind its exercise of prosecutorial discretion, interfering with the Article II charging authority.”
There is a possibility that the decision could be appealed, however, to the D.C. Circuit Court en banc, or in full, with all active judges on that court weighing in. Some legal experts on social media suggested doing so was wholly appropriate, given the questionable grounds being cited in the opinion favoring the administration.
Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, responding to a tweet from former DOJ lawyer Joshua Geltzer, expressed the need for an appeal because the ruling was “astonishing” and a “travesty,” in his mind.
An “en banc review seems mandatory,” Tribe added.
Geltzer himself explained why the decision was particularly jarring to him, citing an excerpt of Rao’s opinion that stated the original decision from Sullivan “threatens to chill law enforcement by subjecting the prosecutor’s motives and decisionmaking to outside inquiry.”
“What the majority calls a ‘chill,’ many of us call transparency, judicial responsibility, & Rule 48,” Geltzer said, referring to a federal rule that describes how the Department of Justice may drop a case.
Former United States Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal also called for further review of the circuit court’s decision. “This is a terribly weak, and profoundly antidemocratic, decision,” Katyal wrote. “The full DC Circuit should hear the case immediately.”
Susan Hennessey, executive editor of Lawfare, also responded to a tweet, but in a critical way, from Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany, who said the dismissal was “a VICTORY for justice and truth.” That conclusion, Hennessey explained, was “an exceptionally bizarre and dishonest reading” of the ruling.
“The issue is about a federal court’s ability to get answers regarding politicization and irregularity in DOJ decision making. It is in no way a substantive vindication of Flynn,” Hennessey said.
Others noted that the D.C. Circuit Court seemed to answer a question that was never asked in the first place, ignoring the true point of the appeal in the first place. “The only real constitutional question in this case was what power does a judge possess after a guilty plea has been answered, and the DC Circuit just didn’t answer that question,” University of North Carolina criminal law professor Carissa Byrne Hessick opined.
If an en banc appeal is pursued, there is a high possibility that the decision rendered on Wednesday may be overturned. Of the 11 active judges on the D.C. Circuit Court, seven were appointed by former Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Two were appointed by Trump, one by former President George W. Bush, and one by George H. W. Bush.
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--2020-06-24--Black Lives Matter Protests Are Shifting Racial Justice Dialogues in Pro Sports

The Black Lives Matter protests are dramatically shifting dialogues about racial justice in sports , says former NBA player , author and activist Etan Thomas .
He describes how athletes are forcing a reckoning about systemic racism in professional sports , including in NASCAR , which has rallied around the sole Black driver competing in the Cup Series , Bubba Wallace , who led a push to ban Confederate flags from races .
“ It ’ s amazing what ’ s happening in NASCAR , ” Thomas says .
“ They did more in 48 hours than the NFL did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years.
” This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Juan González , as we turn to look at the fight for racial justice in sports .
The FBI said Tuesday NASCAR driver Bubba Wallace was not the target of a hate crime and that a noose found in his garage had been there since last year .
NASCAR described the item as a , quote , “ garage door pull @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says it had been there for months before the stall was assigned to Wallace .
NASCAR launched an investigation after a crew member discovered the noose Sunday at the Talladega Superspeedway in Alabama .
Bubba Wallace , who is the only African American driver in NASCAR ’ s elite Cup Series , tweeted the , quote , “ act of racism and hatred leaves me incredibly saddened.
” On Tuesday night , he told CNN he stands by what he said .
AMY GOODMAN : So , that ’ s Bubba Wallace .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the track at the Talladega Superspeedway towing a Confederate flag and a banner reading “ Defund NASCAR , ” to push back against the decision of NASCAR to ban the Confederate flag at its raceways .
Meanwhile , Dustin Skinner , the son of former NASCAR driver Mike Skinner , apologized Tuesday for writing a Facebook post saying that Bubba Wallace should be dragged around the pits with the noose .
Well , from NASCAR to NFL , where Commissioner Roger Goodell now says he encourages teams to sign quarterback Colin Kaepernick , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , athlete and activist , who spent 11 years in the NBA , co-host of the weekly podcast The Collision : Where Sports and Politics Collide , with Dave Zirin .
His latest book , We Matter : Athletes and Activism .
It ’ s great to have you with us , Etan .
Let ’ s start with what ’ s going on in NASCAR .
Absolutely astounding what Bubba Wallace has accomplished , pushing hard for the Confederate flag to be banned from the raceways , and NASCAR finally did comply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FBI said they discovered that this noose-like rope had been there for months , all of the elite car drivers — Bubba Wallace is the only African American elite NASCAR car driver — walking with him in a Black Lives Matter-like protest .
And , of course , right before that , Bubba Wallace had unveiled his racing car , which was black with bold white letters , “ Black Lives Matter , ” and he wore a T-shirt that said “ I can ’ t breathe.
” Talk about what ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I mean , I think — first of all , thanks for having me on .
And I think it ’ s amazing , what ’ s happening in NASCAR , to be honest with you .
I had a chance to interview Brad Daugherty , who is a team owner in NASCAR , a former NBA player , yesterday for another show that I have , Center of Attention on Twitch .
And he told me about the culture of NASCAR .
And I have to — admittedly , no , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NASCAR .
I don ’ t watch NASCAR all the time .
But he talked about how all of the different drivers rallied around Bubba Wallace , and that show of solidarity , and how he said that , in his words , “ that wouldn ’ t have happened 20 years ago.
” Now , getting all to the particulars of the noose , and the FBI have called it a noose many times .
They didn ’ t say that it wasn ’ t a noose .
They didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a noose , just to make that clear , no matter when it was placed there .
And why Bubba Wallace was given that particular garage , you know , I don ’ t know .
But they did call it a noose .
But the part that was really impressive to me is , number one , the way that NASCAR immediately rallied around Bubba Wallace .
They did more in 48 hours than the NFL did for Colin Kaepernick for four or five years , or however long it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around NASCAR , around the drivers — you know , which is different than the fans .
So the fans had one reaction .
You saw a lot of it — I mean , I ’ ve even seen it in Twitter mentions .
I posted my support for Bubba Wallace , and I just saw the mentions after me .
Like , there ’ s a certain demographic that is in NASCAR , and that ’ s undeniable .
But the drivers don ’ t match that demographic .
And that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t know .
I just thought all the — you know , I thought they were one and the same .
But the show of solidarity is something that we ’ re seeing all across the country , I think , what we saw in NASCAR with that .
Right now at this time , since George Floyd ’ s murder , I ’ ve seen more white people who have been protesting , who have been rallying around as allies , who want to be allies , than I have ever seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with you .
And , you know , we can ’ t worry about where were you , where have you been all this time .
You know , like , you ’ re late to the party .
OK , that ’ s fine .
We don ’ t have to worry about that .
But you ’ re here now .
So now is time for you to use your privilege to be able to push for things to actually change .
And I think that ’ s a reflection of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And those drivers in NASCAR , they are pushing for the culture of NASCAR to change .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Etan Thomas , I wanted to ask you about the other sports .
Obviously , Major League Baseball is trying to salvage its season .
The NFL is in a quandary about what to do .
And the NBA now is seeking to restart , to get into the playoffs , but there are battles between the players themselves .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : Brooklyn Nets star Kyrie Irving recently posted on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s clear White Supremacy and Corporations use us Native Indigenous Black Folk when it is beneficial for their agenda and pockets , so be aware of the truth in plain sight.
” So , Kyrie is at least saying that the players should consider not participating , while LeBron James , obviously the biggest star in the NBA and probably in American sports , is saying , “ No , let ’ s play and make our statements through our playing.
” I ’ m wondering your perspective on the battle among the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ETAN THOMAS : I don ’ t see that it has to be a battle .
I think there ’ s two different approaches to be able to reach one common goal .
We ’ re going back to the ’ 68 Olympics , and I had the chance to be able to interview both John Carlos and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in my book , We Matter : Athletes and Activism , and we talked about this very topic .
And Kareem Abdul-Jabbar elected not to go to the ’ 68 Olympics .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carlos , of course , went to the ’ 68 Olympics and did the Black Power salute during the — on the podium , and that reverberated to even today .
Now , both of them deserve respect .
And that ’ s my issue with how — and my approach to hearing Kyrie and hearing LeBron .
When I turn on the news and I ’ m looking at Stephen A. Smith and Charles Barkley and even Michael Wilbon , and the inflammatory language that they use when describing Kyrie and Dwight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that maybe this isn ’ t the best time for us to be worrying about basketball , maybe there ’ s other things that are — a movement that is going on right now that we should be focused on , and the words that they chose to use , like “ stupid ” and “ dumb ” and “ ridiculous ” and — I would ask Stephen A. Smith , “ Would you call Kareem Abdul-Jabbar foolish for not going to the ’ 68 Olympics ?
” I don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s room for both discussions .
There ’ s room for a civil debate in both of these approaches .
Now , on one hand , we have precedent .
We have the WNBA , who did go , and they went to their — as an entire league a few years ago , and I was able to interview Swin Cash and Tamika Catchings about it in my book .
AMY GOODMAN : This is the women ’ s league .
ETAN THOMAS : And what they did — what ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s league , yeah , the WNBA .
And what they did a few years ago , after the back-to-back murders of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling , was they , as an entire league , made a statement .
So , every single game , what they did was they had an actual media blackout .
So they would answer like two questions from the game , and then , after that , every question would be dealing with what the topic was right there , which was police brutality and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do to change things .
And they had the entire league .
They had white players , foreign players that ain ’ t even from here .
They didn ’ t even know what was going on .
But they educated them on it , and they saw their sisters that were hurting , and they did it together .
Yes , that ’ s one approach .
AMY GOODMAN : Etan , I wanted to get your comment on the NBA Commissioner Adam Silver speaking about the league ’ s responsibility in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s the NBA Commissioner Adam Silver .
I was wondering what you think has to happen right now .
He was talking alongside Magic Johnson in a virtual conversation .
And then we ’ ll move on to the NFL , very quickly .
ETAN THOMAS : Well , I think that that ’ s just a reflection of who he is .
He is very different than his predecessor .
And people have to always remember , his predecessor — under his predecessor , David Stern , you know , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the league .
So he is very different .
And I had a — I ’ m not just name dropping , but I interviewed him for my book , as well .
And I have another interview that I had of Adam Silver , as well .
And I asked him , you know , “ Would you punish someone who took a stand for something that you disagree with ?
” And he said , “ No.
” I asked him if he would punish Craig Hodges and Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no .
So he is somebody who has said over and over again that he appreciates the athlete voice .
Now , Roger Goodell is different .
And we could go right and pivot right to Roger Goodell , because , all before , he said one thing .
Now , now he ’ s trying to kind of slowly turn over a new leaf .
And he first made the press conference to say now he wants to embrace NFL players protesting and using their voices , but he left out Colin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t really do without , you know , mentioning the one person who you whiteballed from the league , you know , for doing exactly what you ’ re saying that you ’ re apologizing for now .
But then he tried to come back with this , and he wants to encourage teams .
I don ’ t know if it ’ s little — you know , too little , too late for all of that , you know , too little , too late type of a thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t worry about when people get there .
If he ’ s finally noticed it , if he ’ s finally woken up , and he ’ s finally said , “ OK , I was wrong , and I want to change my ways , ” OK. Now let ’ s see you put action to that .
It ’ s OK to say that , use the words and use statements and things of that nature , but now you have to put action by it .
And so , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy change in the way that he conducts it .
And first , it has to be with bringing back Colin Kaepernick , because he is the symbol of you trying to squash the athlete voice .
It ’ s not just about one person .
It ’ s about what you whiteballing the one person means to the entire culture .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , Etan , I want to thank you so much for being with us and end with the words of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar , who wrote in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America is like dust in the air .
It seems invisible — even if you ’ re choking on it — until you let the sun in .
Then you see it ’ s everywhere .
As long as we keep shining that light , we have a chance of cleaning it wherever it lands .
But we have to stay vigilant , because it ’ s always still in the air.
” Those are the words of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar , the basketball legend .
Etan Thomas , I want to thank you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The podcast that you started , again , is started on WPFW , the Pacifica station in Washington , D.C .

The Black Lives Matter protests are dramatically shifting dialogues about racial justice in sports, says former NBA player, author and activist Etan Thomas. He describes how athletes are forcing a reckoning about systemic racism in professional sports, including in NASCAR, which has rallied around the sole Black driver competing in the Cup Series, Bubba Wallace, who led a push to ban Confederate flags from races. “It’s amazing what’s happening in NASCAR,” Thomas says. “They did more in 48 hours than the NFL did for Colin Kaepernick for four or five years.”
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González, as we turn to look at the fight for racial justice in sports. The FBI said Tuesday NASCAR driver Bubba Wallace was not the target of a hate crime and that a noose found in his garage had been there since last year. NASCAR described the item as a, quote, “garage door pull rope fashioned like a noose” and says it had been there for months before the stall was assigned to Wallace. NASCAR launched an investigation after a crew member discovered the noose Sunday at the Talladega Superspeedway in Alabama. Bubba Wallace, who is the only African American driver in NASCAR’s elite Cup Series, tweeted the, quote, “act of racism and hatred leaves me incredibly saddened.” On Tuesday night, he told CNN he stands by what he said.
BUBBA WALLACE: The image that I have and I have seen of what was hanging in my garage is not a — is not a garage pull. I’ve been racing all my life. We’ve raced out of hundreds of garages, that never had garage pulls like that. So, people that want to call it a garage pull and put out old videos and photos of knots being in their — as their evidence, go ahead. But from the evidence that we have and that I have, it’s a straight-up noose. The FBI has stated it was a noose over and over again.
AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s Bubba Wallace. On Sunday, a plane circled over the track at the Talladega Superspeedway towing a Confederate flag and a banner reading “Defund NASCAR,” to push back against the decision of NASCAR to ban the Confederate flag at its raceways.
Meanwhile, Dustin Skinner, the son of former NASCAR driver Mike Skinner, apologized Tuesday for writing a Facebook post saying that Bubba Wallace should be dragged around the pits with the noose.
Well, from NASCAR to NFL, where Commissioner Roger Goodell now says he encourages teams to sign quarterback Colin Kaepernick, we’re joined by Etan Thomas, athlete and activist, who spent 11 years in the NBA, co-host of the weekly podcast The Collision: Where Sports and Politics Collide, with Dave Zirin. His latest book, We Matter: Athletes and Activism.
It’s great to have you with us, Etan. Let’s start with what’s going on in NASCAR. Absolutely astounding what Bubba Wallace has accomplished, pushing hard for the Confederate flag to be banned from the raceways, and NASCAR finally did comply, and to see, before the FBI said they discovered that this noose-like rope had been there for months, all of the elite car drivers — Bubba Wallace is the only African American elite NASCAR car driver — walking with him in a Black Lives Matter-like protest. And, of course, right before that, Bubba Wallace had unveiled his racing car, which was black with bold white letters, “Black Lives Matter,” and he wore a T-shirt that said “I can’t breathe.” Talk about what’s happening in NASCAR.
ETAN THOMAS: I mean, I think — first of all, thanks for having me on.
And I think it’s amazing, what’s happening in NASCAR, to be honest with you. I had a chance to interview Brad Daugherty, who is a team owner in NASCAR, a former NBA player, yesterday for another show that I have, Center of Attention on Twitch. And he told me about the culture of NASCAR. And I have to — admittedly, no, I’m not an avid watcher of NASCAR. I don’t watch NASCAR all the time. But he talked about how all of the different drivers rallied around Bubba Wallace, and that show of solidarity, and how he said that, in his words, “that wouldn’t have happened 20 years ago.”
Now, getting all to the particulars of the noose, and the FBI have called it a noose many times. They didn’t say that it wasn’t a noose. They didn’t say — well, they called it a noose, just to make that clear, no matter when it was placed there. And why Bubba Wallace was given that particular garage, you know, I don’t know. But they did call it a noose.
But the part that was really impressive to me is, number one, the way that NASCAR immediately rallied around Bubba Wallace. They did more in 48 hours than the NFL did for Colin Kaepernick for four or five years, or however long it’s been. But the show of solidarity around NASCAR, around the drivers — you know, which is different than the fans. So the fans had one reaction. You saw a lot of it — I mean, I’ve even seen it in Twitter mentions. I posted my support for Bubba Wallace, and I just saw the mentions after me. Like, there’s a certain demographic that is in NASCAR, and that’s undeniable. But the drivers don’t match that demographic. And that’s one thing that I didn’t know. I just thought all the — you know, I thought they were one and the same.
But the show of solidarity is something that we’re seeing all across the country, I think, what we saw in NASCAR with that. Right now at this time, since George Floyd’s murder, I’ve seen more white people who have been protesting, who have been rallying around as allies, who want to be allies, than I have ever seen in my lifetime, to be honest with you. And, you know, we can’t worry about where were you, where have you been all this time. You know, like, you’re late to the party. OK, that’s fine. We don’t have to worry about that. But you’re here now. So now is time for you to use your privilege to be able to push for things to actually change. And I think that’s a reflection of where we are in the society. And those drivers in NASCAR, they are pushing for the culture of NASCAR to change.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Etan Thomas, I wanted to ask you about the other sports. Obviously, Major League Baseball is trying to salvage its season. The NFL is in a quandary about what to do. And the NBA now is seeking to restart, to get into the playoffs, but there are battles between the players themselves.
ETAN THOMAS: Right.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Brooklyn Nets star Kyrie Irving recently posted on his Instagram account, “It’s clear White Supremacy and Corporations use us Native Indigenous Black Folk when it is beneficial for their agenda and pockets, so be aware of the truth in plain sight.” So, Kyrie is at least saying that the players should consider not participating, while LeBron James, obviously the biggest star in the NBA and probably in American sports, is saying, “No, let’s play and make our statements through our playing.” I’m wondering your perspective on the battle among the NBA players about the way forward.
ETAN THOMAS: I don’t see that it has to be a battle. I think there’s two different approaches to be able to reach one common goal. We’re going back to the ’68 Olympics, and I had the chance to be able to interview both John Carlos and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in my book, We Matter: Athletes and Activism, and we talked about this very topic. And Kareem Abdul-Jabbar elected not to go to the ’68 Olympics. He didn’t go. And John Carlos, of course, went to the ’68 Olympics and did the Black Power salute during the — on the podium, and that reverberated to even today. Now, both of them deserve respect.
And that’s my issue with how — and my approach to hearing Kyrie and hearing LeBron. When I turn on the news and I’m looking at Stephen A. Smith and Charles Barkley and even Michael Wilbon, and the inflammatory language that they use when describing Kyrie and Dwight Howard and Avery Bradley, who have said that maybe this isn’t the best time for us to be worrying about basketball, maybe there’s other things that are — a movement that is going on right now that we should be focused on, and the words that they chose to use, like “stupid” and “dumb” and “ridiculous” and — I would ask Stephen A. Smith, “Would you call Kareem Abdul-Jabbar foolish for not going to the ’68 Olympics?” I don’t think that’s — there’s room for both discussions. There’s room for a civil debate in both of these approaches.
Now, on one hand, we have precedent. We have the WNBA, who did go, and they went to their — as an entire league a few years ago, and I was able to interview Swin Cash and Tamika Catchings about it in my book.
AMY GOODMAN: This is the women’s league.
ETAN THOMAS: And what they did — what’s that?
AMY GOODMAN: The women’s league.
ETAN THOMAS: The women’s league, yeah, the WNBA. And what they did a few years ago, after the back-to-back murders of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling, was they, as an entire league, made a statement. So, every single game, what they did was they had an actual media blackout. So they would answer like two questions from the game, and then, after that, every question would be dealing with what the topic was right there, which was police brutality and the police accountability and what they could do to change things. And they had the entire league. They had white players, foreign players that ain’t even from here. They didn’t even know what was going on. But they educated them on it, and they saw their sisters that were hurting, and they did it together. Yes, that’s one approach.
AMY GOODMAN: Etan, I wanted to get your comment on the NBA Commissioner Adam Silver speaking about the league’s responsibility in addressing racial inequality.
ADAM SILVER: The NBA can have a — almost an unparalleled voice in this conversation because of what we stand for, because we represent, frankly — I mean, when you think about our players, some of the best-known Black people in the entire world are part of the NBA and now part of the WNBA. So we know we can have a very important voice. … Let’s make sure that in returning to basketball, a larger, broader message about social equality, racial issues are not somehow lost in the discussion.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s the NBA Commissioner Adam Silver. I was wondering what you think has to happen right now. He was talking alongside Magic Johnson in a virtual conversation. And then we’ll move on to the NFL, very quickly.
ETAN THOMAS: Well, I think that that’s just a reflection of who he is. He is very different than his predecessor. And people have to always remember, his predecessor — under his predecessor, David Stern, you know, Craig Hodges and Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf were whiteballed from the league. So he is very different. And I had a — I’m not just name dropping, but I interviewed him for my book, as well. And I have another interview that I had of Adam Silver, as well. And I asked him, you know, “Would you punish someone who took a stand for something that you disagree with?” And he said, “No.” I asked him if he would punish Craig Hodges and Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf under his watch, and he said no. So he is somebody who has said over and over again that he appreciates the athlete voice.
Now, Roger Goodell is different. And we could go right and pivot right to Roger Goodell, because, all before, he said one thing. Now, now he’s trying to kind of slowly turn over a new leaf. And he first made the press conference to say now he wants to embrace NFL players protesting and using their voices, but he left out Colin Kaepernick’s name, which you can’t really do without, you know, mentioning the one person who you whiteballed from the league, you know, for doing exactly what you’re saying that you’re apologizing for now. But then he tried to come back with this, and he wants to encourage teams. I don’t know if it’s little — you know, too little, too late for all of that, you know, too little, too late type of a thing. But, again, we can’t worry about when people get there. If he’s finally noticed it, if he’s finally woken up, and he’s finally said, “OK, I was wrong, and I want to change my ways,” OK. Now let’s see you put action to that. It’s OK to say that, use the words and use statements and things of that nature, but now you have to put action by it. And so, I have to see real, actionable policy change in the way that he conducts it. And first, it has to be with bringing back Colin Kaepernick, because he is the symbol of you trying to squash the athlete voice. It’s not just about one person. It’s about what you whiteballing the one person means to the entire culture.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Etan, I want to thank you so much for being with us and end with the words of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, who wrote in the Los Angeles Times, “Racism in America is like dust in the air. It seems invisible — even if you’re choking on it — until you let the sun in. Then you see it’s everywhere. As long as we keep shining that light, we have a chance of cleaning it wherever it lands. But we have to stay vigilant, because it’s always still in the air.” Those are the words of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, the basketball legend. Etan Thomas, I want to thank you so much for being with us. The podcast that you started, again, is started on WPFW, the Pacifica station in Washington, D.C.


truthout--2020-06-24--Arizona Mega-Church Hosting Trump Falsely Claims Air Filter Kills 99.9% of COVID

Disease experts rejected claims by an Arizona mega-church set to host President Donald Trump on Tuesday that its new air filtration system is capable of killing 99.9 % of the new coronavirus .
Brendon Zastrow , the chief financial officer at Dream City Church , and Pastor Luke Barnett posted a video touting the CleanAir EXP filter ahead of Trump ’ s visit .
“ When you come into our auditorium , 99.9 % of COVID is gone — if it was there in the first place , ” Zastrow said in the video obtained by TMZ .
“ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our church , ” Barnett added .
“ And it kills 99.9 % of COVID within 10 minutes… .
It ’ s ionization of the air .
COVID can not live in that environment.
” However , experts warned the claim was false .
“ This is absurd and will not protect you , ” Matthew Scotch , an epidemiologist at Arizona State University , told The Daily Beast .
“ The thing with rallies , for example , is that people are really close to each other .
So even if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person coughs on this person , that person is clearly going to get sick , ” Dr. Murtaza Akhter , an emergency physician at the University of Arizona , told local news outlet AZFamily .
“ There ’ s no way for that particle or whatever you call it to be filtered.
” CleanAir EXP claimed on its website as recently as Monday night that its filter “ eliminates 99.9 % of coronavirus in the air in less than 10 minutes.
” There are numerous types of coronaviruses .
The website also claimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ active coronavirus 229E test surrogate.
” The Daily Beast noted that “ coronavirus 229E causes common-cold symptoms but is much less deadly than SARS-CoV-2.
” After the outlet inquired about the claim , company president Jerry McGuire told The Daily Beast that its website had been updated to say the system can “ safely eliminate 99.9 % of viruses and bacteria ” rather than 99.9 % of the coronavirus .
“ The new statement also claimed that the company has tested its filter on cystovirus phi6 as a second test surrogate for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ popular pathogen for laboratory use , ” the outlet reported .
“ But even if the CleanAir EXP filter does remove some pathogens from the air , the process by which it does so can still leave people exposed to potential infection.
” Scientists accused the company of making false claims in its marketing .
“ This is not ‘ zapping ’ the virus and does not mean the virus has been rendered non-infectious , ” Herek Clack , an environmental engineer at the University of Michigan , told the outlet .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 99.9 % removal in 10 minutes is almost certainly a test where the device is placed in a room , the room is filled with viral aerosols and once the device is turned on , it ‘ drains ’ the air of the aerosols .
That scenario doesn ’ t reflect what happens if people are present.
” The technology is not able to counteract the spread of the coronavirus , he added .
“ If one or more people are present , and one or more of them is shedding the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strong enough to protect people in their immediate vicinity , and the amount of virus they ’ re shedding replaces the virus being ‘ drained ’ — sort of like draining a tub with the faucet still flowing , ” he said .
“ The result will be a slower net removal of viruses from the air than 10 minutes , or no net removal or in the extreme case , a net increase in viral aerosols.
” A 2015 study by researchers at the University of Minnesota concluded that the effectiveness of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Distance to the source of ions , type of pathogen and particle size influenced the removal efficiency , ” the authors said .
Akhter raised ethical questions about the church ’ s leadership , calling their claims “ irresponsible.
” “ And to say something to your congregation … like , ‘ You ’ re going to be completely safe when people are dying ? '
” Akhter questioned .
“ I mean , I ’ m on shift right now .
I just stepped away for a minute .
I literally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end up dying.
” Arizona has seen COVID-19 cases explode since the state reopened .
Maricopa County , where Trump ’ s speech is scheduled to take place , is one of the top-10 hardest-hit areas in the U.S. , according to data from John ’ s Hopkins University .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found that the virus can spread very quickly in church settings .
Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego , a Democrat , warned that Trump ’ s church rally is “ not sanctioned or permitted by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not permit political events.
” “ Furthermore , it does not abide by current CDC guidelines during COVID-19 , ” she said in a statement , adding she does not believe that “ an event of this magnitude can be held safely , particularly as Arizona sees rising COVID cases.
” Gallego noted that the church had promised to screen attendees for fevers and distribute masks , urging Trump to wear one himself .
“ We ’ ve seen tremendous compliance with the mask ordinance that went into effect this weekend .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ particularly any elected official , should set an example to residents by wearing a mask , ” she said .
“ This includes the president .
”

Disease experts rejected claims by an Arizona mega-church set to host President Donald Trump on Tuesday that its new air filtration system is capable of killing 99.9% of the new coronavirus.
Brendon Zastrow, the chief financial officer at Dream City Church, and Pastor Luke Barnett posted a video touting the CleanAir EXP filter ahead of Trump’s visit.
“When you come into our auditorium, 99.9% of COVID is gone — if it was there in the first place,” Zastrow said in the video obtained by TMZ.
“It was technology developed by some members of our church,” Barnett added. “And it kills 99.9% of COVID within 10 minutes…. It’s ionization of the air. COVID cannot live in that environment.”
However, experts warned the claim was false.
“This is absurd and will not protect you,” Matthew Scotch, an epidemiologist at Arizona State University, told The Daily Beast.
“The thing with rallies, for example, is that people are really close to each other. So even if they have a filtration system, if this person coughs on this person, that person is clearly going to get sick,” Dr. Murtaza Akhter, an emergency physician at the University of Arizona, told local news outlet AZFamily. “There’s no way for that particle or whatever you call it to be filtered.”
CleanAir EXP claimed on its website as recently as Monday night that its filter “eliminates 99.9% of coronavirus in the air in less than 10 minutes.”
There are numerous types of coronaviruses. The website also claimed the system was tested on an “active coronavirus 229E test surrogate.”
The Daily Beast noted that “coronavirus 229E causes common-cold symptoms but is much less deadly than SARS-CoV-2.”
After the outlet inquired about the claim, company president Jerry McGuire told The Daily Beast that its website had been updated to say the system can “safely eliminate 99.9% of viruses and bacteria” rather than 99.9% of the coronavirus.
“The new statement also claimed that the company has tested its filter on cystovirus phi6 as a second test surrogate for the novel coronavirus. Cystovirus phi6 is a popular pathogen for laboratory use,” the outlet reported. “But even if the CleanAir EXP filter does remove some pathogens from the air, the process by which it does so can still leave people exposed to potential infection.”
Scientists accused the company of making false claims in its marketing.
“This is not ‘zapping’ the virus and does not mean the virus has been rendered non-infectious,” Herek Clack, an environmental engineer at the University of Michigan, told the outlet. “Perhaps the most damning critique is that the 99.9% removal in 10 minutes is almost certainly a test where the device is placed in a room, the room is filled with viral aerosols and once the device is turned on, it ‘drains’ the air of the aerosols. That scenario doesn’t reflect what happens if people are present.”
The technology is not able to counteract the spread of the coronavirus, he added.
“If one or more people are present, and one or more of them is shedding the virus, this technology isn’t strong enough to protect people in their immediate vicinity, and the amount of virus they’re shedding replaces the virus being ‘drained’ — sort of like draining a tub with the faucet still flowing,” he said. “The result will be a slower net removal of viruses from the air than 10 minutes, or no net removal or in the extreme case, a net increase in viral aerosols.”
A 2015 study by researchers at the University of Minnesota concluded that the effectiveness of air filters on viruses varies greatly.
“Distance to the source of ions, type of pathogen and particle size influenced the removal efficiency,” the authors said.
Akhter raised ethical questions about the church’s leadership, calling their claims “irresponsible.”
“And to say something to your congregation … like, ‘You’re going to be completely safe when people are dying?'” Akhter questioned. “I mean, I’m on shift right now. I just stepped away for a minute. I literally see people coming in sick people who end up dying.”
Arizona has seen COVID-19 cases explode since the state reopened. Maricopa County, where Trump’s speech is scheduled to take place, is one of the top-10 hardest-hit areas in the U.S., according to data from John’s Hopkins University.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found that the virus can spread very quickly in church settings.
Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego, a Democrat, warned that Trump’s church rally is “not sanctioned or permitted by the City of Phoenix, as the city does not permit political events.”
“Furthermore, it does not abide by current CDC guidelines during COVID-19,” she said in a statement, adding she does not believe that “an event of this magnitude can be held safely, particularly as Arizona sees rising COVID cases.”
Gallego noted that the church had promised to screen attendees for fevers and distribute masks, urging Trump to wear one himself.
“We’ve seen tremendous compliance with the mask ordinance that went into effect this weekend. Everyone attending tomorrow’s event, particularly any elected official, should set an example to residents by wearing a mask,” she said. “This includes the president.”
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--2020-06-24--AOC Trounces Wall Street-Backed Democratic Primary Opponent

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez handily defeated CNBC contributor and Wall Street-backed challenger Michelle Caruso-Cabrera in the Democratic primary for New York ’ s 14th Congressional District on Tuesday , a victory that the progressive congresswoman celebrated as evidence that “ money couldn ’ t buy a movement.
” “ Wall Street CEOs , from Goldman Sachs to Blackstone , poured in millions to defeat our grassroots campaign tonight , ” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted after the Associated Press declared her the winner Tuesday night .
“ Thank you NY-14 , and every person who pitched in for tonight ’ s victory , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s to speaking truth to power.
” The race was not close , despite Caruso-Cabrera ’ s aggressive corporate fundraising efforts and backing from finance industry titans like Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman — a donor to President Donald Trump — and Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon .
With a 100 % of precincts reporting , Ocasio-Cortez defeated Caruso-Cabrera 72.6 % to 19.4 % .
Absentee ballots in New York have yet to be counted .
Ocasio-Cortez , whose landslide defeat of former Rep. Joe Crowley in 2018 stunned the Democratic establishment , stressed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seriously from the beginning in order to prove that her upset victory was no “ fluke.
” “ Our win was treated as an aberration , or because my opponent ‘ didn ’ t try , ' ” the New York congresswoman tweeted .
“ So from the start , tonight ’ s race was important to me .
Tonight we are proving that the people ’ s movement in NY isn ’ t an accident .
It ’ s a mandate .
”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez handily defeated CNBC contributor and Wall Street-backed challenger Michelle Caruso-Cabrera in the Democratic primary for New York’s 14th Congressional District on Tuesday, a victory that the progressive congresswoman celebrated as evidence that “money couldn’t buy a movement.”
“Wall Street CEOs, from Goldman Sachs to Blackstone, poured in millions to defeat our grassroots campaign tonight,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted after the Associated Press declared her the winner Tuesday night.
“Thank you NY-14, and every person who pitched in for tonight’s victory,” the congresswoman said. “Here’s to speaking truth to power.”
The race was not close, despite Caruso-Cabrera’s aggressive corporate fundraising efforts and backing from finance industry titans like Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman — a donor to President Donald Trump — and Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon.
With a 100% of precincts reporting, Ocasio-Cortez defeated Caruso-Cabrera 72.6% to 19.4%. Absentee ballots in New York have yet to be counted.
Ocasio-Cortez, whose landslide defeat of former Rep. Joe Crowley in 2018 stunned the Democratic establishment, stressed that she took the 2020 primary race seriously from the beginning in order to prove that her upset victory was no “fluke.”
“Our win was treated as an aberration, or because my opponent ‘didn’t try,'” the New York congresswoman tweeted. “So from the start, tonight’s race was important to me. Tonight we are proving that the people’s movement in NY isn’t an accident. It’s a mandate.”
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--2020-06-24--Trump’s Ratings in Free Fall as COVID Infections Rise by 25 Percent in One Week

As the nation struggles to rein in new cases of coronavirus , most Americans by a wide margin disapprove of the way President Donald Trump has tried to manage the crisis , according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll published on Wednesday .
The poll finds that nearly three-in-five Americans , 58 percent , disapprove of how Trump has handled the pandemic and believe he has done a poor job of trying to address and contain the spread of COVID-19 .
Only 37 percent of Americans believe Trump has done a good job .
Nationally , coronavirus cases have jumped by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Spikes have been seen in states that were particularly less restrictive about social distancing , or that have relaxed their rules earlier than others , such as Texas , Florida and Arizona .
Daily coronavirus cases in the country as a whole appear to be trending upward .
According to Johns Hopkins University ’ s Coronavirus Resource Center , Tuesday was the third-highest day of new cases being reported since the pandemic reached the U.S. , with around 34,700 new cases being recorded .
More than 2.3 million cumulative cases of coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this point , with more than 120,000 Americans having died from the disease so far .
Other tracking websites have higher estimates of these numbers , and indeed , most experts believe any data being reported right now are conservative guesses of what the true total entails .
A separate New York Times/Siena College poll released this week shows similar disapproval numbers for Trump on the issue of coronavirus , with 58 percent of registered voters in that poll also saying the president has done a poor job leading on the issue .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic , as well as a host of other issues , may be contributing toward dismal electoral support for him in the run-up to November .
In that same poll , voters said they preferred Joe Biden , the Democratic challenger to Trump in this year ’ s presidential race , by a margin of 50 percent to 36 percent .
Many have been critical of Trump ’ s response to the disease from the beginning , perhaps with good reason .
For several weeks in February and early March , Trump refused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the United States , suggesting it was a “ new hoax ” that his political opponents were using to make him look bad .
Trump has not demonstrated a deep understanding about how the disease works , however , including predicting early on that warmer spring temperatures would kill the disease off on its own , citing no scientific evidence to back up his assertions .
He also flouted social distancing rules , such as wearing a mask in public , and even encouraged other Americans to protest against states ’ efforts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ running counter to standards that were promoted by his own administration while doing so .
The president appeared to demonstrate more confusion on Tuesday , when he appeared at a rally in Phoenix , Arizona .
At that event , Trump lamented that there were too many names for coronavirus , although in making that complaint , he cited racist terminology that health experts have cautioned against using .
Trump then expressed wonder at where the “ 19 ” in “ COVID-19 ” came from , recounting an early conversation with experts on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ what ’ s the 19 ?
’ COVID-19 , some people can ’ t explain what the ‘ 19 ’ [ means ] , ” Trump said .
“ COVID-19 , I said ‘ that ’ s an odd name ’ .
” The number in COVID-19 refers to the year ( 2019 ) in which that version of the disease was first observed .

Trump continues to make light of the public health crisis, choosing to complain about the many names of coronavirus.
As the nation struggles to rein in new cases of coronavirus, most Americans by a wide margin disapprove of the way President Donald Trump has tried to manage the crisis, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll published on Wednesday.
The poll finds that nearly three-in-five Americans, 58 percent, disapprove of how Trump has handled the pandemic and believe he has done a poor job of trying to address and contain the spread of COVID-19. Only 37 percent of Americans believe Trump has done a good job.
Nationally, coronavirus cases have jumped by 25 percent over the past seven days. Spikes have been seen in states that were particularly less restrictive about social distancing, or that have relaxed their rules earlier than others, such as Texas, Florida and Arizona.
Daily coronavirus cases in the country as a whole appear to be trending upward. According to Johns Hopkins University’s Coronavirus Resource Center, Tuesday was the third-highest day of new cases being reported since the pandemic reached the U.S., with around 34,700 new cases being recorded.
More than 2.3 million cumulative cases of coronavirus have been identified in the U.S. at this point, with more than 120,000 Americans having died from the disease so far. Other tracking websites have higher estimates of these numbers, and indeed, most experts believe any data being reported right now are conservative guesses of what the true total entails.
A separate New York Times/Siena College poll released this week shows similar disapproval numbers for Trump on the issue of coronavirus, with 58 percent of registered voters in that poll also saying the president has done a poor job leading on the issue.
Trump’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as a host of other issues, may be contributing toward dismal electoral support for him in the run-up to November. In that same poll, voters said they preferred Joe Biden, the Democratic challenger to Trump in this year’s presidential race, by a margin of 50 percent to 36 percent.
Many have been critical of Trump’s response to the disease from the beginning, perhaps with good reason. For several weeks in February and early March, Trump refused to acknowledge coronavirus could pose a problem for the United States, suggesting it was a “new hoax” that his political opponents were using to make him look bad.
Trump has not demonstrated a deep understanding about how the disease works, however, including predicting early on that warmer spring temperatures would kill the disease off on its own, citing no scientific evidence to back up his assertions. He also flouted social distancing rules, such as wearing a mask in public, and even encouraged other Americans to protest against states’ efforts to quell the spread of COVID-19, running counter to standards that were promoted by his own administration while doing so.
The president appeared to demonstrate more confusion on Tuesday, when he appeared at a rally in Phoenix, Arizona. At that event, Trump lamented that there were too many names for coronavirus, although in making that complaint, he cited racist terminology that health experts have cautioned against using.
Trump then expressed wonder at where the “19” in “COVID-19” came from, recounting an early conversation with experts on the matter.
“I said, ‘what’s the 19?’ COVID-19, some people can’t explain what the ‘19’ [means],” Trump said. “COVID-19, I said ‘that’s an odd name’.”
The number in COVID-19 refers to the year (2019) in which that version of the disease was first observed.
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--2020-06-24--Get Police Out of Schools — Including University Campuses

The brutal police killings of George Floyd , Breonna Taylor and Tony McDade , among many others , and the wave of national Black-led protests against racist police brutality that followed , have permanently altered the realm of the possible .
Once deemed fringe or too radical , calls to defund and abolish the police are not only within view of the mainstream , but are suddenly on the table .
Such demands have fueled new and already existing movements to dismantle and defund police on college campuses .
In particular , the University of Minnesota ’ s ( UM @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ties with the Minneapolis Police Department ( MPD ) in response to Floyd ’ s murder , as called for by student activists , has further shifted the paradigm , demonstrating that universities can absolutely act to remove law enforcement from their campuses .
Specifically , UM stated that it would no longer contract with the MPD to provide additional police for football games , concerts or other major events , or for specialized services ( such as support for explosives detection ) .
To be sure , the decision does not necessarily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police abolition or even divestment from partnering with other forms of external law enforcement — it is merely a proclamation that the university will not partner with MPD .
Still , the decision has served as inspiration for countless student activists and groups across the country , who have released public statements urging their universities to end university-police relationships and to abolish campus policing altogether .
Citing numerous instances of the unlawful search , harassment , racial profiling , assault , arrest , coercion , incarceration , police beatings , and in some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ students or residents , these statements reveal an undeniable pattern of anti-Black racist policing practices and violence .
A Bureau of Justice Statistics report based on a nationwide survey found that 95 percent of public and private four-year colleges and universities with student bodies of 2,500 or more have their own campus police forces .
Like municipal police , the majority of university campus police are authorized to carry a gun , chemical or pepper spray , a baton , and in some cases , a taser .
They are authorized to patrol @ @ @ @ @ @ @ search and conduct arrests of community residents not affiliated with the university .
However , they are not subject to state record laws .
What this means is that campus police are not required to publish their policies and procedures or provide any other data to the public .
Their right to conceal this information makes it difficult to know whether they have violated internal procedures .
The University of Chicago ’ s Police Department ( UCPD ) , one of the largest private police forces in the country , is located on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is surrounded by predominantly Black neighborhoods .
UCPD is composed of 100 officers who hold the same policing authority as municipal officers .
Despite covering a jurisdiction that spans well beyond the boundaries of the university campus with over 65,000 people — a majority of whom are non-university-affiliated — the department is subject to few accountability measures .
UCPD has a long-documented history of criminalizing Black students and residents , a role that many link to the university ’ s urban renewal efforts aimed at displacing Black residents to make the university more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and to make their property developments more profitable .
The UCPD has played a critical role in creating a majority-white university campus surrounded by majority-Black neighborhoods by employing racist policing tactics that terrorize and push Black community members further out .
Data scientist Eric Langowski found that since 2015 , 73 percent of traffic stops and 94 percent of street “ interviews ” conducted by the UCPD were with Black people , who also received citations at double the rate of non-Black people .
In 2018 , UCPD shot Charles Thomas , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was experiencing a mental health crisis .
UCPD subsequently incarcerated Thomas .
This prompted the creation of the # CareNotCops coalition at the University of Chicago , which is currently calling on the university to disband UCPD and make reparations to those victimized by their brutal policing .
Public and private colleges and universities also maintain close working relationships with municipal police departments and often collaborate to enhance crime prevention efforts .
As sites of training and knowledge production for law enforcement , universities help train municipal police forces in the tactics of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police brutality .
Northwestern University , for instance , has a long-established relationship with the Chicago Police Department ( CPD ) and Evanston Police Department .
As the statement put out by Northwestern student groups For Members Only , Coalition NU and the Northwestern University Graduate Workers calling for the divestment of policing and investment in its Black students outlines , “ Northwestern was an early incubator of police science , a rampantly pseudoscientific field ostensibly dedicated to improving police work , but which has long helped serve police departments coerce confessions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” In particular , the letter notes the complicity of Northwestern ’ s Center for Public Safety , an influential law enforcement training center , in promoting and legitimizing violent policing tactics .
The interrogation techniques developed at Northwestern are the same ones used by the notorious CPD detective and commander Jon Burge , who along with several other police officers , coerced , tortured , incriminated and wrongfully convicted several Black and Brown men for crimes they did not commit .
Municipal police departments ’ racist policing practices do not stop when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enact the same kinds of violence .
For instance , the Northwestern students ’ statement highlights numerous instances of police brutality and harassment against primarily Black and Brown students .
There ’ s the story of 20-year-old Trent Hunt , who was recently followed and then tackled by Evanston police for recording the unlawful stop of another young Black man .
Lawrence Crosby , a graduate engineering student , was stopped by Evanston police in 2015 when they received a call about a Black man attempting to steal a car .
Video shows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of the car , then being brutally beaten by six police officers .
Then there ’ s 18-year-old Jesús Sánchez , who was coerced by police into making a false confession in 2014 .
Sánchez was wrongfully convicted and spent over four years in jail for a murder he did not commit .
These collaborations between municipal police and campus police tend to exacerbate anti-Black and racist police violence , putting the lives of primarily non-white people in danger .
For instance , in 2019 , Stephanie Washington and Paul Witherspoon , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ car , were stopped and shot at 16 times by Yale and Hamden police officers who were patrolling together .
Neither Washington nor Witherspoon were arrested and no gun was ever found in their vehicle .
The officers involved were never fired despite putting the life of two people in jeopardy .
Abolishing police on university campuses is also central to pushing back against the austerity measures that universities are already beginning to impose in response to the pandemic .
Citing financial precarity from dwindling revenue from tuition while hoarding billions in endowments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the pandemic to justify cuts to wages , health care and academic programs deemed unprofitable ( and , as is often the case , programs that challenge the white supremacist status quo , such as African American or gender studies programs ) .
When students , staff and faculty organize against these cuts , universities will deploy law enforcement to quash the efforts of those fighting to more equitably redistribute university resources and implement more democratic forms of university governance .
A stark example of this is Johns Hopkins University announcing its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ force .
In 2018 , students and faculty organized in opposition .
They escalated their campaign by occupying an administration building to get the university to cancel its plan .
As one of the organizers made poignantly clear : “ Over 80 cops were deployed to arrest 7 people .
This is a terrible foreshadowing of what Johns Hopkins will do when granted a full armed police force.
” They ’ re not wrong .
Campus administrators ’ intensification of law enforcement on campus is but one manifestation of universities ’ investment in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and “ violence work , ” as Micol Seigel calls it .
Johns Hopkins is one of the top 10 universities in the country with a deep relationship to the military-industrial complex .
As a Vice investigation shows , these universities “ produce the greatest number of students who are employed by the Intelligence Community ( IC ) , have the closest relationships with the national security state , and profit the most from American war-waging.
” Defense and security research funding constitutes nearly half of the $ 134.1 billion allotted to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the majority of which is distributed to these universities to help fund combat training for campus police and students through ROTC programs , labs , intelligence and security programs , the development of artificial intelligence technologies , and sophisticated military weapons that can enable “ better killing.
” This alliance between the university and the national security state — what Henry Giroux calls the military-industrial-academic-complex — is invested in a regime of austerity that has , as Giroux rightfully argues , “ undermined the university as a site of criticism , dissent and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as universities have already proven their readiness to unleash police power on those who dare to challenge their exploitative structures and unjust practices .
Just earlier this year , it was revealed that the University of California at Santa Cruz used military surveillance equipment provided by the California National Guard to surveil UC Santa Cruz graduate workers on strike for an increase to their cost-of-living stipend , which barely covered living expenses in the costly Santa Cruz area .
Over the course of their strike , peaceful strikers faced police aggression repeatedly .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and brutality of the police response has been stark.
” The police were not there to protect the strikers , but rather , to repress their push for higher wages .
And campus police forces are , it turns out , not cheap , raising questions about their continuation during times of financial crisis .
The University of California at Berkeley spent $ 22.4 million between 2018-2019 .
In total , the University of California system spent $ 138.2 million across its campuses on police forces during this same one-year period .
At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pointing to bleak financial futures to justify program , staff and wage cuts , the maintenance of outsized expenditures on campus police forces should give us pause .
Why , we might ask , do universities rarely question or dip into massive law enforcement budgets during times of ostensible financial crisis , choosing instead to furlough workers , pause raises or make programming cuts ?
As popular awareness about racist police violence is quickly dismantling the “ few bad apples ” framework and revealing policing to be rotten at its core , universities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — during a global pandemic , no less — fails to withstand scrutiny and bolsters their longstanding function as bastions of white supremacy .
A common question that arises is : How will we be safe from school shooters without a police force ?
Police officers do not have a good track record at preventing or de-escalating school shootings .
A tragic example of this is the 2018 school shooting in Parkland , Florida , where campus police officers were unable to prevent the massacre .
No clear evidence exists that suggests having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Studies show the opposite .
In a study of 160 active-shooter events between 2000-2013 , the FBI found that the majority of active-shooting incidents end because the shooter chooses to do so , whether through suicide or by fleeing the scene .
Law enforcement only exchanged gunfire with active shooters in less than one-third of active shooting cases ( 28.1 percent ) .
Further , while school shootings are horrific and tragic , they are still quite rare — thus prompting questions about whether they should be driving policy on policing in schools @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mass shootings are , in fact , often tied to the very culture of white supremacy and patriarchy perpetuated by police .
Questions we should be asking instead : Why are universities taking a passive approach by teaching “ run , hide and fight ” as the only preventative measure to mass shootings ?
What are universities doing to help curb this violence other than reinforcing it by assuming it ’ s inevitable ?
Police are enforcers of sexual violence , systemic racism , racial capitalism and white supremacy .
As Robert T. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ From the mid-1960s through the decade of the 1970s , American public universities admitted more Black and Latinx students in the hopes of expanding social mobility , but even as public universities opened their campuses to first-generation students they simultaneously developed new patterns of campus policing and surveillance.
” Fast forward to today , and it ’ s clear that the pattern of enacting anti-Black and racist policing violence to silence Black students and non-Black students of color has not changed .
It ’ s only worsened .
With mounting pressure from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abolish campus policing , universities have taken to sharing numerous letters of solidarity , promising to put together more committees to oversee “ change.
” But history teaches us that these committees , diversity initiatives , and task forces are alibis for inaction and placating dissenting voices .
The only solution to decreasing the threat that police pose to students , especially students of color , is to defund and abolish policing .
If universities truly care about their Black students ’ public safety and well-being , then they will defund , remove @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Part of the Series The Road to Abolition
The brutal police killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Tony McDade, among many others, and the wave of national Black-led protests against racist police brutality that followed, have permanently altered the realm of the possible. Once deemed fringe or too radical, calls to defund and abolish the police are not only within view of the mainstream, but are suddenly on the table. Such demands have fueled new and already existing movements to dismantle and defund police on college campuses. In particular, the University of Minnesota’s (UM’s) move to cut some ties with the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) in response to Floyd’s murder, as called for by student activists, has further shifted the paradigm, demonstrating that universities can absolutely act to remove law enforcement from their campuses.
Specifically, UM stated that it would no longer contract with the MPD to provide additional police for football games, concerts or other major events, or for specialized services (such as support for explosives detection). To be sure, the decision does not necessarily represent a firm commitment from UM to police abolition or even divestment from partnering with other forms of external law enforcement — it is merely a proclamation that the university will not partner with MPD. Still, the decision has served as inspiration for countless student activists and groups across the country, who have released public statements urging their universities to end university-police relationships and to abolish campus policing altogether. Citing numerous instances of the unlawful search, harassment, racial profiling, assault, arrest, coercion, incarceration, police beatings, and in some instances, the killing of primarily Black students or residents, these statements reveal an undeniable pattern of anti-Black racist policing practices and violence.
A Bureau of Justice Statistics report based on a nationwide survey found that 95 percent of public and private four-year colleges and universities with student bodies of 2,500 or more have their own campus police forces. Like municipal police, the majority of university campus police are authorized to carry a gun, chemical or pepper spray, a baton, and in some cases, a taser. They are authorized to patrol neighboring areas, and to stop, search and conduct arrests of community residents not affiliated with the university. However, they are not subject to state record laws. What this means is that campus police are not required to publish their policies and procedures or provide any other data to the public. Their right to conceal this information makes it difficult to know whether they have violated internal procedures.
The University of Chicago’s Police Department (UCPD), one of the largest private police forces in the country, is located on the South Side of Chicago, which is surrounded by predominantly Black neighborhoods. UCPD is composed of 100 officers who hold the same policing authority as municipal officers. Despite covering a jurisdiction that spans well beyond the boundaries of the university campus with over 65,000 people — a majority of whom are non-university-affiliated — the department is subject to few accountability measures.
UCPD has a long-documented history of criminalizing Black students and residents, a role that many link to the university’s urban renewal efforts aimed at displacing Black residents to make the university more appealing to white students and their parents, and to make their property developments more profitable. The UCPD has played a critical role in creating a majority-white university campus surrounded by majority-Black neighborhoods by employing racist policing tactics that terrorize and push Black community members further out. Data scientist Eric Langowski found that since 2015, 73 percent of traffic stops and 94 percent of street “interviews” conducted by the UCPD were with Black people, who also received citations at double the rate of non-Black people. In 2018, UCPD shot Charles Thomas, a fourth-year Black-Asian student, while he was experiencing a mental health crisis. UCPD subsequently incarcerated Thomas. This prompted the creation of the #CareNotCops coalition at the University of Chicago, which is currently calling on the university to disband UCPD and make reparations to those victimized by their brutal policing.
Public and private colleges and universities also maintain close working relationships with municipal police departments and often collaborate to enhance crime prevention efforts. As sites of training and knowledge production for law enforcement, universities help train municipal police forces in the tactics of order maintenance and criminalization that fuel racist police brutality. Northwestern University, for instance, has a long-established relationship with the Chicago Police Department (CPD) and Evanston Police Department. As the statement put out by Northwestern student groups For Members Only, Coalition NU and the Northwestern University Graduate Workers calling for the divestment of policing and investment in its Black students outlines, “Northwestern was an early incubator of police science, a rampantly pseudoscientific field ostensibly dedicated to improving police work, but which has long helped serve police departments coerce confessions, tamper evidence, and illegally surveil communities.” In particular, the letter notes the complicity of Northwestern’s Center for Public Safety, an influential law enforcement training center, in promoting and legitimizing violent policing tactics. The interrogation techniques developed at Northwestern are the same ones used by the notorious CPD detective and commander Jon Burge, who along with several other police officers, coerced, tortured, incriminated and wrongfully convicted several Black and Brown men for crimes they did not commit.
Campus police are not required to publish their policies and procedures or provide any other data to the public.
Municipal police departments’ racist policing practices do not stop when policing university campuses, and campus police enact the same kinds of violence. For instance, the Northwestern students’ statement highlights numerous instances of police brutality and harassment against primarily Black and Brown students. There’s the story of 20-year-old Trent Hunt, who was recently followed and then tackled by Evanston police for recording the unlawful stop of another young Black man. Lawrence Crosby, a graduate engineering student, was stopped by Evanston police in 2015 when they received a call about a Black man attempting to steal a car. Video shows Crosby getting pulled over and being dragged out of the car, then being brutally beaten by six police officers. Then there’s 18-year-old Jesús Sánchez, who was coerced by police into making a false confession in 2014. Sánchez was wrongfully convicted and spent over four years in jail for a murder he did not commit.
These collaborations between municipal police and campus police tend to exacerbate anti-Black and racist police violence, putting the lives of primarily non-white people in danger. For instance, in 2019, Stephanie Washington and Paul Witherspoon, an unarmed Black couple driving in their car, were stopped and shot at 16 times by Yale and Hamden police officers who were patrolling together. Neither Washington nor Witherspoon were arrested and no gun was ever found in their vehicle. The officers involved were never fired despite putting the life of two people in jeopardy.
Municipal police departments’ racist policing practices do not stop when policing university campuses, and campus police enact the same kinds of violence.
Abolishing police on university campuses is also central to pushing back against the austerity measures that universities are already beginning to impose in response to the pandemic. Citing financial precarity from dwindling revenue from tuition while hoarding billions in endowments, university administrations are using the crisis of the pandemic to justify cuts to wages, health care and academic programs deemed unprofitable (and, as is often the case, programs that challenge the white supremacist status quo, such as African American or gender studies programs). When students, staff and faculty organize against these cuts, universities will deploy law enforcement to quash the efforts of those fighting to more equitably redistribute university resources and implement more democratic forms of university governance. A stark example of this is Johns Hopkins University announcing its intention to create an armed private police force. In 2018, students and faculty organized in opposition. They escalated their campaign by occupying an administration building to get the university to cancel its plan. As one of the organizers made poignantly clear: “Over 80 cops were deployed to arrest 7 people. This is a terrible foreshadowing of what Johns Hopkins will do when granted a full armed police force.” They’re not wrong.
Campus administrators’ intensification of law enforcement on campus is but one manifestation of universities’ investment in a broader regime of militarized police power and “violence work,” as Micol Seigel calls it. Johns Hopkins is one of the top 10 universities in the country with a deep relationship to the military-industrial complex. As a Vice investigation shows, these universities “produce the greatest number of students who are employed by the Intelligence Community (IC), have the closest relationships with the national security state, and profit the most from American war-waging.” Defense and security research funding constitutes nearly half of the $134.1 billion allotted to the U.S. Federal Research and Development Budget, the majority of which is distributed to these universities to help fund combat training for campus police and students through ROTC programs, labs, intelligence and security programs, the development of artificial intelligence technologies, and sophisticated military weapons that can enable “better killing.”
Abolishing police on university campuses is also central to pushing back against the austerity measures that universities are already beginning to impose.
This alliance between the university and the national security state — what Henry Giroux calls the military-industrial-academic-complex — is invested in a regime of austerity that has, as Giroux rightfully argues, “undermined the university as a site of criticism, dissent and critical dialogue.” This is evident insofar as universities have already proven their readiness to unleash police power on those who dare to challenge their exploitative structures and unjust practices. Just earlier this year, it was revealed that the University of California at Santa Cruz used military surveillance equipment provided by the California National Guard to surveil UC Santa Cruz graduate workers on strike for an increase to their cost-of-living stipend, which barely covered living expenses in the costly Santa Cruz area. Over the course of their strike, peaceful strikers faced police aggression repeatedly. The strikers noted that “the size and brutality of the police response has been stark.” The police were not there to protect the strikers, but rather, to repress their push for higher wages.
And campus police forces are, it turns out, not cheap, raising questions about their continuation during times of financial crisis. The University of California at Berkeley spent $22.4 million between 2018-2019. In total, the University of California system spent $138.2 million across its campuses on police forces during this same one-year period. At a time when universities and colleges are pointing to bleak financial futures to justify program, staff and wage cuts, the maintenance of outsized expenditures on campus police forces should give us pause. Why, we might ask, do universities rarely question or dip into massive law enforcement budgets during times of ostensible financial crisis, choosing instead to furlough workers, pause raises or make programming cuts? As popular awareness about racist police violence is quickly dismantling the “few bad apples” framework and revealing policing to be rotten at its core, universities’ continued prioritization of police over people — during a global pandemic, no less — fails to withstand scrutiny and bolsters their longstanding function as bastions of white supremacy.
Why do universities rarely question or dip into massive law enforcement budgets during times of ostensible financial crisis, choosing instead to furlough workers, pause raises or make programming cuts?
A common question that arises is: How will we be safe from school shooters without a police force? Police officers do not have a good track record at preventing or de-escalating school shootings. A tragic example of this is the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida, where campus police officers were unable to prevent the massacre. No clear evidence exists that suggests having armed police present reduces school shootings. Studies show the opposite. In a study of 160 active-shooter events between 2000-2013, the FBI found that the majority of active-shooting incidents end because the shooter chooses to do so, whether through suicide or by fleeing the scene. Law enforcement only exchanged gunfire with active shooters in less than one-third of active shooting cases (28.1 percent). Further, while school shootings are horrific and tragic, they are still quite rare — thus prompting questions about whether they should be driving policy on policing in schools. And when they do occur, mass shootings are, in fact, often tied to the very culture of white supremacy and patriarchy perpetuated by police.
Questions we should be asking instead: Why are universities taking a passive approach by teaching “run, hide and fight” as the only preventative measure to mass shootings? What are universities doing to help curb this violence other than reinforcing it by assuming it’s inevitable?
Police are enforcers of sexual violence, systemic racism, racial capitalism and white supremacy. As Robert T. Chase and Yalile Suriel explain, “From the mid-1960s through the decade of the 1970s, American public universities admitted more Black and Latinx students in the hopes of expanding social mobility, but even as public universities opened their campuses to first-generation students they simultaneously developed new patterns of campus policing and surveillance.” Fast forward to today, and it’s clear that the pattern of enacting anti-Black and racist policing violence to silence Black students and non-Black students of color has not changed. It’s only worsened. With mounting pressure from the protests and student calls to defund and abolish campus policing, universities have taken to sharing numerous letters of solidarity, promising to put together more committees to oversee “change.” But history teaches us that these committees, diversity initiatives, and task forces are alibis for inaction and placating dissenting voices. The only solution to decreasing the threat that police pose to students, especially students of color, is to defund and abolish policing. If universities truly care about their Black students’ public safety and well-being, then they will defund, remove and sever ties with the police.
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.