truthout--2020-08-10--ALEC Works to Pass Industry-Backed COVID Liability Shields at the State Level

The American Legislative Exchange Council ( ALEC ) has long fought for restrictions on individuals ’ right to sue in civil court because of unsafe workplaces or products .
It is no surprise , then , that ALEC has joined the U.S. Chamber of Commerce , National Federation of Independent Businesses , and Senate Republicans to push for sweeping limits on the civil liability of employers for coronavirus-related illnesses and deaths in the workplace .
ALEC is a pay-to-play operation where legislators and corporate lobbyists meet behind closed doors to adopt model legislation on a broad range of public policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fund most of ALEC ’ s operations .
During ALEC ’ s virtual annual meeting held in July , legislators were encouraged to introduce a model liability protection bill in their states as part of ALEC ’ s packaged set of model policies considered in response to the COVID-19 pandemic .
The model bill , which was approved through an emergency meeting of ALEC ’ s Civil Justice Task Force in the spring , is similar to a federal lawsuit immunity bill , the Safe to Work Act , that Senate Republicans have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ package .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has declared that the bill ’ s corporate immunity protections for businesses , are a non-negotiable part of the GOP package .
Under the Safe to Work Act , any employee or customer who believes they were infected by COVID-19 would have to account for all other contacts they had with places or people for two weeks prior to diagnosis , and then meet a heightened standard of proof to show that the business made a “ conscious , voluntary act or omission in reckless disregard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guidelines .
An employer is presumed to have made a reasonable effort to protect workers and customers simply by having a written policy that meets government standards , whether they follow it or not .
The federal law would preempt state negligence laws and last until October 1 , 2024 or when a federal coronavirus declaration is lifted by the Secretary of Health and Human Services , whichever is later .
Remington Gregg , Public Citizen ’ s Counsel for Civil Justice and Consumer Rights , told Vox that the bill would make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plaintiff to win in court , if they were even able to get to court .
By linking the stimulus bill to lawsuit protection , something Democrats strongly oppose , McConnell is essentially holding hostage additional aid for people and businesses until he gets his immunity bill .
Meanwhile ALEC is working to pass comparable industry-backed immunity laws in the states .
Its “ Liability Protection for Employers in a Declared Disaster or Public Emergency ” would limit any liability for workplace COVID-19 illnesses and death to “ recklessness or willful misconduct ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican state legislators want to rein in Democratic governors ’ authority to issue mandates on lockdowns or masks , ALEC ’ s immunity bill would include a declaration of an emergency in each state .
Eleven states ( Alabama , Arkansas , Georgia , Iowa , Kansas , Louisiana , Mississippi , North Carolina , Oklahoma , Utah , and Wyoming ) have already enacted COVID-19 immunity laws for businesses , health care providers , or schools by legislation or executive order , and additional immunity legislation is pending in 21 states .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ you give up your right to sue by entering the workplace is language in some bills , with Georgia going so far as to recommend the size of the type to be used in a written warning .
Materials from ALEC ’ s Civil Justice Task Force meeting at the annual meeting examined by the Center for Media and Democracy ( CMD ) show that Matt Fullenbaum , legislate director with the American Tort Reform Association ( ATRA ) , pitched legislators on the need for corporate coronavirus immunity legislation , saying “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and offering his assistance to help move immunity bills in their states .
Fullenbaum and Mark Behrens , “ Private Chair ” of the task force , encouraged ALEC legislators in the meeting to introduce COVID immunity laws , even if governors in their states took executive action , because legislation is “ more durable ” and usually withstands legal challenges better than executive orders .
The Herald Group , a PR firm led by ATRA ’ s former director of public affairs and field operations Matt Well , has launched Job Shield @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a liability shield for our businesses , health care providers , and other entities fighting through the pandemic.
” JSA took out a six-figure ad in late-July in the Washington , D.C. , Beltway area aimed at convincing members of Congress to support liability protections for businesses , stating that , “ The COVID liability shield will stop lawsuit abuse and protect America ’ s comeback.
” The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies is one of the organizations bankrolling the campaign , according to a report in The Hill .
McConnell ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ model state bill would raise the bar for liability and make it more difficult to bring a civil lawsuit against an employer for injuries or death occurring in an unsafe workplace .
Georgetown University Law Professor David Vladeck made the point in testimony before the U.S. Senate , saying , “ The touchstone of common law has always been reasonableness : There is no liability so long as the entity acts reasonably .
On the other hand , when an entity acts unreasonably or irresponsibly and causes harm that is foreseeable , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conditions traditionally required for preemption of state liability law are all absent here .
Congress has displaced state liability law in only a few instances : a focus on a single industry ( e.g.
, nuclear power ) ; strict regulatory oversight by federal agencies ( e.g.
, radioactive wastes ) ; reasonable fear of significant litigation that conflicts with federal goals ( e.g.
, medical devices ) ; and , the necessity for a remedy the market or state law does not provide ( e.g .
black lung ) .
None of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the absence of any effective government regulation , the threat of civil lawsuits serves to create an incentive for employers to take the steps needed to protect workers from the coronavirus pandemic .
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( OSHA ) is the federal office that is supposed to protect employees in the workplace .
However , as of June 30 , OSHA had received more than 6,000 coronavirus-related complaints but only issued one citation and closed 5,220 of the complaints without action .
And OSHA has failed to make compliance with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mandatory for employers .
Georgetown Law Professor David Vladeck testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that , In a letter to U.S. senators opposing a federal immunity measure , the Leadership Council on Civil and Human Rights and more than 50 other civil rights , economic justice , and labor organizations argue that , “ Granting employers legal immunity from accountability to their workers would make it less likely that employers take the steps necessary to protect working people ’ s health and , thus , would further endanger and disadvantage the health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , women , and low-income people who are working in essential jobs or returning to the workforce.
” “ Immunity from liability would eliminate these workers ’ already limited ability to seek justice in the courts and remove a powerful incentive for businesses to maintain a safe working environment , putting our communities at increased risk of illness and death , ” the groups say .
Arn Pearson and David Armiak contributed to this report .

Mitch McConnell is holding hostage additional aid for people and businesses until he gets his immunity bill.
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has long fought for restrictions on individuals’ right to sue in civil court because of unsafe workplaces or products.
It is no surprise, then, that ALEC has joined the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Federation of Independent Businesses, and Senate Republicans to push for sweeping limits on the civil liability of employers for coronavirus-related illnesses and deaths in the workplace.
ALEC is a pay-to-play operation where legislators and corporate lobbyists meet behind closed doors to adopt model legislation on a broad range of public policy issues. Corporations and right-wing private foundations fund most of ALEC’s operations.
During ALEC’s virtual annual meeting held in July, legislators were encouraged to introduce a model liability protection bill in their states as part of ALEC’s packaged set of model policies considered in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The model bill, which was approved through an emergency meeting of ALEC’s Civil Justice Task Force in the spring, is similar to a federal lawsuit immunity bill, the Safe to Work Act, that Senate Republicans have included in their second-round federal coronavirus relief package.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has declared that the bill’s corporate immunity protections for businesses, are a non-negotiable part of the GOP package.
Under the Safe to Work Act, any employee or customer who believes they were infected by COVID-19 would have to account for all other contacts they had with places or people for two weeks prior to diagnosis, and then meet a heightened standard of proof to show that the business made a “conscious, voluntary act or omission in reckless disregard” of government public health requirements or guidelines. An employer is presumed to have made a reasonable effort to protect workers and customers simply by having a written policy that meets government standards, whether they follow it or not.
The federal law would preempt state negligence laws and last until October 1, 2024 or when a federal coronavirus declaration is lifted by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, whichever is later.
Remington Gregg, Public Citizen’s Counsel for Civil Justice and Consumer Rights, told Vox that the bill would make it “almost impossible” for a plaintiff to win in court, if they were even able to get to court.
By linking the stimulus bill to lawsuit protection, something Democrats strongly oppose, McConnell is essentially holding hostage additional aid for people and businesses until he gets his immunity bill.
State Legislation
Meanwhile ALEC is working to pass comparable industry-backed immunity laws in the states. Its “Liability Protection for Employers in a Declared Disaster or Public Emergency” would limit any liability for workplace COVID-19 illnesses and death to “recklessness or willful misconduct” by employers.
At a time when Republican state legislators want to rein in Democratic governors’ authority to issue mandates on lockdowns or masks, ALEC’s immunity bill would include a declaration of an emergency in each state.
Eleven states (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming) have already enacted COVID-19 immunity laws for businesses, health care providers, or schools by legislation or executive order, and additional immunity legislation is pending in 21 states.
The simple posting of a warning that you give up your right to sue by entering the workplace is language in some bills, with Georgia going so far as to recommend the size of the type to be used in a written warning.
Materials from ALEC’s Civil Justice Task Force meeting at the annual meeting examined by the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) show that Matt Fullenbaum, legislate director with the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA), pitched legislators on the need for corporate coronavirus immunity legislation, saying “The liability threat is real,” and offering his assistance to help move immunity bills in their states.
Fullenbaum and Mark Behrens, “Private Chair” of the task force, encouraged ALEC legislators in the meeting to introduce COVID immunity laws, even if governors in their states took executive action, because legislation is “more durable” and usually withstands legal challenges better than executive orders.
The Herald Group, a PR firm led by ATRA’s former director of public affairs and field operations Matt Well, has launched Job Shield America (JSA) to support “a liability shield for our businesses, health care providers, and other entities fighting through the pandemic.”
JSA took out a six-figure ad in late-July in the Washington, D.C., Beltway area aimed at convincing members of Congress to support liability protections for businesses, stating that, “The COVID liability shield will stop lawsuit abuse and protect America’s comeback.”
The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies is one of the organizations bankrolling the campaign, according to a report in The Hill.
Raising the Bar
McConnell’s federal effort and ALEC’s model state bill would raise the bar for liability and make it more difficult to bring a civil lawsuit against an employer for injuries or death occurring in an unsafe workplace.
Georgetown University Law Professor David Vladeck made the point in testimony before the U.S. Senate, saying, “The touchstone of common law has always been reasonableness: There is no liability so long as the entity acts reasonably. On the other hand, when an entity acts unreasonably or irresponsibly and causes harm that is foreseeable, the entity may be held liable.”
The conditions traditionally required for preemption of state liability law are all absent here. Congress has displaced state liability law in only a few instances: a focus on a single industry (e.g., nuclear power); strict regulatory oversight by federal agencies (e.g., radioactive wastes); reasonable fear of significant litigation that conflicts with federal goals (e.g., medical devices); and, the necessity for a remedy the market or state law does not provide (e.g. black lung). None of these conditions apply with COVID-19.
Disincentive to Safety
In the absence of any effective government regulation, the threat of civil lawsuits serves to create an incentive for employers to take the steps needed to protect workers from the coronavirus pandemic.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is the federal office that is supposed to protect employees in the workplace. However, as of June 30, OSHA had received more than 6,000 coronavirus-related complaints but only issued one citation and closed 5,220 of the complaints without action. And OSHA has failed to make compliance with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines mandatory for employers.
Georgetown Law Professor David Vladeck testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that,
With liability rules in place, employers and business have real-world incentives to take the precautions reasonably necessary to protect workers and consumers from infection—the risk that failure to do so may lead to lawsuits, regulatory enforcement, or both. Keeping liability rules in force is essential to build the confidence that workers and consumers need to go back to work and to reopen our economy.
In a letter to U.S. senators opposing a federal immunity measure, the Leadership Council on Civil and Human Rights and more than 50 other civil rights, economic justice, and labor organizations argue that, “Granting employers legal immunity from accountability to their workers would make it less likely that employers take the steps necessary to protect working people’s health and, thus, would further endanger and disadvantage the health and economic security of people of color, women, and low-income people who are working in essential jobs or returning to the workforce.”
“Immunity from liability would eliminate these workers’ already limited ability to seek justice in the courts and remove a powerful incentive for businesses to maintain a safe working environment, putting our communities at increased risk of illness and death,” the groups say.
Arn Pearson and David Armiak contributed to this report.
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--2020-08-10--When Things Feel Dire, Remember Real Change Begins at the Grassroots Level

Right now feels like a challenging time to be an American fighting for equality , fighting for justice .
We have COVID-19 , an economic crisis , and the violence against Black Americans and anti-Blackness in the foreground .
But we also have people across the nation rising up to say , in the words of Ella Baker , “ We who believe in freedom can not rest.
” This is our moment to make sure we do what we can , where we are , with what we have .
We don ’ t have to do it all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goes , “ many hands make light work.
” We ’ re asking for many hands across this country to buy in together and do the work that we know is necessary to take this representative democracy to the next level .
Along the way , we ’ re going to win some and we ’ re going to lose some , but ultimately , justice is going to win out the day .
And you don ’ t have to take my word for it .
Just look at our history : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s suffrage movement , the fight for economic justice , the environmental movement and the Green New Deal , Black Lives Matter , and so many more .
Any great movement that transformed this nation socially , politically , transformed it at the grassroots level , because everyday people did extraordinary things .
We are in that moment right now .
If you are fighting to change the conditions of the working poor , the barely middle class , the downtrodden , the dispossessed — if you are on the hell-raising humanitarian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems as though we ’ re not winning , but we are .
Just one example : I am on the advisory council of American Promise , and we are uniting Americans behind an amendment to the United States Constitution to rebalance the gross inequity in representation and political participation caused by our election system being controlled by the runaway big money of the few .
With the amendment , elections will be about the best ideas and the best candidates , the needs of the people , and not about who has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our volunteers wrote to say that they were reaching out to their elected officials , but they were feeling discouraged about the state of our country .
I want to say to that person and to all people : When we ’ re fighting for big things , impactful things , we ’ re going to have our valley moments .
We are going to win — but we are going to have moments where it does not feel like we are winning , moments where it does not look like we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might indeed not be winning in certain parts of this country .
But make no mistake about it , this justice journey that we are on is one in which every single generation of Americans has had a role to play .
Our role is right here , right now .
Know that it ’ s going to take a lot of fight and a lot of faith , a lot of sweat equity and a lot of understanding , and that sometimes we feel down and out — but we are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ setting the play for the victory .
The victory will ultimately be ours , but we have to demand it .
Do not be afraid to demand of elected officials the action you want to see and the causes you want them to champion , because this can happen .
We who believe in freedom can not rest .
I ’ ll close with a quote from one of my ministers here in the great city of Cleveland , Otis Moss Jr .
He said this to me when I was in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too , as a leader have my moments where I doubt and I say , “ Oh my God , why are we continuing to fight these same battles ?
Jesus Christ , I can not believe we ’ re right back where we started.
” Pastor Moss Jr. said these words to me , and I want to leave these with you .
He said , “ Senator , the struggle is forever , so we are forever in the struggle.
” It never ends .
For every hurdle we jump , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another and another and another .
There ’ s always going to be some justice battle that needs us on the field .
So the struggle is forever and we are forever in the struggle .
Let ’ s continue to fight for what is just , for what is right and for what is good .

Sometimes it seems as though we’re not winning in our fight for change, but we are, says Nina Turner.
Right now feels like a challenging time to be an American fighting for equality, fighting for justice. We have COVID-19, an economic crisis, and the violence against Black Americans and anti-Blackness in the foreground. But we also have people across the nation rising up to say, in the words of Ella Baker, “We who believe in freedom cannot rest.”
This is our moment to make sure we do what we can, where we are, with what we have.
We don’t have to do it all. There’s a saying that goes, “many hands make light work.” We’re asking for many hands across this country to buy in together and do the work that we know is necessary to take this representative democracy to the next level.
Along the way, we’re going to win some and we’re going to lose some, but ultimately, justice is going to win out the day. And you don’t have to take my word for it. Just look at our history: the civil rights movement, the women’s suffrage movement, the fight for economic justice, the environmental movement and the Green New Deal, Black Lives Matter, and so many more. Any great movement that transformed this nation socially, politically, transformed it at the grassroots level, because everyday people did extraordinary things.
We are in that moment right now. If you are fighting to change the conditions of the working poor, the barely middle class, the downtrodden, the dispossessed — if you are on the hell-raising humanitarian side like I am — sometimes it seems as though we’re not winning, but we are.
Just one example: I am on the advisory council of American Promise, and we are uniting Americans behind an amendment to the United States Constitution to rebalance the gross inequity in representation and political participation caused by our election system being controlled by the runaway big money of the few. With the amendment, elections will be about the best ideas and the best candidates, the needs of the people, and not about who has the biggest wallets. Recently, one of our volunteers wrote to say that they were reaching out to their elected officials, but they were feeling discouraged about the state of our country.
I want to say to that person and to all people: When we’re fighting for big things, impactful things, we’re going to have our valley moments. We are going to win — but we are going to have moments where it does not feel like we are winning, moments where it does not look like we are winning, and moments where we might indeed not be winning in certain parts of this country.
But make no mistake about it, this justice journey that we are on is one in which every single generation of Americans has had a role to play. Our role is right here, right now.
Know that it’s going to take a lot of fight and a lot of faith, a lot of sweat equity and a lot of understanding, and that sometimes we feel down and out — but we are not down and out forever. We are setting the play for the victory. The victory will ultimately be ours, but we have to demand it.
Do not be afraid to demand of elected officials the action you want to see and the causes you want them to champion, because this can happen. We who believe in freedom cannot rest.
I’ll close with a quote from one of my ministers here in the great city of Cleveland, Otis Moss Jr. He said this to me when I was in a moment of uncertainty, because I, too, as a leader have my moments where I doubt and I say, “Oh my God, why are we continuing to fight these same battles? Jesus Christ, I cannot believe we’re right back where we started.”
Pastor Moss Jr. said these words to me, and I want to leave these with you. He said, “Senator, the struggle is forever, so we are forever in the struggle.” It never ends. For every hurdle we jump, there’s always going to be another and another and another. There’s always going to be some justice battle that needs us on the field.
So the struggle is forever and we are forever in the struggle. Let’s continue to fight for what is just, for what is right and for what is good.
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--2020-08-11--ICE Is Making Sure Migrant Kids Don’t Have COVID, and Then Expelling Them

Since March , the Trump administration has pushed thousands of migrant children back to their home countries without legal screenings or protection , citing the risk that they could be carrying COVID-19 into the United States .
But by the time the children are boarded on planes home , they ’ ve already been tested for the virus — and proven not to have it .
Court documents , and information given by Immigration and Customs Enforcement to congressional staff last week , reveal that the Trump administration has agreed to test every child in its custody before sending them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expulsion policy .
ICE ’ s comprehensive testing appears to undermine the rationale for the mass expulsion policy : that it is necessary to “ prevent the introduction ” of COVID-19 into the United States .
The Trump administration has argued that , because of the pandemic , it must circumvent protections built into immigration law for migrant children , which dictate they should be turned over to the Department of Health and Human Services ( and ultimately to sponsors in the U.S. ) and given a chance to seek asylum .
Administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t risk that infected children would spread COVID-19 through the system .
Yet even after children test negative for the virus , they aren ’ t being allowed to access the usual protections .
The Trump administration has cited sections 265 and 268 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code , which allows the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to order the exclusion of any person or thing that might introduce a disease into the United States .
Citing that law , in March the CDC began barring the entry of anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The Trump administration ’ s claim that they need to summarily expel children because of COVID was always a pretext , ” Lee Gelernt of the ACLU , who has represented children in lawsuits challenging the expulsion policy , told ProPublica .
“ If they are now actually testing and know the children do not have COVID , then the policy is that much more unjustified.
” A court report filed in July noted that “ virtually all ” children in ICE custody were being tested for COVID-19 before expulsion , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imposed by their home countries .
In congressional briefings last week , recounted to ProPublica by multiple staff members who attended , ICE clarified what those “ testing requirements ” were .
The U.S. has agreements with 10 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean to return unaccompanied children under the public health order .
All those agreements , ICE told Congress , require that children test negative for COVID-19 before being sent back .
“ All single minors expelled from the U.S. under Title 42 authority are done so under informal agreements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the foreign governments , ” an ICE spokesperson told ProPublica .
“ There are informal agreements in place with some countries which require testing for COVID-19 prior to expulsion.
” Asked specifically about its claim to Congress that all countries agreeing to accept children required testing , and whether that was at odds with the stated rationale for the expulsion policy , ICE declined to clarify , citing “ pending litigation.
” Under the new policy , most adult migrants are being pushed back to Mexico within a matter of hours .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however , the administration has developed an ad hoc system in which children are held for days in hotels , with little contact with the outside world — making it almost impossible for lawyers or advocates to locate them — before being returned to the countries from which they fled .
Thousands of children have been expelled since the policy was enacted in March .
Some are sent to overcrowded government shelters in Central American countries like Guatemala ; others are totally out of reach of legal service providers , who have not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. immigration law , unaccompanied migrant children who arrive without papers are supposed to be put in the custody of HHS , which can place them with a sponsor ( usually a relative ) while they await a hearing before a judge to determine if they qualify for immigration status .
The Trump administration has claimed that it ’ s too dangerous to continue sending these children to HHS during a pandemic .
Acting Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection Mark Morgan argued during an Aug. 6 press briefing that “ if we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Office of Refugee Resettlement , which is the HHS office responsible for migrant children — “ we ’ re defeating the entire purpose of Title 42 , we ’ re still introducing these individuals into our system throughout and creating a greater exposure risk to the American people.
” But on July 22 , an independent court report filed in the Flores litigation , which governs the care of children in immigration custody , noted that “ virtually all individuals in hotels awaiting ICE deportation flights will be tested for COVID-19 prior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imposed by the home countries for returning deportees.
” ( The Trump administration stresses that “ deportation ” is a term from immigration law , and that , since migrants subject to the CDC order aren ’ t being processed under immigration law , what ’ s happening to them isn ’ t technically deportation .
However , the court report used the term “ deportation ” to refer to public-health expulsions as well . )
In most cases , ICE is satisfying this requirement by using rapid COVID-19 tests produced by Abbott @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little as 15 minutes .
While Abbott ’ s rapid tests have come under scrutiny for a high rate of false-negative results , they continue to be used by the Trump administration .
However , at least one country — Guatemala — requires that the U.S. government obtain COVID-19 test results from a lab , a process that can take four to five days .
It is not clear exactly when the testing requirements went into effect .
The court report refers to them as “ recently imposed.
” A Guatemalan official recently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the children who have been returned to Guatemala under the policy have documentation proving they ’ ve tested negative for COVID-19 .
It ’ s not clear whether this means ICE is violating the terms of its agreement with Guatemala to test children , or if these children weren ’ t subject to that agreement .
Anaeli Torres of Guatemala ’ s social welfare agency told ProPublica that it isn ’ t always known to the agency whether a child has been deported under immigration law or expelled under the public health order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S .
Since the spring , ICE has been accused of helping spread COVID-19 through Central America and the Caribbean by deporting people who had caught the coronavirus in immigration detention facilities .
ICE has denied this , asserting that all detainees are tested for COVID-19 before being deported .
But people expelled under the public health law are not being put in ICE detention .
Further , unlike deportees who are removed from the U.S. because they are found to have violated immigration law , migrants expelled under the public health policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They are being barred from the U.S. purely because they might have the coronavirus and might spread it to others .
The CDC ’ s original order banning the “ introduction ” of migrants , from March , assumed that it would be impossible to test migrants for COVID-19 .
That was key to its rationale for barring their entry .
“ In theory , to mitigate public health risks , CBP would have to transport aliens in their custody suspected of COVID-19 infection to a nearby medical site for sample collection and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( i.e .
quarantine or isolation ) in their facilities while awaiting test results , ” the order said .
“ CDC would not have the resources or personnel required to house in quarantine or isolation or monitor dozens , much less hundreds or thousands of aliens.
” In the months since , however , ICE has created an ad hoc system of quarantine and isolation .
Migrants held in hotels , often for several days or even weeks , are prevented from leaving their rooms and have limited outside contact .
Ironically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are required to remain in the U.S. , while those who test negative are expelled .
It ’ s not clear if any unaccompanied children have tested positive for coronavirus while in ICE custody .
At least one migrant family housed in a San Antonio hotel tested positive while awaiting expulsion .
The family was sent to an ICE detention center to recover .
While referrals to HHS are supposed to happen within 72 hours , the administration has frequently held children in hotels for longer than that when preparing to expel them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requirements often prolonged their stays in the U.S. since results can take several days to process .
Rapid testing eliminates that concern , but ICE did not explain in its congressional briefing , or at any other time , why it can not send children to HHS once they have tested negative .

This article is co-published with The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan local newsroom that informs and engages with Texans. Sign up for The Brief weekly to get up to speed on their essential coverage of Texas issues.
Since March, the Trump administration has pushed thousands of migrant children back to their home countries without legal screenings or protection, citing the risk that they could be carrying COVID-19 into the United States.
But by the time the children are boarded on planes home, they’ve already been tested for the virus — and proven not to have it.
Court documents, and information given by Immigration and Customs Enforcement to congressional staff last week, reveal that the Trump administration has agreed to test every child in its custody before sending them back to their home countries under the expulsion policy.
ICE’s comprehensive testing appears to undermine the rationale for the mass expulsion policy: that it is necessary to “prevent the introduction” of COVID-19 into the United States.
The Trump administration has argued that, because of the pandemic, it must circumvent protections built into immigration law for migrant children, which dictate they should be turned over to the Department of Health and Human Services (and ultimately to sponsors in the U.S.) and given a chance to seek asylum. Administration officials have said that they can’t risk that infected children would spread COVID-19 through the system. Yet even after children test negative for the virus, they aren’t being allowed to access the usual protections.
The Trump administration has cited sections 265 and 268 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code, which allows the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to order the exclusion of any person or thing that might introduce a disease into the United States. Citing that law, in March the CDC began barring the entry of anyone crossing into the U.S. without papers.
“The Trump administration’s claim that they need to summarily expel children because of COVID was always a pretext,” Lee Gelernt of the ACLU, who has represented children in lawsuits challenging the expulsion policy, told ProPublica. “If they are now actually testing and know the children do not have COVID, then the policy is that much more unjustified.”
A court report filed in July noted that “virtually all” children in ICE custody were being tested for COVID-19 before expulsion, as a condition of “testing requirements” imposed by their home countries. In congressional briefings last week, recounted to ProPublica by multiple staff members who attended, ICE clarified what those “testing requirements” were.
The U.S. has agreements with 10 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean to return unaccompanied children under the public health order. All those agreements, ICE told Congress, require that children test negative for COVID-19 before being sent back.
“All single minors expelled from the U.S. under Title 42 authority are done so under informal agreements which remain fluid between the U.S. and the foreign governments,” an ICE spokesperson told ProPublica. “There are informal agreements in place with some countries which require testing for COVID-19 prior to expulsion.” Asked specifically about its claim to Congress that all countries agreeing to accept children required testing, and whether that was at odds with the stated rationale for the expulsion policy, ICE declined to clarify, citing “pending litigation.”
Under the new policy, most adult migrants are being pushed back to Mexico within a matter of hours. To apply the expulsion order to children, however, the administration has developed an ad hoc system in which children are held for days in hotels, with little contact with the outside world — making it almost impossible for lawyers or advocates to locate them — before being returned to the countries from which they fled.
Thousands of children have been expelled since the policy was enacted in March. Some are sent to overcrowded government shelters in Central American countries like Guatemala; others are totally out of reach of legal service providers, who have not been able to find them.
Under U.S. immigration law, unaccompanied migrant children who arrive without papers are supposed to be put in the custody of HHS, which can place them with a sponsor (usually a relative) while they await a hearing before a judge to determine if they qualify for immigration status. The Trump administration has claimed that it’s too dangerous to continue sending these children to HHS during a pandemic.
Acting Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection Mark Morgan argued during an Aug. 6 press briefing that “if we introduce these individuals to ORR” — the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is the HHS office responsible for migrant children — “we’re defeating the entire purpose of Title 42, we’re still introducing these individuals into our system throughout and creating a greater exposure risk to the American people.”
But on July 22, an independent court report filed in the Flores litigation, which governs the care of children in immigration custody, noted that “virtually all individuals in hotels awaiting ICE deportation flights will be tested for COVID-19 prior to deportation to comply with testing requirements imposed by the home countries for returning deportees.” (The Trump administration stresses that “deportation” is a term from immigration law, and that, since migrants subject to the CDC order aren’t being processed under immigration law, what’s happening to them isn’t technically deportation. However, the court report used the term “deportation” to refer to public-health expulsions as well.)
In most cases, ICE is satisfying this requirement by using rapid COVID-19 tests produced by Abbott Laboratories that can produce results in as little as 15 minutes. While Abbott’s rapid tests have come under scrutiny for a high rate of false-negative results, they continue to be used by the Trump administration. However, at least one country — Guatemala — requires that the U.S. government obtain COVID-19 test results from a lab, a process that can take four to five days.
It is not clear exactly when the testing requirements went into effect. The court report refers to them as “recently imposed.” A Guatemalan official recently told Reuters that only a few of the children who have been returned to Guatemala under the policy have documentation proving they’ve tested negative for COVID-19. It’s not clear whether this means ICE is violating the terms of its agreement with Guatemala to test children, or if these children weren’t subject to that agreement. Anaeli Torres of Guatemala’s social welfare agency told ProPublica that it isn’t always known to the agency whether a child has been deported under immigration law or expelled under the public health order when they arrive in Guatemala from the U.S.
Since the spring, ICE has been accused of helping spread COVID-19 through Central America and the Caribbean by deporting people who had caught the coronavirus in immigration detention facilities. ICE has denied this, asserting that all detainees are tested for COVID-19 before being deported.
But people expelled under the public health law are not being put in ICE detention. Further, unlike deportees who are removed from the U.S. because they are found to have violated immigration law, migrants expelled under the public health policy have had no legal due process. They are being barred from the U.S. purely because they might have the coronavirus and might spread it to others.
The CDC’s original order banning the “introduction” of migrants, from March, assumed that it would be impossible to test migrants for COVID-19. That was key to its rationale for barring their entry. “In theory, to mitigate public health risks, CBP would have to transport aliens in their custody suspected of COVID-19 infection to a nearby medical site for sample collection and testing, and then implement containment protocols (i.e. quarantine or isolation) in their facilities while awaiting test results,” the order said. “CDC would not have the resources or personnel required to house in quarantine or isolation or monitor dozens, much less hundreds or thousands of aliens.”
In the months since, however, ICE has created an ad hoc system of quarantine and isolation. Migrants held in hotels, often for several days or even weeks, are prevented from leaving their rooms and have limited outside contact.
Ironically, migrants who test positive for COVID-19 are required to remain in the U.S., while those who test negative are expelled. It’s not clear if any unaccompanied children have tested positive for coronavirus while in ICE custody. At least one migrant family housed in a San Antonio hotel tested positive while awaiting expulsion. The family was sent to an ICE detention center to recover.
While referrals to HHS are supposed to happen within 72 hours, the administration has frequently held children in hotels for longer than that when preparing to expel them. The court report noted that testing requirements often prolonged their stays in the U.S. since results can take several days to process.
Rapid testing eliminates that concern, but ICE did not explain in its congressional briefing, or at any other time, why it cannot send children to HHS once they have tested negative.
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--2020-08-11--Noam Chomsky: Trump Is Quite Capable of an “October Surprise”

We take as axiomatic that the United States is a democracy , yet there can be no denying the fact that the country has been rapidly sliding into authoritarianism since Trump came to office , partly thanks to an antiquated mechanism known as the Electoral College .
Trump ’ s removal of independent government watchdogs , his constant attacks on media , his divisive rhetoric , the way he has handled the coronavirus pandemic , his decision to send federal agents to crush protests , and his suggestion about postponing the November general election are but a small sample of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they speak volumes about the dark cloud over the U.S .
In fact , it is quite conceivable that the worst is yet to come , says leading public intellectual Noam Chomsky .
In this exclusive interview for Truthout , Chomsky says an “ October surprise ” from Trump or his cronies can not be ruled out .
C.J .
Polychroniou : Since coming to power , Trump has taken various steps to rule like an autocrat .
His latest tactic is to send federal agents into cities to crush protests .
Can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s abuse of his law enforcement powers , and whether these actions have a precedent in modern U.S. history ?
Noam Chomsky : The renowned economist James Buchanan , one of the leading figures of U.S.-style “ libertarianism , ” observed in his major work The Limits of Liberty that the ideal society should accord with fundamental human nature , which makes good sense .
Then comes the next question : What is fundamental human nature ?
He had a very simple answer : “ In a strictly personalized sense , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one that allows him full freedom of action and inhibits the behavior of others so as to force adherence to his own desires .
That is to say , each person seeks mastery over a world of slaves.
” It is not easy to find real human beings who suffer from this pathology , but Trump seems to be a good candidate… .
When inspectors general begin to fulfill their duty of inquiring into the swamp of corruption he ’ s created , he fired them .
The U.S. attorney for the Southern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when he made the same error , replaced by a flack for private equity .
Next in turn is the military : “ The White House is intensifying an effort to hire Pentagon personnel with an undisputed allegiance to President Trump … current and former officials said.
” When the Senate did not quickly confirm his choice , retired Gen. Anthony Tata , to fill “ the Pentagon ’ s top policy job , ” Trump simply appointed him without the required Senate approval .
This has been standard procedure under Trump .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate confirmation ?
Practices are much the same when the population dares to raise its head .
They are then threatened with “ ominous weapons ” and “ vicious dogs , ” the latter a reference to the attack on civil rights protesters that aroused horror and contempt when they were used in the deep South 60 years ago .
Overruling state and local officials [ Trump ] sent paramilitaries to assault protesters in Portland , Oregon , including the elite Border Patrol Tactical Unit ( BORTAC ) , trained to use violence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the harsh Arizona desert not far from where I live .
Confronting Portland ’ s “ Wall of Moms ” with brute force does not go over too well with the general public , even arousing protests that it can ’ t happen here : We ’ re not Italy under Mussolini !
BORTAC was therefore withdrawn from Portland and returned to its mission of demonstrating that it can and does happen here , even if we choose not to look .
A few days after leaving Portland , heavily armed BORTAC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fleeing refugees in the Arizona desert , “ detaining over thirty people who were receiving medical care , food , water , and shelter from the 100+ degree heat .
In a massive show of force , Border Patrol , along with BORTAC , descended on the camp with an armored vehicle , three ATVS , two helicopters , and dozens of marked and unmarked vehicles , ” a No More Deaths news update reports .
One reaction is that , “ The Western-led world order is in crisis .
If the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terminal.
” A few years ago , you might hear these sentiments from someone on a street corner holding a sign reading “ The end is nigh.
” Today , you read them in the world ’ s leading business journal , the London Financial Times , expressed by the sober and highly respected economic-political analyst Martin Wolf .
Much of the world has had more than enough of the Western-led world order in the past centuries , but would hardly favor what is likely to come if Trump were to administer a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American history ?
One has to search pretty hard to find any .
One possible candidate is Trump ’ s hero Andrew Jackson , who is alleged to have declared that Supreme Court Chief Justice “ John Marshall has made his decision now let him enforce it ” when Jackson defied the Court ’ s orders to stop his campaign of brutal Indian removal .
We should also not overlook the fact that popular support for autocracy runs disturbingly high .
Few signs are clearer than attitudes toward the media .
Almost one-fourth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should close down mainstream news outlets , like CNN , The Washington Post and The New York Times.
” Twice that number of Republicans , almost half , agree that “ the president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior ” and that “ the news media is the enemy of the American people , ” engaged in bad behavior .
Democrats are not that extreme , but the numbers are not overly reassuring .
What about his suggestion that the November general election be delayed , from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Given that he is not constitutionally empowered to enforce such an extraordinary proposal , how can he be stopped from doing so ?
He could be stopped by mass popular protests , perhaps a general strike , inducing the real masters to intervene to preserve the society they largely own .
If it comes to a true show of force , Trump can be stopped by the military — if they decide to uphold the Constitution .
These strange days it must surely have occurred to many that Trump ’ s attempted purge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for such a contingency — something else that would have been unthinkable a few years ago .
It might be worthwhile to pay attention to some analogies in today ’ s decaying global social order .
Recently , Trump ’ s mimic in Brazil , President Jair Bolsonaro , sought to fire investigators looking into his family ’ s sordid activities .
He was blocked by the Supreme Court .
The world ’ s oldest parliamentary democracy is also tottering , under the regime of Prime Minister Boris Johnson , who stands out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic .
When Johnson wanted to ram through his version of Brexit , he simply suspended Parliament , an unprecedented act that was bitterly condemned by British legal authorities , and quashed by the Supreme Court .
The U.S. trails behind .
Trump ’ s attacks on the U.S .
Postal Service are increasing in the year of the mail-in ballot .
In fact , his new postmaster general , Louis DeJoy , has already taken steps to slow down the delivery of mail , and there is even talk of post @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an apparent effort to disenfranchise voters .
What does Donald Trump ’ s success in undermining democratic governance reveal about the state of the U.S. political system and U.S. democracy in the 21st century ?
Several factors converge in the actions of Trump ’ s choice to undermine the postal service .
One is the narrow concern with the elections .
Republicans know that they have a problem .
They ’ re a party of a shrinking minority .
They can not approach voters with their actual policies of unstinting service to extreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to mobilize voters on so-called “ cultural issues , ” not a very secure stand .
To hold onto office , they have to resort to such devices as massive purging of voters to ensure that the “ wrong people ” don ’ t contaminate the elections , a remarkable story exposed by investigative journalist Greg Palast .
Slowing mail service might open the door to challenges to the election if they can ’ t steal it by other means .
But there are deeper reasons that we ’ ve discussed before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ visceral hatred of the [ U.S. ] Postal Service , for good reasons .
It is a highly efficient government institution , a fact that can give voters the subversive idea that government might be of , by and for the people .
It offers no opportunities for private profit and performs major services to the population , and could do a great deal more if it were freed of congressional malevolence .
These are lessons that have to be kept from the eyes of the dangerous masses .
Even worse , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be able to continue to suppress the fact that they conceived of the postal service as a subsidy to a free , independent press ; anathema .
The implications for what remains of democratic governance after 40 years of the neoliberal assault , enhanced by Trump ’ s wrecking ball , need hardly be elaborated .
Trump has tried to use the coronavirus pandemic in a way that serves his reelection purposes , rather than the interest of the American public .
With coronavirus cases hitting new records almost daily , isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use COVID as a means to bolster his suggestion for postponing the November election ?
He is desperate enough to try almost anything .
And he ’ ll have plenty of support .
Business leaders may cringe at Trump ’ s antics .
That ’ s especially true for those who like to present themselves as humane and cultivated managers of “ soulful corporations ” in ‘ 50s rhetoric , regularly recycled when needed to overcome “ reputational risks.
” But as long as Trump recognizes where real power lies and follows the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alternatives that might be subject to pressures from people who care about the common good .
As Joe Biden bends to activist pressures and rises in the polls , the true Masters of the Universe are becoming increasingly alarmed .
Front-page headlines tell us that “ Investors Start to Ask : What if Biden Becomes President ?
” The stories report that investors are concerned that the gravy train may be slowed down if their champion is kicked out .
Fossil fuel industries are particularly worried .
A headline in the Texas press @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Biden hardens climate stance.
” It reports that they “ are writing checks to President Donald Trump with greater zeal than they did four years ago , as Biden campaigns on a climate plan that seeks to eliminate carbon emissions by mid-century , ” possibly earlier , along with his $ 2 trillion program to address some of the many problems that have to be dealt with — not enough , but a substantial step forward .
Many polls indicate that Trump is trailing Biden by double digits .
What could possibly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn the race around ?
It ’ s anything but a sure thing .
Election tampering is a huge industry .
Massive campaign funding in the last days can have a major effect , as seems to have happened in 2016 .
The leading specialist on campaign funding , Tom Ferguson , found that a “ dual wave of money ” for both president and Senate had a substantial and probably decisive impact in the final days of the ‘ 16 campaign .
We ’ ve already discussed the possibility that Republican interference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Apart from all of these devices to undermine the limited integrity of elections , Trump is quite capable of an “ October surprise.
” It ’ s not hard to conjure up a variety of options .
This is no time for letting one ’ s guard down , beguiled by dubious hopes .
This interview has been lightly edited for clarity .

This is no time for letting one’s guard down, beguiled by hopes that the elections may occur as planned, warns Chomsky.
We take as axiomatic that the United States is a democracy, yet there can be no denying the fact that the country has been rapidly sliding into authoritarianism since Trump came to office, partly thanks to an antiquated mechanism known as the Electoral College. Trump’s removal of independent government watchdogs, his constant attacks on media, his divisive rhetoric, the way he has handled the coronavirus pandemic, his decision to send federal agents to crush protests, and his suggestion about postponing the November general election are but a small sample of Trump’s autocratic leadership, yet they speak volumes about the dark cloud over the U.S. In fact, it is quite conceivable that the worst is yet to come, says leading public intellectual Noam Chomsky. In this exclusive interview for Truthout, Chomsky says an “October surprise” from Trump or his cronies cannot be ruled out.
C.J. Polychroniou: Since coming to power, Trump has taken various steps to rule like an autocrat. His latest tactic is to send federal agents into cities to crush protests. Can you talk about the political aims behind Trump’s abuse of his law enforcement powers, and whether these actions have a precedent in modern U.S. history?
Noam Chomsky: The renowned economist James Buchanan, one of the leading figures of U.S.-style “libertarianism,” observed in his major work The Limits of Liberty that the ideal society should accord with fundamental human nature, which makes good sense. Then comes the next question: What is fundamental human nature? He had a very simple answer: “In a strictly personalized sense, any person’s ideal situation is one that allows him full freedom of action and inhibits the behavior of others so as to force adherence to his own desires. That is to say, each person seeks mastery over a world of slaves.”
It is not easy to find real human beings who suffer from this pathology, but Trump seems to be a good candidate…. When inspectors general begin to fulfill their duty of inquiring into the swamp of corruption he’s created, he fired them. The U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York was summarily dismissed when he made the same error, replaced by a flack for private equity.
Next in turn is the military: “The White House is intensifying an effort to hire Pentagon personnel with an undisputed allegiance to President Trump … current and former officials said.” When the Senate did not quickly confirm his choice, retired Gen. Anthony Tata, to fill “the Pentagon’s top policy job,” Trump simply appointed him without the required Senate approval. This has been standard procedure under Trump. Why bother with the legal formality of Senate confirmation?
Practices are much the same when the population dares to raise its head. They are then threatened with “ominous weapons” and “vicious dogs,” the latter a reference to the attack on civil rights protesters that aroused horror and contempt when they were used in the deep South 60 years ago. Overruling state and local officials [Trump] sent paramilitaries to assault protesters in Portland, Oregon, including the elite Border Patrol Tactical Unit (BORTAC), trained to use violence with little oversight against miserable refugees dying in the harsh Arizona desert not far from where I live.
Confronting Portland’s “Wall of Moms” with brute force does not go over too well with the general public, even arousing protests that it can’t happen here: We’re not Italy under Mussolini!
Popular support for autocracy runs disturbingly high. Almost one-fourth of Republicans agree “President Trump should close down mainstream news outlets, like CNN, The Washington Post and The New York Times.”
BORTAC was therefore withdrawn from Portland and returned to its mission of demonstrating that it can and does happen here, even if we choose not to look. A few days after leaving Portland, heavily armed BORTAC units raided a humanitarian aid station for fleeing refugees in the Arizona desert, “detaining over thirty people who were receiving medical care, food, water, and shelter from the 100+ degree heat. In a massive show of force, Border Patrol, along with BORTAC, descended on the camp with an armored vehicle, three ATVS, two helicopters, and dozens of marked and unmarked vehicles,” a No More Deaths news update reports.
There’s plenty more.
One reaction is that, “The Western-led world order is in crisis. If the U.S. reelects Donald Trump, this will be terminal.”
A few years ago, you might hear these sentiments from someone on a street corner holding a sign reading “The end is nigh.” Today, you read them in the world’s leading business journal, the London Financial Times, expressed by the sober and highly respected economic-political analyst Martin Wolf.
Much of the world has had more than enough of the Western-led world order in the past centuries, but would hardly favor what is likely to come if Trump were to administer a terminal blow.
Are there precedents in American history? One has to search pretty hard to find any. One possible candidate is Trump’s hero Andrew Jackson, who is alleged to have declared that Supreme Court Chief Justice “John Marshall has made his decision now let him enforce it” when Jackson defied the Court’s orders to stop his campaign of brutal Indian removal.
We should also not overlook the fact that popular support for autocracy runs disturbingly high. Few signs are clearer than attitudes toward the media. Almost one-fourth of Republicans agree that “President Trump should close down mainstream news outlets, like CNN, The Washington Post and The New York Times.” Twice that number of Republicans, almost half, agree that “the president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior” and that “the news media is the enemy of the American people,” engaged in bad behavior. Democrats are not that extreme, but the numbers are not overly reassuring.
What about his suggestion that the November general election be delayed, from which he refuses to back down? Given that he is not constitutionally empowered to enforce such an extraordinary proposal, how can he be stopped from doing so?
He could be stopped by mass popular protests, perhaps a general strike, inducing the real masters to intervene to preserve the society they largely own. If it comes to a true show of force, Trump can be stopped by the military — if they decide to uphold the Constitution. These strange days it must surely have occurred to many that Trump’s attempted purge of the military command might be planning for such a contingency — something else that would have been unthinkable a few years ago.
It might be worthwhile to pay attention to some analogies in today’s decaying global social order. Recently, Trump’s mimic in Brazil, President Jair Bolsonaro, sought to fire investigators looking into his family’s sordid activities. He was blocked by the Supreme Court.
The world’s oldest parliamentary democracy is also tottering, under the regime of Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who stands out in Europe for Trump-like failure to handle the pandemic. When Johnson wanted to ram through his version of Brexit, he simply suspended Parliament, an unprecedented act that was bitterly condemned by British legal authorities, and quashed by the Supreme Court.
The U.S. trails behind.
Trump’s attacks on the U.S. Postal Service are increasing in the year of the mail-in ballot. In fact, his new postmaster general, Louis DeJoy, has already taken steps to slow down the delivery of mail, and there is even talk of post offices shutting down across the country in an apparent effort to disenfranchise voters. What does Donald Trump’s success in undermining democratic governance reveal about the state of the U.S. political system and U.S. democracy in the 21st century?
Several factors converge in the actions of Trump’s choice to undermine the postal service. One is the narrow concern with the elections. Republicans know that they have a problem. They’re a party of a shrinking minority. They cannot approach voters with their actual policies of unstinting service to extreme wealth and corporate power, and therefore have to mobilize voters on so-called “cultural issues,” not a very secure stand. To hold onto office, they have to resort to such devices as massive purging of voters to ensure that the “wrong people” don’t contaminate the elections, a remarkable story exposed by investigative journalist Greg Palast. Slowing mail service might open the door to challenges to the election if they can’t steal it by other means.
Slowing mail service might open the door to challenges to the election if they can’t steal it by other means.
But there are deeper reasons that we’ve discussed before. The modern Republican party has a visceral hatred of the [U.S.] Postal Service, for good reasons. It is a highly efficient government institution, a fact that can give voters the subversive idea that government might be of, by and for the people. It offers no opportunities for private profit and performs major services to the population, and could do a great deal more if it were freed of congressional malevolence. These are lessons that have to be kept from the eyes of the dangerous masses. Even worse, the worshipers of the so-called founding fathers might not be able to continue to suppress the fact that they conceived of the postal service as a subsidy to a free, independent press; anathema.
The implications for what remains of democratic governance after 40 years of the neoliberal assault, enhanced by Trump’s wrecking ball, need hardly be elaborated.
Trump has tried to use the coronavirus pandemic in a way that serves his reelection purposes, rather than the interest of the American public. With coronavirus cases hitting new records almost daily, isn’t it possible that he may use COVID as a means to bolster his suggestion for postponing the November election?
He is desperate enough to try almost anything. And he’ll have plenty of support. Business leaders may cringe at Trump’s antics. That’s especially true for those who like to present themselves as humane and cultivated managers of “soulful corporations” in ‘50s rhetoric, regularly recycled when needed to overcome “reputational risks.” But as long as Trump recognizes where real power lies and follows the rules, they prefer him to uncertain alternatives that might be subject to pressures from people who care about the common good.
As Joe Biden bends to activist pressures and rises in the polls, the true Masters of the Universe are becoming increasingly alarmed. Front-page headlines tell us that “Investors Start to Ask: What if Biden Becomes President?” The stories report that investors are concerned that the gravy train may be slowed down if their champion is kicked out.
Fossil fuel industries are particularly worried. A headline in the Texas press reads “Oil donors flock to Trump as Biden hardens climate stance.” It reports that they “are writing checks to President Donald Trump with greater zeal than they did four years ago, as Biden campaigns on a climate plan that seeks to eliminate carbon emissions by mid-century,” possibly earlier, along with his $2 trillion program to address some of the many problems that have to be dealt with — not enough, but a substantial step forward.
Many polls indicate that Trump is trailing Biden by double digits. What could possibly happen between now and November that could turn the race around?
It’s anything but a sure thing. Election tampering is a huge industry. Massive campaign funding in the last days can have a major effect, as seems to have happened in 2016. The leading specialist on campaign funding, Tom Ferguson, found that a “dual wave of money” for both president and Senate had a substantial and probably decisive impact in the final days of the ‘16 campaign. We’ve already discussed the possibility that Republican interference with mail balloting might muddy the waters. Apart from all of these devices to undermine the limited integrity of elections, Trump is quite capable of an “October surprise.” It’s not hard to conjure up a variety of options. This is no time for letting one’s guard down, beguiled by dubious hopes.
This interview has been lightly edited for clarity.
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--2020-08-11--Ardently Anti-Mask Republicans Make Masks Mandatory for Upcoming Convention

In spite of many Republicans being ardently against mask mandates , both nationally or at the state level , the Republican National Convention slated to take place in Charlotte , North Carolina , later this month will now require all participants to wear facial coverings during its events .
The announcement made on Tuesday is the latest example in how Republicans and Democrats will conduct their respective parties ’ conventions amid the coronavirus pandemic .
In addition to the mask requirement , the Republican convention will have everyone involved wearing Bluetooth technology for contact tracing purposes .
If a participant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the bluetooth device embedded in the badges convention attendees are required to wear can help track all the people who were in close proximity to that person .
“ It knows when other badges are close to it , and how long they are close to it , and the identity of who is wearing it is in a database , ” convention health consultant Jeffrey Runge told NPR .
He added that the badges were secure devices .
“ No one will ever crack that code , unless somebody gets sick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Convention will reportedly be “ business-only , ” with only 336 delegates set to be in attendance .
The convention will take place from August 24 to the 27 , with President Donald Trump accepting the party ’ s nomination on the final day .
A lot of items pertaining to the convention remain unknown at this time , however — including where , exactly , Trump will be giving his nomination address .
After North Carolina Gov .
Roy Cooper , a Democrat , said that it ’ d be impossible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to coronavirus concerns , Trump threatened to move the event to Jacksonville , Florida .
But that state has seen huge increases in the number of COVID cases in recent weeks , prompting Trump to cancel those plans .
Trump has now toyed with the idea of giving his nomination acceptance speech at Gettysburg in Pennsylvania , or even at the White House itself , both locations that could run afoul of the Hatch Act , the law that prevents government workers from using government resources for political purposes .
Trump is technically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rangers at Gettysburg and White House staffers could face penalties if the political events are held at either location .
Democrats , meanwhile , are planning a convention that will likely look a lot different from what Republicans are doing .
Originally , the Democratic National Convention was set to take place in Milwaukee , Wisconsin , in July .
But due to the pandemic , they initially delayed their convention until August , and now the event is set to be almost completely virtual , with Milwaukee serving as the “ anchor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be located throughout the country .
Unlike Republicans , Democratic state delegations will not travel to the host city .
Instead , they will conduct business — including the official nomination of Joe Biden as the party ’ s candidate for president — remotely , during the week of August 17-20 .
Biden himself will not give any speeches at the convention site .
Instead , his acceptance speech will be given in his home state of Delaware .
Other speakers scheduled for the event will similarly speak from different locations throughout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still time between now and when each of the major parties ’ respective conventions will occur for things to change .
The biggest things to pay attention to at this moment may be where Trump and the Republicans will choose as the appropriate location for him to accept the nomination .
As for who will be Biden ’ s pick for vice president , that choice was made earlier today : Sen. Kamala Harris of California .

The GOP will have some delegates appear in Charlotte, while delegates for Democrats will conduct business remotely.
In spite of many Republicans being ardently against mask mandates, both nationally or at the state level, the Republican National Convention slated to take place in Charlotte, North Carolina, later this month will now require all participants to wear facial coverings during its events.
The announcement made on Tuesday is the latest example in how Republicans and Democrats will conduct their respective parties’ conventions amid the coronavirus pandemic.
In addition to the mask requirement, the Republican convention will have everyone involved wearing Bluetooth technology for contact tracing purposes. If a participant falls sick after the convention, data from the bluetooth device embedded in the badges convention attendees are required to wear can help track all the people who were in close proximity to that person.
“It knows when other badges are close to it, and how long they are close to it, and the identity of who is wearing it is in a database,” convention health consultant Jeffrey Runge told NPR. He added that the badges were secure devices.
“No one will ever crack that code, unless somebody gets sick,” he said.
The Republican National Convention will reportedly be “business-only,” with only 336 delegates set to be in attendance. The convention will take place from August 24 to the 27, with President Donald Trump accepting the party’s nomination on the final day.
A lot of items pertaining to the convention remain unknown at this time, however — including where, exactly, Trump will be giving his nomination address. After North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat, said that it’d be impossible to hold the convention as planned due to coronavirus concerns, Trump threatened to move the event to Jacksonville, Florida. But that state has seen huge increases in the number of COVID cases in recent weeks, prompting Trump to cancel those plans.
Trump has now toyed with the idea of giving his nomination acceptance speech at Gettysburg in Pennsylvania, or even at the White House itself, both locations that could run afoul of the Hatch Act, the law that prevents government workers from using government resources for political purposes. Trump is technically exempt from the law, but park rangers at Gettysburg and White House staffers could face penalties if the political events are held at either location.
Democrats, meanwhile, are planning a convention that will likely look a lot different from what Republicans are doing. Originally, the Democratic National Convention was set to take place in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in July. But due to the pandemic, they initially delayed their convention until August, and now the event is set to be almost completely virtual, with Milwaukee serving as the “anchor” city for the convention while speakers will be located throughout the country.
Unlike Republicans, Democratic state delegations will not travel to the host city. Instead, they will conduct business — including the official nomination of Joe Biden as the party’s candidate for president — remotely, during the week of August 17-20.
Biden himself will not give any speeches at the convention site. Instead, his acceptance speech will be given in his home state of Delaware. Other speakers scheduled for the event will similarly speak from different locations throughout the U.S.
Of course, there is still time between now and when each of the major parties’ respective conventions will occur for things to change. The biggest things to pay attention to at this moment may be where Trump and the Republicans will choose as the appropriate location for him to accept the nomination. As for who will be Biden’s pick for vice president, that choice was made earlier today: Sen. Kamala Harris of California.
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--2020-08-11--Many Progressives Respond With Disappointment as Biden Picks Harris for VP

Presumptive Democratic nominee for president Joe Biden has selected Sen. Kamala Harris of California as his vice-presidential running mate .
Harris , who herself ran for president in the Democratic primary races against Biden earlier this year , is just the fourth woman to be named to the ticket of a major political party in presidential politics and the third woman to be named a vice-presidential candidate .
While many on social media described Harris as an inspiring choice , others noted that her progressive bona fides were lacking .
Indeed , there have been many instances in Harris ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so-called “ tough on crime ” approach , including overlooking alarming and illegal procedural transgressions among prosecutors under her purview as Attorney General of the state of California .
In one specific instance , a prosecutor in California had “ deliberately altered an interrogation transcript to include a confession that could be used to justify charges carrying a life sentence , ” according to a trial court examining the details of the case .
Rather than attempt to rectify the situation , Harris sought to defend the prosecutorial misconduct , arguing that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the problematic actions weren ’ t “ physically brutal ” and thus didn ’ t fit the “ shock the conscience ” standard being sought by defendants for dismissal .
Back when Harris was a candidate for president , University of San Francisco School of Law Professor Lara Bazelon had some telling words to say about her past as well .
Writing in the New York Times , Bazelon said that “ Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information by prosecutors.
” Indeed , a number of progressives on social media spoke out against Harris being named Biden ’ s vice president choice immediately after it was announced .
In her first race for office , noted The Intercept ’ s Lee Fang , “ Kamala Harris campaigned as tough on crime — and unseated the country ’ s most progressive prosecutor ” by doing so .
“ The only democrats who are excited about Kamala Harris being Joe Biden ’ s pick are the ones on CNN , MSNBC and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Benjamin Schneider , writing on Tuesday for SF Weekly about Harris , also noted her past prosecutorial experience , including her aversion to supporting progressive overhauls to the justice system .
The vice presidential nominee often took stances that went against what she campaigned on .
“ Harris has always personally opposed capital punishment , calling her stance ‘ non-negotiable , ' ” Schneider wrote .
“ But in 2014 , when a District Court judge in Orange County ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional , Harris asked the 9th Circuit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , arguing that her duty to uphold state law trumped her personal beliefs.
” That may seem a noble trait to some , being able to put aside personal beliefs to serve out the functions of her office , but it ’ s inconsistent with what she did on other issues .
When California voters decided to end the ban on gay marriage through Prop 8 , Harris suggested the voter initiative was unconstitutional , and “ chose not to enforce ” it , Schneider recounted .
In short , Harris is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic Party make her out to be , and that could be detrimental to the ticket for two reasons .
First , it won ’ t appeal to an electorate that is clamoring for a progressive ticket from the Democratic Party .
Second , because Harris is decidedly more to the left than President Donald Trump and his supporters , she will face a number of attacks from the right as being part of the so-called “ radical left ” — a moniker his campaign pushed to describe her just minutes after she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to defend against both sides — trying to play up her progressive credentials while also trying to downplay them to a broader electorate — may prove difficult for her to do in the general election campaign .

Harris is the third woman in U.S. history to be named as a vice-presidential candidate for a major political party.
Presumptive Democratic nominee for president Joe Biden has selected Sen. Kamala Harris of California as his vice-presidential running mate.
Harris, who herself ran for president in the Democratic primary races against Biden earlier this year, is just the fourth woman to be named to the ticket of a major political party in presidential politics and the third woman to be named a vice-presidential candidate.
While many on social media described Harris as an inspiring choice, others noted that her progressive bona fides were lacking. Indeed, there have been many instances in Harris’s past that demonstrate she had a so-called “tough on crime” approach, including overlooking alarming and illegal procedural transgressions among prosecutors under her purview as Attorney General of the state of California.
In one specific instance, a prosecutor in California had “deliberately altered an interrogation transcript to include a confession that could be used to justify charges carrying a life sentence,” according to a trial court examining the details of the case. Rather than attempt to rectify the situation, Harris sought to defend the prosecutorial misconduct, arguing that the case in question should be upheld because the problematic actions weren’t “physically brutal” and thus didn’t fit the “shock the conscience” standard being sought by defendants for dismissal.
Back when Harris was a candidate for president, University of San Francisco School of Law Professor Lara Bazelon had some telling words to say about her past as well. Writing in the New York Times, Bazelon said that “Harris fought tooth and nail to uphold wrongful convictions that had been secured through official misconduct that included evidence tampering, false testimony and the suppression of crucial information by prosecutors.”
Indeed, a number of progressives on social media spoke out against Harris being named Biden’s vice president choice immediately after it was announced. In her first race for office, noted The Intercept’s Lee Fang, “Kamala Harris campaigned as tough on crime — and unseated the country’s most progressive prosecutor” by doing so.
“The only democrats who are excited about Kamala Harris being Joe Biden’s pick are the ones on CNN, MSNBC and Twitter,” added author Tim Young.
Benjamin Schneider, writing on Tuesday for SF Weekly about Harris, also noted her past prosecutorial experience, including her aversion to supporting progressive overhauls to the justice system.
The vice presidential nominee often took stances that went against what she campaigned on. “Harris has always personally opposed capital punishment, calling her stance ‘non-negotiable,'” Schneider wrote. “But in 2014, when a District Court judge in Orange County ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional, Harris asked the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the ruling, arguing that her duty to uphold state law trumped her personal beliefs.”
That may seem a noble trait to some, being able to put aside personal beliefs to serve out the functions of her office, but it’s inconsistent with what she did on other issues. When California voters decided to end the ban on gay marriage through Prop 8, Harris suggested the voter initiative was unconstitutional, and “chose not to enforce” it, Schneider recounted.
The Guardian’s Derecka Purnell also offered her take on Harris being named to the Democratic Party’s presidential ticket, suggesting that the vice-presidential candidate may offer hope for some until they more closely examine her past record:
Women of color, particularly progressives, might feel torn. Perhaps even closeted excitement. Senator Harris is sharp, strategic, and witty, undoubtedly qualified to be vice president of the United States. She graduated from a historically Black college and belongs to a prestigious Black sorority. A biracial woman with Jamaican and Indian heritage, we have seen her break color barriers and shatter glass ceilings, even though poor, Black women have felt and swept the falling shards. Thousands celebrated her Senate seat win and even more were captivated when she picked apart presidential candidates at debates – especially Biden. Her one-liners were unforgettable. Until we remembered that she honed those argumentative skills in court as a prosecutor, including during fights to uphold wrongful convictions … Together, they will promise expensive “common sense” police reform to a movement against senseless police spending
In short, Harris is not the progressive candidate that many in the Democratic Party make her out to be, and that could be detrimental to the ticket for two reasons. First, it won’t appeal to an electorate that is clamoring for a progressive ticket from the Democratic Party. Second, because Harris is decidedly more to the left than President Donald Trump and his supporters, she will face a number of attacks from the right as being part of the so-called “radical left” — a moniker his campaign pushed to describe her just minutes after she was announced the vice-presidential candidate.
Having to defend against both sides — trying to play up her progressive credentials while also trying to downplay them to a broader electorate — may prove difficult for her to do in the general election campaign.
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--2020-08-11--Trump Says Biden “Roped Himself Into” Picking a Woman VP and Men Feel “Insulted”

During a Fox Sports Radio interview on Tuesday morning , President Donald Trump insinuated that former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s decision to pick a woman to run alongside him on the Democratic Party ’ s presidential ticket later this fall may have been unwise , and may have even hurt his chances with men .
“ I would be inclined to go a different route than what he ’ s done , ” Trump said of Biden ’ s promise during the primary election contests to pick a woman vice presidential nominee .
“ He roped himself into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people would say men are insulted by that and some people would say it is fine.
” Biden is expected to announce his running mate sometime this week , as early as today even , though sources with knowledge of his thinking say an announcement is more likely to happen on Wednesday .
Whoever the nominee will be , they will be slated to speak at the Democratic National Convention next week , although their speech will not be in front of a huge audience as it has been in years past due @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comments imply that many Americans , namely men , would be uncomfortable with a woman candidate .
However , polling from 2019 by the nonprofit Lean In ( an organization that seeks to promote “ a world where people of every gender can pursue their dreams without bias or other barriers holding them back ” ) found that , not only are most voters fine with the idea of a woman candidate as vice president , they ’ re also mostly ready to see a woman become president , too .
Within that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said they are “ very ” or “ extremely ” ready for a woman to be president , with another 25 percent saying they are “ moderately ” ready for that to happen .
Only 10 percent said they were just “ slightly ” in favor of the idea , while 12 percent said they were “ not at all ” ready for it to happen .
More recently , polling conducted after Biden made his pledge to pick a woman to be his vice presidential nominee demonstrates Trump ’ s assessment is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ March found that 63 percent of registered voters approved of the promise , while only 20 percent disapproved of the idea .
In the past few months , party insiders as well as those outside the party but who lean Democratic in their voting patterns have said that , not only are they hopeful a woman gets picked to be Biden ’ s VP choice , but that he also picks a woman of color to be the nominee , with 72 percent in a USA Today/Suffolk poll published in early July saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On the other side of things , a plurality of Republicans , too , seem to be fine with the idea of Trump picking a woman as his running mate , dumping current Vice President Mike Pence for the hypothetical option of former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley .
In that same poll , 11 percent said they ’ d be “ excited ” about such a change , while 35 percent said they ’ d be accepting of Trump dropping Pence off the ticket for Haley .
Only a combined 27 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acceptable ” in their minds or would otherwise make them “ angry.
” Just who Biden will pick remains a mystery at this time , with the field currently wide open , though a number of names have been hinted at .
Current Senators Kamala Harris of California , Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts , and Tammy Duckworth of Illinois , have all been suggested as possibilities , as has Rep. Karen Bass of California , who chairs the Congressional Black Caucus .
Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan was also considered an early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rice , who served as National Security Advisor and UN ambassador during the Obama administration while Biden was vice president , has also been floated as a potential choice for the nominee .

During a Fox Sports Radio interview on Tuesday morning, President Donald Trump insinuated that former Vice President Joe Biden’s decision to pick a woman to run alongside him on the Democratic Party’s presidential ticket later this fall may have been unwise, and may have even hurt his chances with men.
“I would be inclined to go a different route than what he’s done,” Trump said of Biden’s promise during the primary election contests to pick a woman vice presidential nominee. “He roped himself into a certain group of people. Some people would say men are insulted by that and some people would say it is fine.”
Biden is expected to announce his running mate sometime this week, as early as today even, though sources with knowledge of his thinking say an announcement is more likely to happen on Wednesday. Whoever the nominee will be, they will be slated to speak at the Democratic National Convention next week, although their speech will not be in front of a huge audience as it has been in years past due to the coronavirus.
Trump’s comments imply that many Americans, namely men, would be uncomfortable with a woman candidate. However, polling from 2019 by the nonprofit Lean In (an organization that seeks to promote “a world where people of every gender can pursue their dreams without bias or other barriers holding them back”) found that, not only are most voters fine with the idea of a woman candidate as vice president, they’re also mostly ready to see a woman become president, too.
Within that poll, 53 percent of registered voters said they are “very” or “extremely” ready for a woman to be president, with another 25 percent saying they are “moderately” ready for that to happen. Only 10 percent said they were just “slightly” in favor of the idea, while 12 percent said they were “not at all” ready for it to happen.
More recently, polling conducted after Biden made his pledge to pick a woman to be his vice presidential nominee demonstrates Trump’s assessment is wrong. A Fox News poll from March found that 63 percent of registered voters approved of the promise, while only 20 percent disapproved of the idea.
In the past few months, party insiders as well as those outside the party but who lean Democratic in their voting patterns have said that, not only are they hopeful a woman gets picked to be Biden’s VP choice, but that he also picks a woman of color to be the nominee, with 72 percent in a USA Today/Suffolk poll published in early July saying that it’s their preference.
On the other side of things, a plurality of Republicans, too, seem to be fine with the idea of Trump picking a woman as his running mate, dumping current Vice President Mike Pence for the hypothetical option of former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley. In that same poll, 11 percent said they’d be “excited” about such a change, while 35 percent said they’d be accepting of Trump dropping Pence off the ticket for Haley. Only a combined 27 percent said the transition would be “not acceptable” in their minds or would otherwise make them “angry.”
Just who Biden will pick remains a mystery at this time, with the field currently wide open, though a number of names have been hinted at. Current Senators Kamala Harris of California, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, have all been suggested as possibilities, as has Rep. Karen Bass of California, who chairs the Congressional Black Caucus. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan was also considered an early favorite for the role, and Susan Rice, who served as National Security Advisor and UN ambassador during the Obama administration while Biden was vice president, has also been floated as a potential choice for the nominee.
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.