truthout--2020-10-17--Steve Bannon’s Prediction of a Trump Election Day Win Is Premised on Ignorance

One of President Trump ’ s most loyal propagandists is predicting that Trump will claim victory on election night as soon as he is ahead among Election Day voters .
But that scenario is based on a misconception of how all ballots are counted and the early returns are compiled , according to election and legal experts .
“ At 10 o ’ clock or 11 o ’ clock… on November 3 , Donald J. Trump is going to walk into the Oval Office , and he may hit a tweet before he goes in there… and he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ohio , and being up in Pennsylvania and Florida , and he ’ s going to say , ‘ Hey , game ’ s over , ’ ” said Stephen K. Bannon , Trump ’ s 2016 campaign CEO and former White House adviser , during a defiant speech on October 10 forum hosted by the Young Republican Federation of Virginia .
“ The elites are traumatized .
They do not want to go stand in line and vote .
That , ladies and gentlemen , is a game-changer , ” Bannon said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] is what electorate shows up to vote on a vote that can be certified .
That ’ s a vote that counts .
And right now , what they [ Trump critics ] don ’ t want to talk about , is Donald J. Trump leads on people who are actually going to show up and vote on November 3 , by 21 percent.
” Bannon ’ s prediction that Trump would defy norms by asserting that he won before indisputable victory margins were reported was not just another sign that Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s election .
Bannon ’ s fiery speech was a glimpse into a propagandist ’ s mindset that drew on smears and distortions to fan partisan ill will .
But his prediction of how Trump could claim an early victory was based on a flawed premise , because no early returns on election night were only going to contain the in-person votes cast on Election Day .
“ The first reports are the county totals , ” said Chris Sautter , an attorney who has specialized in post-election challenges and recounts for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get the breakdowns [ of votes cast in different categories such as early voting , mail-in votes , Election Day votes , and overseas votes ] until after election night .
It depends on the state.
” Other election administration experts confirmed that the election night returns would be a mix of all of the earliest votes cast—from early in-person voting sites , from absentee ballots that had been returned and processed , and from in-person voting on Election Day .
( As of October 15 , more than 16 million absentee ballots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting , the U.S .
Elections Project said . )
“ There ’ s literally not a single credible journalist or analyst who would look at early returns in a close race with many ballots left to count and declare victory , ” said David Becker , the executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research .
“ If counting of all ballots magically ended at midnight on election night , we would have had a President Gore , and Donald Trump wouldn ’ t have won the presidency.
” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be to disenfranchise the millions of men and women in the military whose votes often don ’ t arrive until after Election Day , ” Becker continued .
“ That said , many early in-person ballots and early-received mail ballots will be processed on election night , especially in states that allow early pre-processing of those ballots , such as Arizona , Florida , Georgia , North Carolina , and Ohio .
So , many votes may be reported out that night.
” Sautter and Becker , a former U.S. Department of Justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operate in a world where facts , laws and election procedure dictate who wins elections—including post-election jury-like proceedings to ascertain voter intent on contested ballots .
But the world of legal opinion is not the same as the sphere of public opinion , which is where Trump and Bannon shape narratives based on feelings , grievances and disinformation .
“ Trump ’ s strategy is to create chaos , uncertainty , ” Sautter said .
“ What Bannon is saying is if Trump is ahead on election night , I ’ m sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also ] may take some kind of legal action to try to stop the counting .
I can ’ t imagine that would be successful .
It would be like Florida in 2018 .
They [ Republicans ] filed a suit there and it got thrown out.
” “ Distinguishing between these two things [ electoral facts and fantasies ] is really important , ” said Justin Levitt , who oversaw the DOJ ’ s voting rights enforcement in the Obama administration .
“ I think there will be lots of the latter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filed .
I think there will be people screaming .
I think there will be lots of tweets .
What I have been saying of late is reminding people that a lawsuit without provable facts is just a tweet with a filing fee.
” But back in rural Virginia , Bannon spun out a narrative to a rapt audience that was filled with innuendo , grievances , premonitions and assumptions that the vote would be stolen .
“ I don ’ t like loose talk about civil war , but I got to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ when you hear what the Democrats are saying , what their rhetoric is .
Remember , Hillary Clinton , their last presidential candidate , what did she say ?
Under no circumstances—no circumstances—is Joe Biden to concede… They ’ re going to keep counting until they get 270 Electoral [ College ] votes for Joe Biden , right ?
They are going to be voting by the pound and voting by the pallet.
” Actually , Clinton urged Biden not to concede on election night when votes were being counted , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Bannon ’ s deliberate exaggerations and accusations about manufacturing votes went deeper than GOP cliches about Democratic cheating .
Bannon has long promoted a white-centric nationalism , notably as the former head of Breitbart News .
Now , flying in the face of both democracy and fact , he is asserting that in-person voting on Election Day is more American , and is more accurate , than voting beforehand via a mailed-out absentee ballot .
“ They can ’ t beat Trump in the traditional way Americans have voted for 200 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go into a booth , close the curtain .
Only two folks know , you and God , know who you vote for .
Write it down , bang , done .
You vote by mail—look , I vote by mail .
Sometimes , I ’ m [ an ] absentee [ voter ] .
I understand it is a risk .
Multiple people are going to put their hand on your ballot .
And it may not end up being certifiable .
That ’ s the risk I took.
” Rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — for example , absentee ballots originated in the 19th century ’ s Civil War , and Trump votes by mail — it is important to grasp the big picture he painted .
Bannon relegated votes cast by millions of people , dominated by Biden supporters , into a second-class status .
And he disparaged people voting with an absentee ballot as weak and un-American , because they had fallen for media reports about the pandemic .
“ You chose not to go to a poll , ” Bannon said .
“ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apparatus , which has dominated this country , was irresponsible and caused mass hysteria on your voters .
That ’ s your problem .
You ’ re not going to make your problem the nation ’ s problem .
And we will not back down one inch .
And I ’ ll tell you who is going to join us in that , a guy named Donald J. Trump.
” The driving force behind Bannon ’ s narrative , apart from a desire to keep Trump and the GOP in power , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more Trump supporters were planning to vote on Election Day and more Biden supporters were intending to vote with absentee ballots .
In recent weeks , many Democrats have shifted their plans to voting early at in-person sites .
Bannon , nonetheless , built upon the lie that the pandemic was not a threat .
He exaggerated problems in the little-known process of vetting returned absentee ballots .
In that administrative process , a voter ’ s identity is first verified by officials who review how their ballot-return envelope has been filled out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken out and counted .
Bannon claimed that in New York City ’ s June 2020 presidential primary , 30 percent of absentee ballots in Brooklyn and 20 percent of absentee ballots in Manhattan were disqualified because voters did not properly fill out envelopes or returned them too late .
( Those high rejection rates did not occur across both boroughs , but only in specific localized settings .
In 2018 , the national rejection rate for absentee ballots was 1.4 percent , federal data reported .
In Florida in 2019 , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s primary this past April , it was 1.8 percent .
Sloppy signatures , lines left empty and mistakes with filling out the envelope were the leading causes . )
“ Right now… they ’ ve requested 1.5 million absentee ballots in Pennsylvania , ” Bannon said .
“ Ten to 20 percent will not be certifiable .
What that means is it [ is ] going to be a dogfight in those rooms [ in county offices where returned ballots are processed ] .
Remember , every ballot that can be certified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should count .
That ’ s a vote .
But you ’ ve got a lot of things that you [ absentee voters ] have got to check off to get to certification , because you chose — you chose — not to go to a poll.
” As of October 15 , Democrats requested 1.7 million ballots , Republicans requested 652,000 ballots , and other voters requested 290,000 ballots , the U.S .
Elections Project reported .
Democrats and voting rights groups have filed scores of lawsuits to ensure that voters who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or whose ballot is postmarked in time but does not arrive at election offices until after Election Day , will still have their votes counted .
The Trump campaign and its allies similarly have intervened in those suits and filed their own suits to limit voting and vote counting options .
Both parties are trying to shape the rules to their benefit , but some GOP suits are being filed for propaganda purposes and to undermine the results .
“ Some of the lawsuits are being filed to generate public conversation that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the process , about the existence of widespread voter fraud .
These [ claims ] are not true , ” said Wendy Weiser , who directs the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University .
“ It ’ s the same challenge that exists outside the litigation context .
This has been part of the president ’ s M.O .
in the lead-up to this election.
” There was no Democratic counterpoint to Trump ’ s assertions that the expansion of voting by mail in response to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ implied .
“ They just keep counting until they win , ” he said .
“ It ’ s got to be fought .
And where it ’ s got to be fought is folks like you , as election officials , in that room , no back [ ing ] down .
Every ballot has got to be certified .
If it ’ s by the rules , it ’ s good .
If it has any , a scintilla of not good , it ’ s not certifiable .
Sorry , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bannon predicted that Trump would declare victory based on partial results , and his campaign would fight to disqualify as many absentee ballots as possible , Bannon repeatedly said that it was the Democrats and their allies who were going to cheat to steal the 2020 election .
“ We ’ re not going to allow this election to be stolen , either through some shenanigans in the courts or some shenanigans in mail-in ballots that nobody can actually process , ” he said .
“ That will not happen .
And the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happen is , number one , set the predicate on November 3 [ by Trump declaring early that he won ] .
Once we set that predicate that Trump ’ s the winner on Election Day , that is mighty hard to unwind.
” “ He ’ s [ Trump ] is not going to go quietly into that good night , trust me , ” Bannon continued .
“ He ’ s going to put up a big victory on… [ November 3 ] and he ’ s going to want his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So , look , we have a long haul .
I don ’ t think this thing will be determined… until right before Inauguration Day… The Democrats have no intention of conceding.
” Bannon ’ s narrative hinges on his belief — which may be shared by Trump — that officials will segregate Election Day votes from the other ballots that have been cast and counted by election night .
But that ’ s not how officials count and release early returns .
Moreover , those early returns will include a record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballots early and who voted at early voting sites .
American elections do not have separate and unequal ballots .
“ We ’ ve always counted ballots for days after Election Day , and we will do so once again , ” said Becker .
“ This is normal , and anyone who seeks to change the rules and put an artificial deadline on the process only reveals their ignorance .
”

This article was produced by Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute.
One of President Trump’s most loyal propagandists is predicting that Trump will claim victory on election night as soon as he is ahead among Election Day voters. But that scenario is based on a misconception of how all ballots are counted and the early returns are compiled, according to election and legal experts.
“At 10 o’clock or 11 o’clock… on November 3, Donald J. Trump is going to walk into the Oval Office, and he may hit a tweet before he goes in there… and he’s going to sit there, having won Ohio, and being up in Pennsylvania and Florida, and he’s going to say, ‘Hey, game’s over,’” said Stephen K. Bannon, Trump’s 2016 campaign CEO and former White House adviser, during a defiant speech on October 10 forum hosted by the Young Republican Federation of Virginia.
“The elites are traumatized. They do not want to go stand in line and vote. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a game-changer,” Bannon said. “It [the decisive factor] is what electorate shows up to vote on a vote that can be certified. That’s a vote that counts. And right now, what they [Trump critics] don’t want to talk about, is Donald J. Trump leads on people who are actually going to show up and vote on November 3, by 21 percent.”
Bannon’s prediction that Trump would defy norms by asserting that he won before indisputable victory margins were reported was not just another sign that Trump would not heed the rules governing 2020’s election. Bannon’s fiery speech was a glimpse into a propagandist’s mindset that drew on smears and distortions to fan partisan ill will. But his prediction of how Trump could claim an early victory was based on a flawed premise, because no early returns on election night were only going to contain the in-person votes cast on Election Day.
“The first reports are the county totals,” said Chris Sautter, an attorney who has specialized in post-election challenges and recounts for decades. “You don’t get the breakdowns [of votes cast in different categories such as early voting, mail-in votes, Election Day votes, and overseas votes] until after election night. It depends on the state.”
Other election administration experts confirmed that the election night returns would be a mix of all of the earliest votes cast—from early in-person voting sites, from absentee ballots that had been returned and processed, and from in-person voting on Election Day. (As of October 15, more than 16 million absentee ballots had been returned or cast in early voting, the U.S. Elections Project said.)
“There’s literally not a single credible journalist or analyst who would look at early returns in a close race with many ballots left to count and declare victory,” said David Becker, the executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research. “If counting of all ballots magically ended at midnight on election night, we would have had a President Gore, and Donald Trump wouldn’t have won the presidency.”
“Most importantly, to do so would be to disenfranchise the millions of men and women in the military whose votes often don’t arrive until after Election Day,” Becker continued. “That said, many early in-person ballots and early-received mail ballots will be processed on election night, especially in states that allow early pre-processing of those ballots, such as Arizona, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Ohio. So, many votes may be reported out that night.”
Sautter and Becker, a former U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Voting Section attorney, operate in a world where facts, laws and election procedure dictate who wins elections—including post-election jury-like proceedings to ascertain voter intent on contested ballots. But the world of legal opinion is not the same as the sphere of public opinion, which is where Trump and Bannon shape narratives based on feelings, grievances and disinformation.
“Trump’s strategy is to create chaos, uncertainty,” Sautter said. “What Bannon is saying is if Trump is ahead on election night, I’m sure he will declare victory. Trump [also] may take some kind of legal action to try to stop the counting. I can’t imagine that would be successful. It would be like Florida in 2018. They [Republicans] filed a suit there and it got thrown out.”
“Distinguishing between these two things [electoral facts and fantasies] is really important,” said Justin Levitt, who oversaw the DOJ’s voting rights enforcement in the Obama administration. “I think there will be lots of the latter. I think there will be suits filed. I think there will be people screaming. I think there will be lots of tweets. What I have been saying of late is reminding people that a lawsuit without provable facts is just a tweet with a filing fee.”
White Noise
But back in rural Virginia, Bannon spun out a narrative to a rapt audience that was filled with innuendo, grievances, premonitions and assumptions that the vote would be stolen.
“I don’t like loose talk about civil war, but I got to tell you,” Bannon continued, “when you hear what the Democrats are saying, what their rhetoric is. Remember, Hillary Clinton, their last presidential candidate, what did she say? Under no circumstances—no circumstances—is Joe Biden to concede… They’re going to keep counting until they get 270 Electoral [College] votes for Joe Biden, right? They are going to be voting by the pound and voting by the pallet.”
Actually, Clinton urged Biden not to concede on election night when votes were being counted, which is not the same as never conceding.
Bannon’s deliberate exaggerations and accusations about manufacturing votes went deeper than GOP cliches about Democratic cheating. Bannon has long promoted a white-centric nationalism, notably as the former head of Breitbart News. Now, flying in the face of both democracy and fact, he is asserting that in-person voting on Election Day is more American, and is more accurate, than voting beforehand via a mailed-out absentee ballot.
“They can’t beat Trump in the traditional way Americans have voted for 200 years,” Bannon said. “You go into a booth, close the curtain. Only two folks know, you and God, know who you vote for. Write it down, bang, done. You vote by mail—look, I vote by mail. Sometimes, I’m [an] absentee [voter]. I understand it is a risk. Multiple people are going to put their hand on your ballot. And it may not end up being certifiable. That’s the risk I took.”
Rather than unpacking Bannon’s distortions and contradictions — for example, absentee ballots originated in the 19th century’s Civil War, and Trump votes by mail — it is important to grasp the big picture he painted. Bannon relegated votes cast by millions of people, dominated by Biden supporters, into a second-class status. And he disparaged people voting with an absentee ballot as weak and un-American, because they had fallen for media reports about the pandemic.
“You chose not to go to a poll,” Bannon said. “The reason you chose is your mass media apparatus, which has dominated this country, was irresponsible and caused mass hysteria on your voters. That’s your problem. You’re not going to make your problem the nation’s problem. And we will not back down one inch. And I’ll tell you who is going to join us in that, a guy named Donald J. Trump.”
The driving force behind Bannon’s narrative, apart from a desire to keep Trump and the GOP in power, was polls and other voter data showing that more Trump supporters were planning to vote on Election Day and more Biden supporters were intending to vote with absentee ballots. In recent weeks, many Democrats have shifted their plans to voting early at in-person sites.
Bannon, nonetheless, built upon the lie that the pandemic was not a threat. He exaggerated problems in the little-known process of vetting returned absentee ballots. In that administrative process, a voter’s identity is first verified by officials who review how their ballot-return envelope has been filled out and signed. Only then are ballots taken out and counted.
Bannon claimed that in New York City’s June 2020 presidential primary, 30 percent of absentee ballots in Brooklyn and 20 percent of absentee ballots in Manhattan were disqualified because voters did not properly fill out envelopes or returned them too late. (Those high rejection rates did not occur across both boroughs, but only in specific localized settings. In 2018, the national rejection rate for absentee ballots was 1.4 percent, federal data reported. In Florida in 2019, it was 1.2 percent. In Wisconsin’s primary this past April, it was 1.8 percent. Sloppy signatures, lines left empty and mistakes with filling out the envelope were the leading causes.)
“Right now… they’ve requested 1.5 million absentee ballots in Pennsylvania,” Bannon said. “Ten to 20 percent will not be certifiable. What that means is it [is] going to be a dogfight in those rooms [in county offices where returned ballots are processed]. Remember, every ballot that can be certified should be certified. And that ballot should count. That’s a vote. But you’ve got a lot of things that you [absentee voters] have got to check off to get to certification, because you chose — you chose — not to go to a poll.”
As of October 15, Democrats requested 1.7 million ballots, Republicans requested 652,000 ballots, and other voters requested 290,000 ballots, the U.S. Elections Project reported.
Democrats and voting rights groups have filed scores of lawsuits to ensure that voters who incorrectly fill out a ballot-return envelope, or whose ballot is postmarked in time but does not arrive at election offices until after Election Day, will still have their votes counted. The Trump campaign and its allies similarly have intervened in those suits and filed their own suits to limit voting and vote counting options. Both parties are trying to shape the rules to their benefit, but some GOP suits are being filed for propaganda purposes and to undermine the results.
“Some of the lawsuits are being filed to generate public conversation that is misinformation or misleading about the illegitimacy of the process, about the existence of widespread voter fraud. These [claims] are not true,” said Wendy Weiser, who directs the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. “It’s the same challenge that exists outside the litigation context. This has been part of the president’s M.O. in the lead-up to this election.”
There was no Democratic counterpoint to Trump’s assertions that the expansion of voting by mail in response to the pandemic was inherently fraud-ridden, which Bannon implied.
“They just keep counting until they win,” he said. “It’s got to be fought. And where it’s got to be fought is folks like you, as election officials, in that room, no back[ing] down. Every ballot has got to be certified. If it’s by the rules, it’s good. If it has any, a scintilla of not good, it’s not certifiable. Sorry, not sorry, right?”
While Bannon predicted that Trump would declare victory based on partial results, and his campaign would fight to disqualify as many absentee ballots as possible, Bannon repeatedly said that it was the Democrats and their allies who were going to cheat to steal the 2020 election.
“We’re not going to allow this election to be stolen, either through some shenanigans in the courts or some shenanigans in mail-in ballots that nobody can actually process,” he said. “That will not happen. And the way to make sure that does not happen is, number one, set the predicate on November 3 [by Trump declaring early that he won]. Once we set that predicate that Trump’s the winner on Election Day, that is mighty hard to unwind.”
“He’s [Trump] is not going to go quietly into that good night, trust me,” Bannon continued. “He’s going to put up a big victory on… [November 3] and he’s going to want his troops to back him up on it. So, look, we have a long haul. I don’t think this thing will be determined… until right before Inauguration Day… The Democrats have no intention of conceding.”
Bannon’s narrative hinges on his belief — which may be shared by Trump — that officials will segregate Election Day votes from the other ballots that have been cast and counted by election night. But that’s not how officials count and release early returns. Moreover, those early returns will include a record number of voters who cast their absentee ballots early and who voted at early voting sites.
American elections do not have separate and unequal ballots.
“We’ve always counted ballots for days after Election Day, and we will do so once again,” said Becker. “This is normal, and anyone who seeks to change the rules and put an artificial deadline on the process only reveals their ignorance.”


truthout--2020-10-17--Black Civil Rights Leaders Fear Barrett “Invites a Return to a Racist Past”

After four days of confirmation hearings , Black leaders of five major civil rights organizations are lining up in opposition to the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme court and the “ deeply flawed ” process Senate Republicans are using to secure her confirmation just weeks ahead of a contentious presidential election .
Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday , Kristen Clarke , president of the National Lawyers ’ Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law , said Barrett is “ reluctant and unwilling ” to recognize modern threats to voting rights faced by Black voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett ’ s “ originalist ” judicial philosophy puts at risk important civil rights precedents such as Brown v. Board of Education , which found state-sanctioned racial segregation in public schools to be unconstitutional , and jeopardizes “ bedrock ” anti-discrimination protections under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 .
“ Her outlook is not a mainstream approach to the Constitution , ” Clarke said .
“ It is one that leaves us stuck in a bygone era and invites a return to a racist past — not compatible with the modern era.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Urban League , NAACP , NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund , National Coalition on Black Civic Participation and Lawyers ’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law told reporters that Barrett would threaten hard-fought voting rights , reproductive rights , LGBTQ rights and anti-discrimination protections for years to come .
Longtime civil rights activist Rev .
Al Sharpton convened the virtual meeting so these organizations could share their concerns with the press .
“ What we have heard over the past four days have only affirmed and indeed deepened our concern over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ifill , president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund .
( The group is independent from the NAACP and was founded in 1940 under the leadership of Thurgood Marshall , who went on to become the first Black justice to serve on the Supreme Court . )
Civil rights attorney Damon Hewitt said that , like Barrett , he was raised Catholic in the New Orleans area and attended Catholic schools .
But today Hewitt is the executive vice president of the Lawyers ’ Committee of Civil Rights Under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative judge .
Hewitt , who is Black , said Barrett must have different “ takeaways ” from growing up in southern Louisiana , where Black people were enslaved , and where Black civil rights activists such as Homer Plessy challenged Jim Crow-era racial segregation all the way to the Supreme Court .
“ As a son of the South , as a Black man in the United States , I understand that racism is real and it exists and it impacts people ’ s daily lives , but that is something that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in her evasive response to questions seems not to acknowledge , whatsoever , ” Hewitt told reporters on Thursday .
Hewitt pointed to a Sen. Kamala Harris ’ s ( D-California ) exchange with Barrett during a confirmation hearing on Wednesday , when Harris asked whether Barrett agrees with Chief Justice John Roberts , who wrote that racial discrimination against voters “ still exists ” in a controversial 2013 ruling that gutted a crucial section of the Voting Rights Act .
Barrett , who consistently dodged questions from Democrats by refusing to comment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called voter discrimination a “ very charged issue.
” Pressed by Harris , Barrett finally made a vague statement acknowledging that racial discrimination “ still exists ” in general .
When asked by Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-Minnesota ) whether voter intimidation is illegal ( intimidating voters is clearly illegal ) , Barrett said she could not “ apply the law to a hypothetical set of facts.
” Hewitt said Barrett spoke as if racism is an “ abstract principle , ” but it ’ s not .
Racism is the reason people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face higher barriers to economic opportunity and health care , for example , which have contributed to higher rates of COVID-19 infections and deaths among people of color .
Hewitt noted a 2019 ruling Barrett issued against a Black transportation employee in Illinois who reported workplace discrimination after his boss called him the n-word .
Barrett called the slur an “ egregious racial epithet , ” but she and two other judges ruled the racist insult did not create a hostile work environment .
“ Racism operates in context , but this nominee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hewitt said .
“ Anyone with a conscious knows being called an n-word or any racial epithet does change your experience .
But to this nominee it is as if discrimination and racism is in the abstract , it doesn ’ t matter how people experience it.
” If the right to vote is a “ charged issue , ” it ’ s because Trump and the Republican Party have wrapped the ballot in partisan dissonance .
Before Trump took office , GOP-controlled state legislatures gerrymandered electoral districts along racial lines and passed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ designed to suppress turnout among low-income and minority voters .
Since losing the popular vote in 2016 , Trump has perpetuated the myth that U.S. elections are mired by widespread voter fraud .
Now down in the polls , Trump is attacking voting by mail and refuses to say whether he would accept the results of the upcoming election .
Trump has called efforts to expand mail-in voting due to the COVID-19 pandemic a Democratic “ scam ” and said Barrett must be confirmed because lawsuits contesting the results would likely end up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett to say she would recuse herself from hearing a case contesting the election results , arguing that Trump clearly expects her to rule in his favor .
Barrett refused to commit to recusal .
If confirmed , Barrett would likely consider a major voting rights case out of Arizona that threatens to further erode the Voting Rights Act , according to Ifill .
At issue are voting rules put in place by Republicans that disqualify provisional ballots cast outside designated precincts on Election Day and place strict limits on who can collect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ low-income voters and voters of color are more likely to vote absentee , and thus the rules are intended to suppress their vote .
Democrats and civil rights groups are now calling on the Senate to wait until after the election to confirm a Supreme Court nominee so voters can have a say — Republicans blocked President Obama ’ s Supreme Court nominee for months ahead of the 2016 election — but the GOP ’ s Senate majority plans to vote on Barrett ’ s confirmation by October 22 .
Civil rights attorneys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ short for lawmakers to perform a rigorous review of Barrett ’ s record before confirming her to a lifetime appointment .
Meanwhile , Congress has failed to pass a second relief package despite widespread hunger and economic pain caused by the pandemic .
“ The absolute rush and haste to confirm Judge Barrett is part of a scheme to create a conservative supermajority in the Supreme Court that will overturn the will of the majority of Americans for many decades to come , ” said National Urban League President Marc H. Morial .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ cast their ballots .
Reports of Black voters waiting in long lines at early polling locations have surfaced in Georgia and Ohio , two states where Republicans have purged rolls of thousands of voters and erected barriers to the ballot .
Morial pointed to Texas , where three Trump-appointed judges on a federal appeals panel recently upheld an order from the state ’ s Republican governor limiting drop boxes for absentee ballots to one per county .
County officials in Houston had planned on offering 12 boxes for the 2.4 million voters in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 63 percent of residents are Black or Hispanic , according to The Guardian .
“ If the Supreme Court sanctions this type of political manipulation , there is simply no limits on the rampant voter suppression that we can expect in November and beyond , ” Morial said .

After four days of confirmation hearings, Black leaders of five major civil rights organizations are lining up in opposition to the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme court and the “deeply flawed” process Senate Republicans are using to secure her confirmation just weeks ahead of a contentious presidential election.
Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, Kristen Clarke, president of the National Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, said Barrett is “reluctant and unwilling” to recognize modern threats to voting rights faced by Black voters and people of color. Clarke said Barrett’s “originalist” judicial philosophy puts at risk important civil rights precedents such as Brown v. Board of Education, which found state-sanctioned racial segregation in public schools to be unconstitutional, and jeopardizes “bedrock” anti-discrimination protections under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
“Her outlook is not a mainstream approach to the Constitution,” Clarke said. “It is one that leaves us stuck in a bygone era and invites a return to a racist past — not compatible with the modern era.”
On Thursday, leaders of the National Urban League, NAACP, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, National Coalition on Black Civic Participation and Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law told reporters that Barrett would threaten hard-fought voting rights, reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights and anti-discrimination protections for years to come. Longtime civil rights activist Rev. Al Sharpton convened the virtual meeting so these organizations could share their concerns with the press.
“What we have heard over the past four days have only affirmed and indeed deepened our concern over Amy Coney Barrett,” said Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. (The group is independent from the NAACP and was founded in 1940 under the leadership of Thurgood Marshall, who went on to become the first Black justice to serve on the Supreme Court.)
Civil rights attorney Damon Hewitt said that, like Barrett, he was raised Catholic in the New Orleans area and attended Catholic schools. But today Hewitt is the executive vice president of the Lawyers’ Committee of Civil Rights Under the Law, and Barrett is a conservative judge. Hewitt, who is Black, said Barrett must have different “takeaways” from growing up in southern Louisiana, where Black people were enslaved, and where Black civil rights activists such as Homer Plessy challenged Jim Crow-era racial segregation all the way to the Supreme Court.
“As a son of the South, as a Black man in the United States, I understand that racism is real and it exists and it impacts people’s daily lives, but that is something that Judge Barrett in her jurisprudence certainly and in her evasive response to questions seems not to acknowledge, whatsoever,” Hewitt told reporters on Thursday.
Hewitt pointed to a Sen. Kamala Harris’s (D-California) exchange with Barrett during a confirmation hearing on Wednesday, when Harris asked whether Barrett agrees with Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote that racial discrimination against voters “still exists” in a controversial 2013 ruling that gutted a crucial section of the Voting Rights Act. Barrett, who consistently dodged questions from Democrats by refusing to comment on specific legal cases, deflected and called voter discrimination a “very charged issue.”
Pressed by Harris, Barrett finally made a vague statement acknowledging that racial discrimination “still exists” in general. When asked by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) whether voter intimidation is illegal (intimidating voters is clearly illegal), Barrett said she could not “apply the law to a hypothetical set of facts.”
Hewitt said Barrett spoke as if racism is an “abstract principle,” but it’s not. Racism is the reason people of color and Black people in particularly face higher barriers to economic opportunity and health care, for example, which have contributed to higher rates of COVID-19 infections and deaths among people of color. Hewitt noted a 2019 ruling Barrett issued against a Black transportation employee in Illinois who reported workplace discrimination after his boss called him the n-word. Barrett called the slur an “egregious racial epithet,” but she and two other judges ruled the racist insult did not create a hostile work environment.
“Racism operates in context, but this nominee seems to not understand that,” Hewitt said. “Anyone with a conscious knows being called an n-word or any racial epithet does change your experience. But to this nominee it is as if discrimination and racism is in the abstract, it doesn’t matter how people experience it.”
If the right to vote is a “charged issue,” it’s because Trump and the Republican Party have wrapped the ballot in partisan dissonance. Before Trump took office, GOP-controlled state legislatures gerrymandered electoral districts along racial lines and passed voter ID laws and other ballot restrictions designed to suppress turnout among low-income and minority voters. Since losing the popular vote in 2016, Trump has perpetuated the myth that U.S. elections are mired by widespread voter fraud. Now down in the polls, Trump is attacking voting by mail and refuses to say whether he would accept the results of the upcoming election.
Trump has called efforts to expand mail-in voting due to the COVID-19 pandemic a Democratic “scam” and said Barrett must be confirmed because lawsuits contesting the results would likely end up before the Supreme Court. Democrats pushed Barrett to say she would recuse herself from hearing a case contesting the election results, arguing that Trump clearly expects her to rule in his favor. Barrett refused to commit to recusal.
If confirmed, Barrett would likely consider a major voting rights case out of Arizona that threatens to further erode the Voting Rights Act, according to Ifill. At issue are voting rules put in place by Republicans that disqualify provisional ballots cast outside designated precincts on Election Day and place strict limits on who can collect and deliver absentee ballots. Democrats argue low-income voters and voters of color are more likely to vote absentee, and thus the rules are intended to suppress their vote.
Democrats and civil rights groups are now calling on the Senate to wait until after the election to confirm a Supreme Court nominee so voters can have a say — Republicans blocked President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee for months ahead of the 2016 election — but the GOP’s Senate majority plans to vote on Barrett’s confirmation by October 22.
Civil rights attorneys argue that time frame is far too short for lawmakers to perform a rigorous review of Barrett’s record before confirming her to a lifetime appointment. Meanwhile, Congress has failed to pass a second relief package despite widespread hunger and economic pain caused by the pandemic.
“The absolute rush and haste to confirm Judge Barrett is part of a scheme to create a conservative supermajority in the Supreme Court that will overturn the will of the majority of Americans for many decades to come,” said National Urban League President Marc H. Morial.
At least 17 million voters have already cast their ballots. Reports of Black voters waiting in long lines at early polling locations have surfaced in Georgia and Ohio, two states where Republicans have purged rolls of thousands of voters and erected barriers to the ballot. Morial pointed to Texas, where three Trump-appointed judges on a federal appeals panel recently upheld an order from the state’s Republican governor limiting drop boxes for absentee ballots to one per county. County officials in Houston had planned on offering 12 boxes for the 2.4 million voters in Harris County, a massive area where 63 percent of residents are Black or Hispanic, according to The Guardian.
“If the Supreme Court sanctions this type of political manipulation, there is simply no limits on the rampant voter suppression that we can expect in November and beyond,” Morial said.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-10-17--Amid Climate Crisis, Many Americans Still Don’t Know What the Green New Deal Is

Americans could be forgiven if the first time they heard about the Green New Deal was during the October 7 vice-presidential debate between Sen. Kamala Harris and Vice President Mike Pence .
Viewers of Fox News may have heard about the Green New Deal , but the coverage on Fox , according to Media Matters , has , for the last two years , focused on tying it to radical socialism and issuing warnings that the plan would lead to economic collapse .
Other networks haven ’ t given the Green New Deal nearly as much airtime or have failed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In a 2019 poll by The Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation , 3 out of 4 Americans hadn ’ t heard enough about the Green New Deal to have an opinion on it .
Furthermore , Republicans were about twice as likely to have heard about the plan than Democrats , and they expressed opposition to it .
A 2020 poll by the Center for American Progress Action Fund showed a similar level of confusion about the policy proposals in the Green New Deal .
A whopping 53 percent of Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Deal was favorable or unfavorable .
They simply don ’ t know what it is .
In the debate , Vice President Pence accused the Biden camp of supporting the Green New Deal as if to incite a “ Red Scare , ” using the refrain of big government mandates that would result in a loss of jobs and a loss of freedom .
In the fog of confusion about the Green New Deal , the American public might be swayed by the GOP ’ s narrative that it ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea for the Green New Deal originated with the Sunrise Movement , a group of young climate leaders who forced the conversation on climate through sit-ins and protests .
Many are in Generation Z , or Generation Green New Deal ( GEN GND ) as they call themselves .
They have grown up as the most digitally interconnected generation on the planet , so it ’ s no wonder they often gain a political consciousness before voting age .
The depth of their knowledge about the climate crisis runs as deep as their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shadow of an impending apocalypse where adults seem asleep at the wheel .
These young people set about changing the conversation on climate from one focused on polar bears and individual carbon footprints to one focused on jobs , justice and people who have traditionally been left out of the conversation about the environment : poor communities , communities of color and rural communities .
Not only does climate science have a tendency to become abstract when it evokes scientific language like “ gigatons ” and “ parts per million , ” these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to show that it ’ s the vulnerable frontline communities that are often the most harmed by the fossil fuel economy .
In February 2019 , Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-New York ) and Sen. Ed Markey ( D-Massachusetts ) introduced the Green New Deal Resolution , with 67 House and 11 Senate co-sponsors .
The nonbinding resolution calls for the U.S. to reach 100 percent zero-emission power by 2030 , along with sweeping policies like a federal jobs guarantee , universal health care and affordable housing .
The bill now has 101 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Green New Deal harkens back to one of the most successful Democratic initiatives in history — the New Deal — which was designed to pull the U.S. out of the Great Depression .
Let ’ s not forget that it did so by introducing a huge jobs program to put people back to work .
It also gave us Social Security , the federal minimum wage , rural electrification and the Civilian Conservation Corps .
Biden distanced himself from the Green New Deal during his debate with President Trump when he said he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supported his own climate plan .
However , his verbal distancing may have come in part because the GOP has set an unfavorable narrative about the Green New Deal from the get-go .
A few days after the Green New Deal Resolution was introduced , Trump tweeted that it would “ …permanently eliminate all Planes , Cars , Cows , Oil , Gas & the Military… ” In a post-debate tweet last month , it seemed politically expedient for him to peg Biden to the plan when he said : “ Biden can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ( GND ) no matter how hard he tries.
” Last week , Trump incorrectly told Sean Hannity that the Green New Deal calls for tearing down buildings and rebuilding them with “ tiny little windows.
” Maybe Biden purposefully does not want to invoke the Green New Deal on the campaign trail , to the ire and confusion of its proponents .
However , his website clearly states that the Green New Deal is a “ crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face.
” More important to whether he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is whether he is open to adopting its policies , and signs say that he is , at least to some of them .
Once Biden became the Democratic nominee , climate leaders , including Varshini Prakash , the founder of the Sunrise Movement , were invited by the campaign to help toughen his climate plan into what it is today , which includes eliminating fossil fuels from our electric grid by 2035 , a whopping 15 years earlier than his original plan , which Sunrise graded as an F. He has also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his transition team .
By contrast , President Trump ’ s website doesn ’ t even have a climate plan .
On the campaign ’ s Energy and Environment page , there is no mention of climate change or global warming .
Instead , the administration touts oil and gas leases as part of the administration ’ s achievements .
The great news about the bold policies needed to solve climate change is that it will require a lot of good paying union jobs , including a just transition for oil and gas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collective effort to address the largest crisis facing humanity would actually be good for the economy .
Speaking of the economy , it is noteworthy that Fox News and the Trump administration never mention the economic toll of climate change , now a leading concern for banks around the world .
Last month , for example , the task force for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued the direst warning to date by a U.S. financial regulator over the impact of climate change on markets , saying that it poses “ serious emerging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and calling for regulators to “ move urgently and decisively ” to confront them .
Who has moved urgently and decisively to address climate is GEN GND , whether through the Sunrise Movement or through any number of other climate-focused groups .
They have grown up quickly , having witnessed the absence of any serious discussion of climate change in politics .
For example , 2020 has marked the first time in 12 years that climate change was a topic in a presidential or vice-presidential debate .
The fact that the Green @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vice-presidential debate is a crucial start .
However , time is no longer on our side considering that fossil fuel companies spent four precious decades covering up what they knew about the catastrophic effects of climate change and sowing seeds of doubt about climate science .
So far , 2020 has given us ample evidence that the Earth is warming : likely the hottest-ever recorded temperature on the planet ; megafires across the West Coast that scientists didn ’ t expect for another 30 years , including California ’ s first-ever gigafire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1 million acres ; and a record-breaking 10 hurricanes to make landfall in the continental U.S. , with names that had to draw from the Greek alphabet for only the second time in history .
And we ’ ve only warmed the Earth by just above 1 degree Celsius .
People joke and commiserate about the unexpected things that 2020 has thrown our way , but climate scientists are in the back shouting that this year will probably be the coolest , most stable climate we can expect to have for the next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaving school to join the Fridays for Future protests of the government ’ s inaction on the climate crisis .
This is why they often know more about the intricacies of climate science and climate policy than many politically conscious adults .
This is why they are willing to risk the onslaught of virtual hate to step into the public sphere and challenge power structures as the right-wing accuses them of being paid puppets of “ the radical left.
” The age of climate denial and climate incrementalism may be coming to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet .
Even Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett said in hearings that she doesn ’ t have firm views on climate science .
What ’ s more , her father was a longtime Shell Oil lawyer , and Shell has a major case before the Supreme Court .
With the help of government inaction , fossil fuel companies continue to distract people from their role in the crisis with greenwashed marketing campaigns and carbon footprint apps that focus on individual actions rather than collective action on climate .
Meanwhile , climate catastrophes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , impacting vulnerable communities the hardest , but impacting everyone in some way .
Given the time constraints of the climate fight , this election has the power to set the course for far more than the next four years .
It ’ s no wonder this election has been dubbed the most important election of our lifetime .

Given the time constraints of the climate fight, this election may set the course for far more than the next four years.
Americans could be forgiven if the first time they heard about the Green New Deal was during the October 7 vice-presidential debate between Sen. Kamala Harris and Vice President Mike Pence. Viewers of Fox News may have heard about the Green New Deal, but the coverage on Fox, according to Media Matters, has, for the last two years, focused on tying it to radical socialism and issuing warnings that the plan would lead to economic collapse.
Other networks haven’t given the Green New Deal nearly as much airtime or have failed to clearly articulate its proposed policies. In a 2019 poll by The Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation, 3 out of 4 Americans hadn’t heard enough about the Green New Deal to have an opinion on it. Furthermore, Republicans were about twice as likely to have heard about the plan than Democrats, and they expressed opposition to it.
A 2020 poll by the Center for American Progress Action Fund showed a similar level of confusion about the policy proposals in the Green New Deal. A whopping 53 percent of Americans couldn’t say whether the Green New Deal was favorable or unfavorable. They simply don’t know what it is.
In the debate, Vice President Pence accused the Biden camp of supporting the Green New Deal as if to incite a “Red Scare,” using the refrain of big government mandates that would result in a loss of jobs and a loss of freedom. In the fog of confusion about the Green New Deal, the American public might be swayed by the GOP’s narrative that it’s a “big government” boogeyman.
The idea for the Green New Deal originated with the Sunrise Movement, a group of young climate leaders who forced the conversation on climate through sit-ins and protests. Many are in Generation Z, or Generation Green New Deal (GEN GND) as they call themselves. They have grown up as the most digitally interconnected generation on the planet, so it’s no wonder they often gain a political consciousness before voting age. The depth of their knowledge about the climate crisis runs as deep as their climate grief from growing up in the shadow of an impending apocalypse where adults seem asleep at the wheel.
These young people set about changing the conversation on climate from one focused on polar bears and individual carbon footprints to one focused on jobs, justice and people who have traditionally been left out of the conversation about the environment: poor communities, communities of color and rural communities. Not only does climate science have a tendency to become abstract when it evokes scientific language like “gigatons” and “parts per million,” these young activists also see plenty of evidence to show that it’s the vulnerable frontline communities that are often the most harmed by the fossil fuel economy.
In February 2019, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts) introduced the Green New Deal Resolution, with 67 House and 11 Senate co-sponsors. The nonbinding resolution calls for the U.S. to reach 100 percent zero-emission power by 2030, along with sweeping policies like a federal jobs guarantee, universal health care and affordable housing. The bill now has 101 House and 14 Senate co-sponsors.
The Green New Deal harkens back to one of the most successful Democratic initiatives in history — the New Deal — which was designed to pull the U.S. out of the Great Depression. Let’s not forget that it did so by introducing a huge jobs program to put people back to work. It also gave us Social Security, the federal minimum wage, rural electrification and the Civilian Conservation Corps.
Biden distanced himself from the Green New Deal during his debate with President Trump when he said he didn’t support it and instead supported his own climate plan. However, his verbal distancing may have come in part because the GOP has set an unfavorable narrative about the Green New Deal from the get-go. A few days after the Green New Deal Resolution was introduced, Trump tweeted that it would “…permanently eliminate all Planes, Cars, Cows, Oil, Gas & the Military…” In a post-debate tweet last month, it seemed politically expedient for him to peg Biden to the plan when he said: “Biden cannot distance himself from his embrace of the (GND) no matter how hard he tries.” Last week, Trump incorrectly told Sean Hannity that the Green New Deal calls for tearing down buildings and rebuilding them with “tiny little windows.”
Maybe Biden purposefully does not want to invoke the Green New Deal on the campaign trail, to the ire and confusion of its proponents. However, his website clearly states that the Green New Deal is a “crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face.” More important to whether he supports the actual Green New Deal Resolution is whether he is open to adopting its policies, and signs say that he is, at least to some of them.
Once Biden became the Democratic nominee, climate leaders, including Varshini Prakash, the founder of the Sunrise Movement, were invited by the campaign to help toughen his climate plan into what it is today, which includes eliminating fossil fuels from our electric grid by 2035, a whopping 15 years earlier than his original plan, which Sunrise graded as an F. He has also vowed to bar fossil fuel leaders in his transition team. By contrast, President Trump’s website doesn’t even have a climate plan. On the campaign’s Energy and Environment page, there is no mention of climate change or global warming. Instead, the administration touts oil and gas leases as part of the administration’s achievements.
The great news about the bold policies needed to solve climate change is that it will require a lot of good paying union jobs, including a just transition for oil and gas workers. In other words, a collective effort to address the largest crisis facing humanity would actually be good for the economy. Speaking of the economy, it is noteworthy that Fox News and the Trump administration never mention the economic toll of climate change, now a leading concern for banks around the world. Last month, for example, the task force for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued the direst warning to date by a U.S. financial regulator over the impact of climate change on markets, saying that it poses “serious emerging risks to the U.S. financial system,” and calling for regulators to “move urgently and decisively” to confront them.
Who has moved urgently and decisively to address climate is GEN GND, whether through the Sunrise Movement or through any number of other climate-focused groups. They have grown up quickly, having witnessed the absence of any serious discussion of climate change in politics. For example, 2020 has marked the first time in 12 years that climate change was a topic in a presidential or vice-presidential debate.
The fact that the Green New Deal was mentioned at all in the vice-presidential debate is a crucial start. However, time is no longer on our side considering that fossil fuel companies spent four precious decades covering up what they knew about the catastrophic effects of climate change and sowing seeds of doubt about climate science.
So far, 2020 has given us ample evidence that the Earth is warming: likely the hottest-ever recorded temperature on the planet; megafires across the West Coast that scientists didn’t expect for another 30 years, including California’s first-ever gigafire, so named for it burning over 1 million acres; and a record-breaking 10 hurricanes to make landfall in the continental U.S., with names that had to draw from the Greek alphabet for only the second time in history. And we’ve only warmed the Earth by just above 1 degree Celsius. People joke and commiserate about the unexpected things that 2020 has thrown our way, but climate scientists are in the back shouting that this year will probably be the coolest, most stable climate we can expect to have for the next century.
This is why children are leaving school to join the Fridays for Future protests of the government’s inaction on the climate crisis. This is why they often know more about the intricacies of climate science and climate policy than many politically conscious adults. This is why they are willing to risk the onslaught of virtual hate to step into the public sphere and challenge power structures as the right-wing accuses them of being paid puppets of “the radical left.”
The age of climate denial and climate incrementalism may be coming to a close, but it is not over yet. Even Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett said in hearings that she doesn’t have firm views on climate science. What’s more, her father was a longtime Shell Oil lawyer, and Shell has a major case before the Supreme Court. With the help of government inaction, fossil fuel companies continue to distract people from their role in the crisis with greenwashed marketing campaigns and carbon footprint apps that focus on individual actions rather than collective action on climate. Meanwhile, climate catastrophes continue to play out across the country, impacting vulnerable communities the hardest, but impacting everyone in some way. Given the time constraints of the climate fight, this election has the power to set the course for far more than the next four years. It’s no wonder this election has been dubbed the most important election of our lifetime.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-10-18--Trump Is Charging Ahead With Cataclysmic Deregulation in Case of Election Loss

With President Donald Trump ’ s re-election very much in doubt , his administration is rushing to ram through regulatory rollbacks that could adversely affect millions of Americans , the environment , and the ability of Joe Biden — should he win — to pursue his agenda or even undo the damage done over the past four years .
Reporting by the New York Times details how the administration is cutting corners as it scrambles to enact as much of its agenda as possible before ceding power on January 20 if Trump loses the election .
Required public comment periods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times , are being eschewed in favor of streamlined approval processes that have left even staunch deregulation defenders sounding the alarm .
“ Two main hallmarks of a good regulation is sound analysis to support the alternatives chosen and extensive public comment to get broader opinion , ” Susan E. Dudley , director of the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center and formerly head of regulation in the George W. Bush White House , told the Times .
“ It is a concern if you are bypassing both of those.
” Russell Vought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Management and Budget , told the Times that the president has always “ worked quickly… to grow the economy by removing the mountain of Obama-Biden job-killing regulations.
” However , critics are warning that some of the proposed changes are being rushed through with insufficient regard to the harm they might cause .
Some of the issues that are raising red flags include : • Refusing to lower limits on dangerous particulate and ozone pollution , which cause thousands of annual premature deaths .
• Determining when workers can be classified as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certain commercial drivers from mandatory hour limits and rest periods .
• Placing limits on how science is used in the air pollution rule-making process .
• Expanding regulation of immigrants by requiring citizenship applicants to submit biometric data , by forcing sponsors of immigrants to stay off welfare and prove their financial independence .
In response to the reporting , critics of the administration like writer Matthew Kressel said that it helps make clear that if the Republicans in the White House can not win reelection , they ’ ll “ scorch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Matthew Gertz , a senior fellow at Media Matters for America , tweeted : “ I think people underestimate the amount of time and energy that is going to be needed just to climb out from under the mountain of shit this administration leaves behind.
” Many of the changes reflect the agendas of the powerful corporate and other business interests whose key players have donated generously to Trump , belying the president ’ s oft-repeated claim that he is “ draining the swamp.
” Other regulator rollbacks come despite warnings from career @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they could cause .
Alarmed by the administration ’ s rushed rate of regulatory rollbacks , a group of over 15 Democratic senators earlier this month sent a letter ( pdf ) to Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia warning of “ profound economic implications ” for some 143 million U.S. workers that would result from curtailing public comment periods for the proposed rule change regarding independent contractors .
“ Workers across the country deserve a chance to fully examine and properly respond to these potentially radical changes , and a 30-day comment period is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states .

Many of the changes reflect the agendas of powerful corporate interests whose key players have donated heavily to Trump.
With President Donald Trump’s re-election very much in doubt, his administration is rushing to ram through regulatory rollbacks that could adversely affect millions of Americans, the environment, and the ability of Joe Biden — should he win — to pursue his agenda or even undo the damage done over the past four years.
Reporting by the New York Times details how the administration is cutting corners as it scrambles to enact as much of its agenda as possible before ceding power on January 20 if Trump loses the election. Required public comment periods and detailed analyses, according to the Times, are being eschewed in favor of streamlined approval processes that have left even staunch deregulation defenders sounding the alarm.
JUST POSTED: Facing the prospect that President Trump could lose his re-election bid, his cabinet is scrambling to enact regulatory changes affecting millions of Americans in a blitz so rushed it may leave some changes vulnerable to court challenges https://t.co/HZXUM7TvW9 — Eric Lipton (@EricLiptonNYT) October 16, 2020
“Two main hallmarks of a good regulation is sound analysis to support the alternatives chosen and extensive public comment to get broader opinion,” Susan E. Dudley, director of the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center and formerly head of regulation in the George W. Bush White House, told the Times. “It is a concern if you are bypassing both of those.”
Russell Vought, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, told the Times that the president has always “worked quickly… to grow the economy by removing the mountain of Obama-Biden job-killing regulations.”
However, critics are warning that some of the proposed changes are being rushed through with insufficient regard to the harm they might cause. Some of the issues that are raising red flags include:
Refusing to lower limits on dangerous particulate and ozone pollution, which cause thousands of annual premature deaths.
Allowing so-called “bomb trains” that transport highly combustible liquefied natural gas on freight trains.
Determining when workers can be classified as employees or independent contractors.
Exempting certain commercial drivers from mandatory hour limits and rest periods.
Placing limits on how science is used in the air pollution rule-making process.
Expanding regulation of immigrants by requiring citizenship applicants to submit biometric data, by forcing sponsors of immigrants to stay off welfare and prove their financial independence.
In response to the reporting, critics of the administration like writer Matthew Kressel said that it helps make clear that if the Republicans in the White House cannot win reelection, they’ll “scorch the earth before they go.”
And Matthew Gertz, a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, tweeted: “I think people underestimate the amount of time and energy that is going to be needed just to climb out from under the mountain of shit this administration leaves behind.”
I think people underestimate the amount of time and energy that is going to be needed just to climb out from under the mountain of shit this administration leaves behind. https://t.co/ooIBAtQfFH — Matthew Gertz (@MattGertz) October 16, 2020
Many of the changes reflect the agendas of the powerful corporate and other business interests whose key players have donated generously to Trump, belying the president’s oft-repeated claim that he is “draining the swamp.” Other regulator rollbacks come despite warnings from career officials within federal agencies about the harm they could cause.
EPA’s scientific advisers warn its regulatory rollbacks clash with established science https://t.co/RBdUsNvNEy — Carl Zimmer (@carlzimmer) December 31, 2019
Alarmed by the administration’s rushed rate of regulatory rollbacks, a group of over 15 Democratic senators earlier this month sent a letter (pdf) to Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia warning of “profound economic implications” for some 143 million U.S. workers that would result from curtailing public comment periods for the proposed rule change regarding independent contractors.
“Workers across the country deserve a chance to fully examine and properly respond to these potentially radical changes, and a 30-day comment period is not nearly enough,” the letter states.