truthout--2020-07-29--Federal Agents in Portland to Leave the City, Oregon Governor Says

The federal agents who have wielded tear gas , rubber bullets and flash-bang devices against protesters nightly for the past two months in Portland , Oregon , will soon be leaving the city , according to an announcement from Gov .
Kate Brown .
Earlier on Wednesday , President Donald Trump , responding to reports that negotiations on removing the federal officers had begun , insisted that those officers would remain in the city until the nightly demonstrations came to an end .
“ You hear all sorts of reports about us leaving .
We ’ re not leaving until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Trump told reporters at the White House .
Less than one hour later , Governor Brown announced that the negotiations had been successful , and that federal officers would be leaving the state ’ s largest city .
“ After my discussions with [ Vice President Mike ] Pence and others , the federal government has agreed to withdraw federal officers from Portland , ” Brown tweeted .
The governor described federal agents in Portland as “ an occupying force ” that “ brought violence ” to the city .
“ Starting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ & ICE [ Immigration and Customs Enforcement ] officers will leave downtown Portland , ” she added .
As part of the agreement , Brown explained in a subsequent tweet , federal agents would be replaced with Oregon State Police officers .
She also insisted that those officers would “ protect Oregonians ’ right to free speech ” while keeping the peace .
“ Let ’ s center the Black Lives Matter movement ’ s demands for racial justice and police accountability , ” Brown added .
“ It ’ s time for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While Brown insisted that federal agents would be removed right away , others reported a slightly different scenario , causing some confusion on the matter .
According to reporting from the Associated Press , for example , the agents ’ removal would be a “ phased withdrawal.
” Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf also gave a conflicting statement as to whether the agreement , as Brown had laid out , was to be carried out in the terms she had mentioned .
“ As I told the Governor yesterday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until the violent activity toward our federal facilities ends , ” Wolf tweeted out .
In a lengthier statement , Wolf did state that an agreement was reached , but again emphasized that “ augmented federal law enforcement personnel ” would remain “ in Portland until we are assured that the Hatfield Federal Courthouse and other federal properties will no longer be attacked.
” Clashes between federal agents and demonstrators taking part in uprisings in Portland have happened nightly for the past two months .
The actions of federal officers have been widely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as around the world , for being violent and disproportionate toward those engaging in protest in support of the Movement for Black Lives .
Although a number of people have filed lawsuits against the federal government , there is no comprehensive list of how many demonstrators have been injured due to the forceful and violent actions of the federal agents .
Still , videos recorded by news organizations , as well as posted on social media by demonstrators themselves , showcase a number of troubling practices by federal agents , including their indiscriminate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rubber bullets to suppress lawful protest .

The federal agents who have wielded tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bang devices against protesters nightly for the past two months in Portland, Oregon, will soon be leaving the city, according to an announcement from Gov. Kate Brown.
Earlier on Wednesday, President Donald Trump, responding to reports that negotiations on removing the federal officers had begun, insisted that those officers would remain in the city until the nightly demonstrations came to an end.
“You hear all sorts of reports about us leaving. We’re not leaving until they’ve secured their city,” Trump told reporters at the White House.
Less than one hour later, Governor Brown announced that the negotiations had been successful, and that federal officers would be leaving the state’s largest city.
“After my discussions with [Vice President Mike] Pence and others, the federal government has agreed to withdraw federal officers from Portland,” Brown tweeted.
The governor described federal agents in Portland as “an occupying force” that “brought violence” to the city.
“Starting tomorrow, all Customs and Border Protection & ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] officers will leave downtown Portland,” she added.
As part of the agreement, Brown explained in a subsequent tweet, federal agents would be replaced with Oregon State Police officers. She also insisted that those officers would “protect Oregonians’ right to free speech” while keeping the peace.
“Let’s center the Black Lives Matter movement’s demands for racial justice and police accountability,” Brown added. “It’s time for bold action to reform police practices.”
While Brown insisted that federal agents would be removed right away, others reported a slightly different scenario, causing some confusion on the matter. According to reporting from the Associated Press, for example, the agents’ removal would be a “phased withdrawal.”
Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf also gave a conflicting statement as to whether the agreement, as Brown had laid out, was to be carried out in the terms she had mentioned.
“As I told the Governor yesterday, federal law enforcement will remain in Portland until the violent activity toward our federal facilities ends,” Wolf tweeted out.
In a lengthier statement, Wolf did state that an agreement was reached, but again emphasized that “augmented federal law enforcement personnel” would remain “in Portland until we are assured that the Hatfield Federal Courthouse and other federal properties will no longer be attacked.”
Clashes between federal agents and demonstrators taking part in uprisings in Portland have happened nightly for the past two months. The actions of federal officers have been widely criticized, in the U.S. as well as around the world, for being violent and disproportionate toward those engaging in protest in support of the Movement for Black Lives.
Although a number of people have filed lawsuits against the federal government, there is no comprehensive list of how many demonstrators have been injured due to the forceful and violent actions of the federal agents.
Still, videos recorded by news organizations, as well as posted on social media by demonstrators themselves, showcase a number of troubling practices by federal agents, including their indiscriminate use of tear gas and weapons like rubber bullets to suppress lawful protest.
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--2020-07-29--Bill Barr Grilled by House Lawmakers on Protest Crackdown and Voter Suppression

We play highlights from Attorney General William Barr ’ s grilling by the House Judiciary Committee over how he sent militarized federal forces to confront Black Lives Matter protesters , and his opposition to voting by mail , and get response from a close friend of Congressmember John Lewis who is now running for Senate .
“ In spite of the machinations of Donald Trump and those who do his bidding , including the attorney general , the good news is that we ’ re seeing a multiracial coalition of people pouring out into American streets , ” responds Rev @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we ’ re concerned about the soul of our democracy.
” Rev .
Warnock is running as a Democrat for Senate in Georgia .
This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : Attorney General William Barr faced questions from the House Judiciary Committee Tuesday in a confrontational five-hour hearing chaired by New York Congressman Jerry Nadler .
AMY GOODMAN : The hearing was delayed by about an hour because the chair , Jerry Nadler , was in a car accident , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s most contentious exchanges , Washington Congressmember Pramila Jayapal noted the discrepancy between Barr ’ s deployment of militarized troops in response to Black Lives Matter protesters and armed militia members who displayed white nationalist symbols as they stormed state capitol buildings in protest of public health measures .
REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL : On two separate occasions , after President Trump tweeted , “ Liberate Michigan , ” to subvert stay-home orders to protect the public health of people in Michigan , protesters swarmed the Michigan Capitol carrying guns , some with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even with a dark-haired doll with a noose around its neck .
Are you aware that these protesters called for the governor to be lynched , shot and beheaded ?
REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL : There is a real discrepancy in how you react as the attorney general , the top cop in this country .
When white men with swastikas storm a government building with guns , there is no need for the president to , quote , ‘ activate ’ you , because they ’ re getting the president ’ s personal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and people of color protest police brutality , systemic racism and the president ’ s very own lack of response to those critical issues , then you forcibly remove them with armed federal officers , pepper bombs , because they are considered terrorists by the president .
AMY GOODMAN : That ’ s Washington Congressmember Pramila Jayapal .
With coronavirus deaths in the United States nearing 150,000 , and the last day , the largest spike in deaths — 1,200 — since May , Congressmember Cedric Richmond of Louisiana also questioned Barr ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ November ’ s election .
REP. CEDRIC RICHMOND : You are aware that African Americans , Black people , disproportionately die from COVID-19 , coronavirus , correct ?
ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR : Yes , I think that ’ s right .
REP. CEDRIC RICHMOND : And not that it would be the first time that African Americans would risk their lives to vote in this country , to preserve its democracy , but the suggestion is that them having the ability to vote by mail would somehow lead to massive voter fraud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to that .
ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR : I didn ’ t say that .
I just stated , I think , what is a reality , which is that if you have wholesale mail-in voting , it substantially increases the risk of fraud .
REP. CEDRIC RICHMOND : But it doesn ’ t make it likely .
AMY GOODMAN : In fact , the attorney general has voted by mail himself .
As lawmakers questioned Attorney General Barr , the late Congressman John Lewis lay in state on the steps of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we ’ ll look at the life of John Lewis , ahead of his funeral Thursday at Atlanta ’ s historic Ebenezer Baptist Church , which was the spiritual home of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr .
But first we discuss this remarkable hearing with the Reverend Dr. Raphael Warnock , who serves as senior pastor at that church , the Ebenezer Baptist Church , and will officiate over Lewis ’ s funeral on Thursday .
Reverend Warnock is also running as a Democrat for Senate in Georgia .
Reverend Warnock , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back with us .
In a moment , we ’ re going to talk with you about your dear friend , congressmember , civil rights icon , John Lewis .
But we want to start on this highly contentious hearing yesterday on the issue of voting rights and what the federal government has done in sending a surge of agents to cities that have major Black Lives Matter protests .
Your thoughts ?
REV .
RAPHAEL WARNOCK : Good morning , Amy .
It ’ s good to be here with you and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have seen over the last three-and-a-half years under this administration .
And that is a kind of hostility towards communities of color that is unabashed and unembarrassed .
We are at an inflection point in this country .
In spite of the machinations of Donald Trump and those who do his bidding , including the attorney general , the good news is that we ’ re seeing a multiracial coalition of people pouring out into American streets , demonstrating , by and large , nonviolently and saying that we ’ re concerned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And for William Barr , the top cop in our country , to somehow suggest that vote by mail leads to fraud is wrong on its face .
But it ’ s part of what we ’ ve seen with the Republicans as we ’ ve dealt with this whole issue of voter suppression .
They ’ ve used the language of voter fraud .
Everybody knows that voter fraud through voter ID , for example , is almost nonexistent .
It ’ s really a way of trying to suppress the vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We ’ re pushing back here in Georgia .
And people are pushing back all across the country .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Reverend Warnock , I wanted to ask you — in addition , during Attorney General Barr ’ s testimony , he made some remarks in terms of police abuse .
And he said , quote , “ The threat to Black lives posed by crime on the streets is massively greater than any threat posed by police misconduct.
” I ’ m wondering your response to that comment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s a typical red herring that we hear from the likes of William Barr , Rudy Giuliani and others .
The point is , is that we entrust the police with state power , and they are sworn to protect .
And instead of that , people of color very often find themselves on the receiving end of state-sanctioned violence .
And so , the response to police brutality is that there ’ s crime in communities ?
There ’ s crime in all communities .
And everybody knows that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are in the closest proximity to them .
So this is a typical red herring .
It ’ s a distraction .
And it won ’ t stand .
We have to continue to push back against police brutality .
And as we do , we are inspired by those who fought the good fight long before us .
We ’ re celebrating the life of John Lewis tomorrow at our church .
And I think of the fact that John Lewis , on a bridge in Selma , withstood police brutality in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vote .
And all of these decades later , even as we celebrate him , we ’ re fighting against police brutality , and we ’ re trying to maintain and strengthen our right to vote .
And so , we can ’ t turn back now .
We have to be vigilant and focused and disciplined .
And it ’ s more important now than it ’ s been in a long time .
We say all the time that elections have consequences .
We ’ re seeing , under this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , can be a matter of life and death .
And so folks are standing up , and I ’ m grateful to be a part of a coalition .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : I also wanted to ask you about another aspect of the hearing , when congressmembers questioned Attorney General Barr on his characterization of Trump ’ s handling of the coronavirus pandemic as , quote , “ superb , ” and especially the New York Congressmember Hakeem Jeffries running down a series of Trump missteps , and , of course , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of coronavirus cases would go from 15 to zero .
REV .
RAPHAEL WARNOCK : Superb ?
You should tell that to the families of now nearly 150,000 Americans who are dead .
Superb ?
We have more than our share of the coronavirus cases .
In a real sense , this crisis is being handled in our country as if we were a country with no resources at all .
AMY GOODMAN : Reverend Warnock , we want to go to that clip of Hakeem Jeffries questioning Attorney General William Barr @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Trump falsely claimed that the number of coronavirus cases would go from 15 to zero in a few days .
Was that superb ?
Yes or no ?
ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR : I ’ d have to see the context in which it was said .
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES : Here ’ s the context .
The number of cases didn ’ t go down to zero .
It ’ s over 4 million .
Let ’ s go to March .
In that month , President Trump said , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” for the failure in testing .
Was that superb ?
Yes or no ?
ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR : It was accurate .
The problem with the testing system was a function of President Obama ’ s mishandling of the CDC and his efforts to centralize everything in the CDC when it didn ’ t have the capacity to test — REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES : Thank you .
Thank you , Mr. Barr .
That is inaccurate .
That ’ s a myth .
That ’ s a lie .
ATTORNEY GENERAL @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until this administration — it wasn ’ t until — REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES : Reclaiming my time .
In April , President Trump irresponsibly suggested that the American people inject themselves with bleach .
Was that superb ?
Yes or no ?
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES : That ’ s exactly what he said .
That ’ s what the American people heard .
And you know it , and you can ’ t defend it .
AMY GOODMAN : Again , that ’ s New York Congressmember Hakeem Jeffries questioning Attorney General William @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Juan ’ s question , Reverend Warnock , on Trump ’ s handling of the coronavirus and take it right to Georgia , where you have this amazing confrontation going on right now between the African American mayor of Atlanta , Keisha Bottoms , versus the governor , who refuses to impose , for example , a mask mandate , though she did in Atlanta .
And he has now sued her personally , saying that she should not be able to speak to the press — this African American woman mayor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
REV .
RAPHAEL WARNOCK : Yes .
I mean , this is par for the course with this administration .
Listen , this COVID-19 challenge does not know political party .
They ’ re playing politics , literally , with people ’ s lives .
We have nearly 150,000 Americans dead , 4 million cases .
And Georgia is not doing well .
And we ’ re seeing , in the case of Governor Kemp , as we see with William Barr , folks who are doing the bidding of this president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who are elected to serve the people rather than their own interests .
And as you point out , yeah , the specter of literally robbing an African American mayor — or , attempting to rob her of the right of her own voice to speak on behalf of her own constituency is antidemocratic , and it ’ s beyond the pale .
AMY GOODMAN : We ’ re going to break , then come back to our discussion with you , Reverend Warnock .
We want to talk to you specifically about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officiating over his funeral tomorrow in Atlanta .
Stay with us .

We play highlights from Attorney General William Barr’s grilling by the House Judiciary Committee over how he sent militarized federal forces to confront Black Lives Matter protesters, and his opposition to voting by mail, and get response from a close friend of Congressmember John Lewis who is now running for Senate. “In spite of the machinations of Donald Trump and those who do his bidding, including the attorney general, the good news is that we’re seeing a multiracial coalition of people pouring out into American streets,” responds Rev. Dr. Raphael Warnock, “saying that we’re concerned about the soul of our democracy.” Rev. Warnock is running as a Democrat for Senate in Georgia.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: Attorney General William Barr faced questions from the House Judiciary Committee Tuesday in a confrontational five-hour hearing chaired by New York Congressman Jerry Nadler.
REP. JERROLD NADLER: William Barr’s views of presidential power are so radically mistaken that he is simply the wrong man at the wrong time to be attorney general of the United States.
AMY GOODMAN: The hearing was delayed by about an hour because the chair, Jerry Nadler, was in a car accident, though uninjured. In one of the hearing’s most contentious exchanges, Washington Congressmember Pramila Jayapal noted the discrepancy between Barr’s deployment of militarized troops in response to Black Lives Matter protesters and armed militia members who displayed white nationalist symbols as they stormed state capitol buildings in protest of public health measures.
REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL: On two separate occasions, after President Trump tweeted, “Liberate Michigan,” to subvert stay-home orders to protect the public health of people in Michigan, protesters swarmed the Michigan Capitol carrying guns, some with swastikas, Confederate flags, and one even with a dark-haired doll with a noose around its neck. Are you aware that these protesters called for the governor to be lynched, shot and beheaded? ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR: No. REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL: There is a real discrepancy in how you react as the attorney general, the top cop in this country. When white men with swastikas storm a government building with guns, there is no need for the president to, quote, ‘activate’ you, because they’re getting the president’s personal agenda done. But when Black people and people of color protest police brutality, systemic racism and the president’s very own lack of response to those critical issues, then you forcibly remove them with armed federal officers, pepper bombs, because they are considered terrorists by the president.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Washington Congressmember Pramila Jayapal. With coronavirus deaths in the United States nearing 150,000, and the last day, the largest spike in deaths — 1,200 — since May, Congressmember Cedric Richmond of Louisiana also questioned Barr’s opposition to voting by mail in November’s election.
REP. CEDRIC RICHMOND: You are aware that African Americans, Black people, disproportionately die from COVID-19, coronavirus, correct? ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR: Yes, I think that’s right. REP. CEDRIC RICHMOND: And not that it would be the first time that African Americans would risk their lives to vote in this country, to preserve its democracy, but the suggestion is that them having the ability to vote by mail would somehow lead to massive voter fraud. But I won’t stick to that. ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR: I didn’t say that. I just stated, I think, what is a reality, which is that if you have wholesale mail-in voting, it substantially increases the risk of fraud. REP. CEDRIC RICHMOND: But it doesn’t make it likely. ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR: That’s all I said.
AMY GOODMAN: In fact, the attorney general has voted by mail himself.
As lawmakers questioned Attorney General Barr, the late Congressman John Lewis lay in state on the steps of the Capitol for a public viewing. Today, we’ll look at the life of John Lewis, ahead of his funeral Thursday at Atlanta’s historic Ebenezer Baptist Church, which was the spiritual home of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. But first we discuss this remarkable hearing with the Reverend Dr. Raphael Warnock, who serves as senior pastor at that church, the Ebenezer Baptist Church, and will officiate over Lewis’s funeral on Thursday. Reverend Warnock is also running as a Democrat for Senate in Georgia.
Reverend Warnock, it’s great to have you back with us. In a moment, we’re going to talk with you about your dear friend, congressmember, civil rights icon, John Lewis. But we want to start on this highly contentious hearing yesterday on the issue of voting rights and what the federal government has done in sending a surge of agents to cities that have major Black Lives Matter protests. Your thoughts?
REV. RAPHAEL WARNOCK: Good morning, Amy. It’s good to be here with you and Juan again.
We are witnessing what we have seen over the last three-and-a-half years under this administration. And that is a kind of hostility towards communities of color that is unabashed and unembarrassed. We are at an inflection point in this country. In spite of the machinations of Donald Trump and those who do his bidding, including the attorney general, the good news is that we’re seeing a multiracial coalition of people pouring out into American streets, demonstrating, by and large, nonviolently and saying that we’re concerned about the soul of our democracy.
And for William Barr, the top cop in our country, to somehow suggest that vote by mail leads to fraud is wrong on its face. But it’s part of what we’ve seen with the Republicans as we’ve dealt with this whole issue of voter suppression. They’ve used the language of voter fraud. Everybody knows that voter fraud through voter ID, for example, is almost nonexistent. It’s really a way of trying to suppress the vote. But it won’t work. We’re pushing back here in Georgia. And people are pushing back all across the country.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Reverend Warnock, I wanted to ask you — in addition, during Attorney General Barr’s testimony, he made some remarks in terms of police abuse. And he said, quote, “The threat to Black lives posed by crime on the streets is massively greater than any threat posed by police misconduct.” I’m wondering your response to that comment.
REV. RAPHAEL WARNOCK: Listen, it’s a typical red herring that we hear from the likes of William Barr, Rudy Giuliani and others. The point is, is that we entrust the police with state power, and they are sworn to protect. And instead of that, people of color very often find themselves on the receiving end of state-sanctioned violence. And so, the response to police brutality is that there’s crime in communities? There’s crime in all communities. And everybody knows that people typically commit crimes against those who are in the closest proximity to them. So this is a typical red herring. It’s a distraction. And it won’t stand. We have to continue to push back against police brutality.
And as we do, we are inspired by those who fought the good fight long before us. We’re celebrating the life of John Lewis tomorrow at our church. And I think of the fact that John Lewis, on a bridge in Selma, withstood police brutality in order to win for us the right to vote. And all of these decades later, even as we celebrate him, we’re fighting against police brutality, and we’re trying to maintain and strengthen our right to vote. And so, we can’t turn back now. We have to be vigilant and focused and disciplined. And it’s more important now than it’s been in a long time. We say all the time that elections have consequences. We’re seeing, under this administration, that elections, quite literally, can be a matter of life and death. And so folks are standing up, and I’m grateful to be a part of a coalition.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I also wanted to ask you about another aspect of the hearing, when congressmembers questioned Attorney General Barr on his characterization of Trump’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic as, quote, “superb,” and especially the New York Congressmember Hakeem Jeffries running down a series of Trump missteps, and, of course, where the president famously said that the number of coronavirus cases would go from 15 to zero.
REV. RAPHAEL WARNOCK: Superb? You should tell that to the families of now nearly 150,000 Americans who are dead. Superb? We have more than our share of the coronavirus cases. In a real sense, this crisis is being handled in our country as if we were a country with no resources at all.
AMY GOODMAN: Reverend Warnock, we want to go to that clip of Hakeem Jeffries questioning Attorney General William Barr.
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES: February, President Trump falsely claimed that the number of coronavirus cases would go from 15 to zero in a few days. Was that superb? Yes or no? ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR: I’d have to see the context in which it was said. REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES: Here’s the context. The number of cases didn’t go down to zero. It’s over 4 million. Let’s go to March. In that month, President Trump said, “I take no responsibility at all,” for the failure in testing. Was that superb? Yes or no? ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR: It was accurate. The problem with the testing system was a function of President Obama’s mishandling of the CDC and his efforts to centralize everything in the CDC when it didn’t have the capacity to test — REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Barr. That is inaccurate. That’s a myth. That’s a lie. ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR: It wasn’t until this administration — it wasn’t until — REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES: Reclaiming my time. In April, President Trump irresponsibly suggested that the American people inject themselves with bleach. Was that superb? Yes or no? ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR: That’s not what I heard. REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES: That’s exactly what he said. That’s what the American people heard. And you know it, and you can’t defend it.
AMY GOODMAN: Again, that’s New York Congressmember Hakeem Jeffries questioning Attorney General William Barr. And I wanted to add to Juan’s question, Reverend Warnock, on Trump’s handling of the coronavirus and take it right to Georgia, where you have this amazing confrontation going on right now between the African American mayor of Atlanta, Keisha Bottoms, versus the governor, who refuses to impose, for example, a mask mandate, though she did in Atlanta. And he has now sued her personally, saying that she should not be able to speak to the press — this African American woman mayor should not be allowed to speak out.
REV. RAPHAEL WARNOCK: Yes. I mean, this is par for the course with this administration. Listen, this COVID-19 challenge does not know political party. They’re playing politics, literally, with people’s lives. We have nearly 150,000 Americans dead, 4 million cases. And Georgia is not doing well. And we’re seeing, in the case of Governor Kemp, as we see with William Barr, folks who are doing the bidding of this president. And what we need is leaders who are elected to serve the people rather than their own interests. And as you point out, yeah, the specter of literally robbing an African American mayor — or, attempting to rob her of the right of her own voice to speak on behalf of her own constituency is antidemocratic, and it’s beyond the pale.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to break, then come back to our discussion with you, Reverend Warnock. We want to talk to you specifically about John Lewis. You’ll be officiating over his funeral tomorrow in Atlanta. Stay with us.
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--2020-07-29--In Portland, Getting Out of Jail Requires Relinquishing Constitutional Rights

Federal authorities are using a new tactic in their battle against protesters in Portland , Oregon : arrest them on offenses as minor as “ failing to obey ” an order to get off a sidewalk on federal property — and then tell them they can ’ t protest anymore as a condition for release from jail .
Legal experts describe the move as a blatant violation of the constitutional right to free assembly , but at least 12 protesters arrested in recent weeks have been specifically barred from attending protests or demonstrations as they await trials on federal misdemeanor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any other protests , rallies , assemblies or public gathering in the state of Oregon , ” states one “ Order Setting Conditions of Release ” for an accused protester , alongside other conditions such as appearing for court dates .
The orders are signed by federal magistrate judges .
For other defendants , the restricted area is limited to Portland , where clashes between protesters and federal troops have grown increasingly violent in recent weeks .
In at least two cases , there are no geographic restrictions ; one release document instructs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protests , demonstrations , rallies , assemblies while this case is pending.
” Protesters who have agreed to stay away from further demonstrations say they felt forced to accept those terms to get out of jail .
“ Those terms were given to me after being in a holding cell after 14 hours , ” Bailey Dreibelbis , who was charged July 24 with “ failing to obey a lawful order , ” told ProPublica .
“ It was pretty cut-and-dried , just , ‘ These are your conditions for [ getting out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t take it , I would still be in holding .
It wasn ’ t really an option , in my eyes.
” It could not be learned who drafted the orders barring the protesters from joining further demonstrations .
The documents reviewed by ProPublica were signed by a federal magistrate in Portland .
Magistrates have broad authority to set the terms of release for anyone accused of a crime .
They typically receive recommendations from U.S. Pretrial Services , an arm of the U.S. Courts , which can gather input @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case .
ProPublica identified several instances in which the protest ban was added to the conditions of release document when it was drafted , before it was given to the judge .
It remained unclear whether the limits on protesting were initiated by Justice Department officials or the magistrates hearing the cases .
Constitutional lawyers said conditioning release from jail on a promise to stop joining protests were overly broad and almost certainly a violation of the First Amendment right to free assembly .
“ The government has a very heavy burden when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and on assembly , ” noted Jameel Jaffer of Columbia University ’ s Knight First Amendment Institute .
“ It ’ s much easier for the government to meet that burden where it has individualized information about a threat .
So for example , they know that a particular person is planning to carry out some unlawful activity at a particular protest.
” Over the past week , the federal government has sharply increased the number of protesters it ’ s charging with federal crimes — often for petty offenses that are classified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on federal property .
Court documents reviewed by ProPublica show that over a third of the protesters are charged with “ failing to obey a lawful order , ” which 14 protesters were charged with between July 21 and July 24 alone .
The office of the U.S. attorney for Oregon , Billy J. Williams , did not respond to ProPublica ’ s questions about who was making charging decisions .
In a recent interview with The Oregonian , Williams urged local citizens to demand that “ violent extremists ” who have attempted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal courthouse leave .
“ Until that happens , we ’ re going to do what we need to do to protect federal property.
” Craig Gabriel , an assistant U.S. attorney who works for Williams , insisted the office understood and respected the right to protest racial injustice .
“ People are angry .
Very large crowds are gathering , expressing deep and legitimate anger with police and the justice system , ” Gabriel told The Oregonian .
“ We wholeheartedly support the community ’ s constitutionally protected rights to assemble together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engage in peaceful and civil disobedience.
” Gabriel did not mention the written restrictions against protest that have been made a condition of release for some of those arrested .
Several protesters who were let go on July 23 had bans against demonstrating added by hand on their release documents by Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta , who signed off on them , a review by ProPublica found .
Acosta ’ s office did not respond to ProPublica ’ s questions .
For those released on July 24 , the restriction was added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ signed by Acosta .
One protester arrested and released earlier in the month had his conditions of release modified at his arraignment on July 24 .
The modified order , signed by Acosta , added a protest ban not previously included .
Three of the 15 protesters charged on July 27 , in orders signed by Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo , also had explicit protest restrictions added to their release terms .
( One release order has not yet been posted to the federal courts database . )
Russo ’ s office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions .
“ I don ’ t see that as constitutionally defensible , ” Jaffer said .
And I find it difficult to believe that any judge would uphold it.
” The ACLU ’ s Somil Trivedi said , “ Release conditions should be related to public safety or flight ” — in other words , the risk that the defendant will abscond .
“ This is neither.
” He described the handwritten addition of a protest ban to a release document as “ sort of hilariously unconstitutional.
” Publicly , the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problem with the protests that erupted in Portland and other American cities in response to the May 25 death of George Floyd , a Black man , in police custody in Minneapolis .
The administration said it launched Operation Diligent Valor in July with a massive deployment of federal officers merely to protect federal property from “ violent extremists.
” Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago Law School said that imposing a protest ban as a release condition undermines the distinction between protected protest and criminal activity .
“ Even if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in fact , step beyond the bounds of the First Amendment and do something illegal , that doesn ’ t mean you can then restrict their First Amendment right.
” In many cases , the charges leveled at Portland protesters are closely tied to their presence at the protest — and not to any violent acts .
Eighteen of the 50 protesters charged in Portland are accused only of minor offenses under Title 40 , Section 1315 , of the U.S. Code .
That law criminalizes certain behavior ( like “ failure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well as “ disorderly conduct ” ) when it happens on federal property or against people who are located on that property .
In other words , it describes behavior that wouldn ’ t otherwise be a matter for a federal court .
Dreibelbis , like other protesters to whom ProPublica has spoken , said he was arrested for being on the sidewalk outside the federal courthouse .
Because the federal government owns the land under the sidewalk , another protester ( who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid influencing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s “ common knowledge ” among protesters that the sidewalk is a no-go zone , and setting foot on it risks federal prosecution .
Dreibelbis told ProPublica he roller-skated into the protest , expecting to attend only briefly .
He said he knelt on the sidewalk and was arrested by officers .
( The charging document filed against Dreibelbis offers no arrest details . )
Section 1315 is the same law the Trump administration is using to justify initiating the federal show of force in Portland , which the administration has said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where protests have raged since Floyd ’ s death .
The law allows the secretary of homeland security to supplement the Federal Protective Service , the relatively small agency partly responsible for federal building security , with law enforcement agents from the department ’ s other agencies ( such as Customs and Border Protection ) .
Both President Donald Trump and his predecessor , Barack Obama , have invoked that part of the law in the past .
But the use of that same law to file criminal charges appears to be novel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surge force ” of 400 FPS agents , and a dozen CBP agents , to Baltimore in 2015 , when the police killing of Freddie Gray sparked broad unrest , but no charges were filed under Section 1315 itself in that response .
In Portland , the federal government has relied on the FPS and U.S .
Marshals to write affidavits used to charge protesters in federal court .
But it has detailed other agencies on the protest front lines : DHS agencies cited in court complaints include CBP , through its BORTAC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s investigations unit ; DHS ’ Office of Intelligence and Analysis , in addition to FPS .
Complaints also cite the U.S .
Marshals and the Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms and Explosives , which are Justice Department entities .
In the first weeks of the operation , the most common charge against protesters was assault of a federal officer — which , in some cases , counted as a crime on federal property because protesters on the streets were shining lasers at officers inside the courthouse .
( DHS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lose their vision , but as of July 24 , the most serious injury detailed in federal charging documents was an agent who reported seeing spots in his eyes for 15 minutes after the laser attack . )
Over July 23 and 24 , however , 10 of the 13 cases opened were charges only of “ failing to obey a lawful order.
” ( One other defendant was charged with assaulting a U.S .
Marshal while detained inside the courthouse — where she had been taken after an arrest for “ failing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Since then , almost all cases have accused protesters of assaulting a federal officer ( generally a misdemeanor charge ) .
In many of the assault cases , files are thin and no details of the allegations have been posted , even for protesters charged as early as July 6 .
No case files identify an alleged victim — either by name or by the “ unique identifier ” on their uniforms .
( DHS officials have claimed it ’ s unfair to describe the federal agents in Portland as “ unidentified ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some assault accusations charge protesters with throwing unidentified objects at officers in body armor , who were unharmed .
Even those defendants who aren ’ t explicitly barred from attending protests are unable to return to the epicenter of Portland ’ s unrest as a condition of their release .
They are placed under a curfew ( either from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. or 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. ) and told not to go within five blocks of the courthouse grounds except for court hearings .
Experts said that while restrictions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re still questionably constitutional .
“ Though ‘ stay away ’ orders from a place where a potential crime has been committed are generally standard , ” the ACLU ’ s Trivedi said , “ ‘ stay away ’ orders from public places that are part of the public square are more questionable.
” But he and others conceded that the government could make an argument that it was necessary to prevent further wrongdoing .
They saw no legitimate rationale for a blanket ban on protests .
“ I suppose the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law enforcement officer at a protest , and we don ’ t trust you to not do it again , ’ ” Trivedi said .
But the release documents already instruct defendants that they are not allowed to break any laws while awaiting trial .
“ If they want to say ‘ don ’ t break a law again , ’ they ’ ve already said that , ” Trivedi told ProPublica .
“ Beyond that , the only part that ’ s left would be not letting you exercise your First Amendment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , must now watch the protests proceed without him .
“ I work across the water from the protests , and I can see it every ” night , he told ProPublica .
“ I ’ m protesting from this side.
” He hastened to clarify that he didn ’ t mean he was attending a protest in violation of the court order .
“ Not protesting !
There ’ s no protesting going on in the party of one .
But I am there in spirit .
”

Federal authorities are using a new tactic in their battle against protesters in Portland, Oregon.
Federal authorities are using a new tactic in their battle against protesters in Portland, Oregon: arrest them on offenses as minor as “failing to obey” an order to get off a sidewalk on federal property — and then tell them they can’t protest anymore as a condition for release from jail.
Legal experts describe the move as a blatant violation of the constitutional right to free assembly, but at least 12 protesters arrested in recent weeks have been specifically barred from attending protests or demonstrations as they await trials on federal misdemeanor charges.
“Defendant may not attend any other protests, rallies, assemblies or public gathering in the state of Oregon,” states one “Order Setting Conditions of Release” for an accused protester, alongside other conditions such as appearing for court dates. The orders are signed by federal magistrate judges.
For other defendants, the restricted area is limited to Portland, where clashes between protesters and federal troops have grown increasingly violent in recent weeks. In at least two cases, there are no geographic restrictions; one release document instructs, “Do not participate in any protests, demonstrations, rallies, assemblies while this case is pending.”
Protesters who have agreed to stay away from further demonstrations say they felt forced to accept those terms to get out of jail.
“Those terms were given to me after being in a holding cell after 14 hours,” Bailey Dreibelbis, who was charged July 24 with “failing to obey a lawful order,” told ProPublica. “It was pretty cut-and-dried, just, ‘These are your conditions for [getting out] of here.’
“If I didn’t take it, I would still be in holding. It wasn’t really an option, in my eyes.”
It could not be learned who drafted the orders barring the protesters from joining further demonstrations. The documents reviewed by ProPublica were signed by a federal magistrate in Portland. Magistrates have broad authority to set the terms of release for anyone accused of a crime. They typically receive recommendations from U.S. Pretrial Services, an arm of the U.S. Courts, which can gather input from prosecutors and others involved in the case. ProPublica identified several instances in which the protest ban was added to the conditions of release document when it was drafted, before it was given to the judge. It remained unclear whether the limits on protesting were initiated by Justice Department officials or the magistrates hearing the cases.
Constitutional lawyers said conditioning release from jail on a promise to stop joining protests were overly broad and almost certainly a violation of the First Amendment right to free assembly.
“The government has a very heavy burden when it comes to restrictions on protest rights and on assembly,” noted Jameel Jaffer of Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute. “It’s much easier for the government to meet that burden where it has individualized information about a threat. So for example, they know that a particular person is planning to carry out some unlawful activity at a particular protest.”
Over the past week, the federal government has sharply increased the number of protesters it’s charging with federal crimes — often for petty offenses that are classified as federal misdemeanors only because they occur on federal property. Court documents reviewed by ProPublica show that over a third of the protesters are charged with “failing to obey a lawful order,” which 14 protesters were charged with between July 21 and July 24 alone.
The office of the U.S. attorney for Oregon, Billy J. Williams, did not respond to ProPublica’s questions about who was making charging decisions. In a recent interview with The Oregonian, Williams urged local citizens to demand that “violent extremists” who have attempted to break through the fence outside the federal courthouse leave. “Until that happens, we’re going to do what we need to do to protect federal property.”
Craig Gabriel, an assistant U.S. attorney who works for Williams, insisted the office understood and respected the right to protest racial injustice. “People are angry. Very large crowds are gathering, expressing deep and legitimate anger with police and the justice system,” Gabriel told The Oregonian. “We wholeheartedly support the community’s constitutionally protected rights to assemble together in large, even rowdy protests and engage in peaceful and civil disobedience.”
Gabriel did not mention the written restrictions against protest that have been made a condition of release for some of those arrested.
Several protesters who were let go on July 23 had bans against demonstrating added by hand on their release documents by Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta, who signed off on them, a review by ProPublica found. Acosta’s office did not respond to ProPublica’s questions.
For those released on July 24, the restriction was added to the original typed document, also signed by Acosta. One protester arrested and released earlier in the month had his conditions of release modified at his arraignment on July 24. The modified order, signed by Acosta, added a protest ban not previously included.
Three of the 15 protesters charged on July 27, in orders signed by Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo, also had explicit protest restrictions added to their release terms. (One release order has not yet been posted to the federal courts database.) Russo’s office did not reply to ProPublica’s questions.
“I don’t see that as constitutionally defensible,” Jaffer said. And I find it difficult to believe that any judge would uphold it.”
The ACLU’s Somil Trivedi said, “Release conditions should be related to public safety or flight” — in other words, the risk that the defendant will abscond. “This is neither.” He described the handwritten addition of a protest ban to a release document as “sort of hilariously unconstitutional.”
Publicly, the Trump administration has claimed that it has no problem with the protests that erupted in Portland and other American cities in response to the May 25 death of George Floyd, a Black man, in police custody in Minneapolis. The administration said it launched Operation Diligent Valor in July with a massive deployment of federal officers merely to protect federal property from “violent extremists.”
Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago Law School said that imposing a protest ban as a release condition undermines the distinction between protected protest and criminal activity. “Even if they’re right that these people did, in fact, step beyond the bounds of the First Amendment and do something illegal, that doesn’t mean you can then restrict their First Amendment right.”
In many cases, the charges leveled at Portland protesters are closely tied to their presence at the protest — and not to any violent acts.
Eighteen of the 50 protesters charged in Portland are accused only of minor offenses under Title 40, Section 1315, of the U.S. Code. That law criminalizes certain behavior (like “failure to obey a lawful order,” as well as “disorderly conduct”) when it happens on federal property or against people who are located on that property. In other words, it describes behavior that wouldn’t otherwise be a matter for a federal court.
Dreibelbis, like other protesters to whom ProPublica has spoken, said he was arrested for being on the sidewalk outside the federal courthouse. Because the federal government owns the land under the sidewalk, another protester (who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid influencing his upcoming trial) told ProPublica it’s “common knowledge” among protesters that the sidewalk is a no-go zone, and setting foot on it risks federal prosecution.
Dreibelbis told ProPublica he roller-skated into the protest, expecting to attend only briefly. He said he knelt on the sidewalk and was arrested by officers. (The charging document filed against Dreibelbis offers no arrest details.)
Section 1315 is the same law the Trump administration is using to justify initiating the federal show of force in Portland, which the administration has said it intends to employ in other cities where protests have raged since Floyd’s death.
The law allows the secretary of homeland security to supplement the Federal Protective Service, the relatively small agency partly responsible for federal building security, with law enforcement agents from the department’s other agencies (such as Customs and Border Protection).
Both President Donald Trump and his predecessor, Barack Obama, have invoked that part of the law in the past. But the use of that same law to file criminal charges appears to be novel. The Obama administration sent a “surge force” of 400 FPS agents, and a dozen CBP agents, to Baltimore in 2015, when the police killing of Freddie Gray sparked broad unrest, but no charges were filed under Section 1315 itself in that response.
In Portland, the federal government has relied on the FPS and U.S. Marshals to write affidavits used to charge protesters in federal court. But it has detailed other agencies on the protest front lines: DHS agencies cited in court complaints include CBP, through its BORTAC tactical unit; Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s investigations unit; DHS’ Office of Intelligence and Analysis, in addition to FPS. Complaints also cite the U.S. Marshals and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which are Justice Department entities.
In the first weeks of the operation, the most common charge against protesters was assault of a federal officer — which, in some cases, counted as a crime on federal property because protesters on the streets were shining lasers at officers inside the courthouse. (DHS has claimed that some officers may permanently lose their vision, but as of July 24, the most serious injury detailed in federal charging documents was an agent who reported seeing spots in his eyes for 15 minutes after the laser attack.)
Over July 23 and 24, however, 10 of the 13 cases opened were charges only of “failing to obey a lawful order.” (One other defendant was charged with assaulting a U.S. Marshal while detained inside the courthouse — where she had been taken after an arrest for “failing to obey a lawful order.”)
Since then, almost all cases have accused protesters of assaulting a federal officer (generally a misdemeanor charge).
In many of the assault cases, files are thin and no details of the allegations have been posted, even for protesters charged as early as July 6. No case files identify an alleged victim — either by name or by the “unique identifier” on their uniforms. (DHS officials have claimed it’s unfair to describe the federal agents in Portland as “unidentified” because they clearly show identification.)
Some assault accusations charge protesters with throwing unidentified objects at officers in body armor, who were unharmed.
Even those defendants who aren’t explicitly barred from attending protests are unable to return to the epicenter of Portland’s unrest as a condition of their release. They are placed under a curfew (either from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. or 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.) and told not to go within five blocks of the courthouse grounds except for court hearings.
Experts said that while restrictions of that sort are common, they’re still questionably constitutional. “Though ‘stay away’ orders from a place where a potential crime has been committed are generally standard,” the ACLU’s Trivedi said, “‘stay away’ orders from public places that are part of the public square are more questionable.” But he and others conceded that the government could make an argument that it was necessary to prevent further wrongdoing.
They saw no legitimate rationale for a blanket ban on protests.
“I suppose the government could argue, ‘You disobeyed a law enforcement officer at a protest, and we don’t trust you to not do it again,’” Trivedi said. But the release documents already instruct defendants that they are not allowed to break any laws while awaiting trial.
“If they want to say ‘don’t break a law again,’ they’ve already said that,” Trivedi told ProPublica. “Beyond that, the only part that’s left would be not letting you exercise your First Amendment right.”
Driebelbis, for his part, must now watch the protests proceed without him. “I work across the water from the protests, and I can see it every” night, he told ProPublica. “I’m protesting from this side.”
He hastened to clarify that he didn’t mean he was attending a protest in violation of the court order. “Not protesting! There’s no protesting going on in the party of one. But I am there in spirit.”
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--2020-07-29--Video Shows Plainclothes NYPD Officers Throwing Protester Into Unmarked Van

Plainclothes officers from the New York City Police Department on Tuesday snatched an 18-year-old protester off the streets , threw her into an unmarked minivan , and sped away without explanation , a disturbing incident that immediately drew comparisons to the authoritarian tactics recently used by federal agents in Portland , Oregon .
“ Incredibly disturbing .
We need answers , ” New York City Council Speaker Corey Johnson tweeted late Tuesday as videos of what witnesses described as a kidnapping went viral on social media .
One video shows several officers dressed in shorts and T-shirts rushing out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demonstrator from the middle of the street , and forcing her into the van as NYPD officers with bikes formed a barrier around the vehicle .
The protester was later identified by friends as an 18-year-old trans woman named Nicki .
“ Suddenly there was an unmarked grey van that moved out in front of us that had been waiting for us , ” one witness told Gothamist .
“ Four guys jumped out and a line of police bicycles came out from down the block—we hadn ’ t seen them .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like she was a rag doll.
” “ Our civil liberties are on the brink , ” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-N.Y. ) tweeted in response to the incident .
“ This is not a drill .
There is no excuse for snatching women off the street and throwing them into unmarked vans .
To not protect our rights is to give them away .
It is our responsibility to resist authoritarianism.
” In a statement posted to Twitter late Tuesday after the officers ’ actions sparked widespread condemnation , the NYPD claimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an unmarked van was wanted for damaging police cameras during five separate criminal incidents in and around City Hall Park.
” “ When officers from the Warrant Squad took the woman into custody in a gray NYPD minivan this evening , they were assaulted with rocks and bottles , ” the NYPD said , an account witnesses dismissed as completely false .
“ The Warrant Squad uses unmarked vehicles to effectively locate wanted suspects.
” Clara Kraebber , a 20-year-old Oxford student who witnessed the incident , told Gothamist that “ none of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the NYPD ’ s claim that demonstrators threw rocks and bottles at the officers .
Kraebber said officers indiscriminately pepper sprayed demonstrators as the cops shoved Nicki into the unmarked van .
“ We literally turned the corner and were met with a line of police who attacked us without warning , ” said Kraebber .
The New York Civil Liberties Union , the New York state affiliate of the ACLU , called the NYPD ’ s behavior “ horrifying and indefensible ” and said it is investigating .
“ We ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but one thing is for certain : violently forcing protesters into an unmarked van are the actions of a police force that think they can act with impunity , ” the group said .
“ We won ’ t allow this in our city .
”

The incident immediately drew comparisons to the authoritarian tactics recently used by federal agents in Portland.
Plainclothes officers from the New York City Police Department on Tuesday snatched an 18-year-old protester off the streets, threw her into an unmarked minivan, and sped away without explanation, a disturbing incident that immediately drew comparisons to the authoritarian tactics recently used by federal agents in Portland, Oregon.
“Incredibly disturbing. We need answers,” New York City Council Speaker Corey Johnson tweeted late Tuesday as videos of what witnesses described as a kidnapping went viral on social media.
One video shows several officers dressed in shorts and T-shirts rushing out of an unmarked Kia minivan, grabbing a demonstrator from the middle of the street, and forcing her into the van as NYPD officers with bikes formed a barrier around the vehicle. The protester was later identified by friends as an 18-year-old trans woman named Nicki.
“Suddenly there was an unmarked grey van that moved out in front of us that had been waiting for us,” one witness told Gothamist. “Four guys jumped out and a line of police bicycles came out from down the block—we hadn’t seen them. They pushed us back. They grabbed Nicki like she was a rag doll.”
Watch:
NYC is taking after Portland – a trans femme protestor was pulled into an unmarked van at the Abolition Park protest – this was at 2nd Ave and 25th Street pic.twitter.com/1PDhSYuK9h — michelle lh࿊࿊q (@MichelleLhooq) July 28, 2020
Here's my full video of what happened on 25th & 2nd in NYC! Keep in mind this was a peaceful protest that was headed to Madison Sq Park for a meditation & an unmarked van snatched a protester & NYPD started attacking us! #BLM pic.twitter.com/USUGgIDDIH — Lauren (@feistymexarican) July 28, 2020
“Our civil liberties are on the brink,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) tweeted in response to the incident. “This is not a drill. There is no excuse for snatching women off the street and throwing them into unmarked vans. To not protect our rights is to give them away. It is our responsibility to resist authoritarianism.”
In a statement posted to Twitter late Tuesday after the officers’ actions sparked widespread condemnation, the NYPD claimed the “woman taken into custody in an unmarked van was wanted for damaging police cameras during five separate criminal incidents in and around City Hall Park.”
“When officers from the Warrant Squad took the woman into custody in a gray NYPD minivan this evening, they were assaulted with rocks and bottles,” the NYPD said, an account witnesses dismissed as completely false. “The Warrant Squad uses unmarked vehicles to effectively locate wanted suspects.”
Clara Kraebber, a 20-year-old Oxford student who witnessed the incident, told Gothamist that “none of that happened whatsoever,” referring to the NYPD’s claim that demonstrators threw rocks and bottles at the officers. Kraebber said officers indiscriminately pepper sprayed demonstrators as the cops shoved Nicki into the unmarked van.
“We literally turned the corner and were met with a line of police who attacked us without warning,” said Kraebber.
The New York Civil Liberties Union, the New York state affiliate of the ACLU, called the NYPD’s behavior “horrifying and indefensible” and said it is investigating.
“We’re looking into the incident that happened tonight, but one thing is for certain: violently forcing protesters into an unmarked van are the actions of a police force that think they can act with impunity,” the group said. “We won’t allow this in our city.”
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--2020-07-29--Wisconsin’s Voter Suppression Could Swing 2020 Election in Trump’s Favor

Things look bad for Donald Trump right now .
He is behind in the swing states and lagging Joe Biden by double digits in some national polls .
His disapproval ratings are consistently in the mid-50s and half of the respondents in a recent Monmouth poll said they were “ not at all likely ” to vote for him .
Recently , 4 in 5 voters said the U.S. is headed in the “ wrong direction ” under Trump , according to an Associated Press/NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll .
His failures to contain COVID-19 and his response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s murder will be fresh in voters ’ minds on Election Day .
Improving jobs numbers can ’ t obscure the fact that we have the worst economy since the Great Depression .
If events continue to break Biden ’ s way , Trump could lose in a landslide .
But a lot can change in three months and polls don ’ t dictate election results .
On election eve , 2016 , Hillary Clinton had comfortable leads in the “ Blue Wall ” states of Michigan , Pennsylvania and Wisconsin .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attributed the polling fiasco to a surge of white working-class voters , but that was only part of the picture .
As revealed in the book Cyberwar , by FactCheck.org co-founder Kathleen Hall Jamieson , voter suppression was central to Trump ’ s 2016 victory .
Through the use of 50,000 Twitter accounts and other social media manipulation , Russian trolls worked to dissuade Black voters in swing states from supporting Clinton , possibly contributing to the lowest African American turnout in a presidential election since 2000 .
Trump ’ s digital campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ persuadable voters on Facebook whose data had been mined ( without their knowledge ) by Cambridge Analytica .
Given the success of this strategy in 2016 , and Trump ’ s unpopularity with a majority of the American public , the GOP is doubling down on vote suppression in 2020 .
With new COVID-19 infections spiking , it ’ s clear that voting in person will be risky this November .
People of color in urban districts will be especially vulnerable due to population density and long lines at polling places .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Latinx and Black voters waited 45-46 percent longer to cast their ballots during the 2018 midterms .
The pandemic has made things even worse .
In the June 9 Georgia primary , some Atlanta voters waited five hours to vote .
And Republican operatives want to keep it that way ; as investigative journalist Greg Palast noted , “ long lines are a feature , not a bug , of GOP election strategy.
” Republicans plan to systematically send “ poll watchers ” into inner cities and tribal areas to harass and intimidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engaged in a $ 20 million effort to make it harder for Democrats to vote by filing lawsuits around the country in opposition to mail-in balloting .
Republicans at the state level have already done a lot of dirty work on Trump ’ s behalf , none more than the Wisconsin GOP .
One of the crucial “ Blue Wall ” states Biden needs in order to win , Wisconsin has gone from being a purple-blue state to a highly-competitive swing state thanks to GOP-sponsored legislation passed on party-line votes and ratified by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after 16 states had postponed their primaries due to COVID-19 , Wisconsin Republicans refused Democratic Gov .
Tony Evers ’ s proposal to mail ballots to all eligible voters and postpone the election until late May .
Left with no other options , Evers signed an executive order postponing the election .
Sensing an opportunity to reduce turnout in the Democratic strongholds of Madison and Milwaukee during a high-stakes state Supreme Court race , Republicans filed a lawsuit .
The Republican majority on the state Supreme Court then overturned Evers ’ s executive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizens to put their health at risk by voting in person .
This decision had an inordinate impact on Democrats in minority-majority Milwaukee , who waited hours to vote ; Milwaukee , which usually had 180 polling stations , had just five for the pandemic primary .
Despite the chaos and public health risk this caused , Wisconsin Republicans have blocked an all-mail election for the presidential race .
Voters who don ’ t use absentee ballots will be in the same predicament faced in April : vote and risk infection or stay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a replay of the primary , a shortage of volunteer poll workers will lead to last-minute changes in voting precincts , which has been shown to reduce turnout by 2 percent .
Those who do vote will be subject to Wisconsin ’ s voter ID law , one of the most restrictive in the nation .
Studies showed that anywhere from tens to hundreds of thousands of Wisconsin residents — disproportionately students and people of color — were disenfranchised by voter ID laws in the 2016 presidential election , which Trump won by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were the second-highest they ’ d been in 50 years , Wisconsin had its lowest turnout since 2000 .
The benefits of vote suppression to the GOP were so obvious that Wisconsin ’ s then-attorney general , Republican Brad Schimel , implied in a 2018 radio interview that the GOP would have lost both the presidential and Senate races in 2016 if not for voter ID .
Voter ID laws are guaranteed to disenfranchise thousands of Democratic voters again in 2020 .
A recent court ruling created further barriers to the ballot .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ or missing work on Election Day , Wisconsin has long allowed people to vote up to six weeks before an election .
This has been particularly beneficial to voters in Wisconsin ’ s two biggest cities — Madison and Milwaukee — where voting lines are the longest .
After losing the governor ’ s race in 2018 due to high turnout in Madison and Milwaukee , Wisconsin Republicans conducted a precedent-shattering extraordinary session in which they reduced the window for early voting from six weeks to two weeks .
Voting rights activists sued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal appeals court of three Republican judges sided with the GOP , which is certain to increase lines on Election Day and reduce Democratic turnout .
Republicans may have yet another ace in the hole .
A lower-court decision by a Republican judge now awaiting review by Wisconsin ’ s state Supreme Court would purge 129,000 voters from the voting rolls , predominantly Democrats in Madison and Milwaukee .
Oral arguments aren ’ t scheduled to be heard until late September , but there is an outside chance that the GOP majority on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boost Trump .
Were the purge to be enacted , the best-case scenario for the 129,000 Wisconsinites kicked off the voter rolls would be to re-register on Election Day and use provisional ballots , which are rejected at twice the rate of regular ballots .
Taken together , these insidious maneuvers put the Democrats at a big structural advantage .
If Biden maintains his current lead for the next few months , he will likely win the state .
But if the polls narrow , Biden could lose Wisconsin ( and the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws , precinct changes , hours-long lines in Democratic precincts on Election Day , limits on early voting , and maybe even a mass voter purge , exactly as Wisconsin Republicans intended .

Part of the Series Voting Wrongs
Things look bad for Donald Trump right now.
He is behind in the swing states and lagging Joe Biden by double digits in some national polls. His disapproval ratings are consistently in the mid-50s and half of the respondents in a recent Monmouth poll said they were “not at all likely” to vote for him. Recently, 4 in 5 voters said the U.S. is headed in the “wrong direction” under Trump, according to an Associated Press/NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll. His failures to contain COVID-19 and his response to the uprising following George Floyd’s murder will be fresh in voters’ minds on Election Day. Improving jobs numbers can’t obscure the fact that we have the worst economy since the Great Depression. If events continue to break Biden’s way, Trump could lose in a landslide.
But a lot can change in three months and polls don’t dictate election results. On election eve, 2016, Hillary Clinton had comfortable leads in the “Blue Wall” states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. She lost all three. Mainstream media outlets attributed the polling fiasco to a surge of white working-class voters, but that was only part of the picture.
As revealed in the book Cyberwar, by FactCheck.org co-founder Kathleen Hall Jamieson, voter suppression was central to Trump’s 2016 victory. Through the use of 50,000 Twitter accounts and other social media manipulation, Russian trolls worked to dissuade Black voters in swing states from supporting Clinton, possibly contributing to the lowest African American turnout in a presidential election since 2000. Trump’s digital campaign used similar tactics by targeting millions of persuadable voters on Facebook whose data had been mined (without their knowledge) by Cambridge Analytica.
Given the success of this strategy in 2016, and Trump’s unpopularity with a majority of the American public, the GOP is doubling down on vote suppression in 2020.
With new COVID-19 infections spiking, it’s clear that voting in person will be risky this November. People of color in urban districts will be especially vulnerable due to population density and long lines at polling places. A Brennan Center for Justice study showed that Latinx and Black voters waited 45-46 percent longer to cast their ballots during the 2018 midterms. The pandemic has made things even worse. In the June 9 Georgia primary, some Atlanta voters waited five hours to vote.
And Republican operatives want to keep it that way; as investigative journalist Greg Palast noted, “long lines are a feature, not a bug, of GOP election strategy.” Republicans plan to systematically send “poll watchers” into inner cities and tribal areas to harass and intimidate voters of color , and GOP lawyers are engaged in a $20 million effort to make it harder for Democrats to vote by filing lawsuits around the country in opposition to mail-in balloting.
Despite the chaos and public health risk this caused, Wisconsin Republicans have blocked an all-mail election for the presidential race.
Republicans at the state level have already done a lot of dirty work on Trump’s behalf, none more than the Wisconsin GOP. One of the crucial “Blue Wall” states Biden needs in order to win, Wisconsin has gone from being a purple-blue state to a highly-competitive swing state thanks to GOP-sponsored legislation passed on party-line votes and ratified by Republican judges.
In early April, after 16 states had postponed their primaries due to COVID-19, Wisconsin Republicans refused Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’s proposal to mail ballots to all eligible voters and postpone the election until late May. Left with no other options, Evers signed an executive order postponing the election.
Sensing an opportunity to reduce turnout in the Democratic strongholds of Madison and Milwaukee during a high-stakes state Supreme Court race, Republicans filed a lawsuit. The Republican majority on the state Supreme Court then overturned Evers’s executive order, forcing hundreds of thousands of citizens to put their health at risk by voting in person. This decision had an inordinate impact on Democrats in minority-majority Milwaukee, who waited hours to vote; Milwaukee, which usually had 180 polling stations, had just five for the pandemic primary.
Despite the chaos and public health risk this caused, Wisconsin Republicans have blocked an all-mail election for the presidential race. Voters who don’t use absentee ballots will be in the same predicament faced in April: vote and risk infection or stay home and lose your franchise. In a replay of the primary, a shortage of volunteer poll workers will lead to last-minute changes in voting precincts, which has been shown to reduce turnout by 2 percent.
Those who do vote will be subject to Wisconsin’s voter ID law, one of the most restrictive in the nation. Studies showed that anywhere from tens to hundreds of thousands of Wisconsin residents — disproportionately students and people of color — were disenfranchised by voter ID laws in the 2016 presidential election, which Trump won by 23,000 votes. Though national turnout rates were the second-highest they’d been in 50 years, Wisconsin had its lowest turnout since 2000. The benefits of vote suppression to the GOP were so obvious that Wisconsin’s then-attorney general, Republican Brad Schimel, implied in a 2018 radio interview that the GOP would have lost both the presidential and Senate races in 2016 if not for voter ID. Voter ID laws are guaranteed to disenfranchise thousands of Democratic voters again in 2020.
A lower-court decision by a Republican judge now awaiting review by Wisconsin’s state Supreme Court would purge 129,000 voters from the voting rolls, predominantly Democrats in Madison and Milwaukee.
A recent court ruling created further barriers to the ballot. To help voters avoid waiting in line or missing work on Election Day, Wisconsin has long allowed people to vote up to six weeks before an election. This has been particularly beneficial to voters in Wisconsin’s two biggest cities — Madison and Milwaukee — where voting lines are the longest. After losing the governor’s race in 2018 due to high turnout in Madison and Milwaukee, Wisconsin Republicans conducted a precedent-shattering extraordinary session in which they reduced the window for early voting from six weeks to two weeks. Voting rights activists sued to overturn the restrictions, but a federal appeals court of three Republican judges sided with the GOP, which is certain to increase lines on Election Day and reduce Democratic turnout.
Republicans may have yet another ace in the hole. A lower-court decision by a Republican judge now awaiting review by Wisconsin’s state Supreme Court would purge 129,000 voters from the voting rolls, predominantly Democrats in Madison and Milwaukee. Oral arguments aren’t scheduled to be heard until late September, but there is an outside chance that the GOP majority on the court will fast-track the decision to boost Trump. Were the purge to be enacted, the best-case scenario for the 129,000 Wisconsinites kicked off the voter rolls would be to re-register on Election Day and use provisional ballots, which are rejected at twice the rate of regular ballots.
Taken together, these insidious maneuvers put the Democrats at a big structural advantage. If Biden maintains his current lead for the next few months, he will likely win the state. But if the polls narrow, Biden could lose Wisconsin (and the election) due to structurally racist voter ID laws, precinct changes, hours-long lines in Democratic precincts on Election Day, limits on early voting, and maybe even a mass voter purge, exactly as Wisconsin Republicans intended.
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--2020-07-29--Trump’s Latest Gripe Against Fauci: “Why Don’t I Have a High Approval Rating?”

President Donald Trump expressed confusion and disappointment on Tuesday in response to the news that some members of his coronavirus task force are getting higher approval ratings than he is for their responses to the pandemic .
Trump ’ s gripe focused mainly on Anthony Fauci , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases .
“ He ’ s got this high approval rating .
So why don ’ t I have a high approval rating with respect — and the administration — with respect to the virus ?
” the president asked .
“ We should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can only be my personality , that ’ s all , ” he concluded .
Trump said he held no ill feelings toward Fauci but nevertheless spent significant time during a press briefing at the White House on Tuesday pondering why Fauci is getting better marks from the American public than he is .
Trump ’ s musings on his approval ratings are inconsistent with what he usually says about polls .
Typically , the president dismisses as “ fake ” any polling numbers that show “ bad ” approval ratings for him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide the occasional “ good ” ratings for him .
Trump has also sometimes fabricated good polling numbers from nonexistent polls .
His acknowledgment of his negative polling numbers aside , Trump ’ s statements about Fauci on Tuesday were misleading in a number of ways .
In talking about Fauci , the president claimed , “ I get along with him very well and I agree with a lot of what he ’ s said , ” but in truth , it was just earlier this month that the White House had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , due likely to the doctor frequently disagreeing with Trump ’ s attitudes and beliefs about coronavirus .
Only after that plan backfired did Trump have a phone conversation with Fauci , the first time in months the two had spoken with one another in a direct way .
Polling data does indeed demonstrate that Fauci is more respected on COVID-19 than the president .
The most recent Economist/YouGov poll found that 52 percent of Americans trust “ a lot ” or “ somewhat ” the medical advice from Fauci , while Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question .
There could be a number of reasons for this .
For starters , Fauci ’ s advice typically matches what the vast majority of medical experts are saying about coronavirus , while Trump ’ s words tend to go in the opposite direction .
For instance , while Trump continues to peddle hydroxychloroquine as a way to treat COVID-19 , Fauci has been more tepid on the matter , siding with studies that have demonstrated the drug is not effective in treatment of the disease .
“ The scientific data is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of efficacy for it , ” he said in May .
Fauci also pushed for more states to issue stay-at-home orders in April , when Trump at the time was insisting states should reopen sooner than most experts were saying was feasible .
While Fauci stopped short of calling for a national order , he was befuddled by the fact that more states weren ’ t taking steps themselves to address the spread of coronavirus .
“ The tension between federally-mandated versus states rights to do what they want is something I don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but if you look at what ’ s going on in this country I just don ’ t understand why we ’ re not ” seeing more states issue stay-at-home orders , he said in April .
Such opinions were shared by the American public .
One poll at the time even found that 87 percent of Americans supported stay-at-home orders or even wanted stricter orders mandated .
Those sentiments remain .
In a poll that was released just last week , 75 percent of Americans said they still support such orders .

President Donald Trump expressed confusion and disappointment on Tuesday in response to the news that some members of his coronavirus task force are getting higher approval ratings than he is for their responses to the pandemic.
Trump’s gripe focused mainly on Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
“He’s got this high approval rating. So why don’t I have a high approval rating with respect — and the administration — with respect to the virus?” the president asked. “We should have it very high.”
“It can only be my personality, that’s all,” he concluded.
Trump said he held no ill feelings toward Fauci but nevertheless spent significant time during a press briefing at the White House on Tuesday pondering why Fauci is getting better marks from the American public than he is.
Trump’s musings on his approval ratings are inconsistent with what he usually says about polls. Typically, the president dismisses as “fake” any polling numbers that show “bad” approval ratings for him; conversely, he highlights surveys that provide the occasional “good” ratings for him. Trump has also sometimes fabricated good polling numbers from nonexistent polls.
His acknowledgment of his negative polling numbers aside, Trump’s statements about Fauci on Tuesday were misleading in a number of ways.
In talking about Fauci, the president claimed, “I get along with him very well and I agree with a lot of what he’s said,” but in truth, it was just earlier this month that the White House had attempted to smear Fauci’s name, due likely to the doctor frequently disagreeing with Trump’s attitudes and beliefs about coronavirus.
Only after that plan backfired did Trump have a phone conversation with Fauci, the first time in months the two had spoken with one another in a direct way.
Polling data does indeed demonstrate that Fauci is more respected on COVID-19 than the president. The most recent Economist/YouGov poll found that 52 percent of Americans trust “a lot” or “somewhat” the medical advice from Fauci, while Trump only received 34 percent on the same question.
There could be a number of reasons for this. For starters, Fauci’s advice typically matches what the vast majority of medical experts are saying about coronavirus, while Trump’s words tend to go in the opposite direction.
For instance, while Trump continues to peddle hydroxychloroquine as a way to treat COVID-19, Fauci has been more tepid on the matter, siding with studies that have demonstrated the drug is not effective in treatment of the disease.
“The scientific data is really quite evident now about the lack of efficacy for it,” he said in May.
Fauci also pushed for more states to issue stay-at-home orders in April, when Trump at the time was insisting states should reopen sooner than most experts were saying was feasible. While Fauci stopped short of calling for a national order, he was befuddled by the fact that more states weren’t taking steps themselves to address the spread of coronavirus.
“The tension between federally-mandated versus states rights to do what they want is something I don’t want to get into, but if you look at what’s going on in this country I just don’t understand why we’re not” seeing more states issue stay-at-home orders, he said in April.
Such opinions were shared by the American public. One poll at the time even found that 87 percent of Americans supported stay-at-home orders or even wanted stricter orders mandated.
Those sentiments remain. In a poll that was released just last week, 75 percent of Americans said they still support such orders.
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.