truthout--2020-11-20--Will Trump’s Attempt to Subvert the Election Results Succeed?

Joe Biden has won states worth 306 Electoral College votes , 36 more than the 270 needed to win , and received in excess of 5 million more popular votes than Donald Trump .
Yet Trump insists the election was stolen from him and he is the victor .
Trump started attacking the election months before it happened .
He leveled unsupported charges of massive voter fraud from mail-in ballots to create doubt about the integrity of the election .
Knowing that Democrats would cast mail ballots in the midst of the pandemic , Trump told his supporters to vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inflate his vote totals .
When he had an apparent lead on election night , Trump claimed victory and demanded that the vote-counting stop .
Sure enough , as the tabulations continued , the mail ballots counted after Election Day put Biden over the top .
Trump is setting the stage for an electoral coup .
Republicans and the Trump campaign have filed frivolous lawsuits , alleging mostly technical violations of voting procedures , which would not change the outcome of the election even if they were meritorious .
The real goal of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of widespread voter fraud to whip up distrust for the election results .
This would “ give state legislatures political cover to appoint their own electors , ” Robert Reich wrote .
Trump ’ s lawyers are seeking court orders to delay the certification of the votes in key states so GOP-controlled legislatures can appoint Trump electors notwithstanding Biden ’ s victories .
Trump ’ s legal team has filed litigation in Pennsylvania , Michigan , and Arizona to prevent state officials from certifying the vote count .
On November 13 , judges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dismissed Trump lawsuits .
State judges in Michigan have refused Trump ’ s requests to delay the certification of the vote count .
Judge Timothy Kenny rejected the petition of two Republican poll watchers to delay ballot count certification in Detroit , calling misconduct allegations “ not credible.
” The plaintiffs ’ request for an outside audit of the voting tallies would cause such a delay that electors might not be chosen by the mid-December vote in the Electoral College .
Kenny , who characterized some accusations as “ rife with speculation and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be an unprecedented exercise of judicial activism for this court to stop the certification process.
” The same day , the law firm Porter Wright Morris & Arthur abruptly withdrew from the federal lawsuit they had filed in Pennsylvania on Trump ’ s behalf earlier in the week , out of concerns they were being used to undermine the integrity of the electoral process .
Also last week , Snell & Wilmer withdrew from representation of Arizona ’ s Republican National Committee .
“ These law firms have been under tremendous pressure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ baseless , and that they were part of a broader campaign to delegitimize the election , ” Wendy Weiser from the Brennan Center for Justice told ABC News .
Both Democratic and Republican election officials in virtually every state reported to The New York Times that there was no evidence fraud or other irregularities affected the election results .
Moreover , on November 12 , a joint committee of the Department of Homeland Security ’ s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency ( CISA ) confirmed the reliability of the election results , calling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secure in American history.
” The high-level committee concluded , “ There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes , changed votes or was in any way compromised.
” On November 17 , CISA Director Christopher Krebs denied that there was a manipulation of the election systems , tweeting , “ 59 election security experts all agree , ‘ in every case of which we are aware , these claims either have been unsubstantiated or are technically incoherent.
’ ” Later that day Trump fired Krebs for making a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump provided no evidence of his allegation .
Even Trump advisor Karl Rove wrote in a November 11 Wall Street Journal op-ed that Trump ’ s challenges “ are unlikely to move a single state from Mr. Biden ’ s column , and certainly they ’ re not enough to change the final outcome.
” Attorney General William Barr is aiding and abetting Trump ’ s attempted coup .
Just weeks before the election , the Justice Department changed its longstanding ban on voter fraud investigations before an election .
Although he told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t see massive voter fraud , Barr saluted and marched to Trump ’ s orders .
On November 9 , Barr empowered federal prosecutors to investigate “ substantial allegations of voting and vote tabulation irregularities.
” Sixteen federal prosecutors in charge of monitoring the election wrote to Barr that there is no evidence of substantial voting irregularities .
Richard Pilger , the Justice Department official in charge of voter fraud investigations left his job in protest against Barr ’ s order .
But just the fact that the Department of Justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a cloud over the election .
Indeed , a Politico/Morning Consult poll found that 70 % of Republicans now think the election was not fair or free , compared with 35 % of Republicans before the election .
The purpose of Trump ’ s strategy of falsely alleging fraud from mail ballots combined with Barr ’ s baseless edict establishes fake doubt about the reliability of the vote tallies .
The Constitution gives state legislatures the power to decide how electors are selected .
Article II says , “ Each State shall appoint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thereof may direct , a Number of Electors.
” U.S. Code , Title 3 , Section 1 requires that electors be chosen on Election Day .
However , when a state “ has failed to make a choice on [ that ] day , ” then “ the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct , ” under Section 2 .
But the states did not fail to choose the electors on Election Day .
As a result of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3 , Biden garnered more than 270 electoral votes .
Trump ’ s own Department of Homeland Security affirmed that the election was the most secure in U.S. history .
Even if charges of fraud were supported , that would not amount to a failure of state voters to choose electors on Election Day .
Thus , state legislatures have no authority to select Trump ’ s electors in the states Biden won .
Trump supporters are targeting Pennsylvania , Michigan , Wisconsin , and Arizona – all of which Biden won – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of persuading their state legislatures to override the will of the voters and appoint pro-Trump electors .
All four states require that electors be awarded to the winner of the state ’ s popular vote on Election Day .
In October , the Republican majority leaders from Pennsylvania ’ s Senate and House co-authored an op-ed saying that the GOP-controlled legislature would not select electors to overrule the popular vote .
They wrote , “ The Pennsylvania General Assembly does not have and will not have a hand in choosing the state ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outcome of the presidential election.
” But on November 10 , members of the Pennsylvania legislature announced their intention to investigate voter fraud allegations .
The Republican leader of Wisconsin ’ s assembly has long maintained that the legislature would not override the will of the voters and he reiterated that view on November 13 .
But the Wisconsin legislature is also investigating the election .
Republican leaders in Michigan ’ s legislature say legislative intervention would violate state law although the GOP-controlled legislature has mounted an investigation of the election .
Michigan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is not the expectation that our analysis would result in any change in the outcome.
” On November 17 , in a dramatic and overtly political move , the two Republican officials on the four-member board of canvassers in Michigan ’ s largest county blocked certification of Wayne County ’ s vote count .
But hours later , after powerful public comment and fierce outcry on traditional and social media , board chair Monica Palmer and William Hartmann reversed their “ no ” votes and the board unanimously certified the tally .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and also spoke with Hartmann .
The next day , the two GOP board members tried to rescind their “ yes ” votes , claiming they were pressured into certifying the election with the promise of an audit of voting tallies in Detroit , which is 80 % black .
Jocelyn Benson , Michigan ’ s Secretary of State , said the resolution requesting an audit was not binding .
The small number of votes that could be affected by the audit is not enough to change the election results .
Benson ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no legal mechanism for them to rescind their vote.
” On November 19 , Trump invited the Republican leaders in the Michigan legislature to visit the White House on November 20 .
The Michigan Board of State Canvassers will review and certify the county certifications on November 23 .
Trump called Palmer after the board meeting and also spoke with Hartmann .
The next day , the two GOP board members tried to rescind their “ yes ” votes , claiming they were pressured into certifying the election with the promise of an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which is 80 % black .
Jocelyn Benson , Michigan ’ s Secretary of State , said the resolution requesting an audit was not binding .
The small number of votes that could be affected by the audit is not enough to change the election results .
Benson ’ s spokeswoman stated , “ There is no legal mechanism for them to rescind their vote.
” On November 19 , Trump invited the Republican leaders in the Michigan legislature to visit the White House on November 20 .
The Michigan Board of State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certifications on November 23 .
Arizona ’ s Republican House speaker affirmed that the legislature is “ mandated by statute to choose according to the vote of the people , ” but left open the possibility of changing electors if there is “ some type of fraud – which I haven ’ t heard of anything.
” At this point , he added , “ I don ’ t see us in any serious way addressing a change in electors.
” Although Republican leaders in those four states deny they intend to replace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of fraud – however spurious – could reverse those intentions .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is hinting that Trump could win in the Electoral College .
States must count electoral votes and settle election disputes by December 8 , the “ safe harbor ” deadline .
On December 14 , members of the Electoral College in each state will meet to elect the president .
If legislatures in Pennsylvania , Michigan , and Wisconsin attempt to appoint Trump electors against the will of their voters , the Democratic governors in those states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electors and submit Biden slates .
Arizona has a Republican governor , who may well sign a slate of Trump electors notwithstanding Biden ’ s victory in that state , according to Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig .
On January 6 , Vice President Mike Pence will preside over the opening of the certified results before a joint session of the new Congress .
If there are competing slates of electors in Arizona , Pence might decide to recognize the slate signed by the governor , Lessig says .
If both a senator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Representatives sign an objection , the Senate and House would vote on whether to uphold the objection .
In all likelihood , the House would vote to sustain the objection .
If the Senate votes to overrule the objection , the slate signed by the governor would be counted .
Even without Biden electors from Arizona , however , Biden should still have more than 270 electoral votes .
But if the state legislatures in Pennsylvania , Michigan , and/or Wisconsin submit competing slates of electors , that dispute would also end up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump secure 270 electoral votes , the 12th Amendment provides that the House would decide who becomes president .
Each state gets one vote and since there are more red states than blue ones , Trump would win .
In the event that an electoral clash reaches the Supreme Court , all bets are off .
In a recent concurrence , Brett Kavanaugh adopted the position that state legislatures are unconstrained in their selection of electors regardless of the popular vote .
Kavanaugh based his theory on Chief Justice William Rehnquist ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case that selected George W. Bush as president in 2000 .
But that theory has not attained majority support on the high court .
Indeed , in Chiafalo v. Washington earlier this year , a unanimous Supreme Court cited the “ tradition more than two centuries old ” that “ electors are not free agents ; they are to vote for the candidate whom the State ’ s voters have chosen.
” Chiafalo affirmed the power of states to punish “ faithless electors , ” who don ’ t vote in accordance with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the willingness of Samuel Alito , Clarence Thomas , and Neil Gorsuch to stay the counting of votes mailed by November 3 but arriving by November 6 , in spite of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ’ s allowance of the three-day extension , those three might vote for Trump in a case of dueling electors .
And Amy Coney Barrett could provide the fifth vote to hand the presidency to Trump .
Trump May Be Preparing for Armed Support of His Coup Trump is apparently taking steps to quash popular opposition to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 9 , he fired Defense Secretary Mark Esper .
Last summer , Esper refused to support Trump ’ s proposed deployment of active-duty troops against anti-racist protesters in the wake of the public lynching of George Floyd .
Esper opposed the invocation of the Insurrection Act to call out active-duty military on U.S. soil .
Mindful that massive protests would erupt if he succeeds in launching an electoral coup , Trump wants his loyalists in place to attack anti-coup demonstrators .
Service members , however , have a duty to disobey unlawful orders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s illegal directives to repress protesters .
On November 14 , thousands of Trump loyalists , including the Proud Boys and other right-wing groups , assembled in Washington D.C. and claimed that Biden was stealing the election .
Trump drove by on his way to play golf and gave the demonstrators a thumbs-up .
Later that day , in a violently inciteful tweet , Trump urged police not to “ hold back ” and to crack down on “ antifa scum.
” During the campaign , while he leveled false accusations of massive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a peaceful transfer of power .
His refusal to concede and his strategy to illegally overturn the election results by stealing Biden ’ s electoral votes confirm his intention not to go peacefully .
“ Since 1800 , when the incumbent John Adams was defeated , every president who lost a reelection bid has left office , ” Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky told Jurist .
“ Not every transition was graceful , but every one occurred .
We have seen so many instances around the world where that didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our institutions will work again and keep Trump from impermissibly remaining in office.
” The results of the election must be honored and the presidency awarded to Joe Biden .
Hopefully , that will be accomplished with all deliberate speed and the absence of bloodshed .
Donald Trump must leave the White House on January 20 .
As Elena Kagan wrote in the last line of the Chiafalo opinion , “ Here , We the People rule .
”

Part of the Series Human Rights and Global Wrongs
Joe Biden has won states worth 306 Electoral College votes, 36 more than the 270 needed to win, and received in excess of 5 million more popular votes than Donald Trump. Yet Trump insists the election was stolen from him and he is the victor.
Trump started attacking the election months before it happened. He leveled unsupported charges of massive voter fraud from mail-in ballots to create doubt about the integrity of the election. Knowing that Democrats would cast mail ballots in the midst of the pandemic, Trump told his supporters to vote in person on Election Day to prematurely inflate his vote totals.
When he had an apparent lead on election night, Trump claimed victory and demanded that the vote-counting stop. Sure enough, as the tabulations continued, the mail ballots counted after Election Day put Biden over the top.
Trump Files Frivolous Lawsuits to Delay State Vote Count Certifications
Trump is setting the stage for an electoral coup. Republicans and the Trump campaign have filed frivolous lawsuits, alleging mostly technical violations of voting procedures, which would not change the outcome of the election even if they were meritorious.
The real goal of this litigation is to create the perception of widespread voter fraud to whip up distrust for the election results. This would “give state legislatures political cover to appoint their own electors,” Robert Reich wrote.
Trump’s lawyers are seeking court orders to delay the certification of the votes in key states so GOP-controlled legislatures can appoint Trump electors notwithstanding Biden’s victories. Trump’s legal team has filed litigation in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Arizona to prevent state officials from certifying the vote count.
On November 13, judges in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Arizona dismissed Trump lawsuits. State judges in Michigan have refused Trump’s requests to delay the certification of the vote count. Judge Timothy Kenny rejected the petition of two Republican poll watchers to delay ballot count certification in Detroit, calling misconduct allegations “not credible.” The plaintiffs’ request for an outside audit of the voting tallies would cause such a delay that electors might not be chosen by the mid-December vote in the Electoral College. Kenny, who characterized some accusations as “rife with speculation and guesswork,” said, “It would be an unprecedented exercise of judicial activism for this court to stop the certification process.”
The same day, the law firm Porter Wright Morris & Arthur abruptly withdrew from the federal lawsuit they had filed in Pennsylvania on Trump’s behalf earlier in the week, out of concerns they were being used to undermine the integrity of the electoral process. Also last week, Snell & Wilmer withdrew from representation of Arizona’s Republican National Committee.
“These law firms have been under tremendous pressure as it became clear these claims were baseless, and that they were part of a broader campaign to delegitimize the election,” Wendy Weiser from the Brennan Center for Justice told ABC News.
Both Democratic and Republican election officials in virtually every state reported to The New York Times that there was no evidence fraud or other irregularities affected the election results.
Moreover, on November 12, a joint committee of the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) confirmed the reliability of the election results, calling the November 3rd election “the most secure in American history.” The high-level committee concluded, “There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes or was in any way compromised.”
On November 17, CISA Director Christopher Krebs denied that there was a manipulation of the election systems, tweeting, “59 election security experts all agree, ‘in every case of which we are aware, these claims either have been unsubstantiated or are technically incoherent.’ ” Later that day Trump fired Krebs for making a “highly inaccurate” statement, but Trump provided no evidence of his allegation.
Even Trump advisor Karl Rove wrote in a November 11 Wall Street Journal op-ed that Trump’s challenges “are unlikely to move a single state from Mr. Biden’s column, and certainly they’re not enough to change the final outcome.”
Attorney General William Barr is aiding and abetting Trump’s attempted coup. Just weeks before the election, the Justice Department changed its longstanding ban on voter fraud investigations before an election. Although he told department officials after the election that he didn’t see massive voter fraud, Barr saluted and marched to Trump’s orders. On November 9, Barr empowered federal prosecutors to investigate “substantial allegations of voting and vote tabulation irregularities.” Sixteen federal prosecutors in charge of monitoring the election wrote to Barr that there is no evidence of substantial voting irregularities.
Richard Pilger, the Justice Department official in charge of voter fraud investigations left his job in protest against Barr’s order. But just the fact that the Department of Justice is authorizing investigations is designed to cast a cloud over the election. Indeed, a Politico/Morning Consult poll found that 70% of Republicans now think the election was not fair or free, compared with 35% of Republicans before the election. The purpose of Trump’s strategy of falsely alleging fraud from mail ballots combined with Barr’s baseless edict establishes fake doubt about the reliability of the vote tallies.
Trump Cannot Legally Steal Biden’s Electoral Votes
The Constitution gives state legislatures the power to decide how electors are selected. Article II says, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.” U.S. Code, Title 3, Section 1 requires that electors be chosen on Election Day. However, when a state “has failed to make a choice on [that] day,” then “the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct,” under Section 2.
But the states did not fail to choose the electors on Election Day. As a result of the voting process, which ended on November 3, Biden garnered more than 270 electoral votes. Trump’s own Department of Homeland Security affirmed that the election was the most secure in U.S. history. Even if charges of fraud were supported, that would not amount to a failure of state voters to choose electors on Election Day. Thus, state legislatures have no authority to select Trump’s electors in the states Biden won.
Trump supporters are targeting Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona – all of which Biden won – by raising allegations of fraud in hopes of persuading their state legislatures to override the will of the voters and appoint pro-Trump electors. All four states require that electors be awarded to the winner of the state’s popular vote on Election Day.
In October, the Republican majority leaders from Pennsylvania’s Senate and House co-authored an op-ed saying that the GOP-controlled legislature would not select electors to overrule the popular vote. They wrote, “The Pennsylvania General Assembly does not have and will not have a hand in choosing the state’s presidential electors or in deciding the outcome of the presidential election.” But on November 10, members of the Pennsylvania legislature announced their intention to investigate voter fraud allegations.
The Republican leader of Wisconsin’s assembly has long maintained that the legislature would not override the will of the voters and he reiterated that view on November 13. But the Wisconsin legislature is also investigating the election.
Republican leaders in Michigan’s legislature say legislative intervention would violate state law although the GOP-controlled legislature has mounted an investigation of the election. Michigan’s majority leader said, “It is not the expectation that our analysis would result in any change in the outcome.”
On November 17, in a dramatic and overtly political move, the two Republican officials on the four-member board of canvassers in Michigan’s largest county blocked certification of Wayne County’s vote count. But hours later, after powerful public comment and fierce outcry on traditional and social media, board chair Monica Palmer and William Hartmann reversed their “no” votes and the board unanimously certified the tally.
Trump called Palmer after the board meeting and also spoke with Hartmann. The next day, the two GOP board members tried to rescind their “yes” votes, claiming they were pressured into certifying the election with the promise of an audit of voting tallies in Detroit, which is 80% black. Jocelyn Benson, Michigan’s Secretary of State, said the resolution requesting an audit was not binding. The small number of votes that could be affected by the audit is not enough to change the election results.
Benson’s spokeswoman stated, “There is no legal mechanism for them to rescind their vote.”
On November 19, Trump invited the Republican leaders in the Michigan legislature to visit the White House on November 20. The Michigan Board of State Canvassers will review and certify the county certifications on November 23.
Trump called Palmer after the board meeting and also spoke with Hartmann. The next day, the two GOP board members tried to rescind their “yes” votes, claiming they were pressured into certifying the election with the promise of an audit of voting tallies in Detroit, which is 80% black. Jocelyn Benson, Michigan’s Secretary of State, said the resolution requesting an audit was not binding. The small number of votes that could be affected by the audit is not enough to change the election results.
Benson’s spokeswoman stated, “There is no legal mechanism for them to rescind their vote.”
On November 19, Trump invited the Republican leaders in the Michigan legislature to visit the White House on November 20. The Michigan Board of State Canvassers will review and certify the county certifications on November 23.
Arizona’s Republican House speaker affirmed that the legislature is “mandated by statute to choose according to the vote of the people,” but left open the possibility of changing electors if there is “some type of fraud – which I haven’t heard of anything.” At this point, he added, “I don’t see us in any serious way addressing a change in electors.”
Although Republican leaders in those four states deny they intend to replace Biden electors with Trump electors, allegations of fraud – however spurious – could reverse those intentions. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is hinting that Trump could win in the Electoral College.
States must count electoral votes and settle election disputes by December 8, the “safe harbor” deadline. On December 14, members of the Electoral College in each state will meet to elect the president.
If legislatures in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin attempt to appoint Trump electors against the will of their voters, the Democratic governors in those states would refuse to sign the certification of electors and submit Biden slates. Arizona has a Republican governor, who may well sign a slate of Trump electors notwithstanding Biden’s victory in that state, according to Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig.
On January 6, Vice President Mike Pence will preside over the opening of the certified results before a joint session of the new Congress. If there are competing slates of electors in Arizona, Pence might decide to recognize the slate signed by the governor, Lessig says. If both a senator and a member of the House of Representatives sign an objection, the Senate and House would vote on whether to uphold the objection. In all likelihood, the House would vote to sustain the objection. If the Senate votes to overrule the objection, the slate signed by the governor would be counted. Even without Biden electors from Arizona, however, Biden should still have more than 270 electoral votes. But if the state legislatures in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and/or Wisconsin submit competing slates of electors, that dispute would also end up in Congress.
If neither Biden nor Trump secure 270 electoral votes, the 12th Amendment provides that the House would decide who becomes president. Each state gets one vote and since there are more red states than blue ones, Trump would win.
In the event that an electoral clash reaches the Supreme Court, all bets are off. In a recent concurrence, Brett Kavanaugh adopted the position that state legislatures are unconstrained in their selection of electors regardless of the popular vote. Kavanaugh based his theory on Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s concurrence in Bush v. Gore – the case that selected George W. Bush as president in 2000. But that theory has not attained majority support on the high court.
Indeed, in Chiafalo v. Washington earlier this year, a unanimous Supreme Court cited the “tradition more than two centuries old” that “electors are not free agents; they are to vote for the candidate whom the State’s voters have chosen.” Chiafalo affirmed the power of states to punish “faithless electors,” who don’t vote in accordance with the popular vote.
But in light of the willingness of Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch to stay the counting of votes mailed by November 3 but arriving by November 6, in spite of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s allowance of the three-day extension, those three might vote for Trump in a case of dueling electors. And Amy Coney Barrett could provide the fifth vote to hand the presidency to Trump.
Trump May Be Preparing for Armed Support of His Coup
Trump is apparently taking steps to quash popular opposition to his attempted electoral theft. On November 9, he fired Defense Secretary Mark Esper. Last summer, Esper refused to support Trump’s proposed deployment of active-duty troops against anti-racist protesters in the wake of the public lynching of George Floyd. Esper opposed the invocation of the Insurrection Act to call out active-duty military on U.S. soil. Mindful that massive protests would erupt if he succeeds in launching an electoral coup, Trump wants his loyalists in place to attack anti-coup demonstrators. Service members, however, have a duty to disobey unlawful orders and may refuse to follow Trump’s illegal directives to repress protesters.
On November 14, thousands of Trump loyalists, including the Proud Boys and other right-wing groups, assembled in Washington D.C. and claimed that Biden was stealing the election. Trump drove by on his way to play golf and gave the demonstrators a thumbs-up. Later that day, in a violently inciteful tweet, Trump urged police not to “hold back” and to crack down on “antifa scum.”
During the campaign, while he leveled false accusations of massive voter fraud, Trump refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power. His refusal to concede and his strategy to illegally overturn the election results by stealing Biden’s electoral votes confirm his intention not to go peacefully.
“Since 1800, when the incumbent John Adams was defeated, every president who lost a reelection bid has left office,” Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky told Jurist. “Not every transition was graceful, but every one occurred. We have seen so many instances around the world where that didn’t happen. I am hopeful that our institutions will work again and keep Trump from impermissibly remaining in office.”
The results of the election must be honored and the presidency awarded to Joe Biden. Hopefully, that will be accomplished with all deliberate speed and the absence of bloodshed. Donald Trump must leave the White House on January 20. As Elena Kagan wrote in the last line of the Chiafalo opinion, “Here, We the People rule.”
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--2020-11-20--Joe Biden Should Cancel Student Debt on Day One

On November 15 , Jason Furman , the former chair of Obama ’ s Council of Economic Advisers , tweeted that student debt cancellation wasn ’ t good policy .
Furman ’ s tweet lit up social media , leading to so much discussion the following day about student debt cancellation that # CancelStudentDebt trended on Twitter .
Furman argued that cancelling student debt doesn ’ t provide a short-term stimulus , may be taxable , and is arbitrary or regressive .
He ’ s wrong on every count .
But the objections to student debt cancellation also ignore the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leave on the table one of the most effective tools Joe Biden has to provide relief to over 44 million people , their families and communities , and the economy overall .
Trump has already cancelled the interest on federal student loans through executive action — first in March , for the week prior to the passage of the CARES Act , and again in August , to extend the suspension on 80 percent of federal student loan payments .
This suspension applied to any borrower whose loans are held by the federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of student debt cancellation have not raised concerns that the student loan suspension applies regardless of income — presumably because it has been done in response to the economic emergency .
But that ’ s precisely why Biden proposed an “ immediate cancellation ” of at least $ 10,000 in federal student loan debt : he included this in his Racial Economic Equity plan as a coronavirus response .
Meanwhile , Republicans are busy taking credit for the student loan suspension : the Pennsylvania GOP sent out a mailer highlighting it .
Sensing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a majority of registered voters ) , Trump wanted his own plan on student debt after seeing the debt cancellation proposals from the Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren campaigns in 2019 .
Critics of student debt cancellation are also ignoring the political realities .
Furman ’ s main argument was that , assuming debt cancellation was taxable , it would not provide economic stimulus in the first year .
As an alternative approach , Furman said that it would be better to “ double SNAP ” than cancel student debt , but then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hadn ’ t been expanded previously because “ Republicans have blocked it.
” With a likely Republican Senate , legislative action on any kind of economic stimulus will be similarly blocked .
Student debt cancellation does clearly provide stimulus : one study estimated that cancelling all student debt would boost the U.S. GDP up to $ 108 billion and add 1.5 million jobs per year .
And Moody ’ s Investors Service has said that student loan debt cancellation would “ yield a tax-cut-like stimulus to economic activity ” in the near-term .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be more broadly stimulative in the short term than cancelling student debt — for example , sending out more cash stimulus payments — their prospects look dim .
Republicans have already balked at another round of these checks , even before Trump lost the presidential election , defying the wishes of the White House .
One clear lesson of 2020 ( and years past ) is that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will do anything to stack the judiciary with ultra-conservative judges — whether that meant pushing through a vote on Amy Coney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for coronavirus , or refusing to let the Senate consider bills passed through the Democratic-majority House .
McConnell and the Senate Republican Caucus are ready to act to sabotage the economy under a Biden presidency .
They telegraphed their intentions this year , with their strong and public opposition to a second stimulus package — and their lack of concern for the looming end to the evictions moratorium and student loan suspension , both due to expire on December 31 .
In such a hostile political environment , cancelling student debt using the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ education is , as Sen. Elizabeth Warren put it , the “ single most effective ” executive action Biden could take “ to provide massive consumer-driver stimulus ” to the economy .
Student debt cancellation is not “ regressive , ” as Furman argued , appearing to use it as a shorthand for “ not progressive.
” But regressive means that it costs poor people disproportionately more than rich people .
Student debt cancellation does the opposite .
Those with the lowest incomes benefit far more from cancellation than the wealthy .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ documented , with $ 50,000 in federal student debt cancellation , those with the lowest earnings would go from owing more student debt than their annual income to owing just about one-fifth as much as their annual income .
According to a Brandeis University study , $ 50,000 of federal student debt cancellation would wipe out all student debt for as many as 80 percent of households in the bottom 80 percent of incomes ( for 2019 , that would be households with less than $ 111,112 in income ) .
Over 40 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t have a college degree to show for it — but $ 50,000 in student debt cancellation would make 90 percent of them student debt-free .
Analysis from the Brookings Institution shows that student loan default is highest amongst those who borrow a relatively small amount ( less than $ 6,125 ) .
The consequences of federal student default are punitive and lasting : damaged credit , which impacts the ability to apply for jobs or access other credit ; inability to apply for government loan programs like the Paycheck Protection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ losing your driver ’ s or professional license .
Cancelling federal student loans would free millions of people from these punitive consequences .
Cancellation would also help lessen the disproportionate burden of student debt on Black and Brown borrowers .
Black graduates owe on average $ 7,400 more on student loans than white graduates .
The problem is only getting worse : Louise Seamster of the University of Iowa found that median Black student debt has increased by 41 percent from 2016-2019 , while average student debt for Black households tripled in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In 2016 , 15 percent of Latinx student loan borrowers were in default and 29 percent were seriously delinquent on their payments .
The Mapping Student Debt paints a visual picture of the disproportionate impact , showing high rates of delinquency that are often concentrated in neighborhoods of color .
Cancelling student debt would create positive network effects to these communities — as dollars not going to student loans can be spent locally instead , and wiping out loans for those in default will improve credit , debt-to-income ratios , help pay down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
These positive benefits to debt cancellation aren ’ t conjecture .
One study that examined debt cancellation found that even those who weren ’ t currently making payments saw enormous benefits : More geographic and job mobility , increased ability to pay down other debts and a $ 4,000 increase in their incomes over three years .
Furman was also wrong to declare that cancelling student debt would be taxable — a point he later conceded had “ some ambiguity.
” There are multiple reasons the IRS could draw on to clarify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taxable .
Bharat Ramamurti , a member of the Congressional Oversight Commission , highlighted several of those reasons , including deeming the cancellation a disaster payment .
Another reason the IRS has historically found student debt cancellation should not be taxed is because the taxpayer was insolvent ( meaning their debts exceed their assets ) .
Given that the median student loan debt of both Black borrowers and borrowers under 40 far exceeds their household wealth — and these borrowers hold the bulk of student loan debt — the IRS could also determine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to broad insolvency .
Finally , as Georgetown University Law professor John Brooks pointed out , the Trump administration has already cancelled student loan interest payments , and the IRS hasn ’ t asserted taxation on it .
In the middle of a pandemic , with few other options on the table , failure to provide relief to millions by cancelling student debts the government holds would be an abdication of responsibility .
We should celebrate the fact that even in the face of a GOP Senate that aims to sabotage any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s still a clear tool the government can use on day one to provide relief to millions of households and the economy writ large .

On November 15, Jason Furman, the former chair of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, tweeted that student debt cancellation wasn’t good policy. Furman’s tweet lit up social media, leading to so much discussion the following day about student debt cancellation that #CancelStudentDebt trended on Twitter. Furman argued that cancelling student debt doesn’t provide a short-term stimulus, may be taxable, and is arbitrary or regressive.
He’s wrong on every count. But the objections to student debt cancellation also ignore the current political reality, and threaten to leave on the table one of the most effective tools Joe Biden has to provide relief to over 44 million people, their families and communities, and the economy overall.
Trump has already cancelled the interest on federal student loans through executive action — first in March, for the week prior to the passage of the CARES Act, and again in August, to extend the suspension on 80 percent of federal student loan payments. This suspension applied to any borrower whose loans are held by the federal government — regardless of income. Critics of student debt cancellation have not raised concerns that the student loan suspension applies regardless of income — presumably because it has been done in response to the economic emergency. But that’s precisely why Biden proposed an “immediate cancellation” of at least $10,000 in federal student loan debt: he included this in his Racial Economic Equity plan as a coronavirus response.
Meanwhile, Republicans are busy taking credit for the student loan suspension: the Pennsylvania GOP sent out a mailer highlighting it. Sensing the popularity (cancellation is supported by a majority of registered voters), Trump wanted his own plan on student debt after seeing the debt cancellation proposals from the Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren campaigns in 2019.
Critics of student debt cancellation are also ignoring the political realities. Furman’s main argument was that, assuming debt cancellation was taxable, it would not provide economic stimulus in the first year. As an alternative approach, Furman said that it would be better to “double SNAP” than cancel student debt, but then acknowledged that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program hadn’t been expanded previously because “Republicans have blocked it.” With a likely Republican Senate, legislative action on any kind of economic stimulus will be similarly blocked.
Student debt cancellation does clearly provide stimulus: one study estimated that cancelling all student debt would boost the U.S. GDP up to $108 billion and add 1.5 million jobs per year. And Moody’s Investors Service has said that student loan debt cancellation would “yield a tax-cut-like stimulus to economic activity” in the near-term.
While there are policies that would likely be more broadly stimulative in the short term than cancelling student debt — for example, sending out more cash stimulus payments — their prospects look dim. Republicans have already balked at another round of these checks, even before Trump lost the presidential election, defying the wishes of the White House.
$50,000 of federal student debt cancellation would wipe out all student debt for as many as 80 percent of households in the bottom 80 percent of incomes.
One clear lesson of 2020 (and years past) is that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will do anything to stack the judiciary with ultra-conservative judges — whether that meant pushing through a vote on Amy Coney Barrett despite multiple Republican senators testing positive for coronavirus, or refusing to let the Senate consider bills passed through the Democratic-majority House. McConnell and the Senate Republican Caucus are ready to act to sabotage the economy under a Biden presidency. They telegraphed their intentions this year, with their strong and public opposition to a second stimulus package — and their lack of concern for the looming end to the evictions moratorium and student loan suspension, both due to expire on December 31.
In such a hostile political environment, cancelling student debt using the authority Congress gave to the secretary of education is, as Sen. Elizabeth Warren put it, the “single most effective” executive action Biden could take “to provide massive consumer-driver stimulus” to the economy.
Student debt cancellation is not “regressive,” as Furman argued, appearing to use it as a shorthand for “not progressive.” But regressive means that it costs poor people disproportionately more than rich people. Student debt cancellation does the opposite. Those with the lowest incomes benefit far more from cancellation than the wealthy.
As Marshall Steinbaum of the University of Utah documented, with $50,000 in federal student debt cancellation, those with the lowest earnings would go from owing more student debt than their annual income to owing just about one-fifth as much as their annual income.
According to a Brandeis University study, $50,000 of federal student debt cancellation would wipe out all student debt for as many as 80 percent of households in the bottom 80 percent of incomes (for 2019, that would be households with less than $111,112 in income). Over 40 percent of people who hold student debt don’t have a college degree to show for it — but $50,000 in student debt cancellation would make 90 percent of them student debt-free.
Analysis from the Brookings Institution shows that student loan default is highest amongst those who borrow a relatively small amount (less than $6,125). The consequences of federal student default are punitive and lasting: damaged credit, which impacts the ability to apply for jobs or access other credit; inability to apply for government loan programs like the Paycheck Protection Program; and in some states, losing your driver’s or professional license. Cancelling federal student loans would free millions of people from these punitive consequences.
Cancellation would also help lessen the disproportionate burden of student debt on Black and Brown borrowers. Black graduates owe on average $7,400 more on student loans than white graduates. The problem is only getting worse: Louise Seamster of the University of Iowa found that median Black student debt has increased by 41 percent from 2016-2019, while average student debt for Black households tripled in the 12 years surrounding the 2008 recession. In 2016, 15 percent of Latinx student loan borrowers were in default and 29 percent were seriously delinquent on their payments.
The Mapping Student Debt paints a visual picture of the disproportionate impact, showing high rates of delinquency that are often concentrated in neighborhoods of color. Cancelling student debt would create positive network effects to these communities — as dollars not going to student loans can be spent locally instead, and wiping out loans for those in default will improve credit, debt-to-income ratios, help pay down other debts and decrease barriers to employment.
These positive benefits to debt cancellation aren’t conjecture. One study that examined debt cancellation found that even those who weren’t currently making payments saw enormous benefits: More geographic and job mobility, increased ability to pay down other debts and a $4,000 increase in their incomes over three years.
Furman was also wrong to declare that cancelling student debt would be taxable — a point he later conceded had “some ambiguity.” There are multiple reasons the IRS could draw on to clarify that student debt cancellation broadly is not taxable. Bharat Ramamurti, a member of the Congressional Oversight Commission, highlighted several of those reasons, including deeming the cancellation a disaster payment.
Another reason the IRS has historically found student debt cancellation should not be taxed is because the taxpayer was insolvent (meaning their debts exceed their assets). Given that the median student loan debt of both Black borrowers and borrowers under 40 far exceeds their household wealth — and these borrowers hold the bulk of student loan debt — the IRS could also determine the debt cancellation isn’t taxable due to broad insolvency. Finally, as Georgetown University Law professor John Brooks pointed out, the Trump administration has already cancelled student loan interest payments, and the IRS hasn’t asserted taxation on it.
In the middle of a pandemic, with few other options on the table, failure to provide relief to millions by cancelling student debts the government holds would be an abdication of responsibility. We should celebrate the fact that even in the face of a GOP Senate that aims to sabotage any attempts at economic recovery, there’s still a clear tool the government can use on day one to provide relief to millions of households and the economy writ large.
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--2020-11-21--Pro-Wall Street Democrat Could Soon Have Key Role Regulating Derivatives Market

With Rep. Collin Peterson ( D-Minn. ) going down in defeat to former Minnesota Lt. Gov .
Michelle Fischbach , the top Democratic spot on the House Agriculture Committee is up for grabs for the first time since 2006 .
The next leader of the committee will have the power to steer House Democrats on things like crop insurance , agricultural subsidies , and rural development , but they will also be able to advance another category of bills : those dealing with regulation of financial derivatives .
The House and Senate agriculture committees were given regulation over derivatives in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trading crop futures in order to stabilize prices , and the committees held onto their jurisdiction through the creation of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission ( CFTC ) , which regulates the unfathomably massive U.S. derivatives markets .
That means the committee routinely votes on bills that affect the balance sheets of Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs far more than they impact the growing of crops or the rearing of livestock .
Derivatives markets are comprised of financial instruments built atop other assets , like collateralized debt obligations , interest rate swaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be used for hedging to limit risk , but they are also routinely used for pure financial speculation .
The representative next in line for the chairmanship is one of Wall Street ’ s most reliable Democratic allies , Rep. David Scott of Georgia ’ s 13th Congressional District .
Scott announced his interest in the position the day after Peterson was defeated , though Rep. Jim Costa ( D-Calif. ) has said he is also vying for the seat .
Scott , the chair of the Ag Committee ’ s Commodity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a member of the House Financial Services Committee , has a history of partnering with Republicans to deregulate derivatives markets .
In 2013 , the Agriculture Committee passed a slate of seven Republican-sponsored bills designed to roll back the derivatives regulations that Congress had passed three years earlier in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act .
Scott signed on as a co-sponsor to all seven of the Republican bills .
While other Democrats signed onto some of the bills , Scott was the only Democrat to co-sponsor all of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Agriculture Committee by voice vote , but the most controversial of them , the Swaps Regulatory Improvement Act , was put to a vote .
The bill was aimed to gut Section 716 of Dodd-Frank , which required federally-insured depository institutions to “ push out ” their derivatives activity to non-bank affiliates in order to protect taxpayers in case their trades blow up and threaten their ability to meet their liabilities .
Under the bill , which was written in part by Citigroup lobbyists , all derivatives trades besides some that are based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the push-out requirement .
Scott was one of six Democrats who joined Republicans to pass the Swaps Regulatory Improvement Act in the committee by a vote of 31 yeas to 14 nays .
Costa voted “ no.
” The bill was eventually rolled into a government funding measure and signed into law by President Obama .
Before the vote , Peterson , then the ranking Democratic member , said the bill reminded him of Congress ’ 1999 vote to repeal Glass-Steagall , telling his colleagues , “ you can vote any way you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and haunt you.
” “ You ’ re putting taxpayers on the hook , and if you wan na do that , fine , ” said Peterson .
“ But I mean , you know , when I , when a lot of us were here , we hadn ’ t paid enough attention and this thing blew up on us , ” Peterson added , referring to the government bailouts in 2008-09 that followed years of financial deregulation .
Scott was one of the Democrats in 2012 who signed a letter that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ensure “ flexibility ” for banks in their implementation of the Volcker Rule , a provision of Dodd-Frank that was intended to prohibit federally-insured commercial banks from making certain kinds of speculative trades with their own accounts .
In June 2019 , Scott signed a letter urging financial regulators to roll back a rule requiring banks to put aside margin when making derivatives transactions among their affiliates in order to protect insured banks from losses stemming from the activities of their riskier affiliates .
Another Republican bill Scott co-sponsored was H.R .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ regulators to reduce the capital that banks that are clearing members of derivatives clearinghouses must hold against risks .
Americans for Financial Reform , a nonprofit watchdog group , wrote in a letter opposing the measure that the bill would “ increase the dangers of a public bailout of the derivatives market due to the failure of a major clearinghouse.
” The bill was supported by Intercontinental Exchange , CME Group , Commodity Markets Council , and FIA .
Financial reform advocates have been urging Democrats on the Agriculture Committee to close loopholes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but that ’ s not likely to happen with Scott at the helm .
And in a divided Congress it ’ s possible that more deregulatory measures could be advanced and presented to President-elect Biden , who has a long history of supporting financial deregulation .
Scott ’ s top career donor according to the Center for Responsive Politics is the Atlanta , Georgia-based Intercontinental Exchange , the financial exchange company founded and run by Sen. Kelly Loeffler ’ s ( R-Ga. ) husband Jeffrey Sprecher .
Intercontinental Exchange ’ s PAC has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executives and employees have given him another $ 44,850 .
Sprecher and Loeffler have both donated to Scott .
In its most recent quarterly lobbying disclosure , Intercontinental Exchange reported lobbying Congress on “ regulation of the trading system for agriculture , energy and other futures ” and “ legislation that would change the regulatory structure for exchanges and trading of futures , including reauthorization of the Commodity Trading Act , and the Customer Protection and End User Relief Act.
” The Customer Protection and End User Relief Act was renamed the Commodity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2017 Scott was one of just 7 House Democrats who voted to pass it .
The bill placed a freeze on the CFTC ’ s budget and established onerous new cost-benefit analysis requirements for the agency before they can take regulatory actions .
One issue impacting Intercontinental Exchange that could very well come before the Agriculture Committee is regulation of digital derivatives built atop assets like Bitcoin .
Intercontinental Exchange owns Bakkt , an exchange where people can buy and sell futures and options tied to cryptocurrencies , in-game currency , loyalty points @ @ @ @ @ @ @ digital assets .
Kelly Loeffler was the CEO of Bakkt before she was appointed to the Senate in December 2019 .
Several of Scott ’ s other major donors could also benefit from derivatives deregulation .
The American Bankers Association , which has given Scott $ 92,000 through its PAC , represents big banks that hold a huge portion of derivatives contracts .
“ Four large banks held 86.7 percent of the total banking industry notional amount of derivatives ” in the first quarter of 2020 , according to the Office of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — JP Morgan Chase , Goldman Sachs , Citibank , and Bank of America — are all American Bankers Association members .
Bank of America ’ s PAC has given Scott $ 72,000 .
CME Group , the world ’ s largest derivatives exchange company , which operates the Chicago Mercantile Exchange , has given Scott a total of $ 56,000 through its PAC since 2009 .
The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association , a trade group that supports limiting CFTC power and supported the Swaps Regulatory Improvement Act , has given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation , which provides clearance and settling services for derivatives markets , has given Scott $ 20,350 .
In 2013 and 2017 , Scott staffers took trips to tour the New York Stock Exchange and meet with S & P Global executives that were sponsored and paid for by the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation .
Peterson has endorsed Scott for the chairmanship , saying in a letter to Scott that he is “ a supporter of the seniority system ” and that it would be an “ important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Scott ’ s office did not return Sludge ’ s request for comment for this article .

This article was produced by Sludge , an independent, ad-free investigative news site covering money in politics. Click here to support Sludge.
With Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) going down in defeat to former Minnesota Lt. Gov. Michelle Fischbach, the top Democratic spot on the House Agriculture Committee is up for grabs for the first time since 2006. The next leader of the committee will have the power to steer House Democrats on things like crop insurance, agricultural subsidies, and rural development, but they will also be able to advance another category of bills: those dealing with regulation of financial derivatives.
The House and Senate agriculture committees were given regulation over derivatives in the 19th Century when farmers first started trading crop futures in order to stabilize prices, and the committees held onto their jurisdiction through the creation of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which regulates the unfathomably massive U.S. derivatives markets. That means the committee routinely votes on bills that affect the balance sheets of Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs far more than they impact the growing of crops or the rearing of livestock.
Derivatives markets are comprised of financial instruments built atop other assets, like collateralized debt obligations, interest rate swaps, and white sugar futures. They can be used for hedging to limit risk, but they are also routinely used for pure financial speculation.
The representative next in line for the chairmanship is one of Wall Street’s most reliable Democratic allies, Rep. David Scott of Georgia’s 13th Congressional District. Scott announced his interest in the position the day after Peterson was defeated, though Rep. Jim Costa (D-Calif.) has said he is also vying for the seat.
Scott, the chair of the Ag Committee’s Commodity Exchanges, Energy and Credit Subcommittee and a member of the House Financial Services Committee, has a history of partnering with Republicans to deregulate derivatives markets. In 2013, the Agriculture Committee passed a slate of seven Republican-sponsored bills designed to roll back the derivatives regulations that Congress had passed three years earlier in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Scott signed on as a co-sponsor to all seven of the Republican bills. While other Democrats signed onto some of the bills, Scott was the only Democrat to co-sponsor all of them.
Most of the bills passed the Agriculture Committee by voice vote, but the most controversial of them, the Swaps Regulatory Improvement Act, was put to a vote. The bill was aimed to gut Section 716 of Dodd-Frank, which required federally-insured depository institutions to “push out” their derivatives activity to non-bank affiliates in order to protect taxpayers in case their trades blow up and threaten their ability to meet their liabilities. Under the bill, which was written in part by Citigroup lobbyists, all derivatives trades besides some that are based on asset-backed securities would be exempted from the push-out requirement.
Scott was one of six Democrats who joined Republicans to pass the Swaps Regulatory Improvement Act in the committee by a vote of 31 yeas to 14 nays. Costa voted “no.” The bill was eventually rolled into a government funding measure and signed into law by President Obama.
Before the vote, Peterson, then the ranking Democratic member, said the bill reminded him of Congress’ 1999 vote to repeal Glass-Steagall, telling his colleagues, “you can vote any way you want, but this could come back and haunt you.”
“You’re putting taxpayers on the hook, and if you wanna do that, fine,” said Peterson. “But I mean, you know, when I, when a lot of us were here, we hadn’t paid enough attention and this thing blew up on us,” Peterson added, referring to the government bailouts in 2008-09 that followed years of financial deregulation.
Scott was one of the Democrats in 2012 who signed a letter that threatened to withhold regulators’ funding unless they ensure “flexibility” for banks in their implementation of the Volcker Rule, a provision of Dodd-Frank that was intended to prohibit federally-insured commercial banks from making certain kinds of speculative trades with their own accounts. In June 2019, Scott signed a letter urging financial regulators to roll back a rule requiring banks to put aside margin when making derivatives transactions among their affiliates in order to protect insured banks from losses stemming from the activities of their riskier affiliates.
Another Republican bill Scott co-sponsored was H.R. 4695 in 2017, which would direct regulators to reduce the capital that banks that are clearing members of derivatives clearinghouses must hold against risks. Americans for Financial Reform, a nonprofit watchdog group, wrote in a letter opposing the measure that the bill would “increase the dangers of a public bailout of the derivatives market due to the failure of a major clearinghouse.” The bill was supported by Intercontinental Exchange, CME Group, Commodity Markets Council, and FIA.
Financial reform advocates have been urging Democrats on the Agriculture Committee to close loopholes in the CFTC’s regulations, but that’s not likely to happen with Scott at the helm. And in a divided Congress it’s possible that more deregulatory measures could be advanced and presented to President-elect Biden, who has a long history of supporting financial deregulation.
Scott’s top career donor according to the Center for Responsive Politics is the Atlanta, Georgia-based Intercontinental Exchange, the financial exchange company founded and run by Sen. Kelly Loeffler’s (R-Ga.) husband Jeffrey Sprecher. Intercontinental Exchange’s PAC has given Scott $60,000, while its executives and employees have given him another $44,850. Sprecher and Loeffler have both donated to Scott.
In its most recent quarterly lobbying disclosure, Intercontinental Exchange reported lobbying Congress on “regulation of the trading system for agriculture, energy and other futures” and “legislation that would change the regulatory structure for exchanges and trading of futures, including reauthorization of the Commodity Trading Act, and the Customer Protection and End User Relief Act.” The Customer Protection and End User Relief Act was renamed the Commodity End Users Relief Act, and in 2017 Scott was one of just 7 House Democrats who voted to pass it. The bill placed a freeze on the CFTC’s budget and established onerous new cost-benefit analysis requirements for the agency before they can take regulatory actions.
One issue impacting Intercontinental Exchange that could very well come before the Agriculture Committee is regulation of digital derivatives built atop assets like Bitcoin. Intercontinental Exchange owns Bakkt, an exchange where people can buy and sell futures and options tied to cryptocurrencies, in-game currency, loyalty points acquired through reward programs, and other digital assets. Kelly Loeffler was the CEO of Bakkt before she was appointed to the Senate in December 2019.
Several of Scott’s other major donors could also benefit from derivatives deregulation.
The American Bankers Association, which has given Scott $92,000 through its PAC, represents big banks that hold a huge portion of derivatives contracts. “Four large banks held 86.7 percent of the total banking industry notional amount of derivatives” in the first quarter of 2020, according to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Those banks — JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citibank, and Bank of America — are all American Bankers Association members. Bank of America’s PAC has given Scott $72,000.
CME Group, the world’s largest derivatives exchange company, which operates the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, has given Scott a total of $56,000 through its PAC since 2009. The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, a trade group that supports limiting CFTC power and supported the Swaps Regulatory Improvement Act, has given Scott $43,000. The PAC of Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation, which provides clearance and settling services for derivatives markets, has given Scott $20,350. In 2013 and 2017, Scott staffers took trips to tour the New York Stock Exchange and meet with S&P Global executives that were sponsored and paid for by the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation.
Peterson has endorsed Scott for the chairmanship, saying in a letter to Scott that he is “a supporter of the seniority system” and that it would be an “important milestone to have the first African-American Chair.”
Scott’s office did not return Sludge’s request for comment for this article.
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--2020-11-21--Rural Hospitals Are Facing Unprecedented Challenges Amid Worsening Pandemic

It ’ s difficult to put into words how hard COVID-19 is hitting rural America ’ s hospitals .
North Dakota has so many cases , it ’ s allowing asymptomatic COVID-19-positive nurses to continue caring for patients to keep the hospitals staffed .
Iowa and South Dakota have teetered on the edge of running out of hospital capacity .
Yet in many communities , the initial cooperation and goodwill seen early in the pandemic have given way to COVID-19 fatigue and anger , making it hard to implement and enforce public health measures , like wearing face masks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spread .
Rural health care systems entered the pandemic in already precarious financial positions .
Over the years , shifting demographics , declining revenue and increasing operating expenses have made it harder for rural hospitals to stay in business .
The pandemic has made it even more difficult .
In mid-March , most rural hospitals halted elective procedures to slow the spread of the virus , cutting their revenue further , and many have faced price gouging for supplies given extreme shortages .
I work with rural doctors and hospital administrators across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see the stress they ’ re under from the pandemic .
Here is what two of them — Konnie Martin , chief executive officer at San Luis Valley Health in Alamosa , Colorado , and Dr. Jennifer Bacani McKenney , who practices family medicine in Fredonia , Kansas — are facing .
Their experiences reflect what others are going through and how rural communities are innovating under extraordinary pressure .
I ’ ll let them explain in their own words .
COVID-19 fatigue is real .
It ’ s wearing on people .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I read the other day about health care workers being the “ keeper of fears.
” During COVID-19 , patients have disproportionately placed their fears on clinicians , many of whom experience the same fears themselves .
I focus on building resilience , but it ’ s hard .
My hospital currently has seven patients with COVID-19 and can make room for as many as 12 .
Back in the spring , we converted a visiting specialist center into a temporary respiratory clinic to keep potentially infectious patients separate and reduce pressure on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all about making sure we have enough staff and hospital capacity .
There isn ’ t any hospital that isn ’ t under siege , which means that getting patients to the right level of care can be a challenge .
In the past few days , we have accepted three transfers from facilities that are on the front range .
We ’ ve never had to do this before .
With six ICU beds and 10 ventilators , we are trying to help others .
Influenza hasn ’ t arrived yet in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when it comes .
We have nearly 40 staff out right now on isolation or quarantine , a staggering number for a small facility .
We are having to shift staffing coverage in half-day increments to keep up .
We are not at a point where we are even contemplating bringing COVID-19-positive staff back to work , like the governor of North Dakota suggested .
I hope we never get there .
We are , however , considering high-risk versus low-risk exposures .
If a clinician is exposed to COVID-19 during an aerosolizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk .
If a clinician is exposed in a classroom of 50 people who were all socially distanced and wearing masks , that ’ s low risk .
If we face critical workforce needs , we may bring back health care workers that have had low-risk exposures .
We have gained a lot of knowledge this year , and we all feel wiser now , but definitely older , too .
We chose to live in a rural community because we look out for one another .
Our one grocery store will deliver @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s department will drive medications outside of city limits .
If we could return to our rural values of caring for and protecting one another we would be in a better position .
Somewhere along the way , these values took a back seat to politics and fear .
Wilson County , where I practice in Southeast Kansas , didn ’ t see its first COVID-19 case until April 15 .
By August , you could still count the number of cases on two hands .
But by mid-November , the total was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a population of about 8,500 – meaning about one out of every 40 residents has been infected .
Our 25-bed critical-access hospital doesn ’ t have dedicated ICU beds , and it has only two ventilators .
Emergency department calls are split among the five physicians in Fredonia .
In addition to dealing with COVID-19 cases , we ’ re managing every other illness and injury that walks through the door , including strokes , heart attacks , traumatic injuries and rattlesnake bites .
We have sectioned off a hallway of rooms for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , we have to rely on other hospitals .
Recently , my partner had to transfer a patient who had a gastrointestinal bleed .
She had to call 11 different hospitals to find one that could take the patient .
I feel lucky to have on-site testing in the hospital lab .
But like many of my rural peers , getting enough face masks and other personal protective equipment early on was tough .
The community is tired , frustrated and stubborn .
Politicians talk about relying on personal responsibility to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t see a majority of people wearing masks in public spaces despite pleas from health professionals .
Some people are scared .
Others act as if COVID-19 doesn ’ t exist .
Politics is making things harder .
I have been Wilson County ’ s health officer for the past eight years .
This year , county commissioners gained more control over COVID-19 health decisions .
When I proposed a mask mandate early in the pandemic , one county commissioner argued it would violate his rights .
Another commissioner balked at one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no right to tell schools how to evaluate kids before they can return to sports , despite the health risks .
I recently proposed a new mask mandate given our rising numbers .
I explained that masks would not only save lives , they would help businesses stay open and keep employees at work .
The commissioners voted it down 3-0 .
Preparing for the Next Pandemic We live in an interconnected world where commerce and people cross state and national borders , and with that comes the risk of new diseases .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ future .
Rural health care delivery systems can leverage lessons from COVID-19 to prepare .
Among other things , their emergency preparedness “ tabletop exercises ” can include planning for infectious disease outbreaks , in addition to fire and floods ; mass casualty incidents ; and chemical spills .
They can permanently diversify supply chain options from other industries , such as construction and agriculture , to help ensure access to needed supplies .
To avoid staff and supply shortages , they can create regional rural health care networks for swapping staff , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , rural doctors and health care administrators are being as flexible and resourceful as they can in the face of adversity .
Lauren Hughes receives funding from the Zoma Foundation .
She is a member of the Rural Health Redesign Center Organization Board of Directors .
Jennifer Bacani McKenney does not work for , consult , own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article , and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment .
This article is republished from The Conversation under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ original article .

Lack of resources, sick health care workers and the politicization of public health are among the challenges they face.
It’s difficult to put into words how hard COVID-19 is hitting rural America’s hospitals. North Dakota has so many cases, it’s allowing asymptomatic COVID-19-positive nurses to continue caring for patients to keep the hospitals staffed. Iowa and South Dakota have teetered on the edge of running out of hospital capacity.
Yet in many communities, the initial cooperation and goodwill seen early in the pandemic have given way to COVID-19 fatigue and anger, making it hard to implement and enforce public health measures, like wearing face masks, that can reduce the disease’s spread.
Rural health care systems entered the pandemic in already precarious financial positions. Over the years, shifting demographics, declining revenue and increasing operating expenses have made it harder for rural hospitals to stay in business. The pandemic has made it even more difficult. In mid-March, most rural hospitals halted elective procedures to slow the spread of the virus, cutting their revenue further, and many have faced price gouging for supplies given extreme shortages.
I work with rural doctors and hospital administrators across the country as a researcher, and I see the stress they’re under from the pandemic. Here is what two of them — Konnie Martin, chief executive officer at San Luis Valley Health in Alamosa, Colorado, and Dr. Jennifer Bacani McKenney, who practices family medicine in Fredonia, Kansas — are facing. Their experiences reflect what others are going through and how rural communities are innovating under extraordinary pressure.
I’ll let them explain in their own words.
Konnie Martin, Alamosa, Colorado
COVID-19 fatigue is real. It’s wearing on people. Everyone wishes we were past this. I read the other day about health care workers being the “keeper of fears.” During COVID-19, patients have disproportionately placed their fears on clinicians, many of whom experience the same fears themselves. I focus on building resilience, but it’s hard.
My hospital currently has seven patients with COVID-19 and can make room for as many as 12. Back in the spring, we converted a visiting specialist center into a temporary respiratory clinic to keep potentially infectious patients separate and reduce pressure on our emergency department.
It’s all about making sure we have enough staff and hospital capacity.
There isn’t any hospital that isn’t under siege, which means that getting patients to the right level of care can be a challenge. In the past few days, we have accepted three transfers from facilities that are on the front range. We’ve never had to do this before. With six ICU beds and 10 ventilators, we are trying to help others.
Influenza hasn’t arrived yet in our community, and I worry about when it comes. We have nearly 40 staff out right now on isolation or quarantine, a staggering number for a small facility. We are having to shift staffing coverage in half-day increments to keep up.
We are not at a point where we are even contemplating bringing COVID-19-positive staff back to work, like the governor of North Dakota suggested. I hope we never get there. We are, however, considering high-risk versus low-risk exposures. If a clinician is exposed to COVID-19 during an aerosolizing medical procedure, that’s high risk. If a clinician is exposed in a classroom of 50 people who were all socially distanced and wearing masks, that’s low risk. If we face critical workforce needs, we may bring back health care workers that have had low-risk exposures.
We have gained a lot of knowledge this year, and we all feel wiser now, but definitely older, too.
Dr. Jennifer Bacani McKenney, Fredonia, Kansas
We chose to live in a rural community because we look out for one another. Our one grocery store will deliver to your home. Our sheriff’s department will drive medications outside of city limits. If we could return to our rural values of caring for and protecting one another we would be in a better position. Somewhere along the way, these values took a back seat to politics and fear.
Wilson County, where I practice in Southeast Kansas, didn’t see its first COVID-19 case until April 15. By August, you could still count the number of cases on two hands. But by mid-November, the total was over 215 cases in a county with a population of about 8,500 – meaning about one out of every 40 residents has been infected.
Our 25-bed critical-access hospital doesn’t have dedicated ICU beds, and it has only two ventilators. Emergency department calls are split among the five physicians in Fredonia. In addition to dealing with COVID-19 cases, we’re managing every other illness and injury that walks through the door, including strokes, heart attacks, traumatic injuries and rattlesnake bites.
We have sectioned off a hallway of rooms for suspected COVID-19 cases. Without an ICU, however, we have to rely on other hospitals. Recently, my partner had to transfer a patient who had a gastrointestinal bleed. She had to call 11 different hospitals to find one that could take the patient.
I feel lucky to have on-site testing in the hospital lab. But like many of my rural peers, getting enough face masks and other personal protective equipment early on was tough.
The community is tired, frustrated and stubborn. Politicians talk about relying on personal responsibility to end the pandemic, but I don’t see a majority of people wearing masks in public spaces despite pleas from health professionals. Some people are scared. Others act as if COVID-19 doesn’t exist.
Politics is making things harder. I have been Wilson County’s health officer for the past eight years. This year, county commissioners gained more control over COVID-19 health decisions.
When I proposed a mask mandate early in the pandemic, one county commissioner argued it would violate his rights. Another commissioner balked at one of my reports, saying I had no right to tell schools how to evaluate kids before they can return to sports, despite the health risks.
I recently proposed a new mask mandate given our rising numbers. I explained that masks would not only save lives, they would help businesses stay open and keep employees at work. The commissioners voted it down 3-0.
Preparing for the Next Pandemic
We live in an interconnected world where commerce and people cross state and national borders, and with that comes the risk of new diseases. America will face another pandemic in the future.
Rural health care delivery systems can leverage lessons from COVID-19 to prepare. Among other things, their emergency preparedness “tabletop exercises” can include planning for infectious disease outbreaks, in addition to fire and floods; mass casualty incidents; and chemical spills.
They can permanently diversify supply chain options from other industries, such as construction and agriculture, to help ensure access to needed supplies. To avoid staff and supply shortages, they can create regional rural health care networks for swapping staff, conducting testing and acquiring supplies.
Meanwhile, rural doctors and health care administrators are being as flexible and resourceful as they can in the face of adversity.
Lauren Hughes receives funding from the Zoma Foundation. She is a member of the Rural Health Redesign Center Organization Board of Directors.
Jennifer Bacani McKenney does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
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--2020-11-21--Trump Is Trying to Force Banks to Continue Financing Arctic Fossil Fuel Drilling

Responding to grassroots pressure and shareholder activism , five of the six largest U.S. banks have decided they want no part of financing fossil fuel drilling in Alaska ’ s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge — but that isn ’ t stopping the Trump administration from what critics on Friday called bullying banks into funding oil and gas extraction .
The Wall Street Journal reports the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency on Friday proposed a new rule that would bar financial institutions from refusing to lend to entire categories of lawful businesses .
In the name of “ fair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ force banks to finance not only the fossil fuel industry that is largely responsible for the ever-worsening climate emergency , but also other highly controversial sectors such as for-profit private prisons and firearms manufacturers .
“ We need to stop the weaponization of banking as a political tool , ” Brian Brooks , the acting comptroller , told the Journal .
“ It ’ s creating real economic dislocations.
” Under the proposal — which came on the heels of complaints by Republican politicians that banks are discriminating against Big Oil — institutional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loans if an applicant failed to meet “ quantitative , impartial , risk-based standards established by the bank in advance.
” The proposal will be open for public comment until January 4 , 2021 before it is subject to final approval .
That would leave Brooks just over two weeks to enact the measure before President Donald Trump leaves office on January 20 .
The financial services industry is likely to push back against the proposal , fearing it could force banks to finance individuals , entities , or endeavors against their will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to compel banks to finance destructive drilling in the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge , which is home to the Gwich ’ in Indigenous people and hundreds of animal species .
On Tuesday , the Trump administration began accepting requests from fossil fuel companies staking claims to where they want to drill for oil and natural gas .
This , as Arctic temperatures warm to record high and Arctic sea ice recedes to record low levels .
“ Contrary to the claims of oil-backed politicians , banks don ’ t want to finance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of some vast liberal conspiracy , but because it ’ s bad business , ” he said in a statement Friday .
“ The idea that this constitutes discrimination is ludicrous .
No amount of saber-rattling in the final days of the Trump administration is going to change the fact that Arctic drilling is a risky investment that any savvy financial institution would stay far away from .
”

The Trump administration is proposing a rule that would compel banks to lend to the fossil fuel industry.
Responding to grassroots pressure and shareholder activism, five of the six largest U.S. banks have decided they want no part of financing fossil fuel drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge — but that isn’t stopping the Trump administration from what critics on Friday called bullying banks into funding oil and gas extraction.
The Wall Street Journal reports the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency on Friday proposed a new rule that would bar financial institutions from refusing to lend to entire categories of lawful businesses. In the name of “fair access,” the proposed rule would force banks to finance not only the fossil fuel industry that is largely responsible for the ever-worsening climate emergency, but also other highly controversial sectors such as for-profit private prisons and firearms manufacturers.
“We need to stop the weaponization of banking as a political tool,” Brian Brooks, the acting comptroller, told the Journal. “It’s creating real economic dislocations.”
Under the proposal — which came on the heels of complaints by Republican politicians that banks are discriminating against Big Oil — institutional lenders would only be permitted to decline loans if an applicant failed to meet “quantitative, impartial, risk-based standards established by the bank in advance.”
The proposal will be open for public comment until January 4, 2021 before it is subject to final approval. That would leave Brooks just over two weeks to enact the measure before President Donald Trump leaves office on January 20. The financial services industry is likely to push back against the proposal, fearing it could force banks to finance individuals, entities, or endeavors against their will.
In response to the growing number of banks ruling out funding for risky Arctic drilling, a new proposal from the Trump admin aims to force them to ignore the risks, invest anyway. https://t.co/yB5WWqTmP5 — Sierra Club (@SierraClub) November 20, 2020
Critics say the measure is meant to compel banks to finance destructive drilling in the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which is home to the Gwich’in Indigenous people and hundreds of animal species. On Tuesday, the Trump administration began accepting requests from fossil fuel companies staking claims to where they want to drill for oil and natural gas. This, as Arctic temperatures warm to record high and Arctic sea ice recedes to record low levels.
Today, Trump's @USOCC released a new proposal aimed at forcing banks to fund fossil fuel companies. It's a desperate last-minute political move to try to help a failing sector that's rapidly losing favor with Wall Street. Full statement for @SierraClub: https://t.co/Cmw2eNB7hz pic.twitter.com/kwbv9Tdq6a — Ben Cushing (@bmcushing) November 20, 2020
Sierra Club campaign representative Ben Cushing fired back against GOP “discrimination” claims.
“Contrary to the claims of oil-backed politicians, banks don’t want to finance more drilling in the Arctic not because of some vast liberal conspiracy, but because it’s bad business,” he said in a statement Friday. “The idea that this constitutes discrimination is ludicrous. No amount of saber-rattling in the final days of the Trump administration is going to change the fact that Arctic drilling is a risky investment that any savvy financial institution would stay far away from.”
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.