truthout--2020-10-15--Lindsey Graham Called Out for Illegal Campaign Soliciting in Senate Building

Locked in a tight race with Democratic opponent Jamie Harrison , Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham on Wednesday urged South Carolinians who are “ excited about Judge Barrett ” to contribute to his reelection campaign — a blatant violation of U.S. law barring members of Congress from soliciting donations while inside federal buildings .
Speaking to reporters following the third day of confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett , Graham — the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee — said while on camera , “ I don ’ t know how much it affected fundraising today , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the gap , LindseyGraham.com .
A little bit goes a long way.
” “ The bottom line is my opponent raised $ 57 million .
Congratulations to him , that ’ s the most anybody ’ s ever raised in the history of the Senate , ” Graham continued .
“ I raised $ 28 million , the most any Republican has ever raised .
I think the contest in South Carolina has taken on sort of a national profile .
I think in my case is that I stood up for Kavanaugh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upset on the left.
” In response to footage of Graham ’ s remarks posted on Twitter by Aída Chávez of The Intercept , observers pointed out that it is illegal for members of Congress to ask for donations “ while in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties.
” “ Senator Graham might need a lawyer , ” attorney Marc Elias tweeted , pointing to 18 U.S. Code § 607 .
The Intercept ’ s Ryan Grim noted that “ because it ’ s a crime to solicit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members of Congress often “ leave their offices and make fundraising calls from their cars ( no , really ) .
”

The senator congratulated his opponent for his record-breaking fundraising during his law violating solicitation.
Locked in a tight race with Democratic opponent Jamie Harrison, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham on Wednesday urged South Carolinians who are “excited about Judge Barrett” to contribute to his reelection campaign — a blatant violation of U.S. law barring members of Congress from soliciting donations while inside federal buildings.
Speaking to reporters following the third day of confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, Graham — the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee — said while on camera, “I don’t know how much it affected fundraising today, but if you want to help me close the gap, LindseyGraham.com. A little bit goes a long way.”
“The bottom line is my opponent raised $57 million. Congratulations to him, that’s the most anybody’s ever raised in the history of the Senate,” Graham continued. “I raised $28 million, the most any Republican has ever raised. I think the contest in South Carolina has taken on sort of a national profile. I think in my case is that I stood up for Kavanaugh, and that made some people pretty upset on the left.”
In response to footage of Graham’s remarks posted on Twitter by Aída Chávez of The Intercept, observers pointed out that it is illegal for members of Congress to ask for donations “while in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties.”
“Senator Graham might need a lawyer,” attorney Marc Elias tweeted, pointing to 18 U.S. Code § 607.
Watch Graham’s comments:
Sen. Graham: “I think people in South Carolina are excited about Judge Barrett. I don’t know how much it affected fundraising today, but if you want to help me close the gap…I think the contest in South Carolina has taken on sort of a national profile.” pic.twitter.com/ufW1G0nT71 — aída chávez (@aidachavez) October 14, 2020
The Intercept’s Ryan Grim noted that “because it’s a crime to solicit contributions inside a federal building,” members of Congress often “leave their offices and make fundraising calls from their cars (no, really).”
“Doing it on camera,” Grim added, “is next-level.”
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) agreed, tweeting: “This is a crime. Lindsey Graham committed a crime in plain sight.”
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--2020-10-16--Michigan Bans Open Carry of Guns at Polling Places to Prevent Voter Intimidation

The state of Michigan will ban the open carry of guns at all polling locations on Election Day in order to allow residents to vote without fear or intimidation .
Michigan is considered an “ open carry ” state , which means that there ’ s no legal repercussions for carrying a weapon in public areas in many circumstances , unless otherwise proscribed by law .
The new guidance forbidding the carrying of weapons at polling places comes from the office of Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson .
“ The presence of firearms at the polling place , clerk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or absent voter counting board may cause disruption , fear or intimidation for voters , election workers and others present , ” the guidance states .
Multiple agencies , including the attorney general ’ s office and the Michigan State Police , will reportedly work together to ensure the order is followed at every polling place in the state .
“ I am committed to ensuring all eligible Michigan citizens can freely exercise their fundamental right to vote without fear of threats , intimidation or harassment , ” Benson said in a statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firearms in areas where citizens cast their ballots is necessary to ensure every voter is protected.
” “ Michigan voters have the right to vote in person on Election Day free from threat and intimidation , ” Nessel said .
“ An armed presence at the polls is inconsistent with our notion of a free democracy.
” The new rules forbidding open carry at election sites comes a week after it was announced that federal officials had thwarted a plot by Michigan militia members to kidnap Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer ( D-Michigan ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planned to abduct Whitmer at her summer vacation home using explosives to distract police , and then to transport her to Wisconsin in order to stand trial for treason in a kangaroo court set up by themselves .
Many have suggested that rhetoric from President Donald Trump may have inspired the group .
In April , Trump tweeted out “ LIBERATE MICHIGAN ” in response to Whitmer ’ s stay-at-home orders and social distancing rules that were implemented in Michigan in order to stem the spread of coronavirus .
Whitmer herself cited Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was announced to the public .
“ Each time he has tweeted about me , each time that he has said ‘ liberate Michigan ’ and said I should negotiate with the very people who are arrested because they ’ re ‘ good people , ’ that incites more domestic terror , ” she said .
Trump has also encouraged voters across the country to “ go into the polls and watch very carefully ” — comments that many have said are a thinly-veiled message to supporters to intimidate voters during the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month that included an image reading “ Fight for President Trump !
” while requesting people sign up to be poll watchers .
His son , Donald Trump Jr. , has also asked supporters to join an “ army ” for his father ’ s “ election security operation .
”

The guidance was issued in order to prevent “disruption, fear or intimidation for voters” in this year’s election.
The state of Michigan will ban the open carry of guns at all polling locations on Election Day in order to allow residents to vote without fear or intimidation.
Michigan is considered an “open carry” state, which means that there’s no legal repercussions for carrying a weapon in public areas in many circumstances, unless otherwise proscribed by law. The new guidance forbidding the carrying of weapons at polling places comes from the office of Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson.
“The presence of firearms at the polling place, clerk’s office(s), or absent voter counting board may cause disruption, fear or intimidation for voters, election workers and others present,” the guidance states.
Multiple agencies, including the attorney general’s office and the Michigan State Police, will reportedly work together to ensure the order is followed at every polling place in the state.
“I am committed to ensuring all eligible Michigan citizens can freely exercise their fundamental right to vote without fear of threats, intimidation or harassment,” Benson said in a statement. “Prohibiting the open carry of firearms in areas where citizens cast their ballots is necessary to ensure every voter is protected.”
Michigan State Attorney General Dana Nessel expressed similar sentiments in a separate statement.
“Michigan voters have the right to vote in person on Election Day free from threat and intimidation,” Nessel said. “An armed presence at the polls is inconsistent with our notion of a free democracy.”
The new rules forbidding open carry at election sites comes a week after it was announced that federal officials had thwarted a plot by Michigan militia members to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-Michigan). Those involved in the plot had planned to abduct Whitmer at her summer vacation home using explosives to distract police, and then to transport her to Wisconsin in order to stand trial for treason in a kangaroo court set up by themselves.
Many have suggested that rhetoric from President Donald Trump may have inspired the group. In April, Trump tweeted out “LIBERATE MICHIGAN” in response to Whitmer’s stay-at-home orders and social distancing rules that were implemented in Michigan in order to stem the spread of coronavirus.
Whitmer herself cited Trump’s words after the thwarted plot was announced to the public.
“Each time he has tweeted about me, each time that he has said ‘liberate Michigan’ and said I should negotiate with the very people who are arrested because they’re ‘good people,’ that incites more domestic terror,” she said.
Trump has also encouraged voters across the country to “go into the polls and watch very carefully” — comments that many have said are a thinly-veiled message to supporters to intimidate voters during the election.
Trump shared a tweet earlier this month that included an image reading “Fight for President Trump!” while requesting people sign up to be poll watchers. His son, Donald Trump Jr., has also asked supporters to join an “army” for his father’s “election security operation.”
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-10-16--Barrett Is Poised to Become the Most Radical Right-Wing Member of Supreme Court

During her Supreme Court confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee , Amy Coney Barrett refused to say that voter intimidation is illegal , that armed poll watchers are intimidating , that voter discrimination exists , whether the president could deny someone the right to vote based on race or that Congress has a constitutional duty to protect the right to vote .
She refused to affirm that Medicare is constitutional ; that married couples should not lose their right to contraceptives ; that a Black worker repeatedly called the N-word was subjected to a hostile work environment ; that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from their parents at the border ; or that marriage equality , the right to consensual gay sex and LGBTQ workers ’ rights should be protected .
Barrett would not say that human beings are responsible for climate change or that the Constitution requires a peaceful transfer of power .
Barrett ’ s answers — and refusals to answer — confirm that she will be the most radical right-wing member of the Court .
Even Chief Justice John Roberts , who wrote the decision in Shelby County v. Holder , which struck down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( VRA ) , noted , “ Voting discrimination still exists .
No one doubts that.
” Apparently , Barrett does .
Roberts also said at his confirmation hearing , “ I agree with the Griswold court ’ s conclusion that marital privacy extends to contraception and availability of that.
” When Sen. Patrick Leahy ( D-Vermont ) asked Barrett whether a president could refuse to comply with a court order , she refused to answer .
Even Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch “ made it clear [ during their confirmation hearings ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comply with a court order and the Supreme Court ’ s word is the final word on that matter , ” Leahy told Barrett .
Even Kavanaugh wrote in a court of appeals opinion that , “ being called the N-word by a supervisor suffices by itself to establish a racially hostile work environment , ” Sen. Cory Booker ( D-New Jersey ) told Barrett .
Barrett was asked whether she agreed with her mentor Antonin Scalia ’ s characterization of the Voting Rights Act as “ a perpetuation of racial entitlement.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should sound an alarm for anyone in our country who cares about protecting voting rights for all Americans , ” Kristen Clarke , president and executive director of the Lawyers ’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law , testified at Barrett ’ s hearing .
An Arizona case on the Court ’ s docket will test another anti-discrimination provision of the VRA , Section 2 , which prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race .
“ Given Judge Barrett ’ s unwillingness to recognize the threats that Black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting , I ’ m deeply concerned about how she would handle this case and many other such cases that will come before the Court , ” Clarke told the committee .
Barrett admitted to Leahy that she didn ’ t know how many people are covered by the Affordable Care Act ( ACA ) , how many people under age 26 have health insurance under their parents ’ plans thanks to the ACA , or how many Americans have tested positive for coronavirus .
If she was being straight with Leahy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ touch with the people of this country .
Barrett also refused to tell Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-Minnesota ) that she was aware Donald Trump had opposed the ACA before he nominated her .
When Sen. Kamala Harris ( D-California ) asked Barrett whether she had heard Trump ’ s statement committing to nominate judges who would strike down the ACA , the judge replied , “ I don ’ t recall hearing about or seeing such statements.
” Has Barrett been hiding under a rock ?
Or is she lying ?
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arguments in California v. Texas , which will determine the fate of the ACA .
The Trump administration ’ s brief in the case says , “ The entire Affordable Care Act must fall.
” Barrett wrote in a 2017 law review article that Roberts ’ s 2012 majority opinion upholding the law “ pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.
” The Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee spent most of their time providing personal stories demonstrating the tragedy that would befall tens of millions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if the Court repeals the ACA , especially in the midst of a pandemic .
But they could have better explained why Trump is so eager to repeal “ Obamacare ” and why congressional Republicans have tried to abolish it 70 times .
It ’ s the powerful insurance lobby that has Trump and GOP congress members in their pocket .
Although Republicans have been promising for years that they would replace Obamacare with a better plan , no plan has ever been forthcoming .
Dr. Farhan Bhatti , CEO of a Michigan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ACA , insurance companies could discriminate against anyone who has tested positive for COVID-19 , which would constitute a pre-existing condition , as well as any other pre-existing conditions .
They could refuse to provide coverage or raise costs .
“ Any judge who opposes the ACA endangers a lifeline that my patients count on to stay healthy , and in many cases , to stay alive , ” Bhatti told the senators .
In light of the national discourse and public protests against systemic racism and police brutality , Booker asked Barrett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s read about racial disparities in the criminal legal system .
Barrett cited the sentencing guidelines , sentencing commission reports and “ conversations ” she ’ d had .
Booker said there are books on the bestseller list , including The Color of Law , Just Mercy and The New Jim Crow , because “ people are seeking to know what the facts are.
” Booker told Barrett that the “ war on drugs ” is a war on Black and Brown people “ because of the outrageous disparities.
” He confronted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote questioning whether people sentenced under the racially discriminatory cocaine law should have their sentences adjusted retroactively after the law was overturned .
Booker noted that of the 20,000 people affected , 98 percent were Black or Brown .
He pointed out that Barrett never mentioned that the prior law , with its racially biased sentencing disparities for crack and powder cocaine disproportionately affecting Black people , was unjust .
When asked about the standard for overruling Supreme Court precedent , Barrett called Brown v. Board of Education — which held that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black children — a “ super-precedent , ” that is , “ precedent that is so well-established that it would be unthinkable that it would ever be overruled.
” But Barrett refused to say that Roe v. Wade is also a super-precedent because many people are trying to overturn it .
That ’ s not surprising as she signed a statement referring to Roe as “ barbaric ” and a “ raw exercise of judicial power.
” She also opposed access to contraception under the Affordable Care Act , calling it “ an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hirono ( D-Hawaii ) cited 14 abortion cases winding their way through the courts .
They include abortion bans between six and 24 gestational weeks , bans on dilution and extraction ( which account for almost all second trimester abortions ) , requirements that fetal remains be buried or cremated , unnecessary requirements imposed on abortion providers like transfer agreements with hospitals , reason bans , and parental notification and consent requirements .
Many of these cases could reach the Supreme Court .
Although no case has yet squarely presented the issue of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have erected procedural barriers aimed to cause death of abortion by a thousand cuts .
Make no mistake : Reproductive rights are on the line if Barrett joins the Court .
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse ( D-Rhode Island ) did a masterful job of explaining how dark ( secret ) money has been spent to overturn the ACA and put Barrett and other right-wingers on the high court .
He described “ orchestrated ” campaigns with amicus briefs written by right-wing organizations and signed by GOP senators .
Whitehouse cited “ the Judicial Crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ writing briefs for senators against the Affordable Care Act , supporting the Republicans who are bringing this case , and leading the selection process for this nominee.
” Whitehouse displayed a list of 80 cases decided by a 5 to 4 vote with no Democrats joining the majority .
These cases were backed by identifiable GOP donor interests and they won all of them .
They ’ re not about Roe or the ACA , Whitehouse told Barrett .
“ They ’ re about power , ” he said , listing three categories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dark money in politics ( Citizens United ) ; ( 2 ) diminishing the civil jury ( “ annoying to big corporate powers ” ) ; and ( 3 ) weakening regulatory agencies ( favoring polluters like the fossil fuel industry and Koch industries ) .
Barrett explained the process by which a case gets to the Supreme Court : Someone suffers an injury , gets a lawyer , sues , and the case winds its way up to the high court .
But Whitehouse clarified how big funders inject cases into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interests .
He described “ a whole array of legal groups also funded by dark money , which … bring cases to the court .
They don ’ t wind their way to the court , your honor , they get shoved to the court by these legal groups .
Many of which asked to lose below so they can get quickly to the court to get their business done there.
” Whitehouse cited the example of a $ 45 million campaign to get rid of union dues which succeeded when the Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overruled its 40-year-old decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education .
Trump has made clear he wants Barrett confirmed to the Court in time to decide election challenges .
Nevertheless , Barrett refused to commit to recusing herself in any cases that come before the Court contesting the election results .
The Democratic senators repeatedly said that the GOP ’ s hypocritical rush to install Barrett on the Court while people are already voting in the middle of a pandemic is “ not normal.
” They should instead be working to pass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who are suffering .
Barrett will be confirmed to the Court and at age 48 , she could serve for decades .
She will create a 6 to 3 right-wing majority on the Court .
But if the Democrats win both the presidency and the Senate , two of the three branches of government could check and balance the judicial one .

Part of the Series Human Rights and Global Wrongs
During her Supreme Court confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Amy Coney Barrett refused to say that voter intimidation is illegal, that armed poll watchers are intimidating, that voter discrimination exists, whether the president could deny someone the right to vote based on race or that Congress has a constitutional duty to protect the right to vote.
She refused to affirm that Medicare is constitutional; that married couples should not lose their right to contraceptives; that a Black worker repeatedly called the N-word was subjected to a hostile work environment; that it’s wrong to separate children from their parents at the border; or that marriage equality, the right to consensual gay sex and LGBTQ workers’ rights should be protected. Barrett would not say that human beings are responsible for climate change or that the Constitution requires a peaceful transfer of power.
Barrett’s answers — and refusals to answer — confirm that she will be the most radical right-wing member of the Court.
Even Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), noted, “Voting discrimination still exists. No one doubts that.” Apparently, Barrett does. Roberts also said at his confirmation hearing, “I agree with the Griswold court’s conclusion that marital privacy extends to contraception and availability of that.”
When Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) asked Barrett whether a president could refuse to comply with a court order, she refused to answer. Even Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch “made it clear [during their confirmation hearings] that a president cannot refuse to comply with a court order and the Supreme Court’s word is the final word on that matter,” Leahy told Barrett.
Even Kavanaugh wrote in a court of appeals opinion that, “being called the N-word by a supervisor suffices by itself to establish a racially hostile work environment,” Sen. Cory Booker (D-New Jersey) told Barrett.
Barrett’s Confirmation Threatens Voting Rights
Barrett was asked whether she agreed with her mentor Antonin Scalia’s characterization of the Voting Rights Act as “a perpetuation of racial entitlement.” Barrett refused to answer. “This should sound an alarm for anyone in our country who cares about protecting voting rights for all Americans,” Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, testified at Barrett’s hearing.
An Arizona case on the Court’s docket will test another anti-discrimination provision of the VRA, Section 2, which prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race. “Given Judge Barrett’s unwillingness to recognize the threats that Black people and communities of color face in voting, I’m deeply concerned about how she would handle this case and many other such cases that will come before the Court,” Clarke told the committee.
Barrett’s Confirmation Threatens the Affordable Care Act
Barrett admitted to Leahy that she didn’t know how many people are covered by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), how many people under age 26 have health insurance under their parents’ plans thanks to the ACA, or how many Americans have tested positive for coronavirus.
If she was being straight with Leahy, Barrett is a judge wildly out of touch with the people of this country.
Barrett also refused to tell Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) that she was aware Donald Trump had opposed the ACA before he nominated her. When Sen. Kamala Harris (D-California) asked Barrett whether she had heard Trump’s statement committing to nominate judges who would strike down the ACA, the judge replied, “I don’t recall hearing about or seeing such statements.”
Has Barrett been hiding under a rock? Or is she lying?
On November 10, the Court will hear arguments in California v. Texas, which will determine the fate of the ACA. The Trump administration’s brief in the case says, “The entire Affordable Care Act must fall.” Barrett wrote in a 2017 law review article that Roberts’s 2012 majority opinion upholding the law “pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.”
The Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee spent most of their time providing personal stories demonstrating the tragedy that would befall tens of millions of Americans who would lose their health care if the Court repeals the ACA, especially in the midst of a pandemic.
Without the ACA, insurance companies could discriminate against anyone who has tested positive for COVID-19, which would constitute a pre-existing condition.
But they could have better explained why Trump is so eager to repeal “Obamacare” and why congressional Republicans have tried to abolish it 70 times. It’s the powerful insurance lobby that has Trump and GOP congress members in their pocket. Although Republicans have been promising for years that they would replace Obamacare with a better plan, no plan has ever been forthcoming.
Dr. Farhan Bhatti, CEO of a Michigan nonprofit clinic, testified that without the ACA, insurance companies could discriminate against anyone who has tested positive for COVID-19, which would constitute a pre-existing condition, as well as any other pre-existing conditions. They could refuse to provide coverage or raise costs. “Any judge who opposes the ACA endangers a lifeline that my patients count on to stay healthy, and in many cases, to stay alive,” Bhatti told the senators.
Barrett’s Confirmation Threatens Racial Justice and Reproductive Rights
In light of the national discourse and public protests against systemic racism and police brutality, Booker asked Barrett what books or law review articles she’s read about racial disparities in the criminal legal system. Barrett cited the sentencing guidelines, sentencing commission reports and “conversations” she’d had. Booker said there are books on the bestseller list, including The Color of Law, Just Mercy and The New Jim Crow, because “people are seeking to know what the facts are.”
Booker told Barrett that the “war on drugs” is a war on Black and Brown people “because of the outrageous disparities.” He confronted Barrett with a lengthy blog post she wrote questioning whether people sentenced under the racially discriminatory cocaine law should have their sentences adjusted retroactively after the law was overturned. Booker noted that of the 20,000 people affected, 98 percent were Black or Brown. He pointed out that Barrett never mentioned that the prior law, with its racially biased sentencing disparities for crack and powder cocaine disproportionately affecting Black people, was unjust.
When asked about the standard for overruling Supreme Court precedent, Barrett called Brown v. Board of Education — which held that “separate but equal” schools discriminated against Black children — a “super-precedent,” that is, “precedent that is so well-established that it would be unthinkable that it would ever be overruled.” But Barrett refused to say that Roe v. Wade is also a super-precedent because many people are trying to overturn it. That’s not surprising as she signed a statement referring to Roe as “barbaric” and a “raw exercise of judicial power.” She also opposed access to contraception under the Affordable Care Act, calling it “an assault on religious liberty.”
Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) cited 14 abortion cases winding their way through the courts. They include abortion bans between six and 24 gestational weeks, bans on dilution and extraction (which account for almost all second trimester abortions), requirements that fetal remains be buried or cremated, unnecessary requirements imposed on abortion providers like transfer agreements with hospitals, reason bans, and parental notification and consent requirements.
Many of these cases could reach the Supreme Court. Although no case has yet squarely presented the issue of whether Roe should be overturned, right-wingers have erected procedural barriers aimed to cause death of abortion by a thousand cuts.
Make no mistake: Reproductive rights are on the line if Barrett joins the Court.
Dark Money Propelled Barrett to the Supreme Court
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) did a masterful job of explaining how dark (secret) money has been spent to overturn the ACA and put Barrett and other right-wingers on the high court. He described “orchestrated” campaigns with amicus briefs written by right-wing organizations and signed by GOP senators. Whitehouse cited “the Judicial Crisis Network campaigning for Supreme Court nominees, writing briefs for senators against the Affordable Care Act, supporting the Republicans who are bringing this case, and leading the selection process for this nominee.”
Whitehouse displayed a list of 80 cases decided by a 5 to 4 vote with no Democrats joining the majority. These cases were backed by identifiable GOP donor interests and they won all of them. They’re not about Roe or the ACA, Whitehouse told Barrett. “They’re about power,” he said, listing three categories of cases: (1) unlimited dark money in politics (Citizens United); (2) diminishing the civil jury (“annoying to big corporate powers”); and (3) weakening regulatory agencies (favoring polluters like the fossil fuel industry and Koch industries).
Barrett explained the process by which a case gets to the Supreme Court: Someone suffers an injury, gets a lawyer, sues, and the case winds its way up to the high court. But Whitehouse clarified how big funders inject cases into the system to serve their political and economic interests. He described “a whole array of legal groups also funded by dark money, which … bring cases to the court. They don’t wind their way to the court, your honor, they get shoved to the court by these legal groups. Many of which asked to lose below so they can get quickly to the court to get their business done there.” Whitehouse cited the example of a $45 million campaign to get rid of union dues which succeeded when the Court decided Janus v. AFSCME in 2018 and overruled its 40-year-old decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education.
Trump has made clear he wants Barrett confirmed to the Court in time to decide election challenges. Nevertheless, Barrett refused to commit to recusing herself in any cases that come before the Court contesting the election results.
The Democratic senators repeatedly said that the GOP’s hypocritical rush to install Barrett on the Court while people are already voting in the middle of a pandemic is “not normal.” They should instead be working to pass COVID-19 relief for the millions of people who are suffering.
Barrett will be confirmed to the Court and at age 48, she could serve for decades. She will create a 6 to 3 right-wing majority on the Court. But if the Democrats win both the presidency and the Senate, two of the three branches of government could check and balance the judicial one.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-10-16--Trump Downplayed COVID at His Town Hall. No Wonder He’s Losing Older Voters.

When you watch Donald Trump — for example , during last night ’ s town hall — it is easy to think that all you are getting is a stream of consciousness : in Freudian terms , the id of Trump ’ s psyche .
But a better way to understand him is to think of Trump ’ s avarice , as well as his blatantly racist rhetoric , as being in tension with some ( though certainly not all ) of his advisers .
The Republican Party is clearly trying to keep Trump within the bounds of conventional right-wing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constantly escapes .
So , for example , after Charlottesville in 2017 , Trump didn ’ t give just one speech , he gave several .
In the first , he blamed violence “ on many sides.
” In a second , written by his advisers , he called white supremacists “ repugnant.
” A third was again scripted .
It was only after it , and in response to press questions that Trump departed from his advisers ’ scripts to say , “ Not all of those people were neo-Nazis ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on both sides.
” It is possible to listen carefully to Trump ’ s speeches and to infer from them what some of his advisers are likely telling him — and how far he is listening to them .
Going into Thursday ’ s town hall event , it ’ s likely that Trump was told to woo older voters — and to tone down the outrageous statements .
Trump ’ s election victory in 2016 was one of a series of similar breakthroughs : the votes for Brexit in Britain , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What each had in common was a switch by older voters to the right .
In the 2016 election ; Hillary Clinton won more votes among voters aged 18-29 and 30-49 than Trump ( 58-28 percent and 51-40 percent ) but lost among voters aged 50-64 ( 45-51 percent ) and aged over 65 ( 44-53 percent ) .
The spread of COVID-19 poses a particular problem to Trump and indeed to every right-wing populist government .
Some such governments have taken the approach of denying the reality of the pandemic .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. , in Brazil and ( to some extent ) in Britain — in consequence , all three governments are in difficulty .
There are , however , a number of right-wing governments which have taken the opposite approach and emphasized the need to lock down and protect elderly voters .
Where that has happened ( in India , Hungary and elsewhere ) , right-populist governments look more secure in power than they did six months ago .
Meanwhile , in the U.S. , among voters aged 50-65 , 42 percent now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of COVID .
Among voters over 65 years old , that proportion rises to a staggering 51 percent .
Older voters are still more likely to vote for him , because of their greater support for right-wing politics .
But the only age group that still gives him a plurality is the over-65s , and even there , because of his mishandling of the pandemic , his support is shrinking .
A candidate can win an election with majority support of voters over 50 years old .
But someone who wins only among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to lose the popular vote ( assuming it is fairly counted ) by a landslide .
Trump ’ s advisers can see , just as clearly as everyone else , how the numbers are turning against him .
One could see these incompatible pressures — the desire to play down the risk posed by the pandemic , while still trying to satisfy older voters — playing out at Trump ’ s event last night .
When asked to talk about COVID , Trump did not deny the reality of the disease , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat .
His chosen soundbites , “ we ’ re rounding the corner ” and “ we did the right thing , ” acknowledged the reality of the disease — but they made it seem as if his government had taken the correct actions in response .
Asked if he was seeking “ herd immunity , ” a plan that would involve deliberately speeding up the impact of the disease , Trump maintained that this wasn ’ t his plan .
Yet he continued demanding that the economy stay open .
( “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the disease itself , ” he said . )
That approach has been destructive and will continue to cause unnecessary deaths and suffering — but this was Trump playing the game of keeping the real cruelty hidden behind abstractions and ideology .
He was admitting the reality of COVID and not denying that protective measures are needed — “ I say wear the mask , I ’ m fine with it , ” he told his questioner CNN ’ s Savannah Guthrie — while simultaneously trying to justify his record in relation to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the second way in which COVID is shaping the election .
In the two weeks since the first presidential debate , Trump has been diagnosed with COVID-19 , hospitalized and recovered .
His deficit in the polls has widened from 7 percent to 10 percent .
His advisers , of course , are trying to mitigate the damage .
When Trump was filmed in hospital , looking pale and out of breath , he became the “ ill Duce , ” not the invincible authoritarian of his imagination but a vulnerable man .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact that he contracted COVID that accounts for his drop in the polls .
Trump has been out of hospital for 10 days and the poll gap has continued to widen .
This week , Trump has played up his survival from coronavirus , saying he “ felt like Superman ” and was now “ immune to the disease , ” disregarding the hundreds of thousands of ( disproportionately older ) people who ’ ve died of the illness across the country .
During his Town Hall meeting , Trump tried to present @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ normal president.
” Yet we are talking about Trump here , so there were no apologies , no moments of recognition .
Instead , we saw the familiar peevish irritability , the interruptions .
We saw all the old Trump tricks , trying to deflect blame on to “ antifa.
” Asked to justify the numerous conspiracy theories that he has amplified , Trump seemed to try to stick largely to handlers ’ orders .
Asked if he really believed that military figures had given him COVID , Trump answered “ No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came from.
” Yet quizzed about his repeated support for the QAnon conspiracy community , Trump threw his wildest supporters a piece of red meat , saying , “ I do know they are very much against pedophilia , ” though he tried to insist he knew nothing about them .
Asked about the conspiracy theories he has been retweeting , in which Biden is supposed to have had a team of SEALs murdered in order to cover up the supposedly faked murder of Osama bin Laden , Trump fell back on his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not endorsements , saying : “ That was a retweet .
That was an opinion of somebody.
” Putting this town hall in its proper context , we grasp how Trump ’ s position has weakened considerably .
COVID-19 is dangerous to Trump because it poses the greatest risk to the very age demographic he relies on most .
Trump is now asking people in this demographic to support policies that make their own deaths more likely , and this idea is causing unease among growing numbers of them .
It is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s fantasies .
With an enormous effort of will , Trump has been able to hold together much of his coalition up until this point — but as the election nears , his support is shrinking .
His persistent attempts to downplay COVID-19 may well cost him older voters — but as we learned in 2016 , only time will tell .

When you watch Donald Trump — for example, during last night’s town hall — it is easy to think that all you are getting is a stream of consciousness: in Freudian terms, the id of Trump’s psyche. But a better way to understand him is to think of Trump’s avarice, as well as his blatantly racist rhetoric, as being in tension with some (though certainly not all) of his advisers. The Republican Party is clearly trying to keep Trump within the bounds of conventional right-wing respectability, just as hard as he constantly escapes.
So, for example, after Charlottesville in 2017, Trump didn’t give just one speech, he gave several. In the first, he blamed violence “on many sides.” In a second, written by his advisers, he called white supremacists “repugnant.” A third was again scripted. It was only after it, and in response to press questions that Trump departed from his advisers’ scripts to say, “Not all of those people were neo-Nazis” and that there were “very fine people on both sides.”
It is possible to listen carefully to Trump’s speeches and to infer from them what some of his advisers are likely telling him — and how far he is listening to them. Going into Thursday’s town hall event, it’s likely that Trump was told to woo older voters — and to tone down the outrageous statements.
Trump’s election victory in 2016 was one of a series of similar breakthroughs: the votes for Brexit in Britain, the support for the Front National in France. What each had in common was a switch by older voters to the right. In the 2016 election; Hillary Clinton won more votes among voters aged 18-29 and 30-49 than Trump (58-28 percent and 51-40 percent) but lost among voters aged 50-64 (45-51 percent) and aged over 65 (44-53 percent).
The spread of COVID-19 poses a particular problem to Trump and indeed to every right-wing populist government. Some such governments have taken the approach of denying the reality of the pandemic. That has indeed been the picture in the U.S., in Brazil and (to some extent) in Britain — in consequence, all three governments are in difficulty. There are, however, a number of right-wing governments which have taken the opposite approach and emphasized the need to lock down and protect elderly voters. Where that has happened (in India, Hungary and elsewhere), right-populist governments look more secure in power than they did six months ago.
Meanwhile, in the U.S., among voters aged 50-65, 42 percent now strongly disapprove of Trump’s handling of COVID. Among voters over 65 years old, that proportion rises to a staggering 51 percent. Older voters are still more likely to vote for him, because of their greater support for right-wing politics. But the only age group that still gives him a plurality is the over-65s, and even there, because of his mishandling of the pandemic, his support is shrinking.
A candidate can win an election with majority support of voters over 50 years old. But someone who wins only among voters age 65 and up is likely to lose the popular vote (assuming it is fairly counted) by a landslide. Trump’s advisers can see, just as clearly as everyone else, how the numbers are turning against him.
The Republican Party is clearly trying to keep Trump within the bounds of conventional right-wing respectability, just as hard as he constantly escapes.
One could see these incompatible pressures — the desire to play down the risk posed by the pandemic, while still trying to satisfy older voters — playing out at Trump’s event last night.
When asked to talk about COVID, Trump did not deny the reality of the disease, but he did misrepresent its current level of threat. His chosen soundbites, “we’re rounding the corner” and “we did the right thing,” acknowledged the reality of the disease — but they made it seem as if his government had taken the correct actions in response. Asked if he was seeking “herd immunity,” a plan that would involve deliberately speeding up the impact of the disease, Trump maintained that this wasn’t his plan. Yet he continued demanding that the economy stay open. (“The cure cannot be worse than the disease itself,” he said.) That approach has been destructive and will continue to cause unnecessary deaths and suffering — but this was Trump playing the game of keeping the real cruelty hidden behind abstractions and ideology. He was admitting the reality of COVID and not denying that protective measures are needed — “I say wear the mask, I’m fine with it,” he told his questioner CNN’s Savannah Guthrie — while simultaneously trying to justify his record in relation to the disease.
Someone who wins only among voters age 65 and up is likely to lose the popular vote (assuming it is fairly counted) by a landslide.
This takes us to the second way in which COVID is shaping the election. In the two weeks since the first presidential debate, Trump has been diagnosed with COVID-19, hospitalized and recovered. His deficit in the polls has widened from 7 percent to 10 percent. His advisers, of course, are trying to mitigate the damage.
When Trump was filmed in hospital, looking pale and out of breath, he became the “ill Duce,” not the invincible authoritarian of his imagination but a vulnerable man. Yet it’s not simply the fact that he contracted COVID that accounts for his drop in the polls. Trump has been out of hospital for 10 days and the poll gap has continued to widen. This week, Trump has played up his survival from coronavirus, saying he “felt like Superman” and was now “immune to the disease,” disregarding the hundreds of thousands of (disproportionately older) people who’ve died of the illness across the country.
During his Town Hall meeting, Trump tried to present himself as a moderate figure, a “normal president.” Yet we are talking about Trump here, so there were no apologies, no moments of recognition. Instead, we saw the familiar peevish irritability, the interruptions. We saw all the old Trump tricks, trying to deflect blame on to “antifa.”
Asked to justify the numerous conspiracy theories that he has amplified, Trump seemed to try to stick largely to handlers’ orders. Asked if he really believed that military figures had given him COVID, Trump answered “No. I don’t where it came from.”
COVID-19 is dangerous to Trump because it poses the greatest risk to the very age demographic he relies on most.
Yet quizzed about his repeated support for the QAnon conspiracy community, Trump threw his wildest supporters a piece of red meat, saying, “I do know they are very much against pedophilia,” though he tried to insist he knew nothing about them. Asked about the conspiracy theories he has been retweeting, in which Biden is supposed to have had a team of SEALs murdered in order to cover up the supposedly faked murder of Osama bin Laden, Trump fell back on his version of the line that retweets are not endorsements, saying: “That was a retweet. That was an opinion of somebody.”
Putting this town hall in its proper context, we grasp how Trump’s position has weakened considerably.
COVID-19 is dangerous to Trump because it poses the greatest risk to the very age demographic he relies on most. Trump is now asking people in this demographic to support policies that make their own deaths more likely, and this idea is causing unease among growing numbers of them. It is the moment at which reality risks intruding into Trump’s fantasies.
With an enormous effort of will, Trump has been able to hold together much of his coalition up until this point — but as the election nears, his support is shrinking. His persistent attempts to downplay COVID-19 may well cost him older voters — but as we learned in 2016, only time will tell.
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--2020-10-16--Trump Denies California Request for Federal Disaster Aid After Historic Fires

After repeatedly downplaying the catastrophic wildfires that have ravaged California in recent months and falsely attributing the blazes to poor “ forest management , ” the Trump administration this week denied Gov .
Gavin Newsom ’ s request for federal disaster assistance needed to recover from the destruction the fires inflicted across the state .
The Los Angeles Times reported late Thursday that the Trump White House “ rejected California ’ s request for disaster relief funds aimed at cleaning up the damage from six recent fires… including Los Angeles County ’ s Bobcat fire , San Bernardino County ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Creek fire , one of the largest that continues to burn in Fresno and Madera counties.
” Newsom , a Democrat , officially requested the federal relief in a September 28 letter warning that “ the longer it takes for California and its communities to recover , the more severe , devastating , and irreversible the economic impacts will be.
” According to the governor ’ s office , nearly 1,000 California homes were destroyed by the unprecedented fires , which scientists said were fueled by the human-caused climate crisis .
“ Federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic recovery of California and its communities , ” Newsom wrote .
The White House ’ s decision to reject California ’ s request was met with outrage by environmentalists and lawmakers who represent the state .
“ On August 21 , I led a 26-member letter asking [ the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ] to investigate whether Donald Trump previously ordered FEMA to cut off wildfire aid to CA because ‘ politically it wasn ’ t a base for him , ' ” said Rep. Ted Lieu @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is in fact rejecting aid to CA this year .
Despicable.
” Meteorologist Eric Holthaus tweeted that he “ actually can ’ t believe this , and there ’ s been a lot happening lately .
Trump must go.
” “ That a sitting president — of any party — would deny their own citizens help during their time of greatest need , amid literal hellfire raining down on American cities , is beyond shameful , ” Holthaus wrote .
“ How President Trump continues to treat California is sadistic and depraved , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Committee .
As the Times reported , “ A major disaster declaration allows for cost-sharing for damage , cleanup and rebuilding between the state and federal government .
It also activates federal programs led by the Federal Emergency Management Agency .
California did not ask for a specific dollar amount because damage estimates are not complete.
” California is expected to appeal the Trump administration ’ s denial of federal aid , which comes a month after the president told state officials that “ it ’ ll start getting cooler , you just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to acknowledge and act on the connection between climate change and the destructive fires .
“ I don ’ t think science knows , actually , ” Trump said , dismissing the established link between human activity and rising temperatures .
Brian Ferguson , deputy director of crisis communication and media relations for the California governor ’ s Office of Emergency Services , told the Times Thursday that the “ true cost ” of the damage caused by the historic fires “ won ’ t be known for months or years afterward.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the highest level of federal support , which requires the highest bars be cleared , ” said Ferguson .
“ But we feel our case for those requirements has been met .
”

The White House’s decision was met with outrage by environmentalists and lawmakers who represent the state.
After repeatedly downplaying the catastrophic wildfires that have ravaged California in recent months and falsely attributing the blazes to poor “forest management,” the Trump administration this week denied Gov. Gavin Newsom’s request for federal disaster assistance needed to recover from the destruction the fires inflicted across the state.
The Los Angeles Times reported late Thursday that the Trump White House “rejected California’s request for disaster relief funds aimed at cleaning up the damage from six recent fires… including Los Angeles County’s Bobcat fire, San Bernardino County’s El Dorado fire, and the Creek fire, one of the largest that continues to burn in Fresno and Madera counties.”
Newsom, a Democrat, officially requested the federal relief in a September 28 letter warning that “the longer it takes for California and its communities to recover, the more severe, devastating, and irreversible the economic impacts will be.” According to the governor’s office, nearly 1,000 California homes were destroyed by the unprecedented fires, which scientists said were fueled by the human-caused climate crisis.
“Federal assistance is critical to support physical and economic recovery of California and its communities,” Newsom wrote.
The White House’s decision to reject California’s request was met with outrage by environmentalists and lawmakers who represent the state.
“On August 21, I led a 26-member letter asking [the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security] to investigate whether Donald Trump previously ordered FEMA to cut off wildfire aid to CA because ‘politically it wasn’t a base for him,'” said Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.). “Now POTUS is in fact rejecting aid to CA this year. Despicable.”
Meteorologist Eric Holthaus tweeted that he “actually can’t believe this, and there’s been a lot happening lately. Trump must go.”
“That a sitting president — of any party — would deny their own citizens help during their time of greatest need, amid literal hellfire raining down on American cities, is beyond shameful,” Holthaus wrote.
That a sitting president – of any party – would deny their own citizens help during their time of greatest need, amid literal hellfire raining down on American cities, is beyond shameful. I actually can’t believe this, and there’s been A LOT happening lately. Trump must go. — Eric Holthaus (@EricHolthaus) October 16, 2020
“How President Trump continues to treat California is sadistic and depraved,” tweeted the Democrat-controlled House Homeland Security Committee.
As the Times reported, “A major disaster declaration allows for cost-sharing for damage, cleanup and rebuilding between the state and federal government. It also activates federal programs led by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. California did not ask for a specific dollar amount because damage estimates are not complete.”
California is expected to appeal the Trump administration’s denial of federal aid, which comes a month after the president told state officials that “it’ll start getting cooler, you just watch,” as they pressed him to acknowledge and act on the connection between climate change and the destructive fires.
“I don’t think science knows, actually,” Trump said, dismissing the established link between human activity and rising temperatures.
Brian Ferguson, deputy director of crisis communication and media relations for the California governor’s Office of Emergency Services, told the Times Thursday that the “true cost” of the damage caused by the historic fires “won’t be known for months or years afterward.”
“What the state is looking for is the highest level of federal support, which requires the highest bars be cleared,” said Ferguson. “But we feel our case for those requirements has been met.”
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--2020-10-16--Trump Blasted by Town Hall Moderator for Spreading Conspiracy Theories

During a town hall event hosted by NBC News ’ s Savannah Guthrie on Thursday evening , President Donald Trump refused to denounce the QAnon movement and deflected other questions regarding his promotion of conspiracy theories in general .
Trump ’ s demeanor during the town hall was nothing unfamiliar to anyone who has followed his presidential tenure so far — he was oftentimes combative with Guthrie , expressing frustration with her several times during the debate .
He regularly complained about questions she asked , at one point calling her “ so cute ” after she challenged him .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ would condemn white supremacy , Trump maintained that he does and has for years condemned it , despite many statements and policies demonstrating otherwise .
When the conversation on white supremacy shifted to the subject of QAnon — the conspiracy theory movement that , as Guthrie described it , pushes the false belief “ that Democrats are a satanic pedophile ring and that you are the savior ” — the host asked Trump if he would denounce the movement as fraudulent .
After some back and forth , Trump attempted to shift the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him for an answer .
The president , who in August sang the praises for the movement by describing its followers as “ people who love our country , ” told Guthrie on Thursday night , “ I just don ’ t know about QAnon.
” “ What I do hear about it is they are very strongly against pedophilia , and I agree with that , ” Trump added .
As president of the United States , Trump likely knows more about QAnon than he admitted during the town hall — particularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a domestic threat more than a year ago .
Trump ’ s use of Twitter was also brought up during the town hall , particularly his habit of sharing misleading content often based on conspiracy theories .
Guthrie questioned why Trump , for example , would share a tweet to his followers wrongly suggesting that his Democratic opponent in the election , Joe Biden , alongside former President Barack Obama , killed members of Seal Team Six in order to cover up the fact that Osama bin Laden was supposedly still alive .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ like that to your followers ?
” Guthrie asked .
“ I know nothing about it , ” the president responded .
Trump tried to justify himself doing so .
“ That was a retweet , that was an opinion of somebody , and that was a retweet , ” he said .
“ I ’ ll put it out there , people can decide for themselves , I don ’ t take a position.
” Guthrie said she didn ’ t understand why Trump would make that choice , and suggested that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t “ just retweet whatever ” to his followers , particularly information that ’ s a flagrant lie .
Guthrie and Trump also clashed on the issue of coronavirus .
Trump invoked a line he ’ s used in the past , arguing that “ the cure can not be worse than the problem itself.
” When Guthrie tried to ask him whether 200,000 deaths due to COVID-19 indicated a failure on his part , the president interrupted her , and suggested that some governors wanted to hurt his presidential campaign through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus .
“ The fact is we ’ re winning all these cases because it ’ s unconstitutional what they ’ re doing , ” Trump said .
“ And I think they ’ re doing it for political reasons.
” In the past , Trump has suggested that adherence to social distancing rules , including the wearing of masks , were themselves political statements against his being president .
While Trump didn ’ t say as much on Thursday , he did falsely suggest that health experts were split on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , on the masks , you have two stories .
You have a story where they want , a story where they don ’ t want , ” the president said .
“ All of your public health officials , your administration , they ’ re in unison about this , ” Guthrie responded .
“ Scott Atkins , if you look at Scott , Dr. Scott .
He ’ s from , great guy , Stanford .
He will tell you that , he disagrees with you , ” Trump continued , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a member of his coronavirus task force who has pushed the dangerous and ethically unsound concept of an unmitigated herd immunity approach at the White House .
“ He ’ s not an infectious disease expert , ” Guthrie chimed in .
Atlas is a neuroradiologist , a specialist who deals with diagnosing issues related to the brain , spine , head and neck .
“ Oh , I don ’ t know .
Look , he ’ s an expert , he ’ s one of the great experts in the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of studies have demonstrated that wearing masks in public have successfully helped to stem the spread of COVID-19 .

From QAnon to alleging COVID orders were made to hurt him politically, Trump indicated he would continue to spread lies.
During a town hall event hosted by NBC News’s Savannah Guthrie on Thursday evening, President Donald Trump refused to denounce the QAnon movement and deflected other questions regarding his promotion of conspiracy theories in general.
Trump’s demeanor during the town hall was nothing unfamiliar to anyone who has followed his presidential tenure so far — he was oftentimes combative with Guthrie, expressing frustration with her several times during the debate. He regularly complained about questions she asked, at one point calling her “so cute” after she challenged him.
When Guthrie asked the president if he would condemn white supremacy, Trump maintained that he does and has for years condemned it, despite many statements and policies demonstrating otherwise.
When the conversation on white supremacy shifted to the subject of QAnon — the conspiracy theory movement that, as Guthrie described it, pushes the false belief “that Democrats are a satanic pedophile ring and that you are the savior” — the host asked Trump if he would denounce the movement as fraudulent. After some back and forth, Trump attempted to shift the topic, but Guthrie continued to press him for an answer. The president, who in August sang the praises for the movement by describing its followers as “people who love our country,” told Guthrie on Thursday night, “I just don’t know about QAnon.”
“You do know,” Guthrie retorted.
“What I do hear about it is they are very strongly against pedophilia, and I agree with that,” Trump added.
As president of the United States, Trump likely knows more about QAnon than he admitted during the town hall — particularly because the FBI labeled the movement as a domestic threat more than a year ago.
Trump’s use of Twitter was also brought up during the town hall, particularly his habit of sharing misleading content often based on conspiracy theories. Guthrie questioned why Trump, for example, would share a tweet to his followers wrongly suggesting that his Democratic opponent in the election, Joe Biden, alongside former President Barack Obama, killed members of Seal Team Six in order to cover up the fact that Osama bin Laden was supposedly still alive.
“Why would you send a lie like that to your followers?” Guthrie asked.
“I know nothing about it,” the president responded.
“You retweeted it,” Guthrie pointed out.
Trump tried to justify himself doing so. “That was a retweet, that was an opinion of somebody, and that was a retweet,” he said. “I’ll put it out there, people can decide for themselves, I don’t take a position.”
Guthrie said she didn’t understand why Trump would make that choice, and suggested that the president of the United States shouldn’t “just retweet whatever” to his followers, particularly information that’s a flagrant lie.
Guthrie and Trump also clashed on the issue of coronavirus. Trump invoked a line he’s used in the past, arguing that “the cure can not be worse than the problem itself.”
When Guthrie tried to ask him whether 200,000 deaths due to COVID-19 indicated a failure on his part, the president interrupted her, and suggested that some governors wanted to hurt his presidential campaign through their efforts to quell the spread of the virus.
“The fact is we’re winning all these cases because it’s unconstitutional what they’re doing,” Trump said. “And I think they’re doing it for political reasons.”
In the past, Trump has suggested that adherence to social distancing rules, including the wearing of masks, were themselves political statements against his being president. While Trump didn’t say as much on Thursday, he did falsely suggest that health experts were split on the efficacy of masks.
“You have, on the masks, you have two stories. You have a story where they want, a story where they don’t want,” the president said.
“All of your public health officials, your administration, they’re in unison about this,” Guthrie responded.
“Some. No,” Trump responded.
“Scott Atkins, if you look at Scott, Dr. Scott. He’s from, great guy, Stanford. He will tell you that, he disagrees with you,” Trump continued, likely intending to say Scott Atlas, a member of his coronavirus task force who has pushed the dangerous and ethically unsound concept of an unmitigated herd immunity approach at the White House.
“He’s not an infectious disease expert,” Guthrie chimed in.
Atlas is a neuroradiologist, a specialist who deals with diagnosing issues related to the brain, spine, head and neck.
“Oh, I don’t know. Look, he’s an expert, he’s one of the great experts in the world,” Trump insisted.
A number of studies have demonstrated that wearing masks in public have successfully helped to stem the spread of COVID-19.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-10-16--West Virginia Mom Tells Her Abortion Story in Speech Against Amy Coney Barrett

The Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony this week from Crystal Good , who spoke about her experience of having an abortion and expressed concerns that Amy Coney Barrett ’ s confirmation to the Supreme Court would limit access to safe , affordable care .
During three days of hearings , Judge Barrett has repeatedly refused to answer questions about her views on abortion and the future of Roe v. Wade , despite her public record opposing reproductive rights .
“ If confirmed , Judge Barrett will be a fifth vote to eviscerate the important protections that have been afforded by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clarke , president and executive director of the Lawyers ’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law , who also testified in the Senate this week .
This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : I wanted to turn to another issue that has so deeply concerned people all over this country , and that is the issue of reproductive rights , whether we ’ re are talking about IVF for infertile couples or whether we ’ re talking about the issue of abortion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ having an abortion , expressing concerns that Barrett ’ s confirmation would limit access to safe , affordable care .
During three days of hearings , Judge Barrett repeatedly refused to answer questions about her views on abortion and the future of Roe v. Wade , despite her public record opposing reproductive rights .
This is Good ’ s opening statement .
CRYSTAL GOOD : My name is Crystal Good .
And I ’ m a sixth-generation West Virginian , a writer-poet , a small business owner , a graduate student at West @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of sexual abuse .
I ’ m the daughter of a white mother and a Black father , and I ’ m the proud mother of three brilliant children .
These identities are all parts of me , but not all of me .
Who I am today is only possible because at 16 years old I had access to an abortion .
As a minor in a state with a parental consent requirement , that access was dependent on a judge , because , without a shadow of a doubt , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me .
From the ages of 5 until I was 15 , I was sexually abused by my white stepfather .
He wasn ’ t convicted until 2012 , more than 30 years after the abuse began .
When I told the grown folks in my life , they didn ’ t believe me at first , and then refused to hold my abuser accountable once the truth was out .
Later , at 16 , while in a relationship that brought me joy and made me feel safe , I , like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an unintended pregnancy .
Immediately , I knew I wanted an abortion , a very safe medical procedure that one in four U.S. women will have in their lifetimes .
For many reasons , including the decade of abuse she did not protect me from , I couldn ’ t tell my mother .
Instead , I sought a judicial bypass .
I had to navigate not only how to get to the judge , but how to do so on a school day .
I had no idea what I should wear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I thought I was going to court like on TV .
But instead , I was ushered into his chambers .
It felt very intimidating .
I told him I was a good student .
I was a leader in my school .
I had opportunities that many young women from West Virginia didn ’ t .
I wanted to go to college to be a writer .
I said , “ Your Honor , I have a future .
I choose an abortion.
” It felt like a miracle : An adult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me to be in charge of my own body and my own future .
I still think what might have happened if I didn ’ t have a list of accomplishments or if the judge didn ’ t think I was competent enough to decide when to start my family , or if he believed the harmful stereotype I was raised to believe , that Black girls were fast and promiscuous .
Access to an abortion should not depend on our GPA , the color of our skin , where we live , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It should not depend , in any shape , form or fashion , who your governor is or who is sitting on the Supreme Court .
My entire childhood , every adult in my life had failed me .
None of them deserved to make a decision about my body .
I needed compassion and trust from my government .
All I got was another barrier .
There are thousands like me who are sexually abused by parents , guardians and grown-ups who are supposed to support them .
Today , 37 states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minor to access abortion .
Most young people do involve their parents in their decision .
But for those like me who can not , these kinds of restrictions make abortion hard to get , because we have to travel , miss work or school , save up for weeks and pay out of pocket .
The average per capita income in West Virginia is $ 25,479 .
That ’ s one-seventh of your Senate salaries .
In Central Appalachia , Black and low-income white people struggle to access healthcare , including abortion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Supreme Court has made historic decisions that uphold our rights and freedoms : my right to an abortion , the integration of my public schools , the Affordable Healthcare Act that ensures that I have health insurance , and workplace protections for my transgender daughter .
I have put my faith in the Supreme Court .
And with this nomination , I am losing faith .
Although the way I have chosen to create my family is demonized by some politicians , the reality is that we ’ re like most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an abortion .
I have two sons and a daughter who is trans .
I love my children .
We are a proud Afrolachian family — that ’ s African American Appalachian .
My story is my own , but represents so many people left out from the Supreme Court nominee hearings — an entire caste of people .
That ’ s C-A-S-T-E , caste .
President Trump has been clear that he would only appoint justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade .
Unfortunately , through learning about Judge Barrett ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believes she passes the test .
Please , listen to people who have had abortions .
Hear us when we ask you : Do not confirm this nominee .
Our futures , our families , our lives depend on it .
We , too , are America .
AMY GOODMAN : That ’ s Crystal Good , a West Virginia mother , testifying Thursday against Judge Amy Coney Barrett , who once signed a newspaper advertisement that stated , “ It ’ s time to put an end to the barbaric legacy of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect the lives of unborn children.
” Kristen Clarke , I want to ask you about this , particularly in light of what Judge Barrett said in 2006 at a commencement address at Notre Dame .
She said , “ Keep in mind that your legal career is but a means to an end , and as Father Jenkins told you this morning , that end is building the kingdom of God.
” Kristen ?
KRISTEN CLARKE : If confirmed , Judge Barrett will be a fifth vote to eviscerate the important protections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wade .
I thought that Crystal Good ’ s testimony yesterday was incredibly powerful .
It was courageous of her to share her personal testimony .
And it ’ s an experience shared by so many women across our country who rely on the court ’ s precedent in Roe to ensure their dignity , to ensure their ability and freedom to make their own personal choices about their bodies .
I believe that Senator Graham freely described Judge Barrett as pro-life .
We looked at her record .
And in addition to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she wrote an article in 2013 in the — or , there was an article that appeared in 2013 in the Notre Dame magazine that referenced a speech that she gave called “ Roe at 40.
” And they described her as speaking of Roe as a case that created through judicial fiat a framework of abortion on demand and a political environment that was already liberalizing abortion regulations state by state , igniting a national controversy .
There were moments where she was asked whether she deemed Roe v. Wade a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ label to the decision .
And some of the cases that have come before her on the 7th Circuit have made clear that she has deep skepticism about Roe .
I believe that , if confirmed , she will prove to be that fifth vote that chips away , if not guts , and rolls back the important protections long afforded by Roe v. Wade .
AMY GOODMAN : Kristen Clarke , in your testimony yesterday , you talked about issues of racial justice , particularly the case of Smith v. Illinois Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the N-word .
Describe why you felt this was so critical .
KRISTEN CLARKE : Well , I thought that it was important to bring these cases up because they show a pattern , a pattern in which she has tended to put the interests of corporations and employers over the interests of vulnerable employees .
Smith v. Illinois Department of Transportation involved a Black traffic patrol driver who alleged that he was subjected to a hostile work environment .
And among the various pieces of evidence presented in that case was the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the N-word in the workspace repeatedly .
And Judge Barrett did concede that the N-word is , quote , “ an egregious racial epithet , ” but ultimately concluded that this was not enough to prove that he was subjected to the sort of racial hostility that was enough to prove discrimination under Title VII in this case .
And then there was another case that we ’ ve heard about during the week , EEOC v. AutoZone .
This is a case involving AutoZone ’ s decision to assign workers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They would assign Black workers to a particular store based on the race of the employee and based on the predominant race of employees served , and they did the same with Latinos .
And here , the client who was at the center of this case was a Black worker assigned to the South Side of Chicago .
Ultimately , the court found that employees were still paid the same and received the same benefits and had the same job responsibilities , and so Judge Barrett refused to rehear that case .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ very dangerous .
I mean , this is AutoZone essentially putting in a “ separate but equal ” racial doctrine in the workplace .
I think that the sum total of these two cases makes clear that she will likely look at cases involving allegations of discrimination with great skepticism and will likely always , you know , if not the majority of time , side with corporations and employers .
And that ’ s unfortunate .
As a civil rights lawyer , we bring cases on behalf of vulnerable communities to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ egregious facts like this — racial policies , racial segregation in the workplace , use of the N-word — I mean , these are the kind of smoking-gun cases that we seek to bring to the courts to vindicate the rights of those most vulnerable in our society .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , Kristen Clarke , we want to ask if you ’ ll stay with us .
You ’ re talking about corporate power .
And in our next segment , we ’ re going to play an excerpt of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ takes us on a journey following the dark money trail and how it ’ s reshaped the nation ’ s judiciary .
And then we want to get your final comments .
Kristen Clarke is the executive director of the Lawyers ’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law .
Stay with us .

The Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony this week from Crystal Good, who spoke about her experience of having an abortion and expressed concerns that Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to the Supreme Court would limit access to safe, affordable care. During three days of hearings, Judge Barrett has repeatedly refused to answer questions about her views on abortion and the future of Roe v. Wade, despite her public record opposing reproductive rights. “If confirmed, Judge Barrett will be a fifth vote to eviscerate the important protections that have been afforded by Roe v. Wade,” says Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, who also testified in the Senate this week.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to turn to another issue that has so deeply concerned people all over this country, and that is the issue of reproductive rights, whether we’re are talking about IVF for infertile couples or whether we’re talking about the issue of abortion.
Crystal Good testified about her experience having an abortion, expressing concerns that Barrett’s confirmation would limit access to safe, affordable care. During three days of hearings, Judge Barrett repeatedly refused to answer questions about her views on abortion and the future of Roe v. Wade, despite her public record opposing reproductive rights. This is Good’s opening statement.
CRYSTAL GOOD: My name is Crystal Good. And I’m a sixth-generation West Virginian, a writer-poet, a small business owner, a graduate student at West Virginia University and an advocate for survivors of sexual abuse. I’m the daughter of a white mother and a Black father, and I’m the proud mother of three brilliant children. These identities are all parts of me, but not all of me. Who I am today is only possible because at 16 years old I had access to an abortion. As a minor in a state with a parental consent requirement, that access was dependent on a judge, because, without a shadow of a doubt, I could not trust the adults closest to me. From the ages of 5 until I was 15, I was sexually abused by my white stepfather. He wasn’t convicted until 2012, more than 30 years after the abuse began. When I told the grown folks in my life, they didn’t believe me at first, and then refused to hold my abuser accountable once the truth was out. Later, at 16, while in a relationship that brought me joy and made me feel safe, I, like 2.7 million Americans a year, had an unintended pregnancy. Immediately, I knew I wanted an abortion, a very safe medical procedure that one in four U.S. women will have in their lifetimes. For many reasons, including the decade of abuse she did not protect me from, I couldn’t tell my mother. Instead, I sought a judicial bypass. I had to navigate not only how to get to the judge, but how to do so on a school day. I had no idea what I should wear or what information he would want. I thought I was going to court like on TV. But instead, I was ushered into his chambers. It felt very intimidating. I told him I was a good student. I was a leader in my school. I had opportunities that many young women from West Virginia didn’t. I wanted to go to college to be a writer. I said, “Your Honor, I have a future. I choose an abortion.” It felt like a miracle: An adult believed me. An authority figure deemed me to be in charge of my own body and my own future. I still think what might have happened if I didn’t have a list of accomplishments or if the judge didn’t think I was competent enough to decide when to start my family, or if he believed the harmful stereotype I was raised to believe, that Black girls were fast and promiscuous. Access to an abortion should not depend on our GPA, the color of our skin, where we live, or the luck of the draw. It should not depend, in any shape, form or fashion, who your governor is or who is sitting on the Supreme Court. My entire childhood, every adult in my life had failed me. None of them deserved to make a decision about my body. I needed compassion and trust from my government. All I got was another barrier. There are thousands like me who are sexually abused by parents, guardians and grown-ups who are supposed to support them. Today, 37 states require parental consent or notification for a minor to access abortion. Most young people do involve their parents in their decision. But for those like me who cannot, these kinds of restrictions make abortion hard to get, because we have to travel, miss work or school, save up for weeks and pay out of pocket. The average per capita income in West Virginia is $25,479. That’s one-seventh of your Senate salaries. In Central Appalachia, Black and low-income white people struggle to access healthcare, including abortion, and to have our decisions respected. The Supreme Court has made historic decisions that uphold our rights and freedoms: my right to an abortion, the integration of my public schools, the Affordable Healthcare Act that ensures that I have health insurance, and workplace protections for my transgender daughter. I have put my faith in the Supreme Court. And with this nomination, I am losing faith. Although the way I have chosen to create my family is demonized by some politicians, the reality is that we’re like most families across the nation. I had an abortion. I have two sons and a daughter who is trans. I love my children. We are a proud Afrolachian family — that’s African American Appalachian. My story is my own, but represents so many people left out from the Supreme Court nominee hearings — an entire caste of people. That’s C-A-S-T-E, caste. President Trump has been clear that he would only appoint justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. Unfortunately, through learning about Judge Barrett’s record, I understand why the president believes she passes the test. Please, listen to people who have had abortions. Hear us when we ask you: Do not confirm this nominee. Our futures, our families, our lives depend on it. We, too, are America.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s Crystal Good, a West Virginia mother, testifying Thursday against Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who once signed a newspaper advertisement that stated, “It’s time to put an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade and restore laws that protect the lives of unborn children.” Kristen Clarke, I want to ask you about this, particularly in light of what Judge Barrett said in 2006 at a commencement address at Notre Dame. She said, “Keep in mind that your legal career is but a means to an end, and as Father Jenkins told you this morning, that end is building the kingdom of God.” Kristen?
KRISTEN CLARKE: If confirmed, Judge Barrett will be a fifth vote to eviscerate the important protections that have been afforded by Roe v. Wade.
I thought that Crystal Good’s testimony yesterday was incredibly powerful. It was courageous of her to share her personal testimony. And it’s an experience shared by so many women across our country who rely on the court’s precedent in Roe to ensure their dignity, to ensure their ability and freedom to make their own personal choices about their bodies.
I believe that Senator Graham freely described Judge Barrett as pro-life. We looked at her record. And in addition to that petition that you reference, Amy, she wrote an article in 2013 in the — or, there was an article that appeared in 2013 in the Notre Dame magazine that referenced a speech that she gave called “Roe at 40.” And they described her as speaking of Roe as a case that created through judicial fiat a framework of abortion on demand and a political environment that was already liberalizing abortion regulations state by state, igniting a national controversy.
There were moments where she was asked whether she deemed Roe v. Wade a superprecedent. She refused to subscribe that label to the decision. And some of the cases that have come before her on the 7th Circuit have made clear that she has deep skepticism about Roe. I believe that, if confirmed, she will prove to be that fifth vote that chips away, if not guts, and rolls back the important protections long afforded by Roe v. Wade.
AMY GOODMAN: Kristen Clarke, in your testimony yesterday, you talked about issues of racial justice, particularly the case of Smith v. Illinois Department of Transportation, a worker there and the N-word. Describe why you felt this was so critical.
KRISTEN CLARKE: Well, I thought that it was important to bring these cases up because they show a pattern, a pattern in which she has tended to put the interests of corporations and employers over the interests of vulnerable employees.
Smith v. Illinois Department of Transportation involved a Black traffic patrol driver who alleged that he was subjected to a hostile work environment. And among the various pieces of evidence presented in that case was the fact that he was subjected to use of the N-word in the workspace repeatedly. And Judge Barrett did concede that the N-word is, quote, “an egregious racial epithet,” but ultimately concluded that this was not enough to prove that he was subjected to the sort of racial hostility that was enough to prove discrimination under Title VII in this case.
And then there was another case that we’ve heard about during the week, EEOC v. AutoZone. This is a case involving AutoZone’s decision to assign workers to different sites based on their race. They would assign Black workers to a particular store based on the race of the employee and based on the predominant race of employees served, and they did the same with Latinos. And here, the client who was at the center of this case was a Black worker assigned to the South Side of Chicago. Ultimately, the court found that employees were still paid the same and received the same benefits and had the same job responsibilities, and so Judge Barrett refused to rehear that case. But I think that that’s very dangerous. I mean, this is AutoZone essentially putting in a “separate but equal” racial doctrine in the workplace.
I think that the sum total of these two cases makes clear that she will likely look at cases involving allegations of discrimination with great skepticism and will likely always, you know, if not the majority of time, side with corporations and employers. And that’s unfortunate. As a civil rights lawyer, we bring cases on behalf of vulnerable communities to the court, and do so hoping that egregious facts like this — racial policies, racial segregation in the workplace, use of the N-word — I mean, these are the kind of smoking-gun cases that we seek to bring to the courts to vindicate the rights of those most vulnerable in our society.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Kristen Clarke, we want to ask if you’ll stay with us. You’re talking about corporate power. And in our next segment, we’re going to play an excerpt of the Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who takes us on a journey following the dark money trail and how it’s reshaped the nation’s judiciary. And then we want to get your final comments. Kristen Clarke is the executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. 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.