truthout--2020-10-23--Biden Acknowledged Crime Bill “Mistake” Because of Massive Grassroots Pressure

President Trump and Joe Biden sparred on their records over race and criminal justice in Thursday ’ s presidential debate .
Trump simultaneously promoted his criminal justice reform efforts while continuing to lean on “ tough on crime ” rhetoric .
Trump also criticized Biden for authoring the 1994 crime bill and supporting other laws that intensified mass incarceration in the U.S. , which Biden acknowledged was “ a mistake.
” Rashad Robinson , spokesperson for Color of Change PAC , says Biden ’ s admission highlights the importance of continued pressure on politicians on racial justice issues .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this about hating Trump .
They also have to continue to fight and build and put out the policies that are going to change lives and remove barriers and systems that have stood in people ’ s way , ” Robinson says .
This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
, democracynow.org .
I ’ m Amy Goodman .
This is The Quarantine Report , as we continue to cover the final presidential debate .
President Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thursday on their records over race and criminal justice .
Let ’ s turn to debate moderator Kristen Welker of NBC .
KRISTEN WELKER : Mr. President , you ’ ve described the Black Lives Matter movement as a “ symbol of hate.
” You ’ ve shared a video of a man chanting “ white power ” to millions of your supporters .
You ’ ve said that Black professional athletes exercising their First Amendment rights should be fired .
What do you say to Americans who say that kind of language @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate of hate and racial strife ?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP : Well , you have to understand , the first time I ever heard of Black Lives Matter , they were chanting , “ Pigs in a blanket , ” talking about police — pigs , pigs , talking about our police .
“ Pigs in a blanket , fry ’ em like bacon.
” I said , “ That ’ s a horrible thing.
” And they were marching down the street .
And that was my first glimpse of Black Lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terrible thing .
As far as my relationships with all people , I think I have great relationships with all people .
I am the least racist person in this room .
KRISTEN WELKER : Well , what do you say to Americans who are concerned by that rhetoric and by the videos ?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP : I don ’ t know .
I mean , I don ’ t know what to say .
I got criminal justice reform done and prison reform and Opportunity Zones .
I took care of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t know what to say .
… JOE BIDEN : Abraham Lincoln here is one of the most racist presidents we ’ ve had in modern history .
He pours fuel on every single racist fire , every single one .
Started off his campaign coming down the escalator saying he ’ s getting rid of those “ Mexican rapists.
” He ’ s banned Muslims because they ’ re Muslims .
He has moved around and made everything worse across the board .
He says to the — about the Proud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stage here , he said , “ I tell them to stand down and stand ready.
” Come on .
This guy has a dog whistle about as big as a foghorn .
AMY GOODMAN : We ’ re joined right now by Rashad Robinson , spokesperson for Color of Change PAC .
Welcome back to Democracy Now !
, Rashad .
Your response to what they ’ re saying there and overall to the debate ?
RASHAD ROBINSON : You know , I mean , I think one of the things , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we oftentimes sort of hear a whole bunch of disparities , or we hear candidates trying to talk about what they ’ re going to do for the community .
And , you know , that , I think , is helpful to some extent , but I think that what we ’ re oftentimes seeing — I think what I hope we can see more from the Democrats is actually really leaning into how racial justice is not just about what you ’ re going to do for the community .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ how we actually win on the wide range of things that we can win on , from healthcare to climate to so much more , because part of the problems of why we don ’ t have the things that we need in this country is because of systems set up around racial inequality .
And so we shouldn ’ t just follow the ball that Donald Trump lays down about sort of the sort of racism that ’ s at the heart of his campaign , some of the sort of racial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the heart of the Republican Party .
We know all of that .
What are we going to actually do to motivate people not just to hate Trump , but to love the other side in return ?
I think that ’ s going to be the ongoing task , not just about winning elections .
It ’ s about governing .
It ’ s about having the power to actually overcome the barriers that oftentimes stand in the way of moving us forward on the issues that impact sort of the climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brown communities every single day .
AMY GOODMAN : Can you talk about COVID when it comes to the African American community , when it comes to communities of color all over this country , the disproportionate effect ?
RASHAD ROBINSON : Yeah , I mean , I think that this is part of , I think , the challenge of how we need to unlock the power of racial justice , right ?
So , when we talk about COVID , we will hear folks say Black folks are dying .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being killed by government action , by corporate power , by an insurance industry .
When we talk about the structural issues that impact Black communities in a passive voice , rather than an active voice , we spend all of our time talking about how do we fix Black people and Black families , rather than fixing the structures that harm and hurt as .
I mean , we do this across the board , whether it ’ s saying Black people are less likely to get a loan from the bank @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less likely to give loans to Black people .
And so , when we talk about COVID , it ’ s not that COVID , the disease itself , is racist .
It ’ s that America is racist , and the structures and the systems that we have set up have simply exposed all these challenges .
But when we talk about these problems in a passive voice , when we talk about these things like it ’ s just happening to the community , not that the poverty and inequality and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that there ’ s corporate power and other systems at every turn benefiting from the sort of impact of these decisions , then we end up sort of really focused on treating communities like they are vulnerable rather than actually treating communities like they ’ ve been targeted , attacked , exploited .
It actually leads us to a very different set of solutions when we talk about the structural problems in an active voice rather than a passive voice , because when we talk about it in an active voice , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at hand rather than trying to fix people .
AMY GOODMAN : I wanted to talk about , for a moment , the debate moderator .
Kristen Welker is the first woman of color , the first African American woman to preside over , to moderate a presidential debate since Carol Simpson did in 1992 .
And at every turn in these last weeks , President Trump went after her viciously , tweeting against her .
Yesterday he released the 60 Minutes interview before 60 Minutes released it .
He was interviewed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
And he attacked Lesley Stahl .
And then he said , and Kristen Welker is even worse .
RASHAD ROBINSON : Yeah , I mean , you know , and then you saw him on stage sort of playing and saying nice things to her before and after .
This is the showman , right ?
This is Donald Trump .
I mean , and I think part of what we have to recognize is all the ways he ’ s been able to do this his whole career .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sort of an interview that he had with Connie Chung years ago , and then the things that he said about her afterwards , right ?
This is a president that got here because so many folks enabled him .
He was on NBC ’ s platform , on Celebrity Apprentice , once a week , with corporate sponsors , while he was going around the country spreading a racist conspiracy theory about President Obama and was allowed to continue to have that platform .
And when that happens , we sort of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acceptable and create sort of a situation where some of these things are just allowed as acceptable part of the debate .
But the thing I want to say about the debate moderator , Kristen Welker , is that I think that she really leaned in in a way that we did not see in the last debate .
I think she followed up .
She really used the opportunity to press both candidates on the issues and try to get them to answer the question .
And for folks who are activists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been showing up to protest and showing up to raise their voice , whether it ’ s online or offline , in this moment , I think activism was on the stage in a very interesting way .
And I think that ’ s important , because we haven ’ t had town hall meetings .
We haven ’ t had the sort of opportunities to question the candidates up front , for those moments for immigrant activists and BLM activists and others and climate activists to press the candidates in forums @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But on that stage , I think what you saw was Kristen actually pushing these candidates as a result of the larger activism in the space , the way that the conversations and movements on the street have actually changed the dialogue .
And whether it was the first debates that we saw on the Democratic side , where you saw a whole new set of issues being talked about , from reparations to racial injustice to white supremacy , for the first time on a presidential debate , I think back to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Simpson debate , and probably the first debate I watched at home with my family , really coming off of getting to understand and learn about the presidential debate when my parents in 1988 gave some of our vacation money to Jesse Jackson ’ s presidential run , and I think about how far some of these conversations have come , how far we are at talking about these issues .
And I think what ’ s going to be important , if Joe Biden becomes the president , is that we recognize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presence of our issues on debate stage for the power to actually change the rules .
And we ’ re going to have to press and push and challenge and build power .
And for folks who are out there , they ’ re going to have to invest in Black and Brown infrastructure to actually channel that energy , so that we get the type of change that makes people ’ s participation valuable and over the years can be a force multiplier for more people to want to participate in our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the type of change that participation brings about .
AMY GOODMAN : I want to go to debate moderator Kristen Welker of NBC .
KRISTEN WELKER : Crime bills that you supported in the ’ 80s and ’ 90s contributed to the incarceration of tens of thousands of young Black men who had small amounts of drugs in their possession .
They are sons , they are brothers , they ’ re fathers , they ’ re uncles , whose families are still to this day , some of them , suffering the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ families .
Why should they vote for you ?
JOE BIDEN : One of the things is that in the ’ 80s we passed 100 % — all 100 senators voted for it — a bill on drugs and how to deal with drugs .
It was a mistake .
I ’ ve been trying to change it since , and particularly the portion on cocaine .
That ’ s why I ’ ve been arguing that , in fact , we should not send anyone to jail for a pure drug offense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , across the board .
That ’ s what we should be spending money on .
That ’ s why I set up drug courts , which were never funded by our Republican friends .
They should not be going to jail for a drug or an alcohol problem ; they should be going into treatment .
Treatment .
That ’ s what we ’ ve been trying to do .
That ’ s what I ’ m going to get done , because I think the American people have now seen that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pass those laws relating to drugs .
But they were not in the crime bill .
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP : But why didn ’ t he get it done ?
See , it ’ s all talk , no action , with these politicians .
Why didn ’ t he get it done ?
“ That ’ s what I ’ m going to do when I become president.
” You were vice president , along with Obama as your president , your leader , for eight years .
Why didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eight years to get it done .
Now you ’ re saying you ’ re going to get it done .
Because you ’ re all talk and no action , Joe .
JOE BIDEN : We got a lot of it done .
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP : You didn ’ t get anything done .
JOE BIDEN : We got 38,000 prisoners left from the — out of — PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP : You got nothing done .
JOE BIDEN : Thirty-eight thousand prisoners were released from federal prison .
We have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who were given clemency .
In fact , we ’ re the ones that put in the legislation saying we could look at pattern and practice of police departments and what they were doing , how they were conducting themselves .
I could go on .
But we began the process .
We began the process .
We lost an election .
That ’ s why I ’ m running , to win back that election and change his terrible policy .
AMY GOODMAN : So , there ’ s Joe Biden and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill .
Rashad Robinson , if you can respond ?
RASHAD ROBINSON : It ’ s just so much misinformation and disinformation .
I think this is part of the challenge that organizations like mine have in sort of parsing this through , where Donald Trump is somehow trying to make himself an advocate for criminal justice reform or even drug reform , when we know his history and even how the First Step Act came about .
I ’ m not here to defend the Democrats on criminal justice reform .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are the party that we have the best chance of pushing to do the right thing .
They ’ re the folks most likely to be nervous about disappointing us on this issue .
But both parties have a lot of work to do .
And that is without false equivalencies .
I think the thing that ’ s important here is that Biden , Joe Biden , and his campaign are acknowledging the flaws and the problems in previous decisions about how they dealt with drug policy , about how they dealt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stage last week that the ’ 94 crime bill was a mistake .
And I think that that is important .
That ’ s a representation of a lot of pushing , challenges from those outside and inside of the campaign .
And now we need to see that translate into the type of energy and heat necessary to actually make changes on those things , and the type of changes that are not just sort of the cosmetic changes that stop the bleeding , but actually the type of changes that restore @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that have been stolen , for them .
You know , we have drug laws on the books that are just simply designed to target and exploit Black people , and it starts all the way down with marijuana , that is essentially legal for rich people and for white people in this country , and we still see Black and Brown people being locked up , all the way up to all the disparities in other drugs .
It has failed .
It has not worked .
And we actually have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that actually allow for people to have the things that they need and people to have the privacy in their lives that they need , as well .
But I do think that is a fundamental change in the conversation and the debate .
But I do think , once again , you ’ ve got this sort of showman in Donald Trump that ’ s willing to say anything .
And he ’ s trying a very interesting dance on the stage — on one hand , making these deep appeals to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , trying to make these appeals to Black men at the same time — and doing it in ways that sort of can be confusing and complicated , but because he ’ s such a showman , sometimes it can get over .
And that misinformation and disinformation about where he actually stands on the issue is part of why we have to continue to challenge .
But it ’ s also why the Democrats can ’ t just make this about hating Trump .
They also have to continue to fight and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are going to change lives and remove barriers and systems that have stood in people ’ s way .
AMY GOODMAN : Rashad Robinson is spokesperson for Color of Change PAC .
When we come back , we ’ ll also be joined by Erika Andiola , the immigrant rights activist , and get her response to the issue raised of the 545 immigrant children in this country — where are their parents ?
— that the Trump administration separated from them .
Stay with us .

President Trump and Joe Biden sparred on their records over race and criminal justice in Thursday’s presidential debate. Trump simultaneously promoted his criminal justice reform efforts while continuing to lean on “tough on crime” rhetoric. Trump also criticized Biden for authoring the 1994 crime bill and supporting other laws that intensified mass incarceration in the U.S., which Biden acknowledged was “a mistake.” Rashad Robinson, spokesperson for Color of Change PAC, says Biden’s admission highlights the importance of continued pressure on politicians on racial justice issues. “The Democrats can’t just make this about hating Trump. They also have to continue to fight and build and put out the policies that are going to change lives and remove barriers and systems that have stood in people’s way,” Robinson says.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org. I’m Amy Goodman. This is The Quarantine Report, as we continue to cover the final presidential debate. President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden sparred Thursday on their records over race and criminal justice. Let’s turn to debate moderator Kristen Welker of NBC.
KRISTEN WELKER: Mr. President, you’ve described the Black Lives Matter movement as a “symbol of hate.” You’ve shared a video of a man chanting “white power” to millions of your supporters. You’ve said that Black professional athletes exercising their First Amendment rights should be fired. What do you say to Americans who say that kind of language from a president is contributing to a climate of hate and racial strife? PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, you have to understand, the first time I ever heard of Black Lives Matter, they were chanting, “Pigs in a blanket,” talking about police — pigs, pigs, talking about our police. “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon.” I said, “That’s a horrible thing.” And they were marching down the street. And that was my first glimpse of Black Lives Matter. I thought it was a terrible thing. As far as my relationships with all people, I think I have great relationships with all people. I am the least racist person in this room. Related Story Op-Ed | Politics & Elections Don’t Blame the Moderator. Presidential Debates Are Set Up to Be a Charade. The format ensures candidates don’t have to tackle real questions from journalists or third-party candidates. Truthout KRISTEN WELKER: Well, what do you say to Americans who are concerned by that rhetoric and by the videos? PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I don’t know. I mean, I don’t know what to say. I got criminal justice reform done and prison reform and Opportunity Zones. I took care of Black colleges and universities. I don’t know what to say. … JOE BIDEN: Abraham Lincoln here is one of the most racist presidents we’ve had in modern history. He pours fuel on every single racist fire, every single one. Started off his campaign coming down the escalator saying he’s getting rid of those “Mexican rapists.” He’s banned Muslims because they’re Muslims. He has moved around and made everything worse across the board. He says to the — about the Proud Boys, last time we were on stage here, he said, “I tell them to stand down and stand ready.” Come on. This guy has a dog whistle about as big as a foghorn.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined right now by Rashad Robinson, spokesperson for Color of Change PAC.
Welcome back to Democracy Now!, Rashad. Your response to what they’re saying there and overall to the debate?
RASHAD ROBINSON: You know, I mean, I think one of the things, that when these conversations happen about race, we oftentimes sort of hear a whole bunch of disparities, or we hear candidates trying to talk about what they’re going to do for the community. And, you know, that, I think, is helpful to some extent, but I think that what we’re oftentimes seeing — I think what I hope we can see more from the Democrats is actually really leaning into how racial justice is not just about what you’re going to do for the community. Racial justice is also a strategy about how we actually win on the wide range of things that we can win on, from healthcare to climate to so much more, because part of the problems of why we don’t have the things that we need in this country is because of systems set up around racial inequality.
And so we shouldn’t just follow the ball that Donald Trump lays down about sort of the sort of racism that’s at the heart of his campaign, some of the sort of racial enabling and racism that’s at the heart of the Republican Party. We know all of that. What are we going to actually do to motivate people not just to hate Trump, but to love the other side in return? I think that’s going to be the ongoing task, not just about winning elections. It’s about governing. It’s about having the power to actually overcome the barriers that oftentimes stand in the way of moving us forward on the issues that impact sort of the climate around race, that impact Black and Brown communities every single day.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about COVID when it comes to the African American community, when it comes to communities of color all over this country, the disproportionate effect?
RASHAD ROBINSON: Yeah, I mean, I think that this is part of, I think, the challenge of how we need to unlock the power of racial justice, right? So, when we talk about COVID, we will hear folks say Black folks are dying. But, in fact, Black folks are being killed by government action, by corporate power, by an insurance industry. When we talk about the structural issues that impact Black communities in a passive voice, rather than an active voice, we spend all of our time talking about how do we fix Black people and Black families, rather than fixing the structures that harm and hurt as. I mean, we do this across the board, whether it’s saying Black people are less likely to get a loan from the bank, instead of actually saying banks are less likely to give loans to Black people. And so, when we talk about COVID, it’s not that COVID, the disease itself, is racist. It’s that America is racist, and the structures and the systems that we have set up have simply exposed all these challenges.
But when we talk about these problems in a passive voice, when we talk about these things like it’s just happening to the community, not that the poverty and inequality and racism is part of a manufactured structure, that there’s corporate power and other systems at every turn benefiting from the sort of impact of these decisions, then we end up sort of really focused on treating communities like they are vulnerable rather than actually treating communities like they’ve been targeted, attacked, exploited. It actually leads us to a very different set of solutions when we talk about the structural problems in an active voice rather than a passive voice, because when we talk about it in an active voice, we actually focus on solving the problems at hand rather than trying to fix people.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to talk about, for a moment, the debate moderator. Kristen Welker is the first woman of color, the first African American woman to preside over, to moderate a presidential debate since Carol Simpson did in 1992. And at every turn in these last weeks, President Trump went after her viciously, tweeting against her. Yesterday he released the 60 Minutes interview before 60 Minutes released it. He was interviewed by Lesley Stahl and then walked out of it. And he attacked Lesley Stahl. And then he said, and Kristen Welker is even worse.
RASHAD ROBINSON: Yeah, I mean, you know, and then you saw him on stage sort of playing and saying nice things to her before and after. This is the showman, right? This is Donald Trump. I mean, and I think part of what we have to recognize is all the ways he’s been able to do this his whole career. I saw a clip going around yesterday of sort of an interview that he had with Connie Chung years ago, and then the things that he said about her afterwards, right?
This is a president that got here because so many folks enabled him. He was on NBC’s platform, on Celebrity Apprentice, once a week, with corporate sponsors, while he was going around the country spreading a racist conspiracy theory about President Obama and was allowed to continue to have that platform. And when that happens, we sort of lower the standards of what’s acceptable and create sort of a situation where some of these things are just allowed as acceptable part of the debate.
But the thing I want to say about the debate moderator, Kristen Welker, is that I think that she really leaned in in a way that we did not see in the last debate. I think she followed up. She really used the opportunity to press both candidates on the issues and try to get them to answer the question.
And for folks who are activists out there listening, for people who have been showing up to protest and showing up to raise their voice, whether it’s online or offline, in this moment, I think activism was on the stage in a very interesting way. And I think that’s important, because we haven’t had town hall meetings. We haven’t had the sort of opportunities to question the candidates up front, for those moments for immigrant activists and BLM activists and others and climate activists to press the candidates in forums that were sort of more open.
But on that stage, I think what you saw was Kristen actually pushing these candidates as a result of the larger activism in the space, the way that the conversations and movements on the street have actually changed the dialogue. And whether it was the first debates that we saw on the Democratic side, where you saw a whole new set of issues being talked about, from reparations to racial injustice to white supremacy, for the first time on a presidential debate, I think back to being in middle school during that Carol Simpson debate, and probably the first debate I watched at home with my family, really coming off of getting to understand and learn about the presidential debate when my parents in 1988 gave some of our vacation money to Jesse Jackson’s presidential run, and I think about how far some of these conversations have come, how far we are at talking about these issues.
And I think what’s going to be important, if Joe Biden becomes the president, is that we recognize that we can’t mistake the presence of our issues on debate stage for the power to actually change the rules. And we’re going to have to press and push and challenge and build power. And for folks who are out there, they’re going to have to invest in Black and Brown infrastructure to actually channel that energy, so that we get the type of change that makes people’s participation valuable and over the years can be a force multiplier for more people to want to participate in our democracy because they see the result of the type of change that participation brings about.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to go to debate moderator Kristen Welker of NBC.
KRISTEN WELKER: Crime bills that you supported in the ’80s and ’90s contributed to the incarceration of tens of thousands of young Black men who had small amounts of drugs in their possession. They are sons, they are brothers, they’re fathers, they’re uncles, whose families are still to this day, some of them, suffering the consequences. So, speak to those families. Why should they vote for you? JOE BIDEN: One of the things is that in the ’80s we passed 100% — all 100 senators voted for it — a bill on drugs and how to deal with drugs. It was a mistake. I’ve been trying to change it since, and particularly the portion on cocaine. That’s why I’ve been arguing that, in fact, we should not send anyone to jail for a pure drug offense. They should be going into treatment, across the board. That’s what we should be spending money on. That’s why I set up drug courts, which were never funded by our Republican friends. They should not be going to jail for a drug or an alcohol problem; they should be going into treatment. Treatment. That’s what we’ve been trying to do. That’s what I’m going to get done, because I think the American people have now seen that in fact it was a mistake to pass those laws relating to drugs. But they were not in the crime bill. KRISTEN WELKER: OK. Sir? PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: But why didn’t he get it done? See, it’s all talk, no action, with these politicians. Why didn’t he get it done? “That’s what I’m going to do when I become president.” You were vice president, along with Obama as your president, your leader, for eight years. Why didn’t you get it done? You had eight years to get it done. Now you’re saying you’re going to get it done. Because you’re all talk and no action, Joe. JOE BIDEN: We got a lot of it done. KRISTEN WELKER: Your response? JOE BIDEN: We released 38,000 — PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: You didn’t get anything done. JOE BIDEN: We got 38,000 prisoners left from the — out of — PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: You got nothing done. JOE BIDEN: Thirty-eight thousand prisoners were released from federal prison. We have — there were over a thousand people who were given clemency. In fact, we’re the ones that put in the legislation saying we could look at pattern and practice of police departments and what they were doing, how they were conducting themselves. I could go on. But we began the process. We began the process. We lost an election. That’s why I’m running, to win back that election and change his terrible policy.
AMY GOODMAN: So, there’s Joe Biden and Trump, Trump taking on the crime bill. Rashad Robinson, if you can respond?
RASHAD ROBINSON: It’s just so much misinformation and disinformation. I think this is part of the challenge that organizations like mine have in sort of parsing this through, where Donald Trump is somehow trying to make himself an advocate for criminal justice reform or even drug reform, when we know his history and even how the First Step Act came about.
I’m not here to defend the Democrats on criminal justice reform. I’m here to say that they are the party that we have the best chance of pushing to do the right thing. They’re the folks most likely to be nervous about disappointing us on this issue. But both parties have a lot of work to do. And that is without false equivalencies.
I think the thing that’s important here is that Biden, Joe Biden, and his campaign are acknowledging the flaws and the problems in previous decisions about how they dealt with drug policy, about how they dealt with criminal justice, acknowledging on the stage last week that the ’94 crime bill was a mistake. And I think that that is important. That’s a representation of a lot of pushing, challenges from those outside and inside of the campaign.
And now we need to see that translate into the type of energy and heat necessary to actually make changes on those things, and the type of changes that are not just sort of the cosmetic changes that stop the bleeding, but actually the type of changes that restore people’s lives and dignities, that have been stolen, for them.
You know, we have drug laws on the books that are just simply designed to target and exploit Black people, and it starts all the way down with marijuana, that is essentially legal for rich people and for white people in this country, and we still see Black and Brown people being locked up, all the way up to all the disparities in other drugs. It has failed. It has not worked. And we actually have to build systems of harm reduction, systems that actually allow for people to have the things that they need and people to have the privacy in their lives that they need, as well.
But I do think that is a fundamental change in the conversation and the debate. But I do think, once again, you’ve got this sort of showman in Donald Trump that’s willing to say anything. And he’s trying a very interesting dance on the stage — on one hand, making these deep appeals to law enforcement, on the other hand, trying to make these appeals to Black men at the same time — and doing it in ways that sort of can be confusing and complicated, but because he’s such a showman, sometimes it can get over.
And that misinformation and disinformation about where he actually stands on the issue is part of why we have to continue to challenge. But it’s also why the Democrats can’t just make this about hating Trump. They also have to continue to fight and build and put out the policies that are going to change lives and remove barriers and systems that have stood in people’s way.
AMY GOODMAN: Rashad Robinson is spokesperson for Color of Change PAC. When we come back, we’ll also be joined by Erika Andiola, the immigrant rights activist, and get her response to the issue raised of the 545 immigrant children in this country — where are their parents? — that the Trump administration separated from them. Stay with us.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-10-23--Trump May Fire Barr and FBI Director for Not Investigating Biden

President Donald Trump has repeatedly discussed firing FBI Director Christopher Wray after the election — and officials are concerned he may also oust Attorney General Bill Barr , according to The Washington Post .
Trump has been unhappy that Wray and Barr have not publicly announced an investigation into Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden , his son Hunter Biden , or his associates , aides told the outlet .
The president is “ increasingly frustrated ” that the two officials have “ not delivered his campaign the kind of last-minute boost that the FBI provided in 2016 , ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action similar to the announcement made 11 days before the last presidential election by then-FBI Director James B. Comey ” when he informed Congress that the FBI had reopened its investigation into Hillary Clinton ’ s emails , according to the report .
Polls showed that Comey ’ s announcement was a major factor in Clinton ’ s 2016 election loss .
Trump appointed Wray in 2017 after firing Comey .
The administration reportedly pressured then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to write a letter citing Comey ’ s handling of the Clinton probe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ showed that Trump wanted him fired for pursuing the investigation into his campaign ’ s ties to Russia .
Trump called on Barr to “ act fast ” and “ appoint somebody ” to investigate the Biden ’ s before the election during a Tuesday interview with Fox News .
Trump ’ s comments came in response to a dubious New York Post story fed by Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani and former adviser Steve Bannon that raised questions about emails purportedly found on a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden , which he allegedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Numerous intelligence experts have alleged that the story is part of a Russian disinformation plot .
Trump ’ s comments came on Fox News , which itself reportedly refused to publish the story .
“ There are many , many red flags in that New York Post investigation , ” NPR noted this week .
“ Even if Russia can ’ t be positively connected to this information , the story of how Trump associates Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani came into a copy of this computer hard drive has not been verified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story could be verified , the NY Post did no forensic work to convince consumers that the emails and photos that are the basis for their report have not been altered.
” The FBI has tried to distance itself from Republican outcry about the report , telling Sen. Ron Johnson , R-Wis. , the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee , that it had “ nothing to add ” after Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe dismissed allegations that it was part of a Russian disinformation plot .
Assistant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the letter to Johnson that Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz had been highly critical of Comey ’ s pre-election announcement .
The FBI “ can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any ongoing investigation or persons or entities under investigation , including to members of Congress , ” she wrote .
“ As the inspector general firmly reminded the Department and the FBI in recent years , this policy is designed to preserve the integrity of all Justice Department investigations and the department ’ s ability to effectively administer justice without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The president , White House chief of staff Mark Meadows , and top Trump aide Dan Scavino have all repeatedly criticized Wray , whom Trump views as “ one of his worst personnel picks , ” according to The Washington Post .
Trump has also grown increasingly critical of Barr after he told Republican lawmakers that the much-hyped investigation by U.S. Attorney John Durham into the origins of the Russia probe would not be completed before the election .
“ I ’ m not happy , with all of the evidence I had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I am not happy , ” Trump said in an interview last week when asked if he would keep Barr for a potential second term .
Trump had told allies that he believed Barr and Durham would deliver “ scalps.
” Now , he complains that “ they aren ’ t doing sh*t , ” according to the Post .
Some administration officials have grown concerned that Barr “ could become a casualty ” of Trump ’ s desire to fire Wray .
Others suggested his decision may hinge on the result of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Senate .
“ Trump often complains about members of his Cabinet and contemplates dismissing them , without doing so , ” The Post added .
“ And Trump ’ s decision to fire Comey in early 2017 only fueled further problems for the president.
” Former U.S. Attorney Joyce White Vance noted that Trump ’ s desire for a public announcement of a Biden investigation is what got him impeached last year .
“ Maybe if the Senate convicted Trump after he was impeached for withholding aid from Ukraine to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump wouldn ’ t be around to threaten the FBI Director ’ s job for not announcing an investigation into Biden , ” she tweeted .

Sources say that Trump is demanding a repeat of the FBI announcement that contributed to his 2016 electoral win.
President Donald Trump has repeatedly discussed firing FBI Director Christopher Wray after the election — and officials are concerned he may also oust Attorney General Bill Barr, according to The Washington Post.
Trump has been unhappy that Wray and Barr have not publicly announced an investigation into Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden, or his associates, aides told the outlet. The president is “increasingly frustrated” that the two officials have “not delivered his campaign the kind of last-minute boost that the FBI provided in 2016,” the sources said.
“Trump wants official action similar to the announcement made 11 days before the last presidential election by then-FBI Director James B. Comey” when he informed Congress that the FBI had reopened its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails, according to the report.
Polls showed that Comey’s announcement was a major factor in Clinton’s 2016 election loss.
Trump appointed Wray in 2017 after firing Comey. The administration reportedly pressured then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to write a letter citing Comey’s handling of the Clinton probe for his dismissal, though draft documents showed that Trump wanted him fired for pursuing the investigation into his campaign’s ties to Russia.
Trump called on Barr to “act fast” and “appoint somebody” to investigate the Biden’s before the election during a Tuesday interview with Fox News.
Trump’s comments came in response to a dubious New York Post story fed by Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani and former adviser Steve Bannon that raised questions about emails purportedly found on a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden, which he allegedly left at a Delaware repair shop. Numerous intelligence experts have alleged that the story is part of a Russian disinformation plot.
Trump’s comments came on Fox News, which itself reportedly refused to publish the story.
“There are many, many red flags in that New York Post investigation,” NPR noted this week. “Even if Russia can’t be positively connected to this information, the story of how Trump associates Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani came into a copy of this computer hard drive has not been verified and seems suspect. And if that story could be verified, the NY Post did no forensic work to convince consumers that the emails and photos that are the basis for their report have not been altered.”
The FBI has tried to distance itself from Republican outcry about the report, telling Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, that it had “nothing to add” after Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe dismissed allegations that it was part of a Russian disinformation plot.
Assistant FBI Director Jill Tyson also noted in the letter to Johnson that Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz had been highly critical of Comey’s pre-election announcement.
The FBI “can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any ongoing investigation or persons or entities under investigation, including to members of Congress,” she wrote. “As the inspector general firmly reminded the Department and the FBI in recent years, this policy is designed to preserve the integrity of all Justice Department investigations and the department’s ability to effectively administer justice without political or other undue outside influences.”
The president, White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, and top Trump aide Dan Scavino have all repeatedly criticized Wray, whom Trump views as “one of his worst personnel picks,” according to The Washington Post.
Trump has also grown increasingly critical of Barr after he told Republican lawmakers that the much-hyped investigation by U.S. Attorney John Durham into the origins of the Russia probe would not be completed before the election.
“I’m not happy, with all of the evidence I had, I can tell you that. I am not happy,” Trump said in an interview last week when asked if he would keep Barr for a potential second term.
Trump had told allies that he believed Barr and Durham would deliver “scalps.” Now, he complains that “they aren’t doing sh*t,” according to the Post.
Some administration officials have grown concerned that Barr “could become a casualty” of Trump’s desire to fire Wray. Others suggested his decision may hinge on the result of the election and whether Republicans keep control of the Senate.
“Trump often complains about members of his Cabinet and contemplates dismissing them, without doing so,” The Post added. “And Trump’s decision to fire Comey in early 2017 only fueled further problems for the president.”
Former U.S. Attorney Joyce White Vance noted that Trump’s desire for a public announcement of a Biden investigation is what got him impeached last year.
“Maybe if the Senate convicted Trump after he was impeached for withholding aid from Ukraine to get them to announce an investigation into Biden, Trump wouldn’t be around to threaten the FBI Director’s job for not announcing an investigation into Biden,” she tweeted.
“That is corrupt,” former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti added. “Period.”
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--2020-10-23--Trump Smears Victims of Mass Family Separations as “Bad People”

Pressed during Thursday night ’ s final 2020 presidential debate to account for his administration ’ s record of separating immigrant families at the U.S.-Mexico border , President Donald Trump repeatedly attempted to evade responsibility by lying about the origins of the inhumane practice , smearing those harmed by it , and attempting to shift blame onto Democratic opponent Joe Biden .
In response to a question about the more than 500 parents who have yet to be found after they were separated from their children under Trump administration ’ s “ zero tolerance policy ” — which forcibly broke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ halted in June of 2018 — President Donald Trump said that “ children are brought here by coyotes and lots of bad people , cartels , ” a claim immigrant rights groups rejected .
“ Fact check : Migrant children separated by the Trump administration during Zero Tolerance came with their families , not coyotes , ” the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services tweeted .
“ We know .
We worked with the children who were sent to shelters after being separated .
Facts matter.
” The president — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you have to take the children away ” — went on to claim Thursday that the White House is “ trying very hard ” to reunite the families it separated , contradicting the accounts of attorneys who say the administration is not helping in their ongoing search for missing parents .
In an effort to divert attention from his administration ’ s role in the family separations — which drew international outrage as they were carried out in 2018 — Trump falsely claimed that the “ zero tolerance ” policy originated under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We changed the policy , ” Trump said .
“ They did it .
We changed.
” The Obama administration did separate families at the border , but the Trump administration systematized and massively expanded the practice in 2018 before walking it back in the face of widespread outrage .
Trump also repeatedly said the Obama administration was responsible for constructing the cages where children were detained by the Trump administration .
As the Washington Post ’ s Philip Bump noted , “ It ’ s true that , in 2014 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ border prompted the Obama-Biden administration to build systems to house them while they were processed.
” “ But Trump ’ s conflation of ‘ building the cages ’ with ‘ using them to house kids taken from their parents ’ is obviously ludicrous , ” Bump added , “ like excusing kidnapping a dozen people in your basement by arguing that you didn ’ t build your house.
” Paola Luisi , director of the Families Belong Together coalition , said in a statement late Thursday that “ Trump yet again lied on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , despite the 545 children going to sleep alone tonight as a result of his policies.
” “ The Trump administration ripped them away from their parents , lied about it , then lost track of them as they deported them into danger , ” said Luisi .
“ The Trump immigration agenda is defined by cruelty : it ’ s responsible for six children dying in cages , forced women into unnecessary surgeries including sterilizations , continued deportation flights in the middle of a pandemic .
Cruelty was always the plan .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ — it ’ s time our elected officials uphold that.
” Biden , who slammed the Trump administration ’ s family separations as “ criminal , ” was also questioned on the Obama administration ’ s immigration policies , with moderator Kristen Welker noting that Obama “ presided over record deportations , as well as family detentions at the border.
” “ We made a mistake , ” replied the former vice president .
“ It took too long to get it right… I ’ ll be president of the United States , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And the fact is I ’ ve made it very clear : Within a 100 days , I ’ m going to send to the United States Congress a pathway to citizenship for over 11 million undocumented people .
”

The president had already openly declared in 2018 that “you have to take the children away.”
Pressed during Thursday night’s final 2020 presidential debate to account for his administration’s record of separating immigrant families at the U.S.-Mexico border, President Donald Trump repeatedly attempted to evade responsibility by lying about the origins of the inhumane practice, smearing those harmed by it, and attempting to shift blame onto Democratic opponent Joe Biden.
In response to a question about the more than 500 parents who have yet to be found after they were separated from their children under Trump administration’s “zero tolerance policy” — which forcibly broke up thousands of families before it was halted in June of 2018 — President Donald Trump said that “children are brought here by coyotes and lots of bad people, cartels,” a claim immigrant rights groups rejected.
“Fact check: Migrant children separated by the Trump administration during Zero Tolerance came with their families, not coyotes,” the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services tweeted. “We know. We worked with the children who were sent to shelters after being separated. Facts matter.”
The president — who openly declared in 2018 that “you have to take the children away” — went on to claim Thursday that the White House is “trying very hard” to reunite the families it separated, contradicting the accounts of attorneys who say the administration is not helping in their ongoing search for missing parents.
In an effort to divert attention from his administration’s role in the family separations — which drew international outrage as they were carried out in 2018 — Trump falsely claimed that the “zero tolerance” policy originated under the Obama administration.
“They did it. We changed the policy,” Trump said. “They did it. We changed.”
The Obama administration did separate families at the border, but the Trump administration systematized and massively expanded the practice in 2018 before walking it back in the face of widespread outrage.
Trump also repeatedly said the Obama administration was responsible for constructing the cages where children were detained by the Trump administration. As the Washington Post’s Philip Bump noted, “It’s true that, in 2014, a surge in children arriving at the border prompted the Obama-Biden administration to build systems to house them while they were processed.”
“But Trump’s conflation of ‘building the cages’ with ‘using them to house kids taken from their parents’ is obviously ludicrous,” Bump added, “like excusing kidnapping a dozen people in your basement by arguing that you didn’t build your house.”
Trump never answered @kwelkernbc’s question about how he’ll reunite them because he doesn’t have a plan. Worse, right now they couldn’t if they wanted to. They cannot be reached, because their record keeping was so shoddy. — Jacob Soboroff (@jacobsoboroff) October 23, 2020
Paola Luisi, director of the Families Belong Together coalition, said in a statement late Thursday that “Trump yet again lied on stage denying his role in family separation, despite the 545 children going to sleep alone tonight as a result of his policies.”
“The Trump administration ripped them away from their parents, lied about it, then lost track of them as they deported them into danger,” said Luisi. “The Trump immigration agenda is defined by cruelty: it’s responsible for six children dying in cages, forced women into unnecessary surgeries including sterilizations, continued deportation flights in the middle of a pandemic. Cruelty was always the plan. The American people believe families belong together — it’s time our elected officials uphold that.”
Biden, who slammed the Trump administration’s family separations as “criminal,” was also questioned on the Obama administration’s immigration policies, with moderator Kristen Welker noting that Obama “presided over record deportations, as well as family detentions at the border.”
“We made a mistake,” replied the former vice president. “It took too long to get it right… I’ll be president of the United States, not vice president of the United States. And the fact is I’ve made it very clear: Within a 100 days, I’m going to send to the United States Congress a pathway to citizenship for over 11 million undocumented people.”
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--2020-10-23--Trump’s Lawyers Want Trump’s Judges to Limit Voting

In March , President Donald Trump phoned into the show “ Fox & Friends ” on Fox News to talk about his negotiations over a coronavirus aid bill .
Democrats in Congress had been pushing to include billions to assist states in expanding mail-in voting , ensuring voters wouldn ’ t have to risk exposure to the virus on Election Day .
Trump was adamant that he wouldn ’ t sign a bill that helped expand voting .
“ The things they had in there were crazy , ” Trump said .
“ They had things , levels of voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to it , you ’ d never have a Republican elected in this country again.
” Trump was laying out a strategy that Republicans would use in the courts that would make it more difficult to vote .
In more than 300 voting cases nationally , they ’ ve either filed suit to strike election rules that encourage higher voter turnout , or opposed lawsuits from voting rights advocates that would expand voting .
Leaders of some large corporations like Blackstone and Charles Schwab are bankrolling the legal fight to keep people from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are being heard by judges that were appointed by Trump and confirmed by a Republican Senate that has been almost singularly focused on packing the judiciary with conservatives after holding positions vacant during the Obama administration .
The Trump campaign and Republican National Committee ( RNC ) have pushed one narrative in a raft of nearly identical lawsuits from California to Pennsylvania all tied around limiting mail-in voting .
The central theme : claims , without evidence , that widely used mail-in voting would lead to massive voter fraud .
Independent reviews of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in five states that already vote almost exclusively that way , have found the crime to be incredibly rare , including less than 0.0009 % of votes according to a study by the Brennan Center for Justice .
Under a heading that appears in several of the suits , the RNC and the Trump campaign , joined by local Republicans , warn about “ The Perils of Hastily Moving to Universal Vote-By-Mail Without Necessary Safeguards.
” The complaints allege that mistakes in voter rolls , and issues with mail delivery , “ have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and are incredibly difficult to detect.
” The commonalities in the complaints stood out to Danielle Lang , a litigator with the Campaign Legal Center ( CLC ) who has faced off against Republican legal teams in several of the cases .
“ A number of the lawsuits … have pages and pages of copy-and-paste from one lawsuit to another , ” she said during a recent event hosted by CLC , a nonpartisan voting rights advocacy group , in response to a question posed by the Center for Public Integrity .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be on the other side of those and see the same allegations , fearmongering about vote by mail security with exactly the same paragraphs , whether they are suing in Montana or New Jersey , ” she said .
Some of the judges have expressed frustration at the generic language in Republican complaints .
“ When pressed during the hearing in this matter , the Plaintiffs were compelled to concede that they can not point to a single instance of voter fraud in Montana in any election during the last 20 years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama appointee to the United States District Court in Montana , wrote in his order rejecting the RNC ’ s complaint in that state .
Although the lawsuits continue to draw attention to Trump ’ s claims of voting fraud , they haven ’ t been broadly successful at changing voting rules , according to Rick Hasen , an election law expert who is a professor at the University of California , Irvine School of Law .
“ The Trump campaign and Republicans have lost every claim so far where they have tried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for easier voting during the pandemic is unconstitutional because it would facilitate voter fraud , ” Hasen noted in an email .
“ Both Democratic and Republican appointed judges have found that the Trump claim did not present any reliable evidence of a large problem with fraud.
” Republicans have been successful in maintaining stricter voting rules in some states , and preventing expansion in others , by mostly arguing over whether state legislatures and governors can change voting rules during an election year .
About a quarter of the judges sitting on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump , which he touts as a major accomplishment .
It ’ s a number that was reached through maneuvering by both Democratic and Republican Senate leaders .
In 2013 , frustrated by a Republican strategy of blocking Obama nominees , then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid invoked a rule change that eliminated the Senate ’ s filibuster rule for appointing judges to the federal bench , dropping the threshold to a simple majority , while keeping the 60-vote requirement for Supreme Court appointees .
Although Trump has filled 194 vacancies on the federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the 312 judges Obama appointed during his eight years in office who are currently serving , representing nearly 40 % of the bench .
In one voting rights case , Trump ’ s success in appointing judges has paid immediate dividends .
In 2018 , Florida voters approved a state constitutional amendment that would restore voting rights to felons after they had completed their terms in prison .
That meant 1.4 million Floridians , disproportionately people of color , who historically have voted overwhelmingly for Democrats , would have a chance to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Republican-controlled legislature , encouraged by Republican Gov .
Ron DeSantis , in 2019 passed a new law in response , requiring those seeking to regain voting eligibility pay all outstanding fines and fees .
Voting rights advocates called it a modern-day poll tax , and one that would be difficult to even comply with because court records are difficult to access and many don ’ t know how much they owe .
Voting rights advocates filed suit and convinced a judge to overturn the 2019 law .
But the state took the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Appeals , and in a 6-to-4 decision , it overturned the lower court ’ s ruling , allowing Florida to keep its fines and fees requirement .
Five of the six judges who voted in favor of allowing the fees to stand were appointed by Trump .
The sixth , Chief Judge William Pryor , was publicly named by Trump in 2016 as a potential nominee to the Supreme Court .
Lawyers fighting the law had pushed for three of Trump ’ s appointees to the court to recuse themselves from the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue .
Two of the three judges chose not to recuse themselves , which ended up being the margin of victory for DeSantis .
The result is that upward of 770,000 Floridians , more than half the newly enfranchised total , may not be able to vote this year .
The influence of Trump-appointed judges might not be limited to cases shaping voting rules ahead of the election .
The RNC is preparing teams of lawyers to fan out across the country to contest results on Election Day and beyond , ready to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballots are tallied .
Some experts anticipate the counting lasting for days or even weeks after the election .
The lawsuits that might be brought would likely get a boost from a 2014 rule change allowing national political parties to collect large donations in a party legal fund .
The fund has been put to work fighting a wide range of court battles during Trump ’ s term in office , from combating accusations of sexual harassment by a former Trump campaign aid , to legal wrangling around the Russia investigation .
Before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a maximum donation of $ 2,800 for RNC or Democratic National Committee legal needs , but the special funding mechanism approved that year and pushed by Democratic lawyer Marc Elias , made it legal to contribute much more to each of several types of party accounts including $ 106,5000 per donor for 2020 .
Trump has dipped into those funds to pay the Washington law firm Consovoy McCarthy , which has steered the legal teams filing many of the voter-fraud focused complaints nationally .
Although the RNC is not required to disclose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firm cover , it has doled out more than $ 2.7 million to Consovoy so far in 2020 , according to federal campaign finance records .
For the 2020 election cycle , most titans of Republican politics have donated funding propping up the legal account , either directly or transferred from other campaign accounts .
Sheldon and Miriam Adelson , owners of the Sands casino groups , and the largest Republican donors for this cycle according to numbers compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics , donated a combined $ 213,000 that was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maximum permitted .
Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein , owners of the packaging products company Uline and the second-largest Republican donors , directly contributed the maximum .
Charles Schwab , CEO of the eponymous financial firm , and Stephen Schwarzman , CEO of Blackstone , each donated the maximum $ 106,500 directly to the legal fund .
Combined , more than $ 3 million had been directly donated to the RNC ’ s legal efforts through September with more than $ 20 million total being added to the fund when including donations moved from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Public Integrity analysis of Federal Election Commission records .
RNC-funded lawyers continue to challenge election provisions that make it easier to vote based on the notion of voter fraud .
A string of lawsuits in Iowa aimed at preventing county auditors from filling in voter ID numbers on absentee ballot request forms proved successful , forcing auditors to resend ballots .
Republican lawyers argued that including the numbers would make it too easy for criminals to forge ballots .
In an Aug. 31 interview with Fox News , Trump warned that Democrats were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and said that he had his own army ready to go and that he ’ d continue to wage battle in court .
“ They have more lawyers than any human being has ever hired , ” Trump said .
“ The Democrats have lawyers , and we do , too .
We ’ re in Pennsylvania right now .
We ’ re in Nevada right now .
We ’ re in all different states fighting this .
”

In more than 300 voting cases, Republicans filed to strike rules to encourage turnout and opposed lawsuits to expand it.
This article was originally published by the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit investigative news organization based in Washington, D.C.
In March, President Donald Trump phoned into the show “Fox & Friends” on Fox News to talk about his negotiations over a coronavirus aid bill. Democrats in Congress had been pushing to include billions to assist states in expanding mail-in voting, ensuring voters wouldn’t have to risk exposure to the virus on Election Day.
Trump was adamant that he wouldn’t sign a bill that helped expand voting.
“The things they had in there were crazy,” Trump said. “They had things, levels of voting that if you’d ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.”
Trump was laying out a strategy that Republicans would use in the courts that would make it more difficult to vote. In more than 300 voting cases nationally, they’ve either filed suit to strike election rules that encourage higher voter turnout, or opposed lawsuits from voting rights advocates that would expand voting.
Leaders of some large corporations like Blackstone and Charles Schwab are bankrolling the legal fight to keep people from voting, and some of the cases are being heard by judges that were appointed by Trump and confirmed by a Republican Senate that has been almost singularly focused on packing the judiciary with conservatives after holding positions vacant during the Obama administration.
The Trump campaign and Republican National Committee (RNC) have pushed one narrative in a raft of nearly identical lawsuits from California to Pennsylvania all tied around limiting mail-in voting. The central theme: claims, without evidence, that widely used mail-in voting would lead to massive voter fraud. Independent reviews of past voter fraud by mail, including in five states that already vote almost exclusively that way, have found the crime to be incredibly rare, including less than 0.0009% of votes according to a study by the Brennan Center for Justice.
Under a heading that appears in several of the suits, the RNC and the Trump campaign, joined by local Republicans, warn about “The Perils of Hastily Moving to Universal Vote-By-Mail Without Necessary Safeguards.”
The complaints allege that mistakes in voter rolls, and issues with mail delivery, “have the potential for widespread, scalable abuse and are incredibly difficult to detect.”
The commonalities in the complaints stood out to Danielle Lang, a litigator with the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) who has faced off against Republican legal teams in several of the cases.
“A number of the lawsuits … have pages and pages of copy-and-paste from one lawsuit to another,” she said during a recent event hosted by CLC, a nonpartisan voting rights advocacy group, in response to a question posed by the Center for Public Integrity.
“It’s been an interesting experience to be on the other side of those and see the same allegations, fearmongering about vote by mail security with exactly the same paragraphs, whether they are suing in Montana or New Jersey,” she said.
Some of the judges have expressed frustration at the generic language in Republican complaints.
“When pressed during the hearing in this matter, the Plaintiffs were compelled to concede that they cannot point to a single instance of voter fraud in Montana in any election during the last 20 years,” Judge Dana Christensen, an Obama appointee to the United States District Court in Montana, wrote in his order rejecting the RNC’s complaint in that state.
Although the lawsuits continue to draw attention to Trump’s claims of voting fraud, they haven’t been broadly successful at changing voting rules, according to Rick Hasen, an election law expert who is a professor at the University of California, Irvine School of Law.
“The Trump campaign and Republicans have lost every claim so far where they have tried to argue that a measure to allow for easier voting during the pandemic is unconstitutional because it would facilitate voter fraud,” Hasen noted in an email. “Both Democratic and Republican appointed judges have found that the Trump claim did not present any reliable evidence of a large problem with fraud.”
Republicans have been successful in maintaining stricter voting rules in some states, and preventing expansion in others, by mostly arguing over whether state legislatures and governors can change voting rules during an election year.
About a quarter of the judges sitting on the federal bench today were appointed by Trump, which he touts as a major accomplishment. It’s a number that was reached through maneuvering by both Democratic and Republican Senate leaders. In 2013, frustrated by a Republican strategy of blocking Obama nominees, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid invoked a rule change that eliminated the Senate’s filibuster rule for appointing judges to the federal bench, dropping the threshold to a simple majority, while keeping the 60-vote requirement for Supreme Court appointees.
Although Trump has filled 194 vacancies on the federal courts, that number is still dwarfed by the 312 judges Obama appointed during his eight years in office who are currently serving, representing nearly 40% of the bench.
In one voting rights case, Trump’s success in appointing judges has paid immediate dividends.
In 2018, Florida voters approved a state constitutional amendment that would restore voting rights to felons after they had completed their terms in prison. That meant 1.4 million Floridians, disproportionately people of color, who historically have voted overwhelmingly for Democrats, would have a chance to vote in 2020.
The state’s Republican-controlled legislature, encouraged by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, in 2019 passed a new law in response, requiring those seeking to regain voting eligibility pay all outstanding fines and fees. Voting rights advocates called it a modern-day poll tax, and one that would be difficult to even comply with because court records are difficult to access and many don’t know how much they owe.
Voting rights advocates filed suit and convinced a judge to overturn the 2019 law. But the state took the case to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, and in a 6-to-4 decision, it overturned the lower court’s ruling, allowing Florida to keep its fines and fees requirement.
Five of the six judges who voted in favor of allowing the fees to stand were appointed by Trump. The sixth, Chief Judge William Pryor, was publicly named by Trump in 2016 as a potential nominee to the Supreme Court. Lawyers fighting the law had pushed for three of Trump’s appointees to the court to recuse themselves from the case based on past legal work on the issue. Two of the three judges chose not to recuse themselves, which ended up being the margin of victory for DeSantis.
The result is that upward of 770,000 Floridians, more than half the newly enfranchised total, may not be able to vote this year.
The influence of Trump-appointed judges might not be limited to cases shaping voting rules ahead of the election. The RNC is preparing teams of lawyers to fan out across the country to contest results on Election Day and beyond, ready to file lawsuits as the masses of mail-in ballots are tallied. Some experts anticipate the counting lasting for days or even weeks after the election.
The lawsuits that might be brought would likely get a boost from a 2014 rule change allowing national political parties to collect large donations in a party legal fund. The fund has been put to work fighting a wide range of court battles during Trump’s term in office, from combating accusations of sexual harassment by a former Trump campaign aid, to legal wrangling around the Russia investigation.
Before the 2014 law, donors were limited to a maximum donation of $2,800 for RNC or Democratic National Committee legal needs, but the special funding mechanism approved that year and pushed by Democratic lawyer Marc Elias, made it legal to contribute much more to each of several types of party accounts including $106,5000 per donor for 2020. Trump has dipped into those funds to pay the Washington law firm Consovoy McCarthy, which has steered the legal teams filing many of the voter-fraud focused complaints nationally.
Although the RNC is not required to disclose which cases its payments to the law firm cover, it has doled out more than $2.7 million to Consovoy so far in 2020, according to federal campaign finance records.
For the 2020 election cycle, most titans of Republican politics have donated funding propping up the legal account, either directly or transferred from other campaign accounts. Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, owners of the Sands casino groups, and the largest Republican donors for this cycle according to numbers compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, donated a combined $213,000 that was moved into the legal account, the maximum permitted. Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein, owners of the packaging products company Uline and the second-largest Republican donors, directly contributed the maximum.
Charles Schwab, CEO of the eponymous financial firm, and Stephen Schwarzman, CEO of Blackstone, each donated the maximum $106,500 directly to the legal fund.
Combined, more than $3 million had been directly donated to the RNC’s legal efforts through September with more than $20 million total being added to the fund when including donations moved from other campaign accounts, according to a Public Integrity analysis of Federal Election Commission records.
RNC-funded lawyers continue to challenge election provisions that make it easier to vote based on the notion of voter fraud. A string of lawsuits in Iowa aimed at preventing county auditors from filling in voter ID numbers on absentee ballot request forms proved successful, forcing auditors to resend ballots. Republican lawyers argued that including the numbers would make it too easy for criminals to forge ballots.
In an Aug. 31 interview with Fox News, Trump warned that Democrats were also busy building a team of lawyers, and said that he had his own army ready to go and that he’d continue to wage battle in court.
“They have more lawyers than any human being has ever hired,” Trump said. “The Democrats have lawyers, and we do, too. We’re in Pennsylvania right now. We’re in Nevada right now. We’re in all different states fighting this.”
Chris Zubak-Skees contributed to this report.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-10-23--Nearly 1,000 Homeless People Died in LA in 2020 as 93,000 Homes Sit Vacant

In many major metropolitan areas across the United States , there are far more vacant homes than people experiencing homelessness .
This is true in New York City , it ’ s true in the Bay Area , and as our new report shows , it ’ s true in Los Angeles .
Here , there are 93,000 vacant homes compared to just over 41,000 unhoused people .
Our report , the product of a collaboration between UCLA School of Law and the community-based nonprofits Strategic Actions for a Just Economy and Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the characteristics of residential vacancies situated in the broader speculative housing market in any city in the United States .
With the news that at least 959 unhoused people have already died on the streets of Los Angeles in 2020 , it ’ s never been more critically urgent to understand how cities like LA end up with a surplus of luxury homes existing alongside tens of thousands of desperately poor families without roofs over their heads .
Our findings strongly suggest that we can not rely on the operation of the market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be housing or any other social need , because the capitalist market is the problem .
While those committed to pushing pro-market housing policies tend to argue that there will always be some vacancy as homes sit empty between residents , our numbers show that this can not explain the vacancy LA is experiencing .
We found that out of 93,000 total vacant homes , over 46,000 units are held in a state of “ non-market ” vacancy , meaning they ’ re not just in between residents waiting for someone to lease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over 12,000 homes are categorized by the census as “ for seasonal , recreational , or occasional use ” — in other words , vacation properties for the rich that mostly sit empty .
Importantly , vacancy disproportionately occurs at the top of the market , with our analysis showing a very straightforward relationship : the higher a unit ’ s rent , the more likely it is to be vacant .
In LA , like other booming cities , what ’ s getting built is in this top end of the market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Angelenos can not afford .
For example , 97 percent of the units currently under construction in the city ’ s downtown area fall under what CoStar categorizes as the “ 4 & 5 star ” class , with average rents over $ 2,800 per month .
According to CoStar ’ s calculations , these types of units have a massively high vacancy rate of over 16 percent , compared to a rate of under 5 percent for units not under this super-luxury designation .
A 2019 report by the city ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The authors find a “ dramatic difference in vacancy rates ” between high-end and mid- or low-end units , and that while thousands of units are being added to the supply of high-end housing , the stock of more moderately priced units is actually falling .
The city ’ s “ hottest housing markets ” have the highest vacancy rates , with neighborhoods like Hollywood and Venice potentially seeing rates as high as 15 percent .
The data suggest “ prolonged periods of housing units sitting idle in these neighborhoods , ” which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it takes to lease-up newly constructed units .
Another important trend we document is the increasing financialization of urban real estate .
According to data from the LA County Assessor , 67 percent of all residential units in the city are owned by corporate entities and other nonindividual investors , which is 2.5 times the national average .
Corporate entities also own 76 percent of all vacant lots in the city not owned by public entities , accounting for 22 square miles of vacant land .
More than ever , owners in LA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investment , an asset to profit off of in the future instead of a home to house someone now .
And the consequences for ordinary people are disastrous .
Neoliberal housing advocates — like “ YIMBYs ” ( Yes In My Backyard ) and market urbanists that tend to dominate mainstream accounts of the crisis — suggest that we can build our way out of this crisis of tenancy , of people chronically not being able to access shelter .
But if we look critically at what is getting built , we see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poor , or even middle-class Angeleno renters .
Our data suggest the benefits of producing housing at the top will not “ trickle down ” to the masses .
With so many units sitting vacant , the “ filtering ” theorized by these advocates — essentially the idea that homes at the bottom will become available and more affordable as wealthier people move into newer housing — fails to materialize .
Even if we assume that the pro-market boosters and their economic theories are right about the trickle-down effects of increasing market-rate supply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close to matching the scale of what is needed .
Take downtown LA again as an example , which has been pointed to by local real estate journalist Steven Sharp as a model for the entire region due to its building boom .
But Sharp ’ s own numbers reveal how weak his argument is : The coveted prize from all this building is that rents in the neighborhood have “ remained flat , ” while elsewhere they ’ ve gone up .
Similarly , an article from Curbed LA earlier this year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of units ” built in this neighborhood over the past years , rents are just down 1 percent .
With over 600,000 households in LA spending over 90 percent of their income on rent , the poor don ’ t have time to wait for new construction to trickle down to lower average rents .
The most vulnerable tenants need to be sheltered from the capriciousness of the market , not subjected to it .
The idea that building super-luxury homes that poor people can not afford is actually good for them is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as soon as possible .
Our report ends by calling for a strong vacancy tax , among other policies the City of LA could pursue , and clarifies the legal framework that would allow cities in California to do this despite restrictions on taxing property in the state ’ s constitution .
A vacancy tax would both incentivize owners to fill their units and raise revenue that could be put to use for social housing .
Essentially , a vacancy tax would make it more unaffordable for owners to use housing as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go much further , something that has been made especially clear as the COVID-19 pandemic has combined with the racialized precarity of the capitalist real estate market to create what is possibly the greatest ongoing wave of mass evictions and homelessness our country has ever seen .
We must see the real estate market for what it truly is : an institution rooted in settler colonialism that allows land ( and the housing that sits atop it ) to be distributed and controlled by those who have enough money for their preferences to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people sleeping on the street is a disturbing truth in many of our cities across the country .
It is imperative to not only reflect on this as coincidence , but to understand both vacancy and houselessness as co-produced by the larger system .

In many major metropolitan areas across the United States, there are far more vacant homes than people experiencing homelessness.
This is true in New York City, it’s true in the Bay Area, and as our new report shows, it’s true in Los Angeles. Here, there are 93,000 vacant homes compared to just over 41,000 unhoused people.
Our report, the product of a collaboration between UCLA School of Law and the community-based nonprofits Strategic Actions for a Just Economy and Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, is perhaps the most detailed look yet at the characteristics of residential vacancies situated in the broader speculative housing market in any city in the United States.
With the news that at least 959 unhoused people have already died on the streets of Los Angeles in 2020, it’s never been more critically urgent to understand how cities like LA end up with a surplus of luxury homes existing alongside tens of thousands of desperately poor families without roofs over their heads.
Our findings strongly suggest that we cannot rely on the operation of the market to fix our problems, whether it be housing or any other social need, because the capitalist market is the problem.
While those committed to pushing pro-market housing policies tend to argue that there will always be some vacancy as homes sit empty between residents, our numbers show that this cannot explain the vacancy LA is experiencing.
We found that out of 93,000 total vacant homes, over 46,000 units are held in a state of “non-market” vacancy, meaning they’re not just in between residents waiting for someone to lease or buy them. Of these, over 12,000 homes are categorized by the census as “for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use” — in other words, vacation properties for the rich that mostly sit empty.
Importantly, vacancy disproportionately occurs at the top of the market, with our analysis showing a very straightforward relationship: the higher a unit’s rent, the more likely it is to be vacant.
In Los Angeles there are 93,000 vacant homes compared to just over 41,000 unhoused people.
In LA, like other booming cities, what’s getting built is in this top end of the market — the incredibly expensive homes that most Angelenos cannot afford. For example, 97 percent of the units currently under construction in the city’s downtown area fall under what CoStar categorizes as the “4 & 5 star” class, with average rents over $2,800 per month. According to CoStar’s calculations, these types of units have a massively high vacancy rate of over 16 percent, compared to a rate of under 5 percent for units not under this super-luxury designation.
A 2019 report by the city’s Housing Department comes to similar conclusions. The authors find a “dramatic difference in vacancy rates” between high-end and mid- or low-end units, and that while thousands of units are being added to the supply of high-end housing, the stock of more moderately priced units is actually falling. The city’s “hottest housing markets” have the highest vacancy rates, with neighborhoods like Hollywood and Venice potentially seeing rates as high as 15 percent. The data suggest “prolonged periods of housing units sitting idle in these neighborhoods,” which cannot be explained by the time it takes to lease-up newly constructed units.
Another important trend we document is the increasing financialization of urban real estate. According to data from the LA County Assessor, 67 percent of all residential units in the city are owned by corporate entities and other nonindividual investors, which is 2.5 times the national average. Corporate entities also own 76 percent of all vacant lots in the city not owned by public entities, accounting for 22 square miles of vacant land.
More than ever, owners in LA see housing and land as a speculative investment, an asset to profit off of in the future instead of a home to house someone now. And the consequences for ordinary people are disastrous.
Neoliberal housing advocates — like “YIMBYs” (Yes In My Backyard) and market urbanists that tend to dominate mainstream accounts of the crisis — suggest that we can build our way out of this crisis of tenancy, of people chronically not being able to access shelter. But if we look critically at what is getting built, we see that it will never provide relief for poor, or even middle-class Angeleno renters.
We cannot rely on the operation of the market to fix our problems because the capitalist market is the problem.
Our data suggest the benefits of producing housing at the top will not “trickle down” to the masses. With so many units sitting vacant, the “filtering” theorized by these advocates — essentially the idea that homes at the bottom will become available and more affordable as wealthier people move into newer housing — fails to materialize.
Even if we assume that the pro-market boosters and their economic theories are right about the trickle-down effects of increasing market-rate supply, the supposed benefits will never come close to matching the scale of what is needed. Take downtown LA again as an example, which has been pointed to by local real estate journalist Steven Sharp as a model for the entire region due to its building boom. But Sharp’s own numbers reveal how weak his argument is: The coveted prize from all this building is that rents in the neighborhood have “remained flat,” while elsewhere they’ve gone up. Similarly, an article from Curbed LA earlier this year admits that despite the “incredible amount of units” built in this neighborhood over the past years, rents are just down 1 percent.
With over 600,000 households in LA spending over 90 percent of their income on rent, the poor don’t have time to wait for new construction to trickle down to lower average rents. The most vulnerable tenants need to be sheltered from the capriciousness of the market, not subjected to it. The idea that building super-luxury homes that poor people cannot afford is actually good for them is a fiction that must be dispensed with as soon as possible.
Our report ends by calling for a strong vacancy tax, among other policies the City of LA could pursue, and clarifies the legal framework that would allow cities in California to do this despite restrictions on taxing property in the state’s constitution. A vacancy tax would both incentivize owners to fill their units and raise revenue that could be put to use for social housing. Essentially, a vacancy tax would make it more unaffordable for owners to use housing as a speculative investment.
But we need to go much further, something that has been made especially clear as the COVID-19 pandemic has combined with the racialized precarity of the capitalist real estate market to create what is possibly the greatest ongoing wave of mass evictions and homelessness our country has ever seen.
We must see the real estate market for what it truly is: an institution rooted in settler colonialism that allows land (and the housing that sits atop it) to be distributed and controlled by those who have enough money for their preferences to matter. That vacant homes coexist alongside people sleeping on the street is a disturbing truth in many of our cities across the country. It is imperative to not only reflect on this as coincidence, but to understand both vacancy and houselessness as co-produced by the larger system.
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.