truthout--2020-09-03--NSA Surveillance Program Exposed by Snowden was Illegal, Rules Appeals Court

An appeals court ruled Wednesday that a National Security Agency ( NSA ) telephone dragnet program designed to collect data on millions of American citizens without warrants violates a law specially designed to prevent abuse of the government ’ s spying capabilities .
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the NSA ’ s program may have violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ( FISA ) .
The program , the three-judge panel ruled , may have also been unconstitutional .
The ruling focused on the conviction of four individuals who alleged evidence used against them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ program .
The Ninth Circuit Court ’ s ruling noted that the way in which the federal government obtained information through the warrantless program was indeed illegal , but rejected overturning their convictions , noting that very little evidence from the program was actually used in their prosecution .
“ This ruling , which confirms what we have always known , is a victory for our privacy rights , ” the ACLU tweeted .
Judge Marsha Berzon , who wrote the opinion of the court , made numerous citations to the leaks of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who became a whistleblower by exposing the program ’ s existence in 2013 .
Prior Snowden leaking information to The Guardian , the NSA and other government agencies vociferously denied the existence of a broad program to collect data on U.S. citizens .
“ Snowden ’ s disclosure of the metadata program prompted significant public debate over the appropriate scope of government surveillance , ” Berzon wrote , noting that the revelation prompted Congress to pass a bill in 2015 formally ending the program .
Snowden fled to Russia to avoid federal prosecution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continues to face espionage charges in the U.S. , but in 2019 expressed a desire to someday return to his home country .
Upon learning the news that the Ninth Circuit Court had ruled against the program he had exposed , Snowden posted a tweet demonstrating a modest sense of vindication .
“ Seven years ago , as the news declared I was being charged as a criminal for speaking the truth , I never imagined that I would live to see our courts condemn the NSA ’ s activities as unlawful and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exposing them , ” Snowden wrote .
“ And yet that day has arrived.
” In addition to a number of progressive organizations and voices in support of Snowden , journalist Glenn Greenwald also noted that a number of right-wing voices were also calling for him to receive a reprieve of some kind for exposing the NSA program , including Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Thomas Massie , both Republicans from Kentucky , as well as from Rep. Matt Gaetz ( R-Florida ) .
Trump has signaled in the past that he is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In an interview with Democracy Now !
from 2019 , Snowden explained why he felt it was necessary to speak out about the program .
“ Eventually , I realized the U.S. government had stopped caring about what they should do , and instead were pursuing , as aggressively as possible , what they could do , ” he said .
“ And this meant every time you made a phone call , the NSA literally got a copy of it delivered to them the next day.
” He further elaborated in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his experience was that democratic rights in the United States weren ’ t — and still aren ’ t — as strong as some people perceive them to be .
“ These revelations were never about surveillance .
Surveillance was the mechanism , it was the grounds for discussion .
But the actual topic that was coming into conflict was democracy , ” he said .

The court gave credit to the whistleblower for helping to uncover and end the program.
An appeals court ruled Wednesday that a National Security Agency (NSA) telephone dragnet program designed to collect data on millions of American citizens without warrants violates a law specially designed to prevent abuse of the government’s spying capabilities.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the NSA’s program may have violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The program, the three-judge panel ruled, may have also been unconstitutional.
The ruling focused on the conviction of four individuals who alleged evidence used against them in their case was gathered through the program. The Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling noted that the way in which the federal government obtained information through the warrantless program was indeed illegal but rejected overturning their convictions, noting that very little evidence from the program was actually used in their prosecution.
“This ruling, which confirms what we have always known, is a victory for our privacy rights,” the ACLU tweeted.
Judge Marsha Berzon, who wrote the opinion of the court, made numerous citations to the leaks of Edward Snowden, a former NSA contractor who became a whistleblower by exposing the program’s existence in 2013. Prior to Snowden leaking information to The Guardian, the NSA and other government agencies vociferously denied the existence of a broad program to collect data on U.S. citizens.
“Snowden’s disclosure of the metadata program prompted significant public debate over the appropriate scope of government surveillance,” Berzon wrote, noting that the revelation prompted Congress to pass a bill in 2015 formally ending the program.
Snowden fled to Russia to avoid federal prosecution for revealing the controversial program. He continues to face espionage charges in the U.S., but in 2019 expressed a desire to someday return to his home country.
Upon learning the news that the Ninth Circuit Court had ruled against the program he had exposed, Snowden posted a tweet demonstrating a modest sense of vindication.
“Seven years ago, as the news declared I was being charged as a criminal for speaking the truth, I never imagined that I would live to see our courts condemn the NSA’s activities as unlawful and in the same ruling credit me for exposing them,” Snowden wrote. “And yet that day has arrived.”
In addition to a number of progressive organizations and voices in support of Snowden, journalist Glenn Greenwald also noted that a number of right-wing voices were also calling for him to receive a reprieve of some kind for exposing the NSA program, including Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Thomas Massie, both Republicans from Kentucky, as well as from Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Florida).
“Edward @Snowden deserves a pardon from President [Donald Trump],” the congressman wrote.
Trump has signaled in the past that he is considering issuing a pardon for the whistleblower.
In an interview with Democracy Now! from 2019, Snowden explained why he felt it was necessary to speak out about the program.
“Eventually, I realized the U.S. government had stopped caring about what they should do, and instead were pursuing, as aggressively as possible, what they could do,” he said. “And this meant every time you made a phone call, the NSA literally got a copy of it delivered to them the next day.”
He further elaborated in the interview that the main lesson from his experience was that democratic rights in the United States weren’t — and still aren’t — as strong as some people perceive them to be.
“These revelations were never about surveillance. Surveillance was the mechanism, it was the grounds for discussion. But the actual topic that was coming into conflict was democracy,” he said.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-09-03--Plutocrats Control the US Political System, But They Can Still Be Defeated

The U.S. populace leans strongly to the left , yet the right-wing Republican Party continues to win elections , control government and enact a far right policy agenda .
For example , in 2001 and 2003 , and again in 2017 , Republicans enacted tax cuts that delivered 80 percent of the benefits to the richest 1 percent , which even most Republicans don ’ t favor .
How is this possible in a representative democracy ?
Several things are at work here .
First , since 1980 , we have witnessed the rise of a tiny class of super-wealthy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 1 percent among us owns wealth about equal to what ’ s held by the bottom 90 percent .
These superrich individuals have used their wealth to jigger the rules of money-in-politics , gaining unprecedented political power in both major parties .
The superrich no longer even have to spend their money to wield power ; they can just whisper in the ear of anyone running for office , “ We have unlimited funds to work for you or against you .
It ’ s your choice.
” To be blunt , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The opinions of ordinary people count for essentially nothing in making public policy .
To maintain their political power and enact their unpopular agenda , the tiny band of plutocrats has stoked the fires of white identity and sabotaged democracy .
As described by Yale University ’ s Jacob Hacker and University of California , Berkeley ’ s Paul Pierson in their important new book , Let Them Eat Tweets , the plutocrats invented “ plutocratic populism , ” making strident , alarmist appeals to white identity .
They “ encouraged white backlash @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voter mobilization to the National Rifle Association , white Christian evangelicals and the burgeoning industry of extreme right-wing media .
When that proved insufficient , they used a wide variety of dirty tricks to disenfranchise voters .
“ In short , Republicans used white identity to defend wealth inequality .
They undermined democracy to uphold plutocracy , ” Hacker and Pierson write .
And , most importantly , they succeeded .
Second , the plutocrats remade the Republican Party into something unique in U.S. history .
From 1854 to 1960 , the Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moderates , conservatives and even some liberals .
Consider these planks from the 1956 Republican Party platform : • “ America does not prosper unless all Americans prosper.
” • “ …as President Eisenhower has said , ‘ Labor is the United States .
The men and women who , with their minds , their hearts and hands , create the wealth that is shared in this country — they are America.
’ ” • “ The protection of the right of workers to organize into unions and to bargain collectively is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Administration.
” • “ The Eisenhower Administration will continue to fight [ to ] … Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of sex ; ” • “ We condemn illegal lobbying for any cause and improper use of money in political activities [ . ]
” • “ The Republican Party … commits itself anew to advancing the rights of all our people regardless of race , creed , color or national origin.
” • “ The Republican Party supports an immigration policy which is in keeping with the traditions of America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and which is based on equality of treatment , freedom from implications of discrimination between racial , nationality , and religious groups [ . ]
” Republican policies in 1956 never matched their liberal platform language .
Still , can anyone imagine modern Republicans even putting forward such ideas ?
After 1960 , the Republican Party morphed into a conservative ideological monolith that no longer tolerates moderates of any kind .
The party now stands for only two big ideas : Government must be made as ineffective as possible because competent , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white supremacy ; and “ liberty ” means freedom of white person ( including corporations , now defined as persons ) to do as he pleases , regardless of the consequences for others .
( The use of “ he ” in that last sentence was not a mistake . )
Third , Democrats have often represented diverse populations , including organized labor , small farmers , Black people , immigrants , feminists , environmentalists , the urban poor and working class , Catholics , and more .
Understandably , this has made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a simple agenda .
These groups formed the functional base of the party , turning out the vote .
They understood that the purpose of the party was to gain political power to deliver benefits to its many varied constituents .
In recent years , the party has become home to a more educated technocratic elite who are less inclined to join in the day-to-day work of turning out the vote and delivering results for the party ’ s constituents .
In his recent book , Politics Is for Power , Eitan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political hobbyism , ” which is now largely enabled by social media .
Political hobbyists tend to be well educated , male , and centrist or liberal .
They “ follow the news , join an email list , make an occasional financial contribution , or attend a one-off rally , but they will shy away from deeper organizational engagement , ” Hersh writes .
Political hobbyism harms democracy by diverting well-meaning people away from the pursuit of political power , which is still the purpose of political engagement in a democracy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who want it more than they do .
Yes , they are spending time on politics — often several hours each day — but without serious purpose .
As a contrasting example of serious and insidious political engagement on the right , Hersh describes a Ku Klux Klan chapter in North Carolina that is working to win over voters by offering help to those addicted to opioids .
Fourth , liberals and progressives have not mounted a stirring and convincing defense of government .
Every program that liberals and progressives favor will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The pandemic , the climate crisis , revitalizing life and work in the rural heartland , rebuilding the national infrastructure , extending broadband access to everyone , providing sufficient affordable housing , eliminating poverty and hunger , ending discrimination — every solution involves government .
We can not do these things alone , and government is how we do things together .
Yet , progressives and liberals have allowed the right to discredit and debilitate government murderously and relentlessly without offering any effective response .
Fifth , the Republican right has spent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , TV and radio stations , policy shops , and phony grassroots organizations to gain and hold power .
Right-wing funders have built organizations while many funders on the left have supported specific projects , not organizations , without thought for building political power .
What is to be done ?
First , it ’ s all hands on deck to protect the integrity of the November election .
The future of democracy hangs in the balance .
We can prepare for one party to claim victory on election night , and then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the election results shift to the other party .
Get ready ; get involved in protecting the integrity of the 2020 election .
Second , as radical-right-operative-turned-moderate-blogger Jerry Taylor has pointed out , Republican policy proposals are always designed to reduce Democrats ’ power .
“ Right-to-work ” laws , campaign finance regulations , tort reform , promoting conservative judges — all Republican proposals aim to weaken Democrats ’ political power .
Democrats don ’ t design their policies this way , allowing Republican power to develop unchecked .
But that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plutocracy would be to eliminate private money from our political system — not just elections , but the revolving door between elected office and corporate jobs , strict limits on lobbyists , and so on .
The best way to do this would be to label it what it is : corruption .
Then mount a massive anti-corruption campaign .
Ordinary people on both left and right oppose corruption , so a left-right coalition can be built to end corruption , to get private money out of politics .
The American Anti-Corruption Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it pertains at all levels of government — municipal , county , state and national .
The Represent.us website is a gold mine of good ideas , videos and evidence that plutocrats can be defeated if we get together .
Many conservatives oppose corruption , but conservatives by themselves are not going to eliminate private money from the system .
To end corruption , progressives would have to mount a tremendous coordinated campaign because big money has bought Congress and owns all the mass media .
Until we climb out of our silos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we will continue to win occasional small victories but also continue to lose our democracy bit by bit , piece by piece , until eventually every one of our wins has been reversed , as has happened with voting rights .
Convincing progressives of this reality is the major task before us .
If progressives don ’ t become convinced that every progressive issue depends upon eliminating private money from our political system — and that an unprecedented , coordinated campaign is the only way to do it – then democracy will very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arguably from the Earth .
The radical right has already set in motion its long-term plan for perpetual minority rule .
They are decades ahead of us , but they can still be defeated .
After we get private money out of politics , then we can work on creating a real democracy built on “ one person , one vote , no exceptions.
” The people who set out to eliminate majority rule from the U.S. political system have been creative and thorough in developing many devious ways to deny the vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — the young , people of color , immigrants , those with disabilities and anyone with low income .
Guaranteeing everyone the right to vote will be complicated and will require organized eternal vigilance .
Big money will never stop trying to weasel its way back in , to restore plutocracy , to control everything .

Until we climb out of our silos and mount a massive cross-issue campaign, we will continue to lose our democracy.
The U.S. populace leans strongly to the left, yet the right-wing Republican Party continues to win elections, control government and enact a far right policy agenda. For example, in 2001 and 2003, and again in 2017, Republicans enacted tax cuts that delivered 80 percent of the benefits to the richest 1 percent, which even most Republicans don’t favor. How is this possible in a representative democracy?
Several things are at work here.
First, since 1980, we have witnessed the rise of a tiny class of super-wealthy individuals. Now, the richest one-tenth of 1 percent among us owns wealth about equal to what’s held by the bottom 90 percent. These superrich individuals have used their wealth to jigger the rules of money-in-politics, gaining unprecedented political power in both major parties.
The superrich no longer even have to spend their money to wield power; they can just whisper in the ear of anyone running for office, “We have unlimited funds to work for you or against you. It’s your choice.” To be blunt, we now live in a plutocracy. The opinions of ordinary people count for essentially nothing in making public policy.
To maintain their political power and enact their unpopular agenda, the tiny band of plutocrats has stoked the fires of white identity and sabotaged democracy. As described by Yale University’s Jacob Hacker and University of California, Berkeley’s Paul Pierson in their important new book, Let Them Eat Tweets, the plutocrats invented “plutocratic populism,” making strident, alarmist appeals to white identity. They “encouraged white backlash and anti-government extremism,” and outsourced voter mobilization to the National Rifle Association, white Christian evangelicals and the burgeoning industry of extreme right-wing media.
When that proved insufficient, they used a wide variety of dirty tricks to disenfranchise voters. “In short, Republicans used white identity to defend wealth inequality. They undermined democracy to uphold plutocracy,” Hacker and Pierson write. And, most importantly, they succeeded.
Second, the plutocrats remade the Republican Party into something unique in U.S. history. From 1854 to 1960, the Republicans represented a coalition of interest groups including moderates, conservatives and even some liberals. Consider these planks from the 1956 Republican Party platform:
“America does not prosper unless all Americans prosper.”
“…as President Eisenhower has said, ‘Labor is the United States. The men and women who, with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country — they are America.’”
“The protection of the right of workers to organize into unions and to bargain collectively is the firm and permanent policy of the Eisenhower Administration.”
“The Eisenhower Administration will continue to fight [to] … Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of sex;”
“We condemn illegal lobbying for any cause and improper use of money in political activities[.]”
“The Republican Party … commits itself anew to advancing the rights of all our people regardless of race, creed, color or national origin.”
“The Republican Party supports an immigration policy which is in keeping with the traditions of America in providing a haven for oppressed peoples, and which is based on equality of treatment, freedom from implications of discrimination between racial, nationality, and religious groups[.]”
Republican policies in 1956 never matched their liberal platform language. Still, can anyone imagine modern Republicans even putting forward such ideas?
After 1960, the Republican Party morphed into a conservative ideological monolith that no longer tolerates moderates of any kind. The party now stands for only two big ideas: Government must be made as ineffective as possible because competent, responsive government could threaten both plutocracy and white supremacy; and “liberty” means freedom of white person (including corporations, now defined as persons) to do as he pleases, regardless of the consequences for others. (The use of “he” in that last sentence was not a mistake.)
Third, Democrats have often represented diverse populations, including organized labor, small farmers, Black people, immigrants, feminists, environmentalists, the urban poor and working class, Catholics, and more. Understandably, this has made it hard for the party to agree on a simple agenda. These groups formed the functional base of the party, turning out the vote. They understood that the purpose of the party was to gain political power to deliver benefits to its many varied constituents.
In recent years, the party has become home to a more educated technocratic elite who are less inclined to join in the day-to-day work of turning out the vote and delivering results for the party’s constituents. In his recent book, Politics Is for Power, Eitan Hersh of Tufts University calls this “political hobbyism,” which is now largely enabled by social media.
Political hobbyists tend to be well educated, male, and centrist or liberal. They “follow the news, join an email list, make an occasional financial contribution, or attend a one-off rally, but they will shy away from deeper organizational engagement,” Hersh writes.
Political hobbyism harms democracy by diverting well-meaning people away from the pursuit of political power, which is still the purpose of political engagement in a democracy. Political hobbyists are ceding political power to those who want it more than they do. Yes, they are spending time on politics — often several hours each day — but without serious purpose. As a contrasting example of serious and insidious political engagement on the right, Hersh describes a Ku Klux Klan chapter in North Carolina that is working to win over voters by offering help to those addicted to opioids.
Fourth, liberals and progressives have not mounted a stirring and convincing defense of government. Every program that liberals and progressives favor will require the participation and partnership of government. The pandemic, the climate crisis, revitalizing life and work in the rural heartland, rebuilding the national infrastructure, extending broadband access to everyone, providing sufficient affordable housing, eliminating poverty and hunger, ending discrimination — every solution involves government.
We cannot do these things alone, and government is how we do things together. Yet, progressives and liberals have allowed the right to discredit and debilitate government murderously and relentlessly without offering any effective response.
Fifth, the Republican right has spent decades building an infrastructure of think tanks, TV and radio stations, policy shops, and phony grassroots organizations to gain and hold power. Right-wing funders have built organizations while many funders on the left have supported specific projects, not organizations, without thought for building political power.
What is to be done?
First, it’s all hands on deck to protect the integrity of the November election. The future of democracy hangs in the balance. We can prepare for one party to claim victory on election night, and then claim fraud as mail-in ballots are counted, and the election results shift to the other party. Get ready; get involved in protecting the integrity of the 2020 election.
Second, as radical-right-operative-turned-moderate-blogger Jerry Taylor has pointed out, Republican policy proposals are always designed to reduce Democrats’ power. “Right-to-work” laws, campaign finance regulations, tort reform, promoting conservative judges — all Republican proposals aim to weaken Democrats’ political power. Democrats don’t design their policies this way, allowing Republican power to develop unchecked. But that could change.
The knockout blow to plutocracy would be to eliminate private money from our political system — not just elections, but the revolving door between elected office and corporate jobs, strict limits on lobbyists, and so on. The best way to do this would be to label it what it is: corruption. Then mount a massive anti-corruption campaign.
Ordinary people on both left and right oppose corruption, so a left-right coalition can be built to end corruption, to get private money out of politics. The American Anti-Corruption Act would be a good start, and it pertains at all levels of government — municipal, county, state and national. The Represent.us website is a gold mine of good ideas, videos and evidence that plutocrats can be defeated if we get together.
Many conservatives oppose corruption, but conservatives by themselves are not going to eliminate private money from the system. To end corruption, progressives would have to mount a tremendous coordinated campaign because big money has bought Congress and owns all the mass media.
Until we climb out of our silos and mount a massive cross-issue campaign, we will continue to win occasional small victories but also continue to lose our democracy bit by bit, piece by piece, until eventually every one of our wins has been reversed, as has happened with voting rights.
Convincing progressives of this reality is the major task before us.
If progressives don’t become convinced that every progressive issue depends upon eliminating private money from our political system — and that an unprecedented, coordinated campaign is the only way to do it – then democracy will very likely perish permanently from the U.S. and arguably from the Earth. The radical right has already set in motion its long-term plan for perpetual minority rule. They are decades ahead of us, but they can still be defeated.
After we get private money out of politics, then we can work on creating a real democracy built on “one person, one vote, no exceptions.” The people who set out to eliminate majority rule from the U.S. political system have been creative and thorough in developing many devious ways to deny the vote to everyone suspected of tending toward progressivism — the young, people of color, immigrants, those with disabilities and anyone with low income.
Guaranteeing everyone the right to vote will be complicated and will require organized eternal vigilance. Big money will never stop trying to weasel its way back in, to restore plutocracy, to control everything.
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--2020-09-03--Trump May Have Broken the Law by Encouraging NC Residents to Try and Vote Twice

President Donald Trump on Wednesday appeared to encourage residents in North Carolina to attempt voter fraud — a felony crime — to test whether the system would catch voters who tried to cast two ballots in a single election .
“ Let them send it in and let them go vote , and if their system ’ s as good as they say it is , then obviously they won ’ t be able to vote , ” Trump suggested .
“ If it isn ’ t tabulated , they ’ ll be able to vote.
” “ And that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the president added .
Tim Murtaugh , the communications director for Trump ’ s reelection campaign , later tried to explain that Trump was trying to encourage residents to verify whether their absentee ballot was counted if they chose to vote in that manner .
“ President Trump encourages supporters to vote absentee-by-mail early , and then show up in person at the polls or the local registrar to verify that their vote has already been counted , ” Murtaugh said .
However , that is not how North Carolina checks against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballots .
A person who mails their ballot in but then tries to vote on election day will have that in-person vote counted .
The absentee ballot , which would be counted later on , will then be viewed as “ spoiled , ” and won ’ t count in the final tabulation .
Trump ’ s insistence that North Carolina voters try to vote twice in this year ’ s election would likely cause confusion and chaos for poll workers on Election Day .
It would also lead to some harsh consequences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the president is calling for — voting twice in the same election is a Class I felony in the state .
Trump ’ s own actions might be illegal , too , as state law also forbids anyone to “ induce ” someone else to vote twice with the intent to commit fraud in an election .
Rick Hasen , law professor at the University of California , Irvine School of Law , explained in a post at Election Law Blog that a case could be made that Trump ’ s words could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was encouraging people to vote both by mail and in person .
The questionable part is about his intent , ” Hasen wrote : It sounds like he was suggesting an attempt at double voting as a means of testing the integrity of the system , or assuring that his voters can cast at least one ballot for him .
Is that a fraudulent intent ?
I could see how a jury could find it to be so , especially given Trump ’ s other statements suggesting he believes that such double voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump has for several weeks made several comments questioning the integrity of this year ’ s presidential election , putting particular emphasis on doubting the efficacy and veracity of mail-in voting , suggesting — without providing proof and in spite of evidence to the contrary — that the practice is rife with fraud .
Officials within his administration , including Postmaster General Louis DeJoy , have also implemented new policies that have the potential to threaten the ability of millions of Americans to have their ballots counted on time if they vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Americans are planning to vote by mail or earlier than Election Day this year , with many being fearful about the possibility of spreading or contracting coronavirus .
An NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll published this week found that 19 percent of voters will cast their ballots early in person , while 33 percent say they will ask for an absentee ballot to vote through the mail .
Only a third of Americans are planning to vote in person on November 3 , the poll noted .

North Carolina’s safeguards against double voting do not work the way the president suggests they do.
President Trump on Wednesday appeared to encourage residents in North Carolina to attempt voter fraud — a felony crime — to test whether the system would catch voters who tried to cast two ballots in a single election.
“Let them send it in and let them go vote, and if their system’s as good as they say it is, then obviously they won’t be able to vote,” Trump suggested. “If it isn’t tabulated, they’ll be able to vote.”
“And that’s what they should do,” the president added.
Tim Murtaugh, the communications director for Trump’s reelection campaign, later tried to explain that Trump was trying to encourage residents to verify whether their absentee ballot was counted if they chose to vote in that manner.
“President Trump encourages supporters to vote absentee-by-mail early, and then show up in person at the polls or the local registrar to verify that their vote has already been counted,” Murtaugh said.
However, that is not how North Carolina checks against double voting when it comes to absentee ballots. A person who mails their ballot in but then tries to vote on election day will have that in-person vote counted. The absentee ballot, which would be counted later on, will then be viewed as “spoiled,” and won’t count in the final tabulation.
Trump’s insistence that North Carolina voters try to vote twice in this year’s election would likely cause confusion and chaos for poll workers on Election Day. It would also lead to some harsh consequences for any voter attempting to do what the president is calling for — voting twice in the same election is a Class I felony in the state.
Trump’s own actions might be illegal, too, as state law also forbids anyone to “induce” someone else to vote twice with the intent to commit fraud in an election. Rick Hasen, law professor at the University of California, Irvine School of Law, explained in a post at Election Law Blog that a case could be made that Trump’s words could be seen as such.
“He was encouraging people to vote both by mail and in person. The questionable part is about his intent,” Hasen wrote:
It sounds like he was suggesting an attempt at double voting as a means of testing the integrity of the system, or assuring that his voters can cast at least one ballot for him. Is that a fraudulent intent? I could see how a jury could find it to be so, especially given Trump’s other statements suggesting he believes that such double voting would not be caught by election officials.
Trump has for several weeks made several comments questioning the integrity of this year’s presidential election, putting particular emphasis on doubting the efficacy and veracity of mail-in voting, suggesting — without providing proof and in spite of evidence to the contrary — that the practice is rife with fraud. Officials within his administration, including Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, have also implemented new policies that have the potential to threaten the ability of millions of Americans to have their ballots counted on time if they vote absentee.
Polling suggests a high number of Americans are planning to vote by mail or earlier than Election Day this year, with many being fearful about the possibility of spreading or contracting coronavirus. An NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll published this week found that 19 percent of voters will cast their ballots early in person, while 33 percent say they will ask for an absentee ballot to vote through the mail. Only a third of Americans are planning to vote in person on November 3, the poll noted.
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--2020-09-03--Putin Wants Belarus Dictator to Retain Power — But the Masses Are Still Rising

Mass protests entered their fourth week in Belarus to demand the ouster of authoritarian President Alexander Lukashenko , who claimed victory in the country ’ s August 9 election that critics say was rigged .
But Lukashenko shows no sign of backing down , and authorities have responded to protests with violence and arrests .
Sadakat Kadri , a human rights lawyer and writer , says Russian President Vladimir Putin is invested in keeping Lukashenko in power .
“ He can ’ t afford to see Belarus fall , ” Kadri notes .
This is a rush transcript .
Copy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
, democracynow.org , The Quarantine Report .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Nermeen Shaikh .
We turn now to Belarus , where people marched and sang in Minsk on Wednesday during ongoing protests of thousands against Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko .
Protests and strikes against the authoritarian ruler , Alexander Lukashenko , have continued for weeks , since he claimed victory in the presidential election on August 9th .
Critics say his victory was rigged , but he shows no sign of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 26 years .
The state has responded to ongoing protests with violence and repression .
Masked police dragged student protesters into police vans Tuesday after thousands flooded the streets of Minsk .
Authorities have also arrested at least three factory strike leaders in recent weeks .
This comes amidst a crackdown on the media in Belarus .
Two former TV hosts were arrested in Minsk Wednesday .
At least 19 journalists who work for foreign media outlets have had their accreditation revoked , and two Associated Press reporters have been deported .
Well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ London , where we ’ re joined by Sadakat Kadri , a human rights lawyer and writer with a focus on Eastern Europe .
His recent piece on Belarus for the London Review of Books is headlined “ The revolution will not be colourised.
” Welcome to Democracy Now !
, Sadakat Kadri .
If you can just start off by laying out the scene and the situation in Belarus since that election August 9th ?
Talk about who ran in that election and what ’ s happened since .
Hundreds and hundreds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ KADRI : Sure .
Well , I mean , it ’ s the sixth election that Lukashenko has won .
He ’ s been in power now for 26 years , as you said .
It ’ s the sixth election .
It ’ s the sixth landslide .
He ’ s never won less than 77 % of the vote .
He won 80.1 % this time around .
It was kind of expected , in the sense that he ’ s been rigging elections for a very long time .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would not really react as they have , because what happened is that there were protests , as there have been protests in all the other landslides that he ’ s won , but then he came out with — his riot police came out .
They rounded up more than 7,000 people over the next few days .
There were allegations of torture , allegations of attempted rape .
I think the difference this time around is simply that people have been using social media , not just Facebook but also the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allegations of torture , the images of torture went viral .
The demonstrations kept going on .
They didn ’ t peter out as people kind of expected they would after a couple of days .
They lasted for days , then weeks .
And then the bedrock of Lukashenko ’ s support over the last few years , factory workers , they came out on strike .
Leading figures in Belarusian society — heads of the national orchestra , the national theater , the director of the national university — came out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the extent that , after a week , Lukashenko ’ s interior minister effectively apologized on national TV , said that many of the wrong people had been arrested — which is unheard of in Belarusian history .
And for about a week , there was a kind of stalemate .
There still is a kind of stalemate .
But what that means is that demonstrators are coming out every weekend , as you ’ ve said .
Since the university started again this week , students have been coming out .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to know exactly what to do , because , of course , he could try and crush the demonstrators , but I think he ’ s kind of — he realizes that all bets will be off if he uses serious force against the demonstrators , more serious force than he ’ s already used .
He ’ s been photographed in the last couple of weeks , both last weekend and this weekend , once with an assault rifle in his hand and once with a machine gun in his hand .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world to think that they need to take him seriously .
But whether or not he ’ s going to actually get his security forces to use live fire and to use more force than they already have is — it ’ s all up in the air at the moment .
I mean , there ’ s everything to play for here .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : And , Sadakat , as we mentioned in the introduction , there has been a massive crackdown on any kind of independent reporting on what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote in your London Review of Books piece , “ The revolution will not be colourised ” — you wrote , quote , “ Belarusian state media , ” meanwhile , “ are pumping out alarmist propaganda similar to that seen in Russia before the invasion of Crimea — tales of fascism on the march , and fantastically untrue claims that the Russian language is about to be sidelined.
” So , could you say more about how these protests are being covered in the media there and how people are communicating through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these protests going despite this massively brutal response by Lukashenko ’ s government ?
SADAKAT KADRI : Sure .
Well , I mean , the reason that my article was called “ The revolution will not be colourised ” is because there ’ s a narrative in Russia about what ’ s called the color revolutions .
It ’ s named after the Rose Revolution in Georgia in 2004 , the Orange Revolution in Ukraine in 2005 .
In the West , we tend to think of these as being popular revolutions where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But in Russia , they ’ re seen as something very different .
They ’ re seen as a deliberate strategy by the West to basically promote discontent , to overthrow governments which , according to the Moscow narrative , are legitimate governments .
So , they ’ re governments after very contested elections , like this 80 % majority that Lukashenko just claims to have won now .
And so , in the eyes of Putin , of people from Vladimir Putin downwards , President Putin of Russia downwards , the one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revolution like the thing that happened in Ukraine in 2014 , a color revolution .
I should say , in that context , I mean , I ’ ve been talking to quite a few Belarusians .
They ’ re very nervous themselves about being linked too closely to the Ukraine example specifically .
They don ’ t want to be thought of as being a color revolution , as being a Maidan kind of revolution like as was seen in Ukraine in 2014 .
They ’ re even nervous about being associated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ukraine , you saw a lot of European Union flags being flown at all the demonstrations .
That ’ s not happening at all in Belarus at the moment .
They ’ re saying , “ We are simply fighting for our rights .
We ’ re fighting for the election to be rerun , and to be rerun fairly .
And we ’ re confident that if it is rerun fairly , then Lukashenko will lose power.
” On the question of social media that you raised , it is very much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Spring was famously called a Twitter revolution .
I suppose Facebook has been the channel that ’ s been used more often in Central and Eastern Europe over the last few years .
But it ’ s a specific social media channel called Telegram which is making the running in Belarus at the moment .
I mean , there are thousands and thousands of people getting daily updates .
I mean , there are hundreds of updates every day , with videos , with images , telling people where to march , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the moment in Belarus .
The riot police are back out on the streets after this — after being pulled in the first week , but they aren ’ t directly confronting the demonstrators .
And the demonstrators aren ’ t directly confronting them , either .
If you look on the Telegram channels , you will actually see instructions , real-time instructions , to demonstrators to turn left on this street and to turn right on that street in order to avoid confrontations with the police .
And , of course , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I mean , you ’ ve got — Lukashenko has done his best to make up for the fact that a lot of the presenters on state TV have resigned , by bringing in “ help ” from Russia — help in inverted commas .
Basically , broadcasters from RT , the channel that used to be known as Russia Today , have flown in .
Two teams of them came in last week , I think , and one of them is still in Belarus .
And they ’ re basically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no one — no one believes it .
People are relying for their information , of course , on foreign media channels , but also just on social media , and on Telegram in particular .
NERMEEN SHAIKH : Sadakat , could you talk a little bit more about Putin ’ s relationship with Lukashenko , and also what status Belarus has , as a former Soviet republic , with Russia ?
Putin has said that he could send in police forces into Belarus .
What is at stake for Russia in these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these protests received among civil society in Russia ?
SADAKAT KADRI : Sure .
Well , everything ’ s at stake .
Everything ’ s at stake for everyone in Russia .
I mean , for Putin , he can ’ t afford to see Belarus “ fall ” — in inverted commas .
You know , Ukraine has been lost , in his eyes , to the West already , or to Europe already .
He can ’ t afford to see another former member of the Soviet Union “ fall ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using inverted commas with that .
But the position is slightly complicated by the fact that even though he and Lukashenko see eye to eye on that — neither of them want to see — least of all Lukashenko , want to see Lukashenko ’ s government fall — but Lukashenko and Putin are not friends .
Lukashenko has been in power for 26 years .
Putin has only been in power for 20 years .
As far as Lukashenko is concerned , this guy is just an upstart .
He ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theoretically in a union .
No one quite knows what the union means , because the pact of union was signed in the 1990s .
But it was signed at a time when Lukashenko thought that he would be the senior partner in the union , because his real partner was Boris Yeltsin .
And I don ’ t know if you remember , but Boris Yeltsin at that point was not a — was not , shall we say , in command of all his faculties .
He was an elderly drunkard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he was going to be running the show in years to come .
Then Putin comes along .
And we all know what ’ s happened , how Vladimir Putin has improved his fortunes over the last 20 years .
And Lukashenko ’ s reaction has been to make overtures to both the European Union and also to the United States .
As your listeners , your viewers may or may not know , Mike Pompeo made a visit to Minsk just in February of this year .
It was the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for 25 years .
And , obviously , the relations between the White House and the Kremlin are complicated , shall we say , at the moment , but Lukashenko imagined that he was playing everyone off against each other .
He can ’ t afford to do that anymore .
The game may be up for him .
So he ’ s basically turning towards Putin .
Putin can ’ t afford to let Lukashenko fall , either , so he ’ s leaning towards Lukashenko , as well .
And then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you asked .
I mean , people — opponents of Vladimir Putin , critics of Vladimir Putin are looking very carefully at what ’ s going on in Belarus at the moment .
And one of the people who ’ s looking most carefully is , in fact , Alexei Navalny , the vlogger , video blogger , who has just been allegedly poisoned by Vladimir Putin .
About a week after the election , he devoted one of his YouTube broadcasts , which regularly attracts more than several million viewers — he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Belarus and told Russians how effective it was at holding leaders to account .
Now , that ’ s not the kind of message that the Kremlin wants to hear , but it is an inspiring message for the people who are tackling corruption within Russia .
AMY GOODMAN : And then , very quickly , if you could tell us about Navalny right now , who ’ s in a coma in Germany ?
Talk about the German doctors ’ findings .
He was apparently poisoned , perhaps at the aiport @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tell us the drug that the Germans believe was used and the significance of his position in Russia , and then the fact that the opposition leader in Belarus , who ’ s now , I believe , in Lithuania , she will be addressing the U.N. tomorrow .
SADAKAT KADRI : Right , yeah .
Well , I should start by saying that the Russians who examined Navalny said that there were no toxins present at all , that it was just a case of low blood sugar levels , and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Germany .
As you say , Angela Merkel yesterday held a press conference , where she said that , beyond any doubt , he had been poisoned , it was a very serious matter , and Russia needed to answer questions .
Her spokesman had previously said that the poison that was found was a nerve agent of the Novichok variety .
Now , the reason that that ’ s significant is because Novichok came into the news — we all know about Novichok because two years ago a Russian former operative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.K. , in a town called Salisbury , was allegedly poisoned by two members of the GRU , of the security services in Russia .
And they used that poison — traces of that poison , Novichok , were found .
It ’ s a very deadly poison .
It ’ s been placed on the list of prohibited substances under the Chemical Warfare Convention .
The reason it ’ s significant is because Navalny had a lot of enemies .
There were lots of people who had reasons to poison Navalny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of thing that you get by popping down to the local drugstore .
Novichok is something which is produced only in state laboratories , as far as anyone knows , in any event .
And in any case , it ’ s not the kind of thing that should be running loose in Russia .
If Russia was serious , if Putin ’ s Russia was serious about getting to the bottom of this thing , because they say that they have nothing to do with it , of course — if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be conducting an absolutely thorough investigation now , because the idea that a weapon banned by the Chemical Warfare Convention is available to ordinary people in Russia is just — is flabbergasting .
And if that is the case , Vladimir Putin should be getting on top of this now .
AMY GOODMAN : And finally , the Belarus opposition leader , what she will be telling the U.N. , and her significance , having left Belarus ?
SADAKAT KADRI : Well , I mean , Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya is — she ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vlogger in Belarus , something kind of an equivalent of Alexei Navalny in Belarus .
She ’ s very new to this game .
She is not a politician .
She stood in because her husband ’ s candidacy was ruled out back in May or June .
He was prohibited .
He was jailed on trumped-up charges , and he was prohibited from running for president himself .
So , she stepped up to the plate .
She campaigned very effectively , huge rallies , supposedly won just 10 % of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is highly contested and almost certainly ridiculous .
What she ’ ll be saying to the United Nations , I ’ m sure , is that the pressure needs to be kept up on Lukashenko and that the election should be rerun .
AMY GOODMAN : Sadakat Kadri , I want to thank you so much for being with us , human rights lawyer , writer .
We ’ ll link to your piece in the London Review of Books , “ The revolution will not be colourised.
” When we come back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today , following Trump ’ s visit on Tuesday .
He ’ ll be meeting with the Blake family .
Stay with us .
We ’ ll be speaking with a congressmember who grew up in Kenosha .
Stay with us .

Mass protests entered their fourth week in Belarus to demand the ouster of authoritarian President Alexander Lukashenko, who claimed victory in the country’s August 9 election that critics say was rigged. But Lukashenko shows no sign of backing down, and authorities have responded to protests with violence and arrests. Sadakat Kadri, a human rights lawyer and writer, says Russian President Vladimir Putin is invested in keeping Lukashenko in power. “He can’t afford to see Belarus fall,” Kadri notes.
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The Quarantine Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.
We turn now to Belarus, where people marched and sang in Minsk on Wednesday during ongoing protests of thousands against Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko. Protests and strikes against the authoritarian ruler, Alexander Lukashenko, have continued for weeks, since he claimed victory in the presidential election on August 9th. Critics say his victory was rigged, but he shows no sign of backing down. Lukashenko has ruled for 26 years.
The state has responded to ongoing protests with violence and repression. Masked police dragged student protesters into police vans Tuesday after thousands flooded the streets of Minsk. Authorities have also arrested at least three factory strike leaders in recent weeks.
This comes amidst a crackdown on the media in Belarus. Two former TV hosts were arrested in Minsk Wednesday. At least 19 journalists who work for foreign media outlets have had their accreditation revoked, and two Associated Press reporters have been deported.
Well, for more, we go to London, where we’re joined by Sadakat Kadri, a human rights lawyer and writer with a focus on Eastern Europe. His recent piece on Belarus for the London Review of Books is headlined “The revolution will not be colourised.”
Welcome to Democracy Now!, Sadakat Kadri. If you can just start off by laying out the scene and the situation in Belarus since that election August 9th? Talk about who ran in that election and what’s happened since. Hundreds and hundreds of people have been imprisoned.
SADAKAT KADRI: Sure. Well, I mean, it’s the sixth election that Lukashenko has won. He’s been in power now for 26 years, as you said. It’s the sixth election. It’s the sixth landslide. He’s never won less than 77% of the vote. He won 80.1% this time around. It was kind of expected, in the sense that he’s been rigging elections for a very long time.
But also what was expected is that people would not really react as they have, because what happened is that there were protests, as there have been protests in all the other landslides that he’s won, but then he came out with — his riot police came out. They rounded up more than 7,000 people over the next few days. There were allegations of torture, allegations of attempted rape. I think the difference this time around is simply that people have been using social media, not just Facebook but also the social media channel Telegram. So the allegations of torture, the images of torture went viral.
The demonstrations kept going on. They didn’t peter out as people kind of expected they would after a couple of days. They lasted for days, then weeks. And then the bedrock of Lukashenko’s support over the last few years, factory workers, they came out on strike. Leading figures in Belarusian society — heads of the national orchestra, the national theater, the director of the national university — came out again in support of the demonstrators, to the extent that, after a week, Lukashenko’s interior minister effectively apologized on national TV, said that many of the wrong people had been arrested — which is unheard of in Belarusian history.
And for about a week, there was a kind of stalemate. There still is a kind of stalemate. But what that means is that demonstrators are coming out every weekend, as you’ve said. Since the university started again this week, students have been coming out. And Lukashenko doesn’t really seem to know exactly what to do, because, of course, he could try and crush the demonstrators, but I think he’s kind of — he realizes that all bets will be off if he uses serious force against the demonstrators, more serious force than he’s already used. He’s been photographed in the last couple of weeks, both last weekend and this weekend, once with an assault rifle in his hand and once with a machine gun in his hand. So he clearly wants the protesters and the world to think that they need to take him seriously. But whether or not he’s going to actually get his security forces to use live fire and to use more force than they already have is — it’s all up in the air at the moment. I mean, there’s everything to play for here.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Sadakat, as we mentioned in the introduction, there has been a massive crackdown on any kind of independent reporting on what’s going on. And you wrote in your London Review of Books piece, “The revolution will not be colourised” — you wrote, quote, “Belarusian state media,” meanwhile, “are pumping out alarmist propaganda similar to that seen in Russia before the invasion of Crimea — tales of fascism on the march, and fantastically untrue claims that the Russian language is about to be sidelined.” So, could you say more about how these protests are being covered in the media there and how people are communicating through social media or other means to keep these protests going despite this massively brutal response by Lukashenko’s government?
SADAKAT KADRI: Sure. Well, I mean, the reason that my article was called “The revolution will not be colourised” is because there’s a narrative in Russia about what’s called the color revolutions. It’s named after the Rose Revolution in Georgia in 2004, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine in 2005. In the West, we tend to think of these as being popular revolutions where people are angry with rigged votes. But in Russia, they’re seen as something very different. They’re seen as a deliberate strategy by the West to basically promote discontent, to overthrow governments which, according to the Moscow narrative, are legitimate governments. So, they’re governments after very contested elections, like this 80% majority that Lukashenko just claims to have won now. And so, in the eyes of Putin, of people from Vladimir Putin downwards, President Putin of Russia downwards, the one thing they need to avoid is another revolution like the thing that happened in Ukraine in 2014, a color revolution.
I should say, in that context, I mean, I’ve been talking to quite a few Belarusians. They’re very nervous themselves about being linked too closely to the Ukraine example specifically. They don’t want to be thought of as being a color revolution, as being a Maidan kind of revolution like as was seen in Ukraine in 2014. They’re even nervous about being associated with the European Union. In the Ukraine, you saw a lot of European Union flags being flown at all the demonstrations. That’s not happening at all in Belarus at the moment. They’re saying, “We are simply fighting for our rights. We’re fighting for the election to be rerun, and to be rerun fairly. And we’re confident that if it is rerun fairly, then Lukashenko will lose power.”
On the question of social media that you raised, it is very much a social media revolution. The Arab Spring was famously called a Twitter revolution. I suppose Facebook has been the channel that’s been used more often in Central and Eastern Europe over the last few years. But it’s a specific social media channel called Telegram which is making the running in Belarus at the moment. I mean, there are thousands and thousands of people getting daily updates. I mean, there are hundreds of updates every day, with videos, with images, telling people where to march, because it’s a cat-and-mouse game at the moment in Belarus. The riot police are back out on the streets after this — after being pulled in the first week, but they aren’t directly confronting the demonstrators. And the demonstrators aren’t directly confronting them, either. If you look on the Telegram channels, you will actually see instructions, real-time instructions, to demonstrators to turn left on this street and to turn right on that street in order to avoid confrontations with the police.
And, of course, censorship just doesn’t work anymore. I mean, you’ve got — Lukashenko has done his best to make up for the fact that a lot of the presenters on state TV have resigned, by bringing in “help” from Russia — help in inverted commas. Basically, broadcasters from RT, the channel that used to be known as Russia Today, have flown in. Two teams of them came in last week, I think, and one of them is still in Belarus. And they’re basically keeping the state media running. But no one — no one believes it. People are relying for their information, of course, on foreign media channels, but also just on social media, and on Telegram in particular.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Sadakat, could you talk a little bit more about Putin’s relationship with Lukashenko, and also what status Belarus has, as a former Soviet republic, with Russia? Putin has said that he could send in police forces into Belarus. What is at stake for Russia in these protests? What kind of support have these protests received among civil society in Russia?
SADAKAT KADRI: Sure. Well, everything’s at stake. Everything’s at stake for everyone in Russia. I mean, for Putin, he can’t afford to see Belarus “fall” — in inverted commas. You know, Ukraine has been lost, in his eyes, to the West already, or to Europe already. He can’t afford to see another former member of the Soviet Union “fall” — and again, I’m using inverted commas with that.
But the position is slightly complicated by the fact that even though he and Lukashenko see eye to eye on that — neither of them want to see — least of all Lukashenko, want to see Lukashenko’s government fall — but Lukashenko and Putin are not friends. Lukashenko has been in power for 26 years. Putin has only been in power for 20 years. As far as Lukashenko is concerned, this guy is just an upstart. He’s got the — the two countries are theoretically in a union. No one quite knows what the union means, because the pact of union was signed in the 1990s. But it was signed at a time when Lukashenko thought that he would be the senior partner in the union, because his real partner was Boris Yeltsin. And I don’t know if you remember, but Boris Yeltsin at that point was not a — was not, shall we say, in command of all his faculties. He was an elderly drunkard by that point. And Lukashenko thought that he was going to be running the show in years to come.
Then Putin comes along. And we all know what’s happened, how Vladimir Putin has improved his fortunes over the last 20 years. And Lukashenko’s reaction has been to make overtures to both the European Union and also to the United States. As your listeners, your viewers may or may not know, Mike Pompeo made a visit to Minsk just in February of this year. It was the first visit by an American secretary of state for 25 years. And, obviously, the relations between the White House and the Kremlin are complicated, shall we say, at the moment, but Lukashenko imagined that he was playing everyone off against each other. He can’t afford to do that anymore. The game may be up for him. So he’s basically turning towards Putin. Putin can’t afford to let Lukashenko fall, either, so he’s leaning towards Lukashenko, as well.
And then, in terms of civil society, you asked. I mean, people — opponents of Vladimir Putin, critics of Vladimir Putin are looking very carefully at what’s going on in Belarus at the moment. And one of the people who’s looking most carefully is, in fact, Alexei Navalny, the vlogger, video blogger, who has just been allegedly poisoned by Vladimir Putin. About a week after the election, he devoted one of his YouTube broadcasts, which regularly attracts more than several million viewers — he devoted that broadcast to the strike movement in Belarus and told Russians how effective it was at holding leaders to account. Now, that’s not the kind of message that the Kremlin wants to hear, but it is an inspiring message for the people who are tackling corruption within Russia.
AMY GOODMAN: And then, very quickly, if you could tell us about Navalny right now, who’s in a coma in Germany? Talk about the German doctors’ findings. He was apparently poisoned, perhaps at the aiport in Siberia or on the flight. Tell us the drug that the Germans believe was used and the significance of his position in Russia, and then the fact that the opposition leader in Belarus, who’s now, I believe, in Lithuania, she will be addressing the U.N. tomorrow.
SADAKAT KADRI: Right, yeah. Well, I should start by saying that the Russians who examined Navalny said that there were no toxins present at all, that it was just a case of low blood sugar levels, and that was that. Then he was flown to Germany. As you say, Angela Merkel yesterday held a press conference, where she said that, beyond any doubt, he had been poisoned, it was a very serious matter, and Russia needed to answer questions.
Her spokesman had previously said that the poison that was found was a nerve agent of the Novichok variety. Now, the reason that that’s significant is because Novichok came into the news — we all know about Novichok because two years ago a Russian former operative of the secret services living here in the U.K., in a town called Salisbury, was allegedly poisoned by two members of the GRU, of the security services in Russia. And they used that poison — traces of that poison, Novichok, were found. It’s a very deadly poison. It’s been placed on the list of prohibited substances under the Chemical Warfare Convention.
The reason it’s significant is because Navalny had a lot of enemies. There were lots of people who had reasons to poison Navalny. But Novichok is not the kind of thing that you get by popping down to the local drugstore. Novichok is something which is produced only in state laboratories, as far as anyone knows, in any event. And in any case, it’s not the kind of thing that should be running loose in Russia.
If Russia was serious, if Putin’s Russia was serious about getting to the bottom of this thing, because they say that they have nothing to do with it, of course — if they were serious about that, then they would be conducting an absolutely thorough investigation now, because the idea that a weapon banned by the Chemical Warfare Convention is available to ordinary people in Russia is just — is flabbergasting. And if that is the case, Vladimir Putin should be getting on top of this now.
AMY GOODMAN: And finally, the Belarus opposition leader, what she will be telling the U.N., and her significance, having left Belarus?
SADAKAT KADRI: Well, I mean, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya is — she’s the wife of another very popular vlogger in Belarus, something kind of an equivalent of Alexei Navalny in Belarus. She’s very new to this game. She is not a politician. She stood in because her husband’s candidacy was ruled out back in May or June. He was prohibited. He was jailed on trumped-up charges, and he was prohibited from running for president himself. So, she stepped up to the plate. She campaigned very effectively, huge rallies, supposedly won just 10% of the vote, which, of course, is highly contested and almost certainly ridiculous. What she’ll be saying to the United Nations, I’m sure, is that the pressure needs to be kept up on Lukashenko and that the election should be rerun.
AMY GOODMAN: Sadakat Kadri, I want to thank you so much for being with us, human rights lawyer, writer. We’ll link to your piece in the London Review of Books, “The revolution will not be colourised.”
When we come back, Joe Biden is going to Kenosha today, following Trump’s visit on Tuesday. He’ll be meeting with the Blake family. Stay with us. We’ll be speaking with a congressmember who grew up in Kenosha. Stay with us.


truthout--2020-09-03--The Fed Invested Public Money in Fossil Fuel Firms Driving Environmental Racism

In April , the price of oil fell so far so fast that oil futures contracts went negative .
Oil prices have recovered somewhat , but not enough to ever return the industry to its prior state .
Analysts predict the U.S. has reached peak oil production and will never again “ return to the record 13 million barrels of oil per day reached in November 2019.
” ExxonMobil , which has been a part of the Dow Jones Industrial Average market index for 92 years , was removed last week and replaced with the software firm Salesforce .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this dying industry , the Federal Reserve has been buying up the debt of fossil fuel companies through a pandemic emergency program .
We the public , together with the Fed , now own over $ 315 million in bonds of fossil fuel firms , including those with a track record of environmental racism .
Among the many Fed rescue programs is the Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility ( SMCCF ) , which buys corporate debt of companies .
The program is supporting fossil fuel corporations in notably disproportionate numbers : More than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bond purchases are fossil fuel companies , even though fossil fuel firms only employ 2 percent of all workers employed by firms in the S & P 1500 stock market index .
These bonds are effectively a public investment because the Fed is leveraging $ 25 billion from the CARES Act as a down payment for the SMCCF ’ s bond purchases .
Together with the Fed , the public now holds the corporate bonds of ExxonMobil , Chevron , BP , Phillips 66 and Noble Energy .
And it seems likely the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bonds until they mature — up to five years into the future for some of them — based on comments Fed Chair Jerome Powell made to Congress .
At a time when students at universities are calling for their endowments to divest from fossil fuels , and shareholders are pressuring banks to stop financing fossil fuel projects , the world ’ s largest central bank is sending a different signal : that fossil fuel debt is worth owning , and safe enough to be held by the Fed and the public .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ market is sending about the industry .
Exxon wrote in a memo leaked to the press that due to “ prolonged negative market impact ” in the sector , it is weighing layoffs in the U.S. and other high-cost countries .
And while the energy sector made up nearly 16 percent of the S & P 500 market index in 2008 , it is now the smallest sector in the index , making up just over 2 percent .
As former Federal Reserve Board Governor Sarah Bloom Raskin wrote , the Fed purchasing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not only “ sends a false price signal to investors ” about the viability of these companies , it also “ increases the likelihood that investors will be stuck with stranded oil and gas assets that society no longer needs.
” As of August 10 , the public now owns $ 15 million in bonds of dirty energy firm Marathon Petroleum .
( You can see all the Fed ’ s bond purchases in the SMCCF in the spreadsheets they post online . )
Marathon is the largest U.S. oil refining company with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Detroit , Michigan .
The company ’ s Detroit refinery , which sits in the majority-Black Boynton and Oakwood Heights neighborhoods , has violated Michigan state emissions limits 15 times since 2013 .
Those who live near the refinery have faced large , fiery flares in October 2018 and vomiting or labored breathing in February 2019 due to the rupture of a propane line and malfunction of its gas flare .
After a toxic chemical leak from the refinery in September 2019 , Rep. Rashida Tlaib ( D-Michigan ) said that Marathon “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health , ” and held a congressional field hearing to highlight the problems .
Marathon ’ s violations extend well beyond Detroit .
The Political Economy Research Institute lists Marathon as the 33rd worst air polluter in the nation , and its refineries disproportionately impact communities of color .
In 2016 , Marathon released more than 35,800 gallons of diesel into a river near Crawleyville , Indiana , which resulted in a $ 335,000 penalty for violating the Clean Water Act .
In a 2016 settlement with the Department of Justice and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Marathon agreed to spend $ 334 million to settle a dispute over refinery pollution in five states : Michigan , Louisiana , Ohio , Kentucky and Illinois .
This was a follow-up to a 2012 agreement with the EPA regarding Marathon ’ s violations of the Clean Air Act .
Even before the Fed invested in Marathon ’ s bonds , the company was already enjoying support from the nation ’ s policy makers thanks to a $ 1.1 billion tax break it received in the CARES Act .
The tax change allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax returns , which is especially beneficial to oil firms like Marathon because it will help them offset the record profits they made in 2018 using the massive losses they ’ ve seen in 2020 as the price of oil crashed .
The public is now also invested in Energy Transfer Operating , the company behind the 1,172-mile Dakota Access Pipeline that faced Indigenous-led resistance at the Standing Rock Sioux reservation .
The Fed has purchased $ 28.5 million in corporate bonds from Energy Transfer to date .
The brutal , violent crackdowns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a counterintelligence campaign led by Energy Transfer ’ s hired security team , TigerSwan .
Energy Transfer is also behind the 167-mile Bayou Bridge Pipeline in Louisiana that crosses through Black and Indigenous communities , raising serious health and safety concerns .
In 2018 , Energy Transfer ’ s security team sank two boats carrying 15 Water Protectors and members of the press at a Bayou Bridge Pipeline construction site .
Energy Transfer has also been embroiled in controversy as it has tried to build the Revolution Pipeline in Pennsylvania .
The pipeline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when it ruptured and exploded , and has faced 596 new environmental violations since January .
The Fed and the public also own $ 24 million worth of bonds in the utility giant Southern Company and its subsidiaries , including Georgia Power and Southern Power .
In 2016 , the NAACP gave Southern Company an “ F ” corporate environmental justice performance rating due to its high emission of pollutants like sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides that cause health issues , noting that there are many low-income people and people of color @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plants .
The Southern Company-owned utility Georgia Power plans to begin shutting off the electricity of people in default on their utility bills .
Advocates warn those most at risk of losing power are Black , Latinx and Native American .
Georgia Power also owns Plant Bowen , soon to be the biggest coal plant in the U.S. Another Southern Company subsidiary , Virginia Natural Gas , is facing resistance from communities of color for its proposal to build a new natural gas pipeline .
The proposal includes a compressor station that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ low-income communities and communities of color , according to Stop the Abuse of Virginian Energy , a coalition formed to oppose the pipeline .
And in 2018 , Southern Company subsidiary Alabama Power was found to have polluted the groundwater with arsenic , lithium and selenium at a plant in majority-Black Greene County , Alabama .
Donald Trump has long been trying to turn back time and prop up the dying fossil fuel industry .
First it was campaigning on coal in 2016 .
Then it was his pledge to “ never let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down ” in 2020 .
Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette told Bloomberg TV that the Fed also worked with the Energy and Treasury Departments to change the rules of one of its lending programs to address the concerns of the fossil fuel lobby .
And now , the Fed has made the public unwitting investors in fossil fuel debt .
One of the Fed ’ s key stated missions is “ promoting financial stability.
” Climate catastrophe presents both physical and transition risks to the financial system overall , as documented by Graham Steele @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decade of bad bets and heavy indebtedness have combined with low oil prices to decimate profits in the fossil fuel industry , there ’ s a real risk that the Fed ’ s investments in these firms will cost the public in the future .
The Fed should ensure that it is taking these climate-related financial risks into account .
In addition , the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta , Raphael Bostic , wrote that the Fed “ can play an important role in helping to reduce racial inequities and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Fed ’ s purchase of fossil fuel debt of companies exacerbating environmental racism moves in the opposite direction of both these roles .
The Fed should not be using public money to help prop up a dying industry that endangers our health and safety .
The Fed should stop leveraging public funds to buy risky fossil fuel debt .

In April, the price of oil fell so far so fast that oil futures contracts went negative. Oil prices have recovered somewhat, but not enough to ever return the industry to its prior state. Analysts predict the U.S. has reached peak oil production and will never again “return to the record 13 million barrels of oil per day reached in November 2019.” ExxonMobil, which has been a part of the Dow Jones Industrial Average market index for 92 years, was removed last week and replaced with the software firm Salesforce. But while financial analysts sound the alarm about this dying industry, the Federal Reserve has been buying up the debt of fossil fuel companies through a pandemic emergency program. We the public, together with the Fed, now own over $315 million in bonds of fossil fuel firms, including those with a track record of environmental racism.
Among the many Fed rescue programs is the Secondary Market Corporate Credit Facility (SMCCF), which buys corporate debt of companies. The program is supporting fossil fuel corporations in notably disproportionate numbers: More than 10 percent of the Fed’s bond purchases are fossil fuel companies, even though fossil fuel firms only employ 2 percent of all workers employed by firms in the S&P 1500 stock market index.
These bonds are effectively a public investment because the Fed is leveraging $25 billion from the CARES Act as a down payment for the SMCCF’s bond purchases. Together with the Fed, the public now holds the corporate bonds of ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Phillips 66 and Noble Energy. And it seems likely the Fed will be holding these fossil fuel bonds until they mature — up to five years into the future for some of them — based on comments Fed Chair Jerome Powell made to Congress.
At a time when students at universities are calling for their endowments to divest from fossil fuels, and shareholders are pressuring banks to stop financing fossil fuel projects, the world’s largest central bank is sending a different signal: that fossil fuel debt is worth owning, and safe enough to be held by the Fed and the public. This is very different from the signals the market is sending about the industry. Exxon wrote in a memo leaked to the press that due to “prolonged negative market impact” in the sector, it is weighing layoffs in the U.S. and other high-cost countries. And while the energy sector made up nearly 16 percent of the S&P 500 market index in 2008, it is now the smallest sector in the index, making up just over 2 percent. As former Federal Reserve Board Governor Sarah Bloom Raskin wrote, the Fed purchasing the debt of oil and gas firms not only “sends a false price signal to investors” about the viability of these companies, it also “increases the likelihood that investors will be stuck with stranded oil and gas assets that society no longer needs.”
As of August 10, the public now owns $15 million in bonds of dirty energy firm Marathon Petroleum. (You can see all the Fed’s bond purchases in the SMCCF in the spreadsheets they post online.) Marathon is the largest U.S. oil refining company with 16 refineries nationwide, including one in Detroit, Michigan. The company’s Detroit refinery, which sits in the majority-Black Boynton and Oakwood Heights neighborhoods, has violated Michigan state emissions limits 15 times since 2013. Those who live near the refinery have faced large, fiery flares in October 2018 and vomiting or labored breathing in February 2019 due to the rupture of a propane line and malfunction of its gas flare. After a toxic chemical leak from the refinery in September 2019, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) said that Marathon “cannot be trusted to protect our health,” and held a congressional field hearing to highlight the problems.
The Federal Reserve has been buying up the debt of fossil fuel companies through a pandemic emergency program.
Marathon’s violations extend well beyond Detroit. The Political Economy Research Institute lists Marathon as the 33rd worst air polluter in the nation, and its refineries disproportionately impact communities of color. In 2016, Marathon released more than 35,800 gallons of diesel into a river near Crawleyville, Indiana, which resulted in a $335,000 penalty for violating the Clean Water Act. In a 2016 settlement with the Department of Justice and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Marathon agreed to spend $334 million to settle a dispute over refinery pollution in five states: Michigan, Louisiana, Ohio, Kentucky and Illinois. This was a follow-up to a 2012 agreement with the EPA regarding Marathon’s violations of the Clean Air Act.
Even before the Fed invested in Marathon’s bonds, the company was already enjoying support from the nation’s policy makers thanks to a $1.1 billion tax break it received in the CARES Act. The tax change allowed companies to apply current losses to past tax returns, which is especially beneficial to oil firms like Marathon because it will help them offset the record profits they made in 2018 using the massive losses they’ve seen in 2020 as the price of oil crashed.
Even before the Fed invested in Marathon’s bonds, the company was already enjoying support from the nation’s policy makers thanks to a $1.1 billion tax break it received in the CARES Act.
The public is now also invested in Energy Transfer Operating, the company behind the 1,172-mile Dakota Access Pipeline that faced Indigenous-led resistance at the Standing Rock Sioux reservation. The Fed has purchased $28.5 million in corporate bonds from Energy Transfer to date. The brutal, violent crackdowns at Standing Rock included both surveillance and a counterintelligence campaign led by Energy Transfer’s hired security team, TigerSwan. Energy Transfer is also behind the 167-mile Bayou Bridge Pipeline in Louisiana that crosses through Black and Indigenous communities, raising serious health and safety concerns. In 2018, Energy Transfer’s security team sank two boats carrying 15 Water Protectors and members of the press at a Bayou Bridge Pipeline construction site. Energy Transfer has also been embroiled in controversy as it has tried to build the Revolution Pipeline in Pennsylvania. The pipeline has been out of service since 2018, when it ruptured and exploded, and has faced 596 new environmental violations since January.
The Fed and the public also own $24 million worth of bonds in the utility giant Southern Company and its subsidiaries, including Georgia Power and Southern Power. In 2016, the NAACP gave Southern Company an “F” corporate environmental justice performance rating due to its high emission of pollutants like sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides that cause health issues, noting that there are many low-income people and people of color living within three miles of its coal plants. The Southern Company-owned utility Georgia Power plans to begin shutting off the electricity of people in default on their utility bills. Advocates warn those most at risk of losing power are Black, Latinx and Native American. Georgia Power also owns Plant Bowen, soon to be the biggest coal plant in the U.S. Another Southern Company subsidiary, Virginia Natural Gas, is facing resistance from communities of color for its proposal to build a new natural gas pipeline. The proposal includes a compressor station that would impact a neighborhood with high populations of low-income communities and communities of color, according to Stop the Abuse of Virginian Energy, a coalition formed to oppose the pipeline. And in 2018, Southern Company subsidiary Alabama Power was found to have polluted the groundwater with arsenic, lithium and selenium at a plant in majority-Black Greene County, Alabama.
Donald Trump has long been trying to turn back time and prop up the dying fossil fuel industry. First it was campaigning on coal in 2016. Then it was his pledge to “never let the great U.S. Oil & Gas Industry down” in 2020. Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette told Bloomberg TV that the Fed also worked with the Energy and Treasury Departments to change the rules of one of its lending programs to address the concerns of the fossil fuel lobby. And now, the Fed has made the public unwitting investors in fossil fuel debt.
The Fed should stop leveraging public funds to buy risky fossil fuel debt.
One of the Fed’s key stated missions is “promoting financial stability.” Climate catastrophe presents both physical and transition risks to the financial system overall, as documented by Graham Steele and Gregg Gelzinis. Now that a decade of bad bets and heavy indebtedness have combined with low oil prices to decimate profits in the fossil fuel industry, there’s a real risk that the Fed’s investments in these firms will cost the public in the future. The Fed should ensure that it is taking these climate-related financial risks into account. In addition, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Raphael Bostic, wrote that the Fed “can play an important role in helping to reduce racial inequities and bring about a more inclusive economy.” The Fed’s purchase of fossil fuel debt of companies exacerbating environmental racism moves in the opposite direction of both these roles. The Fed should not be using public money to help prop up a dying industry that endangers our health and safety. The Fed should stop leveraging public funds to buy risky fossil fuel debt.
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.