truthout--2020-08-11--Federal Judge Sets Out to Bring Down Law Shielding Police From Legal Liability

As the Massachusetts legislature debates whether to water down its qualified immunity defense , a federal judge in Mississippi filed a stunning 72-page opinion blasting the doctrine .
Qualified immunity has entered the national discourse with the massive uprisings in the wake of the public lynching of George Floyd .
It allows police and other government officials to escape liability for their law breaking .
In Jamison v. McClendon , U.S. District Court Judge Carlton Reeves recently concluded that Officer Nick McClendon violated Clarence Jamison ’ s Fourth Amendment rights when he subjected Jamison to a nearly two-hour ordeal that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intrusively searching his car .
But the judge ’ s hands were tied by the qualified immunity doctrine so he was forced to deny Jamison ’ s legal claim .
Reeves , an African American man , traced the development of the law and the institutional racism and police brutality that continue to plague our society .
“ Black people in this country are acutely aware of the danger traffic stops pose to Black lives , ” the judge wrote .
Reeves began his blockbuster opinion by listing 19 victims of outrageous police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the qualified immunity defense if they or their heirs sued the offending officers .
He wrote : “ Clarence Jamison wasn ’ t jaywalking ” ( like Michael Brown ) ; “ wasn ’ t outside playing with a toy gun ” ( like 12-year-old Tamir Rice ) ; “ didn ’ t look like a ‘ suspicious person ’ ” ( like Elijah McClain ) ; “ wasn ’ t suspected of ‘ selling loose , untaxed cigarettes ’ ” ( like Eric Garner ) ; “ wasn ’ t suspected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ( like George Floyd ) ; “ didn ’ t look like anyone suspected of a crime ” ( like Philando Castile and Tony McDade ) ; “ wasn ’ t mentally ill and in need of help ” ( like Jason Harrison ) ; “ wasn ’ t assisting an autistic patient ” ( like Charles Kinsey ) ; “ wasn ’ t walking home from an after-school job ” ( like James Earl Green ) ; “ wasn ’ t walking back from a restaurant ” ( like Ben Brown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out on a college campus ” ( like Phillip Gibbs ) ; “ wasn ’ t standing outside of his apartment ” ( like Amadou Diallo ) ; “ wasn ’ t inside his apartment eating ice cream ” ( like Botham Jean ) ; “ wasn ’ t sleeping in his bed ” ( like Breonna Taylor ) ; “ wasn ’ t sleeping in his car ” ( like Rayshard Brooks ) ; “ didn ’ t make an ‘ improper lane change ’ ” ( like Sandra Bland ) ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tail light ” ( like Walter Scott ) ; “ wasn ’ t driving over the speed limit ” ( like Hannah Fizer ) ; and “ wasn ’ t driving under the speed limit ” ( like Ace Perry ) .
“ No , ” Reeves continued , “ Clarence Jamison was a Black man driving a Mercedes convertible.
” McClendon lied about why he stopped Jamison , who was driving home to South Carolina after a vacation in Arizona .
Jamison , Reeves wrote , “ was pulled over and subjected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an armed police officer badgering him , pressuring him , lying to him , and then searching his car top-to-bottom for drugs.
” McClendon found nothing and his canine search came up empty as well .
“ Thankfully , Jamison left the stop with his life , ” Reeves observed .
“ Too many others have not.
” Reeves cited the cases of 70 people — including Eric Garner and George Floyd — whose last words were , “ I can ’ t breathe , ” as they died in police custody .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jamison by claiming that the temporary license tag was “ folded over to where [ he ] couldn ’ t see it.
” Jamison , who had recently purchased the 12-year-old car , pulled over immediately and gave McClendon his license , insurance and bill of sale for the vehicle .
McClendon didn ’ t tell Jamison that his background check came back clear .
The officer lied that he had a tip that there were 10 kilos of cocaine in Jamison ’ s car and falsely asserted that the car was stolen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to search his car , Jamison finally consented .
The search and subsequent dog sniff turned up nothing .
In the process , McClendon tore the car apart , doing $ 4,000 worth of damage to it .
“ In an America where Black people ‘ are considered dangerous even when they are in their living rooms eating ice cream , asleep in their beds , playing in the park , standing in the pulpit of their church , birdwatching , exercising in public , or walking home from a trip to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ’ ” Reeves , wrote , “ who can say that Jamison felt free that night … to say no to an armed Officer McClendon ?
” Jamison sued McClendon under 42 U.S.C .
section 1983 , claiming violation of his constitutional rights and seeking money damages .
A “ Manufactured Doctrine ” to Let Cops Off the Hook Reeves determined that McClendon ’ s search of Jamison ’ s car violated the Fourth Amendment , which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures .
Nevertheless , Reeves was legally bound to rule against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ [ J ] udges have invented a legal doctrine to protect law enforcement officers from having to face any consequences for wrongdoing , ” Reeves wrote .
“ The doctrine is called ‘ qualified immunity.
’ In real life it operates like absolute immunity.
” However , he added , “ [ i ] mmunity is not exoneration .
And the harm in this case to one man sheds light on the harm done to the nation by this manufactured doctrine.
” Section 1983 , Reeves noted , is a product @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ brief era ” of “ Reconstruction.
” The judge wrote , “ If the Civil War was the only war in our nation ’ s history dedicated to the proposition that Black lives matter , Reconstruction was dedicated to the proposition that Black futures matter , too.
” Reconstruction , however , was short-lived .
Congress , responding to the reign of terror by the Ku Klux Klan against Black people and their white allies , passed the Ku Klux Act of 1871 .
It has since been codified as 42 U.S.C @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But the Supreme Court has steadily neutralized the law , even though section 1983 nowhere mentions defenses or immunities .
In a section of his opinion titled , “ Qualified Immunity : The Empire Strikes Back , ” Reeves described how the high court first held that officers could avoid liability if they acted in good faith , then created a balancing test , and finally made it nearly impossible to sustain a section 1983 claim against the police .
Reeves wrote that qualified immunity “ now protects all officers , no matter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law they broke was not ‘ clearly established ’ , ” that is , a court must have clearly ruled that the precise offensive conduct violated the law .
Even if the officer acted in bad faith , he or she can mount a successful qualified immunity defense unless it is clearly established , beyond debate , that every reasonable officer would understand that his or her conduct violates the law .
The defense applies “ ‘ to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.
’ ” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specifically determined that the same conduct engaged in by McClendon violated the law .
The query , in Reeves ’ s words , “ is whether it was clearly established that an officer who has made five sequential requests for consent to search a car , lied , promised leniency , and placed his arm inside of a person ’ s car during a traffic stop while awaiting background check results has violated the Fourth Amendment .
It is not.
” Reeves was thus legally required to rule against Jamison .
Reeves invoked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ A ] s people marching in the streets remind us today , some have always stood up to face our nation ’ s failings and remind us that ‘ we can not be patient , ’ ” he wrote .
“ Through their efforts we become ever more perfect.
” Reeves cited Congressman John Lewis , who “ stared down the racists of his era when he marched over the Edmund Pettus Bridge.
” He mentioned the Supreme Court ’ s landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education , which abolished @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Reeves wrote , “ The question of today is whether the Supreme Court will rise to the occasion and do the same with qualified immunity.
” Since qualified immunity is a court-made rule , the courts could abolish it .
Although the Supreme Court declined to review the doctrine in the last term , the abolition of qualified immunity in Colorado state courts , together with Reeves ’ s comprehensive condemnation of it , may well lead the high court to reconsider the endurance of qualified immunity in its next term .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the House of Representatives and its companion bill has been introduced by three progressive Democrats in the Senate .
A bill to reform , but not abolish , qualified immunity , introduced by Sen. Mike Braun ( R-Indiana ) , is also pending in the Senate .
As long as Republicans maintain control of the Senate , and Democrats — many of whom were architects of the current criminal legal system — continue their lukewarm opposition to qualified immunity , it is unlikely the doctrine will be watered down or abolished by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Massachusetts is debating whether to weaken its qualified immunity defense .
The House bill would eliminate the defense only for officers who have been decertified by a standards board because they have violated someone ’ s civil rights .
The Senate bill would permit judges to rule for plaintiffs even where the current case is not almost identical to a prior case .
In light of the ongoing mass uprisings against white supremacy and police brutality , other states are likely to reconsider their qualified immunity doctrines .
As state after state reviews @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court will hopefully do so as well .

Part of the Series Human Rights and Global Wrongs
As the Massachusetts legislature debates whether to water down its qualified immunity defense, a federal judge in Mississippi filed a stunning 72-page opinion blasting the doctrine. Qualified immunity has entered the national discourse with the massive uprisings in the wake of the public lynching of George Floyd. It allows police and other government officials to escape liability for their law breaking.
In Jamison v. McClendon, U.S. District Court Judge Carlton Reeves recently concluded that Officer Nick McClendon violated Clarence Jamison’s Fourth Amendment rights when he subjected Jamison to a nearly two-hour ordeal that included badgering, pressuring, lying and intrusively searching his car. But the judge’s hands were tied by the qualified immunity doctrine so he was forced to deny Jamison’s legal claim. Reeves, an African American man, traced the development of the law and the institutional racism and police brutality that continue to plague our society. “Black people in this country are acutely aware of the danger traffic stops pose to Black lives,” the judge wrote.
Reeves began his blockbuster opinion by listing 19 victims of outrageous police misconduct, who would have been met with the qualified immunity defense if they or their heirs sued the offending officers. He wrote: “Clarence Jamison wasn’t jaywalking” (like Michael Brown); “wasn’t outside playing with a toy gun” (like 12-year-old Tamir Rice); “didn’t look like a ‘suspicious person’” (like Elijah McClain); “wasn’t suspected of ‘selling loose, untaxed cigarettes’” (like Eric Garner); “wasn’t suspected of passing a counterfeit $20 bill” (like George Floyd); “didn’t look like anyone suspected of a crime” (like Philando Castile and Tony McDade); “wasn’t mentally ill and in need of help” (like Jason Harrison); “wasn’t assisting an autistic patient” (like Charles Kinsey); “wasn’t walking home from an after-school job” (like James Earl Green); “wasn’t walking back from a restaurant” (like Ben Brown); “wasn’t hanging out on a college campus” (like Phillip Gibbs); “wasn’t standing outside of his apartment” (like Amadou Diallo); “wasn’t inside his apartment eating ice cream” (like Botham Jean); “wasn’t sleeping in his bed” (like Breonna Taylor); “wasn’t sleeping in his car” (like Rayshard Brooks); “didn’t make an ‘improper lane change’” (like Sandra Bland); “didn’t have a broken tail light” (like Walter Scott); “wasn’t driving over the speed limit” (like Hannah Fizer); and “wasn’t driving under the speed limit” (like Ace Perry).
“No,” Reeves continued, “Clarence Jamison was a Black man driving a Mercedes convertible.” McClendon lied about why he stopped Jamison, who was driving home to South Carolina after a vacation in Arizona. Jamison, Reeves wrote, “was pulled over and subjected to one hundred and ten minutes of an armed police officer badgering him, pressuring him, lying to him, and then searching his car top-to-bottom for drugs.” McClendon found nothing and his canine search came up empty as well.
“Thankfully, Jamison left the stop with his life,” Reeves observed. “Too many others have not.” Reeves cited the cases of 70 people — including Eric Garner and George Floyd — whose last words were, “I can’t breathe,” as they died in police custody.
McClendon tried to justify his stop of Jamison by claiming that the temporary license tag was “folded over to where [he] couldn’t see it.” Jamison, who had recently purchased the 12-year-old car, pulled over immediately and gave McClendon his license, insurance and bill of sale for the vehicle. McClendon didn’t tell Jamison that his background check came back clear. The officer lied that he had a tip that there were 10 kilos of cocaine in Jamison’s car and falsely asserted that the car was stolen. After McClendon’s five requests to search his car, Jamison finally consented. The search and subsequent dog sniff turned up nothing. In the process, McClendon tore the car apart, doing $4,000 worth of damage to it.
“In an America where Black people ‘are considered dangerous even when they are in their living rooms eating ice cream, asleep in their beds, playing in the park, standing in the pulpit of their church, birdwatching, exercising in public, or walking home from a trip to the store to purchase a bag of Skittles,’” Reeves, wrote, “who can say that Jamison felt free that night … to say no to an armed Officer McClendon?”
Jamison sued McClendon under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, claiming violation of his constitutional rights and seeking money damages.
A “Manufactured Doctrine” to Let Cops Off the Hook
Reeves determined that McClendon’s search of Jamison’s car violated the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Nevertheless, Reeves was legally bound to rule against Jamison because of the qualified immunity defense.
“The doctrine is called ‘qualified immunity.’ In real life it operates like absolute immunity.”
“[J]udges have invented a legal doctrine to protect law enforcement officers from having to face any consequences for wrongdoing,” Reeves wrote. “The doctrine is called ‘qualified immunity.’ In real life it operates like absolute immunity.” However, he added, “[i]mmunity is not exoneration. And the harm in this case to one man sheds light on the harm done to the nation by this manufactured doctrine.”
Section 1983, Reeves noted, is a product of the Civil War and the ensuing “brief era” of “Reconstruction.” The judge wrote, “If the Civil War was the only war in our nation’s history dedicated to the proposition that Black lives matter, Reconstruction was dedicated to the proposition that Black futures matter, too.”
Reconstruction, however, was short-lived. Congress, responding to the reign of terror by the Ku Klux Klan against Black people and their white allies, passed the Ku Klux Act of 1871. It has since been codified as 42 U.S.C. section 1983, which provides:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.…
But the Supreme Court has steadily neutralized the law, even though section 1983 nowhere mentions defenses or immunities. In a section of his opinion titled, “Qualified Immunity: The Empire Strikes Back,” Reeves described how the high court first held that officers could avoid liability if they acted in good faith, then created a balancing test, and finally made it nearly impossible to sustain a section 1983 claim against the police.
Reeves wrote that qualified immunity “now protects all officers, no matter how egregious their conduct, if the law they broke was not ‘clearly established’,” that is, a court must have clearly ruled that the precise offensive conduct violated the law. Even if the officer acted in bad faith, he or she can mount a successful qualified immunity defense unless it is clearly established, beyond debate, that every reasonable officer would understand that his or her conduct violates the law. The defense applies “‘to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.’”
Since qualified immunity is a court-made rule, the courts could abolish it.
The question is whether a prior court has specifically determined that the same conduct engaged in by McClendon violated the law. The query, in Reeves’s words, “is whether it was clearly established that an officer who has made five sequential requests for consent to search a car, lied, promised leniency, and placed his arm inside of a person’s car during a traffic stop while awaiting background check results has violated the Fourth Amendment. It is not.”
Reeves was thus legally required to rule against Jamison.
Reeves Challenges the Supreme Court to Abolish Qualified Immunity
Reeves invoked the Movement for Black Lives. “[A]s people marching in the streets remind us today, some have always stood up to face our nation’s failings and remind us that ‘we cannot be patient,’” he wrote. “Through their efforts we become ever more perfect.” Reeves cited Congressman John Lewis, who “stared down the racists of his era when he marched over the Edmund Pettus Bridge.” He mentioned the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which abolished the doctrine of “separate but equal.” Reeves wrote, “The question of today is whether the Supreme Court will rise to the occasion and do the same with qualified immunity.”
Since qualified immunity is a court-made rule, the courts could abolish it. Although the Supreme Court declined to review the doctrine in the last term, the abolition of qualified immunity in Colorado state courts, together with Reeves’s comprehensive condemnation of it, may well lead the high court to reconsider the endurance of qualified immunity in its next term.
The Ending Qualified Immunity Act is pending in the House of Representatives and its companion bill has been introduced by three progressive Democrats in the Senate. A bill to reform, but not abolish, qualified immunity, introduced by Sen. Mike Braun (R-Indiana), is also pending in the Senate. As long as Republicans maintain control of the Senate, and Democrats — many of whom were architects of the current criminal legal system — continue their lukewarm opposition to qualified immunity, it is unlikely the doctrine will be watered down or abolished by Congress.
Meanwhile, the state of Massachusetts is debating whether to weaken its qualified immunity defense. The House bill would eliminate the defense only for officers who have been decertified by a standards board because they have violated someone’s civil rights. The Senate bill would permit judges to rule for plaintiffs even where the current case is not almost identical to a prior case.
In light of the ongoing mass uprisings against white supremacy and police brutality, other states are likely to reconsider their qualified immunity doctrines. As state after state reviews its qualified immunity law, the Supreme Court will hopefully do so as well.
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--2020-08-11--Sanders Joins Calls for Resignation or Removal of Postmaster General

Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday became the latest lawmaker to demand the immediate resignation or removal of Postmaster General Louis DeJoy , a major Republican donor to President Donald Trump whose brief tenure as head of the most popular government institution in the U.S. has brought major nationwide slowdowns in package delivery less than 90 days before an election that could hinge on mail-in ballots .
“ Make no mistake about it .
This is a blatant attempt by Trump ’ s handpicked Postmaster General ( and campaign contributor ) to sabotage the Postal Service , suppress the vote , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senator tweeted in response to the Postal Service ’ s decision to charge states higher rates to mail ballots to voters .
“ The Postmaster General should either resign or be removed from office — immediately , ” said Sanders .
Sanders joined a growing chorus of lawmakers and ordinary Americans calling for the swift removal of DeJoy , a former North Carolina logistics executive with tens of millions invested in USPS competitors .
In statements over the weekend , Reps. Peter DeFazio ( D-Ore. ) and Alma Adams ( D-N.C. ) said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for threatening “ the voting rights of millions of Americans ” to “ aid Trump ’ s reelection efforts.
” Additionally , more than 330,000 people have signed a MoveOn.org petition urging the USPS Board of Governors to oust DeJoy over “ actions that are disrupting the mission of the United States Postal Service.
” The board — which appointed DeJoy in May despite his complete lack of experience at the Postal Service and potential conflicts of interest — has the authority to remove a sitting Postmaster General with a majority vote .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ three months away in the midst of a global pandemic , ” the petition reads , “ it is imperative that the timely delivery of United States mail be made a priority .
Mr. DeJoy is a barrier to this necessity.
” Demands for DeJoy ’ s removal have intensified in the wake of his displacement late last week of nearly two dozen top Postal Service officials , a move that was immediately dubbed a “ Friday Night Massacre ” by lawmakers and critics .
In addition to pressure to step aside , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into his operational changes barring overtime and prohibiting postal workers from sorting mail ahead of their morning deliveries — policies that have alarmed USPS employees and union leaders .
Last week , as Common Dreams reported , Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
spearheaded a call for the USPS inspector general to launch a probe into DeJoy ’ s actions as well as his potential conflicts of interest .
Warren repeated the demand for an investigation in a tweet Monday , writing that “ there is nothing normal about a Trump campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invested in USPS competitors being appointed as Postmaster General to sabotage our mail delivery and threaten our elections .
”

Sen. Bernie Sanders called out Louis DeJoy’s actions as an attempt to “suppress the vote and undermine democracy.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday became the latest lawmaker to demand the immediate resignation or removal of Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, a major Republican donor to President Donald Trump whose brief tenure as head of the most popular government institution in the U.S. has brought major nationwide slowdowns in package delivery less than 90 days before an election that could hinge on mail-in ballots.
“Make no mistake about it. This is a blatant attempt by Trump’s handpicked Postmaster General (and campaign contributor) to sabotage the Postal Service, suppress the vote, and undermine democracy,” the Vermont senator tweeted in response to the Postal Service’s decision to charge states higher rates to mail ballots to voters.
“The Postmaster General should either resign or be removed from office — immediately,” said Sanders.
Sanders joined a growing chorus of lawmakers and ordinary Americans calling for the swift removal of DeJoy, a former North Carolina logistics executive with tens of millions invested in USPS competitors. In statements over the weekend, Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and Alma Adams (D-N.C.) said DeJoy should be removed from his post for threatening “the voting rights of millions of Americans” to “aid Trump’s reelection efforts.”
Additionally, more than 330,000 people have signed a MoveOn.org petition urging the USPS Board of Governors to oust DeJoy over “actions that are disrupting the mission of the United States Postal Service.” The board — which appointed DeJoy in May despite his complete lack of experience at the Postal Service and potential conflicts of interest — has the authority to remove a sitting Postmaster General with a majority vote.
“With a federal election less than three months away in the midst of a global pandemic,” the petition reads, “it is imperative that the timely delivery of United States mail be made a priority. Mr. DeJoy is a barrier to this necessity.”
Demands for DeJoy’s removal have intensified in the wake of his displacement late last week of nearly two dozen top Postal Service officials, a move that was immediately dubbed a “Friday Night Massacre” by lawmakers and critics.
In addition to pressure to step aside, DeJoy is also facing a Senate investigation into his operational changes barring overtime and prohibiting postal workers from sorting mail ahead of their morning deliveries — policies that have alarmed USPS employees and union leaders. Last week, as Common Dreams reported, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) spearheaded a call for the USPS inspector general to launch a probe into DeJoy’s actions as well as his potential conflicts of interest.
Warren repeated the demand for an investigation in a tweet Monday, writing that “there is nothing normal about a Trump campaign megadonor with at least $30 million invested in USPS competitors being appointed as Postmaster General to sabotage our mail delivery and threaten our elections.”
“The USPS inspector general must investigate this corruption now,” Warren added.
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--2020-08-12--Florida Sheriff Bans Deputies and Civilians From Wearing Masks in His Department

Even though the state of Florida saw a record-high single-day number of deaths from coronavirus earlier this week , one sheriff in the state decided that his deputies do not need to wear masks in most cases , and is banning civilians from wearing facial coverings in his offices .
In spite of evidence saying otherwise , Marion County Sheriff Billy Woods insists that masks don ’ t prevent the spread of COVID-19 .
“ We can debate and argue all day of why and why not , ” Woods said in a memo to employees of his department this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the amount of professionals that give the reason why we should , I can find the exact same amount of professionals that say why we shouldn ’ t. ” Woods insisted he made the decision after having “ weighed it out for the past 2 weeks.
” He also granted exceptions to allow deputies to wear masks , in places like jails , courthouses , schools , hospitals , and other situations where wearing facial coverings might make sense .
However , his order still requires deputies to remove their masks even in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ orders to others .
Florida has been one of the hardest-hit states in terms of COVID-19 infections , ever since it joined a number of other states across the country in reopening its economy prematurely this spring .
More than 8,685 residents have died in the state from the disease so far , with a single-day record of 277 deaths being reported on Tuesday alone .
As of Tuesday , 542,792 individuals in the state have contracted the disease since the start of the pandemic .
Florida is currently seeing a positivity rate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ World Health Organization , a community should maintain a positivity rate of 5 percent or lower for more than two weeks before it considers easing social distancing measures to prevent the spread of coronavirus .
Woods ’ s comments asserting that there isn ’ t a consensus on masks flies in the face of a number of studies that say otherwise .
While a doctor here or there may agree with his statement , the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) put those ideas to rest in a statement issued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increasing evidence that cloth face coverings help prevent people who have COVID-19 from spreading the virus to others , ” the agency said at that time .
CDC Director Robert Redfield emphasized the point at that time as well .
“ Cloth face coverings are one of the most powerful weapons we have to slow and stop the spread of the virus – particularly when used universally within a community setting , ” Redfield said .
An overwhelming body of evidence also demonstrates that masks or facial coverings in places which have mandated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the spread of the disease .
One study published in the journal Health Affairs , for example , estimated that between 230,000 and 450,000 cases of coronavirus were prevented in places where rules on wearing masks were implemented between the dates of April 8 to May 15 .

Some studies have demonstrated that hundreds of thousands of cases of COVID-19 were prevented thanks to masks.
Even though the state of Florida saw a record-high single-day number of deaths from coronavirus earlier this week, one sheriff in the state decided that his deputies do not need to wear masks in most cases, and is banning civilians from wearing facial coverings in his offices.
In spite of evidence saying otherwise, Marion County Sheriff Billy Woods insists that masks don’t prevent the spread of COVID-19.
“We can debate and argue all day of why and why not,” Woods said in a memo to employees of his department this week. “The fact is, the amount of professionals that give the reason why we should, I can find the exact same amount of professionals that say why we shouldn’t.”
Woods insisted he made the decision after having “weighed it out for the past 2 weeks.” He also granted exceptions to allow deputies to wear masks, in places like jails, courthouses, schools, hospitals, and other situations where wearing facial coverings might make sense. However, his order still requires deputies to remove their masks even in those situations when they’re giving orders to others.
Florida has been one of the hardest-hit states in terms of COVID-19 infections, ever since it joined a number of other states across the country in reopening its economy prematurely this spring. More than 8,685 residents have died in the state from the disease so far, with a single-day record of 277 deaths being reported on Tuesday alone.
As of Tuesday, 542,792 individuals in the state have contracted the disease since the start of the pandemic. Florida is currently seeing a positivity rate of 17 percent; according to the World Health Organization, a community should maintain a positivity rate of 5 percent or lower for more than two weeks before it considers easing social distancing measures to prevent the spread of coronavirus.
Woods’s comments asserting that there isn’t a consensus on masks flies in the face of a number of studies that say otherwise. While a doctor here or there may agree with his statement, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) put those ideas to rest in a statement issued on July 14.
“There is increasing evidence that cloth face coverings help prevent people who have COVID-19 from spreading the virus to others,” the agency said at that time.
CDC Director Robert Redfield emphasized the point at that time as well. “Cloth face coverings are one of the most powerful weapons we have to slow and stop the spread of the virus – particularly when used universally within a community setting,” Redfield said.
An overwhelming body of evidence also demonstrates that masks or facial coverings in places which have mandated they be worn have helped to slow the spread of the disease. One study published in the journal Health Affairs, for example, estimated that between 230,000 and 450,000 cases of coronavirus were prevented in places where rules on wearing masks were implemented between the dates of April 8 to May 15.
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--2020-08-12--We Can’t Let the Nomination of Harris Blunt Our Demands for Racial Justice

Kamala Harris has become the first woman of color to receive a major U.S. party ’ s nomination for vice president in large part thanks to widespread changes in consciousness resulting from the swelling tide of # MeToo and Black Lives Matter activism .
A swirl of inside-baseball news articles and opinion pieces throughout midsummer offered early indications of Joe Biden ’ s likely pick to join him on the Democratic Party ticket as nominee for vice president .
Amid rising waves of feminist and anti-racist struggle , many had declared that the nominee would have to be a Black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s nomination of Harris ( whose father is Black and mother is South Asian ) is not unanticipated , even while it is notable , unprecedented and momentous .
This development raises questions regarding how the Democratic Party relates to anti-oppression and grassroots movement organizing , and how such organizing should relate to the party .
Ultimately , our task as movement activists remains what it has long been , what it will continue to be in November , and regardless of who wins , what it will also be in January @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , grassroots , working-class movement for freedom and democracy , and to defend it against all attempts to disorganize or demobilize it .
The particulars of how we carry out this task shift with changing circumstances .
In the early weeks of August , speculation mounted regarding whether Biden and Harris could overcome a June 2019 clash during the primary debates over 1960s and ‘ 70s school desegregation policy .
Harris , slamming Biden ’ s record on race and his keenness to find common ground with segregationists , said , “ You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] to oppose busing .
And there was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools and she was bused to school every day .
And that little girl was me.
” This moment of temerity was a pivotal moment in raising Harris ’ s national profile , but to the extent that recent leaks from sources around and within the Democratic Party are to be believed , it also created bad blood between the two candidates — bad blood that had to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden ’ s nod .
The question came down to “ trust.
” Harris had called Biden to account over his racist record once .
Could she be trusted not to do something like this again ?
Presumably , the Biden campaign is now satisfied that the answer to that question is “ Yes.
” This negotiation between Biden and Harris , which was resolved amicably and in favor of a woman of color poised for one of the most powerful positions in U.S. government , is not mere Beltway intrigue .
Rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of elite power .
Harris , a former prosecutor who enthusiastically enforced truancy laws that disproportionately impacted poor women of color , is hardly some Black Lives Matter radical — quite the opposite .
And yet , standing up for school desegregation — in 2019 — was only just barely forgivable .
It was not Biden who would apologize for his past stance , but Harris who would kiss the ring and prove herself loyal .
Those of us engaged in struggle from below will never find ourselves making the kinds of calculations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in elite U.S. party politics , and we do not need to concern ourselves overly much with wrangling over moral judgments on every individual detail of how that sausage gets made .
All of it is ugly .
What does matter for us is the question of political leadership .
Will we allow ourselves to be led by this party , and if so , then led toward what ?
The electoral question — whether or not to vote for the Democrats — and the leadership question must be treated as distinct .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the equally obvious shortcomings of the Democratic Party , not many minds will be changed on the voting question between now and November .
What is much more urgent is for those who agitate for racial justice to ask ourselves now whether we will follow elite Black Democratic Party politicians ’ lead in blunting demands for racial justice and real reckoning with the country ’ s racist past .
Activists for justice and freedom must take our lead not from the exigencies of machine politics , but from the people in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justice further forward in the last few months than it had been moved by several decades of compromise , backroom deals and elite representation .
It is the mass struggle of the 1960s that created the political pressure which opened the doors of Thousand Oaks Elementary School so Harris could walk through them .
If the doors of the vice president ’ s office open for Harris in January , it will be mass unrest that forced them apart .
But as is so often the case , the people who make the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out to benefit the least from their labor .
If we want things to be different , our politics can not follow Biden ’ s and Harris ’ s paths into the White House .
Politically , theoretically and quite literally , we must follow the people into the streets .

The road to the White House leads away from Black struggle. We must not take our lead from machine politics.
Kamala Harris has become the first woman of color to receive a major U.S. party’s nomination for vice president in large part thanks to widespread changes in consciousness resulting from the swelling tide of #MeToo and Black Lives Matter activism.
A swirl of inside-baseball news articles and opinion pieces throughout midsummer offered early indications of Joe Biden’s likely pick to join him on the Democratic Party ticket as nominee for vice president. Amid rising waves of feminist and anti-racist struggle, many had declared that the nominee would have to be a Black woman. As a result, Biden’s nomination of Harris (whose father is Black and mother is South Asian) is not unanticipated, even while it is notable, unprecedented and momentous.
This development raises questions regarding how the Democratic Party relates to anti-oppression and grassroots movement organizing, and how such organizing should relate to the party.
Ultimately, our task as movement activists remains what it has long been, what it will continue to be in November, and regardless of who wins, what it will also be in January: to build an independent, multiracial, grassroots, working-class movement for freedom and democracy, and to defend it against all attempts to disorganize or demobilize it. The particulars of how we carry out this task shift with changing circumstances.
In the early weeks of August, speculation mounted regarding whether Biden and Harris could overcome a June 2019 clash during the primary debates over 1960s and ‘70s school desegregation policy. Harris, slamming Biden’s record on race and his keenness to find common ground with segregationists, said, “You also worked with [those segregationist senators] to oppose busing. And there was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools and she was bused to school every day. And that little girl was me.”
This moment of temerity was a pivotal moment in raising Harris’s national profile, but to the extent that recent leaks from sources around and within the Democratic Party are to be believed, it also created bad blood between the two candidates — bad blood that had to be overcome in order for Harris to secure Biden’s nod.
The question came down to “trust.” Harris had called Biden to account over his racist record once. Could she be trusted not to do something like this again? Presumably, the Biden campaign is now satisfied that the answer to that question is “Yes.”
This negotiation between Biden and Harris, which was resolved amicably and in favor of a woman of color poised for one of the most powerful positions in U.S. government, is not mere Beltway intrigue. Rather, it is indicative of the price of elite power.
Harris, a former prosecutor who enthusiastically enforced truancy laws that disproportionately impacted poor women of color, is hardly some Black Lives Matter radical — quite the opposite. And yet, standing up for school desegregation — in 2019 — was only just barely forgivable. It was not Biden who would apologize for his past stance, but Harris who would kiss the ring and prove herself loyal.
Those of us engaged in struggle from below will never find ourselves making the kinds of calculations that are necessary to further a career in elite U.S. party politics, and we do not need to concern ourselves overly much with wrangling over moral judgments on every individual detail of how that sausage gets made. All of it is ugly. What does matter for us is the question of political leadership. Will we allow ourselves to be led by this party, and if so, then led toward what?
The electoral question — whether or not to vote for the Democrats — and the leadership question must be treated as distinct. Given the obviousness of the Trump threat and the equally obvious shortcomings of the Democratic Party, not many minds will be changed on the voting question between now and November.
What is much more urgent is for those who agitate for racial justice to ask ourselves now whether we will follow elite Black Democratic Party politicians’ lead in blunting demands for racial justice and real reckoning with the country’s racist past.
Activists for justice and freedom must take our lead not from the exigencies of machine politics, but from the people in the streets who have moved the struggle for justice further forward in the last few months than it had been moved by several decades of compromise, backroom deals and elite representation. It is the mass struggle of the 1960s that created the political pressure which opened the doors of Thousand Oaks Elementary School so Harris could walk through them. If the doors of the vice president’s office open for Harris in January, it will be mass unrest that forced them apart. But as is so often the case, the people who make the good things of this world may turn out to benefit the least from their labor. If we want things to be different, our politics cannot follow Biden’s and Harris’s paths into the White House. Politically, theoretically and quite literally, we must follow the people into the streets.
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--2020-08-12--3 in 5 Americans Firmly Oppose Trump on His Push to Reopen Schools, Poll Finds

Americans overwhelmingly oppose schools fully reopening as coronavirus cases continue to climb across the country , according to a new poll .
A new Politico/Morning Consult poll asked respondents whether they support K-12 schools reopening while the pandemic rages on .
Only 33 percent said they were in favor of schools having in-person classrooms , while 59 percent said they opposed fully reopening .
That ’ s an increase in the percentage of those who are opposed to having in-person schooling resume , compared to what was seen in a July poll , when 53 percent expressed opposition to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ universities , respondents ’ opinions in the poll did not appear to change that much , with 57 percent saying they were also against those institutions fully reopening .
Americans also believe funding shouldn ’ t be affected if schools determine they should operate remotely at the start of the year .
Only 14 percent think that federal funding from these schools should be lessened , while 44 percent believe funding should remain in place and 30 percent saying funding should be increased .
As schools began resuming this month , some students @ @ @ @ @ @ @ classrooms were crowded , and how many of their peers were not using masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19 .
This is occurring just as COVID-19 infections appear to be spiking among younger populations .
In the last two weeks of July , just days before many school districts across the country began to reopen , at least 97,000 children around the country were reportedly diagnosed with the disease .
In spite of fears that children could contract coronavirus , get sick themselves or possibly spread the virus to older family members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ schools everywhere to reopen .
In a Fox News interview earlier this month , the president maintained , wrongly , that children were not affected by the disease .
“ If you look at children , children are almost — and I would almost say definitely — but almost immune from this disease , ” he said .
“ They don ’ t have a problem .
They just don ’ t have a problem.
” Evidence from a variety of studies suggests otherwise , demonstrating that children are just as likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And while children do appear less likely to die from COVID-19 , that doesn ’ t mean deaths do not occur among infected children , as the deaths of dozens of children under age 15 , and hundreds of teenagers and young adults between the ages of 15 and 24 , clearly illustrate .
In spite of this evidence , as well as a number of schools across the U.S. already noticing widespread coronavirus cases just days after opening their doors , Trump appears determined to promote the idea that schools are safe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he announced the addition of Scott Atlas , a doctor at Stanford University , as an adviser on coronavirus within his White House .
Atlas has been an outspoken critic against schools remaining closed , appearing on Fox News to describe such decisions as “ ludicrous ” and “ hysteria.
” “ There is such fear in the community , and unfortunately it ’ s been propagated by people doing sloppy thinking and sensationalistic media reporting , ” Atlas has said regarding arguments against reopening schools .
But infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House ’ s coronavirus task force has frequently been at odds with Trump over his opinions on the matter , said last month that although he himself hopes schools could reopen , it ’ s a determination that local school districts should be making on their own based on the circumstances .
“ If you ’ re in the part of a country where the dynamics of the outbreak are really minimal , if at all , then there ’ s no problem at all in getting back .
If you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re in outbreak mode , then you leave it up to the local individuals , ” Fauci said .

Just a third of the country is in favor of reopening K-12 schools, while the vast majority favors virtual learning.
Americans overwhelmingly oppose schools fully reopening as coronavirus cases continue to climb across the country, according to a new poll.
A new Politico/Morning Consult poll asked respondents whether they support K-12 schools reopening while the pandemic rages on. Only 33 percent said they were in favor of schools having in-person classrooms, while 59 percent said they opposed fully reopening.
That’s an increase in the percentage of those who are opposed to having in-person schooling resume, compared to what was seen in a July poll, when 53 percent expressed opposition to the idea.
When asked about colleges and universities, respondents’ opinions in the poll did not appear to change that much, with 57 percent saying they were also against those institutions fully reopening.
Americans also believe funding shouldn’t be affected if schools determine they should operate remotely at the start of the year. Only 14 percent think that federal funding from these schools should be lessened, while 44 percent believe funding should remain in place and 30 percent saying funding should be increased.
As schools began resuming this month, some students began to document how their hallways and classrooms were crowded, and how many of their peers were not using masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
This is occurring just as COVID-19 infections appear to be spiking among younger populations. In the last two weeks of July, just days before many school districts across the country began to reopen, at least 97,000 children around the country were reportedly diagnosed with the disease.
In spite of fears that children could contract coronavirus, get sick themselves or possibly spread the virus to older family members, President Donald Trump has pushed for schools everywhere to reopen. In a Fox News interview earlier this month, the president maintained, wrongly, that children were not affected by the disease.
“If you look at children, children are almost — and I would almost say definitely — but almost immune from this disease,” he said. “They don’t have a problem. They just don’t have a problem.”
Evidence from a variety of studies suggests otherwise, demonstrating that children are just as likely to spread the disease as adults are. And while children do appear less likely to die from COVID-19, that doesn’t mean deaths do not occur among infected children, as the deaths of dozens of children under age 15, and hundreds of teenagers and young adults between the ages of 15 and 24, clearly illustrate.
In spite of this evidence, as well as a number of schools across the U.S. already noticing widespread coronavirus cases just days after opening their doors, Trump appears determined to promote the idea that schools are safe to reopen. Just this week, he announced the addition of Scott Atlas, a doctor at Stanford University, as an adviser on coronavirus within his White House. Atlas has been an outspoken critic against schools remaining closed, appearing on Fox News to describe such decisions as “ludicrous” and “hysteria.”
“There is such fear in the community, and unfortunately it’s been propagated by people doing sloppy thinking and sensationalistic media reporting,” Atlas has said regarding arguments against reopening schools.
But infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci, who as a member of the White House’s coronavirus task force has frequently been at odds with Trump over his opinions on the matter, said last month that although he himself hopes schools could reopen, it’s a determination that local school districts should be making on their own based on the circumstances.
“If you’re in the part of a country where the dynamics of the outbreak are really minimal, if at all, then there’s no problem at all in getting back. If you’re in a situation where you’re in outbreak mode, then you leave it up to the local individuals,” Fauci 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--2020-08-12--The 2020 Race Is Down to Center-Right vs. Far Right

Vice President Mike Pence was doing a campaign gig in Arizona last night , the state where incumbent Republican Sen. Martha McSally continues to trail Democratic challenger and former astronaut Mark Kelly .
Pence ’ s boss is locked in a virtual tie with presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden , which explains why the vice president was spending time in a state that Republican presidential candidates have dominated in nearly every election since Barry Goldwater came down the mountain in 1964 .
“ On the way here , ” Pence told that Arizona audience in a voice drizzling sarcasm , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his running mate — California Sen. Kamala Harris .
So let me take this opportunity to welcome her to the race.
” At this point , the crowd booed lustily .
“ As you all know , ” he continued , “ Joe Biden and the Democratic Party have been overtaken by the radical left .
So given their promises of higher taxes , open borders , socialized medicine and abortion on demand , it ’ s no surprise that he chose Senator Harris.
” That , right there , might just be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the campaign trail this year .
It ’ s a vivid preview of the Trump/Pence strategy for the remaining 83 days : Paint Joe Biden and his newly minted vice presidential pick as a Trojan horse bursting with socialism , abortion doctors , and lighters for burning Bibles .
Biden/Harris : Antifa in Tailored Suits .
Why is that so funny ?
Because the Democratic presidential tickets in my lifetime have been , in order : McGovern/Eagleton rapidly followed by McGovern/Shriver , Carter/Mondale twice , Mondale/Ferraro , Dukakis/Bentsen , Clinton/Gore twice , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinton/Kaine , and now this .
While there are some doozies buried in that long , strange line , the simple fact of the matter is that — in assessing by the candidates ’ records — Biden/Harris is on numerous counts the most right-leaning Democratic presidential ticket I have personally laid eyes on .
Donald Trump and his crew are going to need a nuclear-powered brush to paint his Democratic opponents into some sort of far-left corner .
That dog won ’ t hunt .
Biden ’ s long record of service to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the war-making industry is well-documented .
He is about as “ left-wing ” as the right side of an F-22 Raptor .
In choosing Senator Harris , Biden has tapped a politician well within his own ideological sphere .
Harris very eloquently extols the virtue and necessity of social justice , but portions of her record demonstrate where and how her official performance has fallen short of her rhetoric .
Her hands-off approach to police violence against citizens while serving as California Attorney General is a grim fact , as is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time .
Her record on LGBTQ issues is mostly solid but far from steady , and her record of fighting to keep improperly incarcerated people behind bars is chilling .
Of course , Harris has backed away from or actively disavowed many of the less-than-progressive blemishes on her resume since becoming a senator , presidential candidate and now vice-presidential nominee .
Yet she still speaks the language of high finance fluently — “ I believe in capitalism , ” Harris told a big-dollar Wall Street crowd at an East Hampton fundraiser a year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CNBC seems to think Wall Street is pleased with Biden ’ s choice .
We are a long way round the bend from primary season , aren ’ t we .
A race that began with progressive stalwarts like Bernie Sanders , Julián Castro , Elizabeth Warren , Andrew Yang , Marianne Williamson and Mike Gravel has boiled down to a ticket that is as establishment-right as one gets in today ’ s Democratic Party .
That ’ s the rub : A progressive insurgency against the Democratic establishment , led since 2015 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ snuffed at the highest levels .
Rep. Ilhan Omar won her primary yesterday , and the progressive tide is still running high in the House .
In the offices of the Democratic National Committee , however , the process of choosing a presidential nominee remains firmly in the hands of the last people in America who can call Biden and Harris “ progressive ” and still keep a straight face .
A recent exchange on Democracy Now !
between Aimee Allison of She the People and Briahna Joy Gray , the former national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , underscores the ways in which many progressives are feeling torn over the historic nature of the nomination of Harris who — as the daughter of a mother of Indian Tamil descent and a Black father from Jamaica — is both the first Black woman and the first woman of South Asian descent on a U.S. presidential ticket .
“ It ’ s hard to overstate how historic , how monumental this is .
It ’ s a watershed moment for women of color across the country , ” Allison said in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is “ an indication that the establishment in the Democratic Party … now acknowledges that America needs the leadership of women of color.
” Both of these sentiments are reverberating through much of the progressive response to the selection of Harris .
Biden ’ s choice is indeed a bright acknowledgement of a fact too many Democratic candidates have been happy to ignore : Black voters , and specifically Black women voters , are the backbone of the Democratic base .
Rep. Jim Clyburn knew this when he saved Biden ’ s campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaning hard on Biden to tap a Black woman for VP after that successful rescue mission , and with Biden ’ s subsequent payment of the debt he owed from the primaries , Clyburn was explicitly elbowing a properly larger space at the table of government for a sector of the populace that has been waiting more than 400 years to exert the influence they deserve to .
The fact that Harris is on the Democratic ticket four years after the first Black president left office , and is the presumptive Democratic nominee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ticket wins in November , marks a sea change in the balance of political power within the Democratic party .
No one is ever , ever going to take “ the Black vote ” for granted again .
There is also the unique opportunity for genuine progressive influence in the assembly of Biden ’ s Cabinet-to-be , should he win .
Many people , myself included , strongly suspected that Harris would be nominated for attorney general should he pick someone else to join him on the ticket .
Now that she is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law enforcement position , there are a number of exciting possible nominees Biden should be pushed hard to consider , if not nominate outright .
At the top of my personal list for the AG spot is Preet Bharara , the former United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York who was shoved out of his office by Trump shortly after the 2016 election .
Bharara was investigating Trump and his business dealings when he was fired , which is why many believe he was removed in the first place .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ into Trump was absorbed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation , and lent much weight to Mueller ’ s exhaustively detailed report on Trump ’ s Russia dealings .
Mueller may have fumbled the ball , but Bharara ’ s contribution was damning for the president nonetheless .
Biden has promised there will be no pardons for Trump if he wins , no “ looking forward ” and away from the crimes of this administration .
I can think of no better person to pursue justice than Bharara .
He already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and would be a highly motivated investigator .
As attorney general , Preet Bharara would run Donald Trump to ground , and that is argument enough for his nomination .
Before the theoretical , of course , is the actual : The filthy damn campaign mess awaiting us over these next 83 days .
Straight out of the gate last night , Trump hit Harris with his newest , and easily worst , nickname : “ Phony Kamala.
” Rolls right off the tongue , doesn ’ t it ?
He repeatedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” an insult he reserves only for women .
While discussing the Harris pick on a radio show yesterday , Trump said that Biden had “ insulted ” men by choosing Harris .
Trump is also deep into racist dog-whistling , talking about how Biden “ roped himself off into , you know , a certain group of people.
” It ’ s going to be like this every day , but then again , it would have been like this every day no matter who Biden picked .
Because nothing awful ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s announcement had not yet faded before Trump proxies rolled out the “ birther ” artillery for another salvo .
They are spreading lies about Harris not being a U.S. citizen ( fact check : she has been one since birth ) , using the offensive term “ anchor baby ” and falsely arguing that she can not by law assume the office of the presidency should the need arise .
Of course it ’ s bullshit , but count on hearing this and similar racist allegations over and over again .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mike Pence has the guts to bring that garbage to the table when he meets Harris in Salt Lake City for an October 7 debate .
The job Harris did on Biden for his work with and praise of congressional segregationists during a June 2019 debate has become the stuff of legend , and was a fair portion of the reason why Biden needed Clyburn ’ s help to survive the primaries .
However one may feel about Harris , if that entirely lethal version of the senator from California shows up in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sessions and Brett Kavanaugh off every wall in the hearing room when she had them before her — it feels quite likely that she will carve that chalkdust mannequin of a vice president into ribbons so fine , even Pence ’ s wife ( “ Mother ” ) won ’ t be able to knit them into a devotional for the bathroom wall .
Just a hunch .
So here we are , up to our ears in a lethal pandemic and a righteous social uprising while climate disruption burns on and capitalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environment , a right-center Democratic ticket with dubious social justice chops is set to square off against the most brazenly fascist presidential administration in history .
Only Nixon can go to China , went the saying .
With the help of a new coalition formed around a cornerstone of energized Black voters , perhaps only Biden can go to the White House under these extraordinary circumstances .

Vice President Mike Pence was doing a campaign gig in Arizona last night, the state where incumbent Republican Sen. Martha McSally continues to trail Democratic challenger and former astronaut Mark Kelly. Pence’s boss is locked in a virtual tie with presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden, which explains why the vice president was spending time in a state that Republican presidential candidates have dominated in nearly every election since Barry Goldwater came down the mountain in 1964.
“On the way here,” Pence told that Arizona audience in a voice drizzling sarcasm, “I heard Joe Biden just named his running mate — California Sen. Kamala Harris. So let me take this opportunity to welcome her to the race.” At this point, the crowd booed lustily. “As you all know,” he continued, “Joe Biden and the Democratic Party have been overtaken by the radical left. So given their promises of higher taxes, open borders, socialized medicine and abortion on demand, it’s no surprise that he chose Senator Harris.”
That, right there, might just be the funniest thing you’ll hear on the campaign trail this year. It’s a vivid preview of the Trump/Pence strategy for the remaining 83 days: Paint Joe Biden and his newly minted vice presidential pick as a Trojan horse bursting with socialism, abortion doctors, and lighters for burning Bibles. Biden/Harris: Antifa in Tailored Suits.
Why is that so funny? Because the Democratic presidential tickets in my lifetime have been, in order: McGovern/Eagleton rapidly followed by McGovern/Shriver, Carter/Mondale twice, Mondale/Ferraro, Dukakis/Bentsen, Clinton/Gore twice, Gore/Lieberman, Kerry/Edwards, Obama/Biden twice, Clinton/Kaine, and now this.
While there are some doozies buried in that long, strange line, the simple fact of the matter is that — in assessing by the candidates’ records — Biden/Harris is on numerous counts the most right-leaning Democratic presidential ticket I have personally laid eyes on. Donald Trump and his crew are going to need a nuclear-powered brush to paint his Democratic opponents into some sort of far-left corner. That dog won’t hunt.
Biden’s long record of service to the banking industry, the carceral industry, and the war-making industry is well-documented. He is about as “left-wing” as the right side of an F-22 Raptor. In choosing Senator Harris, Biden has tapped a politician well within his own ideological sphere.
Harris very eloquently extols the virtue and necessity of social justice, but portions of her record demonstrate where and how her official performance has fallen short of her rhetoric. Her hands-off approach to police violence against citizens while serving as California Attorney General is a grim fact, as is her crusade against sex workers during that time. Her record on LGBTQ issues is mostly solid but far from steady, and her record of fighting to keep improperly incarcerated people behind bars is chilling.
Of course, Harris has backed away from or actively disavowed many of the less-than-progressive blemishes on her resume since becoming a senator, presidential candidate and now vice-presidential nominee. Yet she still speaks the language of high finance fluently — “I believe in capitalism,” Harris told a big-dollar Wall Street crowd at an East Hampton fundraiser a year ago — and the financial news network CNBC seems to think Wall Street is pleased with Biden’s choice.
We are a long way round the bend from primary season, aren’t we. A race that began with progressive stalwarts like Bernie Sanders, Julián Castro, Elizabeth Warren, Andrew Yang, Marianne Williamson and Mike Gravel has boiled down to a ticket that is as establishment-right as one gets in today’s Democratic Party.
Biden is about as “left-wing” as the right side of an F-22 Raptor. In choosing Senator Harris, he has tapped a politician well within his own ideological sphere.
That’s the rub: A progressive insurgency against the Democratic establishment, led since 2015 by Bernie Sanders, has been temporarily snuffed at the highest levels. Rep. Ilhan Omar won her primary yesterday, and the progressive tide is still running high in the House. In the offices of the Democratic National Committee, however, the process of choosing a presidential nominee remains firmly in the hands of the last people in America who can call Biden and Harris “progressive” and still keep a straight face.
A recent exchange on Democracy Now! between Aimee Allison of She the People and Briahna Joy Gray, the former national press secretary for the Bernie Sanders campaign, underscores the ways in which many progressives are feeling torn over the historic nature of the nomination of Harris who — as the daughter of a mother of Indian Tamil descent and a Black father from Jamaica — is both the first Black woman and the first woman of South Asian descent on a U.S. presidential ticket.
“It’s hard to overstate how historic, how monumental this is. It’s a watershed moment for women of color across the country,” Allison said in the roundtable conversation, adding that the nomination is “an indication that the establishment in the Democratic Party … now acknowledges that America needs the leadership of women of color.”
Gray responded:
There can be no doubt that of course this nomination is historic. But something else historic is going on right now, which is that we are in the middle of the largest protest movement in American history. And it’s a protest movement that’s all about finding nonpunitive, noncarceral solutions to the kinds of economic problems that are plaguing disproportionately Black and Brown communities … And so there’s a great deal of frustration … [over] a running mate who is known for being the top cop from California, the state that has the second-highest number of incarcerated people in America.
Both of these sentiments are reverberating through much of the progressive response to the selection of Harris. Biden’s choice is indeed a bright acknowledgement of a fact too many Democratic candidates have been happy to ignore: Black voters, and specifically Black women voters, are the backbone of the Democratic base.
Rep. Jim Clyburn knew this when he saved Biden’s campaign during the South Carolina primary. By leaning hard on Biden to tap a Black woman for VP after that successful rescue mission, and with Biden’s subsequent payment of the debt he owed from the primaries, Clyburn was explicitly elbowing a properly larger space at the table of government for a sector of the populace that has been waiting more than 400 years to exert the influence they deserve to.
The fact that Harris is on the Democratic ticket four years after the first Black president left office, and is the presumptive Democratic nominee in 2024 or 2028 if the Biden/Harris ticket wins in November, marks a sea change in the balance of political power within the Democratic party. No one is ever, ever going to take “the Black vote” for granted again.
There is also the unique opportunity for genuine progressive influence in the assembly of Biden’s Cabinet-to-be, should he win. Many people, myself included, strongly suspected that Harris would be nominated for attorney general should he pick someone else to join him on the ticket. Now that she is out of the running for the top law enforcement position, there are a number of exciting possible nominees Biden should be pushed hard to consider, if not nominate outright.
At the top of my personal list for the AG spot is Preet Bharara, the former United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York who was shoved out of his office by Trump shortly after the 2016 election. Bharara was investigating Trump and his business dealings when he was fired, which is why many believe he was removed in the first place. The material from Bharara’s investigation into Trump was absorbed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, and lent much weight to Mueller’s exhaustively detailed report on Trump’s Russia dealings. Mueller may have fumbled the ball, but Bharara’s contribution was damning for the president nonetheless.
Biden has promised there will be no pardons for Trump if he wins, no “looking forward” and away from the crimes of this administration. I can think of no better person to pursue justice than Bharara. He already knows the details down to the decimal, and would be a highly motivated investigator. As attorney general, Preet Bharara would run Donald Trump to ground, and that is argument enough for his nomination.
Before the theoretical, of course, is the actual: The filthy damn campaign mess awaiting us over these next 83 days.
Straight out of the gate last night, Trump hit Harris with his newest, and easily worst, nickname: “Phony Kamala.” Rolls right off the tongue, doesn’t it? He repeatedly referred to Harris as “nasty,” an insult he reserves only for women. While discussing the Harris pick on a radio show yesterday, Trump said that Biden had “insulted” men by choosing Harris.
Trump is also deep into racist dog-whistling, talking about how Biden “roped himself off into, you know, a certain group of people.” It’s going to be like this every day, but then again, it would have been like this every day no matter who Biden picked.
Because nothing awful ever truly dies, the echo of Biden’s announcement had not yet faded before Trump proxies rolled out the “birther” artillery for another salvo. They are spreading lies about Harris not being a U.S. citizen (fact check: she has been one since birth), using the offensive term “anchor baby” and falsely arguing that she cannot by law assume the office of the presidency should the need arise. Of course it’s bullshit, but count on hearing this and similar racist allegations over and over again.
It will be interesting to see if Mike Pence has the guts to bring that garbage to the table when he meets Harris in Salt Lake City for an October 7 debate. The job Harris did on Biden for his work with and praise of congressional segregationists during a June 2019 debate has become the stuff of legend, and was a fair portion of the reason why Biden needed Clyburn’s help to survive the primaries.
However one may feel about Harris, if that entirely lethal version of the senator from California shows up in Utah — the woman who bounced Jeff Sessions and Brett Kavanaugh off every wall in the hearing room when she had them before her — it feels quite likely that she will carve that chalkdust mannequin of a vice president into ribbons so fine, even Pence’s wife (“Mother”) won’t be able to knit them into a devotional for the bathroom wall. Just a hunch.
So here we are, up to our ears in a lethal pandemic and a righteous social uprising while climate disruption burns on and capitalism collapses around us. In this fraught environment, a right-center Democratic ticket with dubious social justice chops is set to square off against the most brazenly fascist presidential administration in history.
Only Nixon can go to China, went the saying. With the help of a new coalition formed around a cornerstone of energized Black voters, perhaps only Biden can go to the White House under these extraordinary circumstances.
83 days.
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--2020-08-12--Kamala Harris’s “Top Cop” Record Faces New Scrutiny Amid BLM Protests

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden ’ s selection of California Senator Kamala Harris as his vice-presidential running mate for the November election makes her the first Black woman and the first Indian American on a major party presidential ticket .
“ It ’ s hard to overstate how historic , how monumental this is , ” says Aimee Allison , president of She the People , which works to elevate the political voice and leadership of women of color .
But in the midst of the largest protest movement in American history against racist policing , Briahna Joy Gray , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bernie Sanders presidential campaign , says “ there ’ s a great deal of frustration ” with Harris , who is “ known for being the top cop from California.
” This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : We ’ re beginning with the top news here in this country .
Joe Biden has selected Senator Kamala Harris of California to be his vice-presidential running mate , making her the first Black woman and the first Indian American to be on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the daughter of immigrants , her father from Jamaica , her mother from India .
Biden and Harris are scheduled to make their first appearance today in Wilmington , Delaware .
Harris will officially accept her nomination next Wednesday during the Democratic National Convention .
In a tweet , Biden described Harris as a , quote , “ fearless fighter for the little guy , and one of the country ’ s finest public servants.
” Kamala Harris had endorsed Biden in March after challenging him for the nomination .
AMY GOODMAN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though the two sparred on the campaign trail .
In the first Democratic debate last year , Harris criticized Biden over his comments about working with segregationists in the Senate and for his opposition to Delaware ’ s attempts to bus students in an effort to integrate its schools in the 1970s .
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS : I ’ m going to now direct this at Vice President Biden .
I do not believe you are a racist , and I agree with you when you commit yourself to the importance of finding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and it ’ s personal .
I was actually very — it was hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this country .
And it was not only that , but you also worked with them to oppose busing .
And , you know , there was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools , and she was bussed to school every day .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ AMY GOODMAN : Kamala Harris has served in the Senate since 2017 .
She previously served as California ’ s attorney general for six years and , before that , as district attorney of San Francisco for seven years .
She ’ s a graduate of Howard University , the historically Black college .
While Harris has been credited with pushing criminal justice reform in the Senate , she has been criticized for her record as a prosecutor in California by progressives , in part for her reluctance to prosecute police brutality cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s “ top cop , ” and wrote in 2009 , quote , “ If we take a show of hands of those who would like to see more police officers on the street , mine would shoot up.
” Biden ’ s selection of Harris was celebrated by many progressive organizations .
NAACP CEO Derrick Johnson said the selection of Harris is , quote , “ the culmination of the tireless work of Shirley Chisholm , Charlene Mitchell , Sojourner Truth , Rosa Parks , Fannie Lou Hamer , Barbara Jordan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Evers in their fight for representation and equality , ” unquote .
Sunrise Movement co-founder Varshini Prakash praised Harris for taking the No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge , endorsing the Green New Deal and taking on Big Oil as California ’ s attorney general .
Former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders also praised Harris , tweeting , “ She understands what it takes to stand up for working people , fight for health care for all , and take down the most corrupt administration in history.
” Meanwhile , at the White House , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as , quote , “ nasty.
” He made no mention of the fact he had twice donated to Harris ’ s reelection bid to be California ’ s attorney general in 2014 .
We ’ re joined now by two guests .
Joining us from Harris ’ s hometown of Oakland , California , Aimee Allison , president and founder of She the People , which has worked to elevate the political voice and leadership of women of color .
Also with us , Briahna Joy Gray , former national press secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In 2019 , she wrote a piece for The Intercept headlined “ A Problem for Kamala Harris : Can a Prosecutor Become President in the Age of Black Lives Matter ?
” We welcome you both to Democracy Now !
Aimee Allison , let ’ s begin with you .
Can you respond to Joe Biden ’ s announcement yesterday that Kamala Harris will join him on the presidential ticket as his vice-presidential running mate ?
AIMEE ALLISON : Well , it ’ s hard to overstate how historic , how monumental this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment for women of color across the country .
We ’ ve worked tirelessly over the last three years , but standing on the shoulders of women of color who have worked as engaged citizens and as the most loyal Democrats to lead .
And for Kamala Harris to join the top of the ticket is not just a nod to our voting power , the necessity of women of color to turn out in historic numbers in November ; it ’ s an indication that the establishment in the Democratic Party , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imagine women of color and Black women being in executive leadership and in governance , now acknowledges that America needs the leadership of women of color , and so our time has come .
It ’ s a very exciting moment , and I ’ ve been hearing from women of color all over the country how thrilled they are .
The move deepens the enthusiasm that women of color , particularly in battleground must-win states , feel about the Biden ticket , the Biden-Harris ticket .
It ’ s going to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more deeply in the campaign .
And that ’ s going to bode well for a path to victory in November .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : I ’ d like to ask , Briahna Joy Gray , your response to Vice President Biden ’ s choice .
And what message is he sending in terms of what sectors of the electorate he is courting or he is deciding that he doesn ’ t need to placate with his vice-presidential choice ?
BRIAHNA JOY GRAY : Yeah , I think there can be no doubt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But something else historic is going on right now , which is that we are in the middle of the largest protest movement in American history .
And it ’ s a protest movement that ’ s all about finding nonpunitive , noncarceral solutions to the kinds of economic problems that are plaguing disproportionately Black and Brown communities , but all Americans , especially right now in the middle of this additionally historic global pandemic .
And so there ’ s a great deal of frustration that there is this choice not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ known as the author of what is actually called the Joe Biden crime bill , but that he ’ s gone and also selected a running mate who is known for being the top cop from California , the state that has the second-highest number of incarcerated people in America .
And moreover , Kamala Harris is someone who has had these criticisms leveraged at her throughout , very early on , at the start of her campaign , and , to many people in the activist community , has done very little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her previous stances or to demonstrate the level of growth that we would like to see .
So , I think that to the point that Ms. Allison was making about whether or not Black voters in swing states are going to be more inclined to turn out , what we saw from poll after poll is that Joe Biden had the base locked down , and he is often celebrating the fact that Black voters overwhelmingly voted for him .
So it ’ s not clear to me what the the electoral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contrast that especially with the fact that younger voters , in particular , and swing voters are less enthusiastic about this campaign in part because they were looking for a kind of fundamental change in this campaign cycle , a desire that was only exacerbated by the health crisis and economic crisis that we ’ re in now .
And Joe Biden has articulated very clearly that he is the candidate who promises that nothing will fundamentally change .
AMY GOODMAN : We ’ re going to break and then come back to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joy Gray , former national press secretary for Bernie Sanders ’ 2020 presidential bid .
And we ’ re joined , as well , by Aimee Allison , who is the founder of She the People .
Stay with us .

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s selection of California Senator Kamala Harris as his vice-presidential running mate for the November election makes her the first Black woman and the first Indian American on a major party presidential ticket. “It’s hard to overstate how historic, how monumental this is,” says Aimee Allison, president of She the People, which works to elevate the political voice and leadership of women of color. But in the midst of the largest protest movement in American history against racist policing, Briahna Joy Gray, the former national press secretary for the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, says “there’s a great deal of frustration” with Harris, who is “known for being the top cop from California.”
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re beginning with the top news here in this country. Joe Biden has selected Senator Kamala Harris of California to be his vice-presidential running mate, making her the first Black woman and the first Indian American to be on a major party presidential ticket. Kamala Harris is the daughter of immigrants, her father from Jamaica, her mother from India. Biden and Harris are scheduled to make their first appearance today in Wilmington, Delaware. Harris will officially accept her nomination next Wednesday during the Democratic National Convention. In a tweet, Biden described Harris as a, quote, “fearless fighter for the little guy, and one of the country’s finest public servants.” Kamala Harris had endorsed Biden in March after challenging him for the nomination.
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS: I really believe in him, and I have known him for a long time. One of the things that we need right now is we need a leader who really does care about the people and who can therefore unify the people. And I believe Joe can do that.
AMY GOODMAN: Joe Biden picked Kamala Harris even though the two sparred on the campaign trail. In the first Democratic debate last year, Harris criticized Biden over his comments about working with segregationists in the Senate and for his opposition to Delaware’s attempts to bus students in an effort to integrate its schools in the 1970s.
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS: I’m going to now direct this at Vice President Biden. I do not believe you are a racist, and I agree with you when you commit yourself to the importance of finding common ground. But I also believe — and it’s personal. I was actually very — it was hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this country. And it was not only that, but you also worked with them to oppose busing. And, you know, there was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bussed to school every day. And that little girl was me.
AMY GOODMAN: Kamala Harris has served in the Senate since 2017. She previously served as California’s attorney general for six years and, before that, as district attorney of San Francisco for seven years. She’s a graduate of Howard University, the historically Black college. While Harris has been credited with pushing criminal justice reform in the Senate, she has been criticized for her record as a prosecutor in California by progressives, in part for her reluctance to prosecute police brutality cases. She once called herself California’s “top cop,” and wrote in 2009, quote, “If we take a show of hands of those who would like to see more police officers on the street, mine would shoot up.”
Biden’s selection of Harris was celebrated by many progressive organizations. NAACP CEO Derrick Johnson said the selection of Harris is, quote, “the culmination of the tireless work of Shirley Chisholm, Charlene Mitchell, Sojourner Truth, Rosa Parks, Fannie Lou Hamer, Barbara Jordan, Ida B. Wells, and Myrlie Evers in their fight for representation and equality,” unquote. Sunrise Movement co-founder Varshini Prakash praised Harris for taking the No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge, endorsing the Green New Deal and taking on Big Oil as California’s attorney general.
Former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders also praised Harris, tweeting, “She understands what it takes to stand up for working people, fight for health care for all, and take down the most corrupt administration in history.”
Meanwhile, at the White House, President Trump attacked Harris, describing her as, quote, “nasty.” He made no mention of the fact he had twice donated to Harris’s reelection bid to be California’s attorney general in 2014.
We’re joined now by two guests. Joining us from Harris’s hometown of Oakland, California, Aimee Allison, president and founder of She the People, which has worked to elevate the political voice and leadership of women of color. Also with us, Briahna Joy Gray, former national press secretary for Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign. In 2019, she wrote a piece for The Intercept headlined “A Problem for Kamala Harris: Can a Prosecutor Become President in the Age of Black Lives Matter?”
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Aimee Allison, let’s begin with you. Can you respond to Joe Biden’s announcement yesterday that Kamala Harris will join him on the presidential ticket as his vice-presidential running mate?
AIMEE ALLISON: Well, it’s hard to overstate how historic, how monumental this is. It’s a watershed moment for women of color across the country. We’ve worked tirelessly over the last three years, but standing on the shoulders of women of color who have worked as engaged citizens and as the most loyal Democrats to lead.
And for Kamala Harris to join the top of the ticket is not just a nod to our voting power, the necessity of women of color to turn out in historic numbers in November; it’s an indication that the establishment in the Democratic Party, who just four years ago could not imagine women of color and Black women being in executive leadership and in governance, now acknowledges that America needs the leadership of women of color, and so our time has come.
It’s a very exciting moment, and I’ve been hearing from women of color all over the country how thrilled they are. The move deepens the enthusiasm that women of color, particularly in battleground must-win states, feel about the Biden ticket, the Biden-Harris ticket. It’s going to get people to be able to see themselves more deeply in the campaign. And that’s going to bode well for a path to victory in November.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I’d like to ask, Briahna Joy Gray, your response to Vice President Biden’s choice. And what message is he sending in terms of what sectors of the electorate he is courting or he is deciding that he doesn’t need to placate with his vice-presidential choice?
BRIAHNA JOY GRAY: Yeah, I think there can be no doubt that of course this nomination is historic. But something else historic is going on right now, which is that we are in the middle of the largest protest movement in American history. And it’s a protest movement that’s all about finding nonpunitive, noncarceral solutions to the kinds of economic problems that are plaguing disproportionately Black and Brown communities, but all Americans, especially right now in the middle of this additionally historic global pandemic.
And so there’s a great deal of frustration that there is this choice not only to nominate a candidate who is known as the author of what is actually called the Joe Biden crime bill, but that he’s gone and also selected a running mate who is known for being the top cop from California, the state that has the second-highest number of incarcerated people in America. And moreover, Kamala Harris is someone who has had these criticisms leveraged at her throughout, very early on, at the start of her campaign, and, to many people in the activist community, has done very little to assuage people’s concerns about her previous stances or to demonstrate the level of growth that we would like to see.
So, I think that to the point that Ms. Allison was making about whether or not Black voters in swing states are going to be more inclined to turn out, what we saw from poll after poll is that Joe Biden had the base locked down, and he is often celebrating the fact that Black voters overwhelmingly voted for him. So it’s not clear to me what the the electoral value of this is, when you contrast that especially with the fact that younger voters, in particular, and swing voters are less enthusiastic about this campaign in part because they were looking for a kind of fundamental change in this campaign cycle, a desire that was only exacerbated by the health crisis and economic crisis that we’re in now. And Joe Biden has articulated very clearly that he is the candidate who promises that nothing will fundamentally change.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to break and then come back to this discussion. That’s Briahna Joy Gray, former national press secretary for Bernie Sanders’ 2020 presidential bid. And we’re joined, as well, by Aimee Allison, who is the founder of She the People. 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.