thenation--2020-05-13--The Coronavirus Is Hitting Tribal Schools Hard

When Jasmine Nyash , a third-year student at the College of Menominee Nation in Wisconsin , first started university , she was functionally homeless for two years .
“ I was living on floors , I had no place to go where I could actually study , ” she told The Nation .
“ Those were really difficult times .
I wouldn ’ t have gotten through it without support from my school.
” Nyash was eventually able to find stable housing , but the coronavirus pandemic has once more thrown her into a precarious economic situation .
When Menominee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nyash lost an opportunity to present to potential employers the research she had been working on all year .
Now , she is concerned that she won ’ t be able to network or find summer employment , which she needs to pay for housing and other essentials .
This story was produced for Student Nation , a section devoted to highlighting campus activism and student movements from students in their own words .
For more Student Nation , check out our archive .
Are you a student with a campus activism story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schuyler at samantha @ thenation.com .
The Student Nation program is made possible through generous funding from The Puffin Foundation .
Nyash is one of thousands of college students across the country facing enormous uncertainty and unthinkable change in the face of the coronavirus .
Many students have been forced to suddenly evacuate the campus and find new housing , leave behind friends and personal belongings , and switch to online classes .
Native American students , particularly those who attend tribal colleges and universities ( TCUs ) , have been faced with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve moved to online classes , which has been really hit-or-miss , because we are very underserved in terms of Internet on the reservation , ” said Nyash .
“ A lot of students don ’ t have laptops or can ’ t afford proper access to technology , and our professors are trying—but most of them don ’ t know how to use the new software either .
It ’ s been really hard.
” According to a 2018 report by the Federal Communications Commission , about 35 percent of people living @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as compared to about 8 percent of the general American population .
This lack of an Internet connection can make it impossible to complete the online coursework that has become a staple for college students in recent weeks .
But poor Internet service or lack of access to proper technology is only one piece of the puzzle—Native college students must also worry about other challenges at much higher rates than their peers .
According to a 2020 survey conducted by the American Indian College Fund , 62 percent of Native students said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previous 30 days , and 69 percent reported having been housing insecure at some point in the last year .
Many Native students relied on their college for food and housing in addition to education , making the switch to remote learning not only an impediment to their learning experience but also detrimental to their well-being .
“ Nearly all options for food on campus have been closed or eliminated , which has made things difficult , ” said Brandon Dennison , a senior at the University of Utah in Navajo Nation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ daily to utilize my dining dollars , which have now essentially become obsolete .
There are also only 13 grocery stores that I am aware of in the entire Navajo nation , which brings in concerns about food and supplies.
” Dennison is not alone in these anxieties : One in four Native Americans self-identified as food-insecure in 2017 , compared to one in eight Americans generally .
But lack of access to food is only one of the many health concerns that people living on reservations face at the moment .
Like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record numbers from the coronavirus because of a combination of poor health care options and a bevy of preexisting health conditions rooted in poverty and environmental racism , Native Americans are also particularly vulnerable to the disease .
On average , Native Americans have a higher risk of heart disease and diabetes , live in intergenerational households that impede social distancing and put the elderly at risk , and lack access to proper health care .
Navajo Nation in particular has already begun to see an increased strain in the region ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ access to health care on the reservation , ” Dennison said .
“ Crownpoint Health Care Facility , the hospital that is closest to our land , has 32 hospital beds .
There are very limited health care professionals on hand at this facility which serves nearly 20,000 Navajo residents made up of primarily elderly citizens .
I would not want to risk the possibility of not being able to be treated or taking a bed away from someone who also needs to be treated should the virus continue to spread.
” Amid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are still determined to complete their coursework .
For many students , their university is not only a resource for food , housing , and education , but also a stepping stone toward a better life for themselves and their community .
Only 17 percent of Native American students continue their education after high school , compared to 60 percent of the US population , according to data from the Postsecondary National Policy Institute in 2018 .
About 7 percent of all Native students who attended college in 2010 went to a tribal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is estimated to have increased since .
Many of these students would not have the chance to attend college if it were not for the unique scholarships and funding that TCUs can offer students on the reservation , which is why it ’ s so important that these institutions survive the pandemic .
“ We ’ re deeply concerned that the momentum that we ’ ve built to support students and support these already-fragile institutions will be lost because of this crisis , ” said Cheryl Crazy Bull , the president and CEO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We feel like as indigenous people living in primarily rural reservation communities , the people we serve are already traumatized .
We already have limited health care access and are living in substandard housing .
Covid-19 just exacerbates these conditions , and makes it difficult for institutions like TCUs to survive.
” According to Crazy Bull , most TCUs receive very little federal funding and instead rely on tuition from students to cover costs , meaning that if Native students are unable to complete their semester or return to college next year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put several universities in a precarious financial situation—even , in some cases , cause a closure of the school .
“ Many institutions have very little reserves in respect to cash in , cash out versus operating costs , so if there are no students , then there is no cash flow , ” Levi Elmo Jensen , an alumnus of Lake Superior State University , explained to The Nation .
“ This makes paying the bills very difficult for the university .
Then comes the fact that TCUs are major employers for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of reserves makes it difficult to keep staff paid.
” The closure of tribal colleges and universities because of the coronavirus would be devastating to Native communities , and Native students across the country are concerned about what this crisis could mean for their universities both in the long term and for the remainder of the current semester .
Nyash , for one , noted that the move to online classes deprived her of an opportunity to present medical research to the school this spring .
“ Since I ’ m in my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on going to graduate school , having those opportunities to participate in research was important so that I got funding , ” she said .
“ I ’ m definitely concerned that I missed out on that opportunity.
” Ultimately , it is imperative that TCUs remain open so that Native students can get their basic needs met , as well as receive their education .
“ I never realized how important it was to have spaces to learn or tutors who can help you and all the other things that my college @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Without the resources that I got from my university , I honestly do not know where I would be today .
”

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
When Jasmine Neosh, a third-year student at the College of Menominee Nation in Wisconsin, first started university, she was functionally homeless for two years. “I was living on floors, I had no place to go where I could actually study,” she told The Nation. “Those were really difficult times. I wouldn’t have gotten through it without support from my school.”
Neosh was eventually able to find stable housing, but the coronavirus pandemic has once more thrown her into a precarious economic situation. When Menominee’s campus closed in March, Nyash lost an opportunity to present to potential employers the research she had been working on all year. Now, she is concerned that she won’t be able to network or find summer employment, which she needs to pay for housing and other essentials. This story was produced for Student Nation, a section devoted to highlighting campus activism and student movements from students in their own words. For more Student Nation, check out our archive. Are you a student with a campus activism story? Send questions and pitches to Samantha Schuyler at [email protected]. The Student Nation program is made possible through generous funding from The Puffin Foundation.
Neosh is one of thousands of college students across the country facing enormous uncertainty and unthinkable change in the face of the coronavirus. Many students have been forced to suddenly evacuate the campus and find new housing, leave behind friends and personal belongings, and switch to online classes.
Native American students, particularly those who attend tribal colleges and universities (TCUs), have been faced with even greater challenges.
“We’ve moved to online classes, which has been really hit-or-miss, because we are very underserved in terms of Internet on the reservation,” said Neosh. “A lot of students don’t have laptops or can’t afford proper access to technology, and our professors are trying—but most of them don’t know how to use the new software either. It’s been really hard.”
According to a 2018 report by the Federal Communications Commission, about 35 percent of people living on tribal lands lack broadband Internet access, as compared to about 8 percent of the general American population. This lack of an Internet connection can make it impossible to complete the online coursework that has become a staple for college students in recent weeks.
But poor Internet service or lack of access to proper technology is only one piece of the puzzle—Native college students must also worry about other challenges at much higher rates than their peers. According to a 2020 survey conducted by the American Indian College Fund, 62 percent of Native students said they had experienced food insecurity in the previous 30 days, and 69 percent reported having been housing insecure at some point in the last year. Many Native students relied on their college for food and housing in addition to education, making the switch to remote learning not only an impediment to their learning experience but also detrimental to their well-being. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Current Issue View our current issue
“Nearly all options for food on campus have been closed or eliminated, which has made things difficult,” said Brandon Dennison, a senior at the University of Utah in Navajo Nation. “I used to eat on campus daily to utilize my dining dollars, which have now essentially become obsolete. There are also only 13 grocery stores that I am aware of in the entire Navajo nation, which brings in concerns about food and supplies.”
Dennison is not alone in these anxieties: One in four Native Americans self-identified as food-insecure in 2017, compared to one in eight Americans generally. But lack of access to food is only one of the many health concerns that people living on reservations face at the moment. Like black Americans, who are dying at record numbers from the coronavirus because of a combination of poor health care options and a bevy of preexisting health conditions rooted in poverty and environmental racism, Native Americans are also particularly vulnerable to the disease. On average, Native Americans have a higher risk of heart disease and diabetes, live in intergenerational households that impede social distancing and put the elderly at risk, and lack access to proper health care. Navajo Nation in particular has already begun to see an increased strain in the region’s hospitals.
“There is very limited access to health care on the reservation,” Dennison said. “Crownpoint Health Care Facility, the hospital that is closest to our land, has 32 hospital beds. There are very limited health care professionals on hand at this facility which serves nearly 20,000 Navajo residents made up of primarily elderly citizens. I would not want to risk the possibility of not being able to be treated or taking a bed away from someone who also needs to be treated should the virus continue to spread.”
Amid all of these challenges, Native students are still determined to complete their coursework. For many students, their university is not only a resource for food, housing, and education, but also a stepping stone toward a better life for themselves and their community. Only 17 percent of Native American students continue their education after high school, compared to 60 percent of the US population, according to data from the Postsecondary National Policy Institute in 2018.
About 7 percent of all Native students who attended college in 2010 went to a tribal college or university, though the number is estimated to have increased since. Many of these students would not have the chance to attend college if it were not for the unique scholarships and funding that TCUs can offer students on the reservation, which is why it’s so important that these institutions survive the pandemic.
“We’re deeply concerned that the momentum that we’ve built to support students and support these already-fragile institutions will be lost because of this crisis,” said Cheryl Crazy Bull, the president and CEO of the American Indian College Fund. “We feel like as indigenous people living in primarily rural reservation communities, the people we serve are already traumatized. We already have limited health care access and are living in substandard housing. Covid-19 just exacerbates these conditions, and makes it difficult for institutions like TCUs to survive.”
According to Crazy Bull, most TCUs receive very little federal funding and instead rely on tuition from students to cover costs, meaning that if Native students are unable to complete their semester or return to college next year because of the coronavirus, it could put several universities in a precarious financial situation—even, in some cases, cause a closure of the school.
“Many institutions have very little reserves in respect to cash in, cash out versus operating costs, so if there are no students, then there is no cash flow,” Levi Elmo Jensen, an alumnus of Lake Superior State University, explained to The Nation. “This makes paying the bills very difficult for the university. Then comes the fact that TCUs are major employers for a lot of reservations. The lack of reserves makes it difficult to keep staff paid.”
The closure of tribal colleges and universities because of the coronavirus would be devastating to Native communities, and Native students across the country are concerned about what this crisis could mean for their universities both in the long term and for the remainder of the current semester. Neosh, for one, noted that the move to online classes deprived her of an opportunity to present medical research to the school this spring. “Since I’m in my third year, and I was planning on going to graduate school, having those opportunities to participate in research was important so that I got funding,” she said. “I’m definitely concerned that I missed out on that opportunity.”
Ultimately, it is imperative that TCUs remain open so that Native students can get their basic needs met, as well as receive their education. “I never realized how important it was to have spaces to learn or tutors who can help you and all the other things that my college provided me,” Neosh said. “Without the resources that I got from my university, I honestly do not know where I would be today.”


thenation--2020-05-13--Scenes From a Pandemic: 7

Scenes From a Pandemic: 7

Las Vegas/Chicago—My dad works at a grocery store in Chicago .
He ’ s 57 years old .
He was born in Acapulco , Guerrero .
He likes to play the guitar for his 10-month-old grandson , Joaquín , and me , his 35-year-old son , over FaceTime .
When my son smiles at the screen , it soothes the hurt caused by the 2,000 miles between us .
My dad is quite fit , but he takes a pill every day to lower his blood pressure—a gift inscribed in his genes by his biological father , who abandoned him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hit full stride , he and my mom began gaming out a series of bad “ choices , ” likely catastrophic “ choices , ” amid a moment of world-historic crisis that ’ s been 40-plus years in the making .
Something Is Happening Here is a collaboration between The Nation and Kopkind , a living memorial to radical journalist Andrew Kopkind , who from 1982–94 was the magazine ’ s chief political writer and analyst .
They ’ ve been trying to “ figure things out , ” he says .
My @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an interpreter , but her hours have been drastically reduced .
My dad can ’ t work from home , and they ’ re “ on his insurance.
” Whenever we video chat , I can see that he ’ s scared but trying to look , for me , as if he ’ s not .
When he showers , puts on his uniform , and goes to work , he ’ s forced to make a wager with fate : Today I won ’ t contract the virus .
I won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an overburdened hospital .
I ’ ll watch Joaquín grow into the toddler clothes I sent him on his 6-month birthday .
He does this for $ 14 an hour and the health insurance .
The wager he makes every day is a version of one he ’ s been making his whole working life , which began before he was 10 .
When he left Mexico , during what historians now call the lost decade—an economic crisis fueled by unscrupulous lending by US commercial banks , World Bank– and IMF-imposed austerity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy—he lost .
He paid in the form of estrangement from everything and everyone he knew , but especially his mother , and the man who helped raise him , whom he called his father .
He was able to see my grandmother only a handful of times before her death , and he never saw his dad again , not even when he was laid to rest .
When I was a toddler , and he worked 12-hour shifts as a dishwasher at a stadium , he lost again .
This time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his right hand , which was left with thickened , dead skin that comes off in scales .
When I was in my 20s , he worked at an industrial food packaging facility about an hour ’ s commute from where we lived .
He worked the night shift .
My mother talked to him on the phone for the duration of his drive to make sure he didn ’ t fall asleep .
His blood pressure was the worst it ’ s ever been then .
When he came home at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was sedated or sick , and although it was never diagnosed , he sunk into a slow-burning depression that made him prone to bouts of anger and despair .
Something Is Happening Here More in this series With the pandemic raging , my father was “ allowed ” to take his two weeks of personal time .
The other day he decided he ’ ll stay home without pay , and without the ability to collect unemployment benefits .
For the time being , he ’ s “ allowed ” to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my mother can ’ t absorb the cost of lost wages for long .
At night , when my wife and I are trying to get our baby to sleep , I take him on little walks through our darkened house .
We call these whisper safaris , because I point to things with a dim headlamp and whisper stories to Joaquín as he swivels his head from the objects to my moving lips and back to the objects .
One of our stops is a photograph of my father and me laughing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stares at the photo and then at me .
I can see him working out that what he ’ s seeing is some version of me .
He looks at his grandfather ’ s face and then turns to look at mine , and I imagine that he somehow knows the three of us contain one another , that we ’ re bound by more than blood .
When I look at the photo I try to hide what I feel , but sometimes I can ’ t , and I see Joaquín @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This pandemic has laid bare a system that is casual in its cruelty—one that would rather pay workers to die than pay them to live , one that absorbs certain kinds of people ’ s deaths in its cost-benefit analysis , one that would think nothing of making my son ’ s grandfather a memory he never had .
Something Is Happening Here is a collaboration between The Nation and Kopkind , offering scenes from a pandemic—a series of dispatches from Kopkind ’ s far-flung network of participants , advisers , guests , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Kopkind program director JoAnn Wypijewski , it will appear weekly on thenation.com and kopkind.org .

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Nation believes that helping readers stay informed about the impact of the coronavirus crisis is a form of public service. For that reason, this article, and all of our coronavirus coverage, is now free. Please subscribe to support our writers and staff, and stay healthy.
L as V egas and C hicago—My dad works at a grocery store in Chicago. He’s 57 years old. He was born in Acapulco, Guerrero. He likes to play the guitar for his 10-month-old grandson, Joaquín, and me, his 35-year-old son, over FaceTime. When my son smiles at the screen, it soothes the hurt caused by the 2,000 miles between us. My dad is quite fit, but he takes a pill every day to lower his blood pressure—a gift inscribed in his genes by his biological father, who abandoned him as a child. When the pandemic hit full stride, he and my mom began gaming out a series of bad “choices,” likely catastrophic “choices,” amid a moment of world-historic crisis that’s been 40-plus years in the making. Something Is Happening Here is a collaboration between The Nation and Kopkind, a living memorial to radical journalist Andrew Kopkind, who from 1982–94 was the magazine’s chief political writer and analyst.
They’ve been trying to “figure things out,” he says. My mom works at a rehabilitation hospital as an interpreter, but her hours have been drastically reduced. My dad can’t work from home, and they’re “on his insurance.” Whenever we video chat, I can see that he’s scared but trying to look, for me, as if he’s not. When he showers, puts on his uniform, and goes to work, he’s forced to make a wager with fate: Today I won’t contract the virus. I won’t die alone, intubated, in an overburdened hospital. I’ll watch Joaquín grow into the toddler clothes I sent him on his 6-month birthday.
He does this for $14 an hour and the health insurance. The wager he makes every day is a version of one he’s been making his whole working life, which began before he was 10. When he left Mexico, during what historians now call the lost decade—an economic crisis fueled by unscrupulous lending by US commercial banks, World Bank– and IMF-imposed austerity, and the liberalization of the Mexican economy—he lost. He paid in the form of estrangement from everything and everyone he knew, but especially his mother, and the man who helped raise him, whom he called his father. He was able to see my grandmother only a handful of times before her death, and he never saw his dad again, not even when he was laid to rest.
When I was a toddler, and he worked 12-hour shifts as a dishwasher at a stadium, he lost again. This time, the price was the permanent disfigurement of his right hand, which was left with thickened, dead skin that comes off in scales. When I was in my 20s, he worked at an industrial food packaging facility about an hour’s commute from where we lived. He worked the night shift. My mother talked to him on the phone for the duration of his drive to make sure he didn’t fall asleep. His blood pressure was the worst it’s ever been then. When he came home at dawn, he looked dazed, like he was sedated or sick, and although it was never diagnosed, he sunk into a slow-burning depression that made him prone to bouts of anger and despair. Something Is Happening Here Untethered, or The Year of Living Virtually Patricia J. Williams The Art of the Meal Mary Lewis Maybe We Shouldn’t Go Back to Normal Bri M.
With the pandemic raging, my father was “allowed” to take his two weeks of personal time. The other day he decided he’ll stay home without pay, and without the ability to collect unemployment benefits. For the time being, he’s “allowed” to keep his medical insurance, but he and my mother can’t absorb the cost of lost wages for long.
At night, when my wife and I are trying to get our baby to sleep, I take him on little walks through our darkened house. We call these whisper safaris, because I point to things with a dim headlamp and whisper stories to Joaquín as he swivels his head from the objects to my moving lips and back to the objects. One of our stops is a photograph of my father and me laughing and embracing at my wedding. Joaquín stares at the photo and then at me. I can see him working out that what he’s seeing is some version of me. He looks at his grandfather’s face and then turns to look at mine, and I imagine that he somehow knows the three of us contain one another, that we’re bound by more than blood. When I look at the photo I try to hide what I feel, but sometimes I can’t, and I see Joaquín sensing that something is terribly wrong. This pandemic has laid bare a system that is casual in its cruelty—one that would rather pay workers to die than pay them to live, one that absorbs certain kinds of people’s deaths in its cost-benefit analysis, one that would think nothing of making my son’s grandfather a memory he never had.
Something Is Happening Here is a collaboration between The Nation and Kopkind, offering scenes from a pandemic—a series of dispatches from Kopkind’s far-flung network of participants, advisers, guests, and friends. Edited by Nation contributor and Kopkind program director JoAnn Wypijewski, it will appear weekly on thenation.com and kopkind.org.


thenation--2020-05-13--Racism Is All Trump Has Left

Racism Is All Trump Has Left

Barack Obama will not be on the ballot in November , but Donald Trump is determined to run against the former president .
On Sunday , Trump went on a social media rampage , posting 128 tweets and retweets , many about a spurious scandal he called Obamagate .
“ He got caught , OBAMAGATE !
” Trump wrote .
In a press briefing on Monday , Washington Post reporter Philip Rucker tried to tease out exactly what the nebulous phrase “ Obamagate ” meant .
“ In one of your Mother ’ s Day tweets , you appeared to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political crime in American history , by far ’ —those were your words , ” Rucker noted .
“ What crime exactly are you accusing President Obama of committing , and do you believe the Justice Department should prosecute him ?
” Trump ’ s response didn ’ t help clear up the matter .
“ Uh , Obamagate .
It ’ s been going on for a long time , ” Trump said .
“ It ’ s been going on from before I even got elected , and it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if you look at what ’ s gone on , and if you look at now , all this information that ’ s being released—and from what I understand , that ’ s only the beginning—some terrible things happened , and it should never be allowed to happen in our country again.
” Trump ’ s vagueness is understandable given that Obamagate is less a scandal than a shapeless collection of insinuations and suspicions focusing on the origins of the Russian election interference controversy .
Rarely spelled out in a way where it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theory that the Russia story was conjured up in 2016 by Obama and his allies in law enforcement and the national security establishment in order to frame Donald Trump for colluding with Russia .
The New Cold War in Asia Is Born of Desperation If This Pandemic Is a War , Trump Is a War Criminal This theory suffers from a paucity of proof .
It also has a simple logical problem : If the goal was to railroad Trump , why in 2016 did the FBI make a big show of investigating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denying that the Trump campaign was being investigated ?
If there was a conspiracy , it was carried out by bunglers who acted in a manner that seemed calculated to ensure Trump ’ s victory .
Nate Silver , the polling guru of FiveThirtyEight , was puzzled by Trump ’ s focusing his ire on a former president .
“ Turning the election into a referendum on Obama vs. Trump would seem to be one of the dumbest possible moves for Trump given Obama ’ s popularity , which was pretty good when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Silver contends .
From a purely rational point of view , it ’ s hard to gainsay Silver ’ s argument .
But Trump ’ s approach to politics has never been rational .
Rather , Trump has won the success he ’ s achieved by tapping into feral emotions that other politicians are too cautious or prissy to exploit .
Trump is well aware that the election of the first black president in 2008 ignited an existential crisis in the minds of many white Americans .
Obama ’ s victory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hierarchy with its automatic equation of American identity with whiteness .
The panic caused by Obama ’ s presidency fueled Trump ’ s own electoral victory .
Racism has been Trump ’ s alpha and omega .
One of his earliest political interventions was his demagogic campaign to exact vindictive retribution on the Central Park Five , the black and Latino teens falsely convicted on a rape charge .
Trump talked about running for president for years , but it was the election of Obama that really provoked him to turn these aspirations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noted in The Atlantic in 2017 , “ Trump truly is something new—the first president whose entire political existence hinges on the fact of a black president .
And so it will not suffice to say that Trump is a white man like all the others who rose to become president .
He must be called by his rightful honorific—America ’ s first white president.
” Obama , for Trump , has been more than just a foil .
He ’ s been a raison d ’ être , Coates argues : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the negation of Obama ’ s legacy the foundation of his own.
” The negation of Obama has many manifestations , from birtherism to sabotaging signature achievements like the Paris climate accord and the Iran nuclear deal .
With the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic , Trump ’ s instinct was to immediately cast aspersions on Obama , whom he absurdly blamed of not developing a vaccine for a virus that wasn ’ t identified until three years after Obama left the White House .
Trump also claims Obama is at fault for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s path to reelection will be difficult .
He ’ s already been railing in private about poor poll numbers .
Returning to Obama-bashing is clearly one way of reassembling the winning Trump coalition of 2016 .
But this re-energized racism extends beyond the reelection campaign .
The push to reassert racial hierarchy is also shaping Trump ’ s response to the pandemic .
Since mid-April , Trump has been increasingly critical of the efforts to contain the pandemic through social distancing .
Instead , Trump has proclaimed that we need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notes in The Atlantic , this shift from lockdown to reopening also occurred in the right-wing media and coincided with the realization that the pandemic was disproportionately hurting black and brown Americans .
Serwer cites the theory of philosopher Charles Mills that America has a racial contract , an implicit assumption that white lives are more important than the lives of people of color .
Even in the best of circumstances , this racial contract governs responses to police shootings or vigilante violence .
In times of crisis , the racial contract becomes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has introduced a new clause to the racial contract , ” Serwer notes .
“ The lives of disproportionately black and brown workers are being sacrificed to fuel the engine of a faltering economy , by a president who disdains them .
This is the COVID contract.
” It ’ s this Covid contract that explains the eagerness of the right-wing media , whose loudest voices are working safely from home , to end the lockdown .
On April 7 , Rush Limbaugh made a telling complaint : “ If you dare criticize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ re going to be immediately tagged as a racist.
” As Serwer notes , “ White Americans are also suffering , but the perception that the coronavirus is largely a black and brown problem licenses elites to dismiss its impact .
In America , the racial contract has shaped the terms of class war for centuries ; the COVID contract shapes it here.
” With his renewed attacks on Obama and his push for a premature end of the lockdown , Trump makes clear that racism is his legacy .
Nor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what else does he have left ?
The economy is a shambles and his unilateralist foreign policy has yielded no clear achievement .
Racism is the only card Trump has left to play .
There is every reason to think he ’ ll try to exploit racism to the limit in order to hold on to power .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
Barack Obama will not be on the ballot in November, but Donald Trump is determined to run against the former president. On Sunday, Trump went on a social media rampage, posting 128 tweets and retweets, many about a spurious scandal he called Obamagate. “He got caught, OBAMAGATE!” Trump wrote.
In a press briefing on Monday, Washington Post reporter Philip Rucker tried to tease out exactly what the nebulous phrase “Obamagate” meant. “In one of your Mother’s Day tweets, you appeared to accuse President Obama of ‘the biggest political crime in American history, by far’—those were your words,” Rucker noted. “What crime exactly are you accusing President Obama of committing, and do you believe the Justice Department should prosecute him?”
Trump’s response didn’t help clear up the matter. “Uh, Obamagate. It’s been going on for a long time,” Trump said. “It’s been going on from before I even got elected, and it’s a disgrace that it happened, and if you look at what’s gone on, and if you look at now, all this information that’s being released—and from what I understand, that’s only the beginning—some terrible things happened, and it should never be allowed to happen in our country again.”
Trump’s vagueness is understandable given that Obamagate is less a scandal than a shapeless collection of insinuations and suspicions focusing on the origins of the Russian election interference controversy. Rarely spelled out in a way where it can be tested, Obamagate is the theory that the Russia story was conjured up in 2016 by Obama and his allies in law enforcement and the national security establishment in order to frame Donald Trump for colluding with Russia. More From Jeet Heer The Indigenous Roots of Robbie Robertson’s Rock and Roll Revolution August 14, 2023 Why Does This Racist Keep Getting Silicon Valley Money? August 11, 2023 When Phallocrats Go Limp August 4, 2023
This theory suffers from a paucity of proof. It also has a simple logical problem: If the goal was to railroad Trump, why in 2016 did the FBI make a big show of investigating Hillary Clinton’s e-mails while actively denying that the Trump campaign was being investigated? If there was a conspiracy, it was carried out by bunglers who acted in a manner that seemed calculated to ensure Trump’s victory.
Nate Silver, the polling guru of FiveThirtyEight, was puzzled by Trump’s focusing his ire on a former president. “Turning the election into a referendum on Obama vs. Trump would seem to be one of the dumbest possible moves for Trump given Obama’s popularity, which was pretty good when he left office and has improved since,” Silver contends. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
From a purely rational point of view, it’s hard to gainsay Silver’s argument. But Trump’s approach to politics has never been rational. Rather, Trump has won the success he’s achieved by tapping into feral emotions that other politicians are too cautious or prissy to exploit. Trump is well aware that the election of the first black president in 2008 ignited an existential crisis in the minds of many white Americans. Obama’s victory overturned the country’s implicit racial hierarchy with its automatic equation of American identity with whiteness. The panic caused by Obama’s presidency fueled Trump’s own electoral victory. Current Issue View our current issue
Racism has been Trump’s alpha and omega. One of his earliest political interventions was his demagogic campaign to exact vindictive retribution on the Central Park Five, the black and Latino teens falsely convicted on a rape charge.
Trump talked about running for president for years, but it was the election of Obama that really provoked him to turn these aspirations into a reality. As Ta-Nehisi Coates noted in The Atlantic in 2017, “Trump truly is something new—the first president whose entire political existence hinges on the fact of a black president. And so it will not suffice to say that Trump is a white man like all the others who rose to become president. He must be called by his rightful honorific—America’s first white president.”
Obama, for Trump, has been more than just a foil. He’s been a raison d’être, Coates argues: “Replacing Obama is not enough—Trump has made the negation of Obama’s legacy the foundation of his own.” The negation of Obama has many manifestations, from birtherism to sabotaging signature achievements like the Paris climate accord and the Iran nuclear deal.
With the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, Trump’s instinct was to immediately cast aspersions on Obama, whom he absurdly blamed for not developing a vaccine for a virus that wasn’t identified until three years after Obama left the White House. Trump also claims Obama is at fault for the lack of medical equipment.
Trump’s path to reelection will be difficult. He’s already been railing in private about poor poll numbers. Returning to Obama-bashing is clearly one way of reassembling the winning Trump coalition of 2016.
But this re-energized racism extends beyond the reelection campaign. The push to reassert racial hierarchy is also shaping Trump’s response to the pandemic. Since mid-April, Trump has been increasingly critical of the efforts to contain the pandemic through social distancing. Instead, Trump has proclaimed that we need to reopen the economy.
As Adam Serwer notes in The Atlantic, this shift from lockdown to reopening also occurred in the right-wing media and coincided with the realization that the pandemic was disproportionately hurting black and brown Americans. Serwer cites the theory of philosopher Charles Mills that America has a racial contract, an implicit assumption that white lives are more important than the lives of people of color.
Even in the best of circumstances, this racial contract governs responses to police shootings or vigilante violence. In times of crisis, the racial contract becomes even grimmer. “But the pandemic has introduced a new clause to the racial contract,” Serwer notes. “The lives of disproportionately black and brown workers are being sacrificed to fuel the engine of a faltering economy, by a president who disdains them. This is the COVID contract.”
It’s this Covid contract that explains the eagerness of the right-wing media, whose loudest voices are working safely from home, to end the lockdown. On April 7, Rush Limbaugh made a telling complaint: “If you dare criticize the mobilization to deal with this, you’re going to be immediately tagged as a racist.”
As Serwer notes, “White Americans are also suffering, but the perception that the coronavirus is largely a black and brown problem licenses elites to dismiss its impact. In America, the racial contract has shaped the terms of class war for centuries; the COVID contract shapes it here.”
With his renewed attacks on Obama and his push for a premature end of the lockdown, Trump makes clear that racism is his legacy. Nor is this surprising. After all, what else does he have left? The economy is a shambles and his unilateralist foreign policy has yielded no clear achievement. Racism is the only card Trump has left to play. There is every reason to think he’ll try to exploit racism to the limit in order to hold on to power.


thenation--2020-05-13--Michael Jordan and the Tragedy of the Bully

On episodes seven and eight of ESPN ’ s 10-part Michael Jordan documentary , The Last Dance , we learned that Jordan once became enraged when a rookie named LaBradford Smith ( allegedly ) put his arm around him and said “ nice game ” to him on the court .
He took that bit of perceived disrespect and used it as fuel to wreck poor Mr. Smith when they played the following night .
We also learned that before the 1996 Finals , the coach of the opposing team , George Karl , walked by him in a restaurant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bit of perceived disrespect and used it as fuel .
This is basically the core and heart of the magnum opus that is The Last Dance : the lionization of the idea that winning isn ’ t everything , it ’ s the only thing , and nice guys finish last .
It ’ s as if Shoah were directed by Vince Lombardi .
The Last Dance sends the message to everyone—particularly young ballplayers—that winning in sports and life demands that you be the bully .
Everything is justified , if the ends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off and punching someone smaller than you in the face , as Jordan did with teammate Steve Kerr , is remembered as something closer to a bonding experience—a macho rite of passage—than as an embarrassing loss of temper .
The Last Dance , like its protagonist , shrugs its shoulders and says , in effect , that this is the price of greatness .
But is it ?
If this entire series weren ’ t just an exercise in Jordan brand extension for the 21st century , it might ask this question .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ask if being “ like Mike ” is how you come out a winner .
If it did , this thesis would collapse under scrutiny .
Just look at Bill Russell .
The Celtics great is the most prolific winner in NBA history , with 11 championships in 13 years .
Russell ’ s style of leadership did not involve demeaning and denigration .
The great Frank Deford , in a brilliant 1999 profile of Russell , called him “ the most divine teammate there ever was.
” “ ‘ He was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the team , ’ says Frank Ramsey , who played with Russell from 1956 to ’ 64 , Russell ’ s first eight years in the NBA .
‘ It was only when others came around that he set up that wall… ’ ” For Russell , the love was saved for his team .
The wall came up as sponsors , fans , and opponents demanded their piece of him .
Jordan was the opposite .
Outside the team , he gave us that winning smile and sold us products , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand .
Jordan was pure capitalism : expanding his brand off the court , and a cutthroat bully with his own team .
Russell was pure resistance : finding love and solidarity among teammates and fiercely holding onto his sense of self off of the court .
His white teammates who didn ’ t show him solidarity , particularly on Russell ’ s proud struggles against racism , still loved him then and feel guilty today that they didn ’ t do more .
One gets the feeling that the only regrets Jordan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t stand up to him more and instead let him break their will .
Russell had teammates who became his brothers for life .
Jordan has generated only wary respect and resentful awe .
The only people who “ ride or die ” for Jordan are personal assistants , trainers , and bodyguards : people paid to be in his presence .
Comparing Russell to Jordan is like comparing Mr. Chips to Charles Foster Kane : Both got results , but that ’ s where the comparison ends There are poignant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 8 of The Last Dance : one where Jordan stops filming his interview when he ponders just how intense he felt he had to be toward his teammates , and weighs the cost of that intensity , tears in his eyes .
The other shows him in 1996 crying on the floor on Father ’ s Day , after vanquishing the Seattle Sonics in the NBA Finals .
Both are reminders that we are not only dealing with a brand of relentless competitiveness .
We are watching a human being who has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ damage those around him .
If The Last Dance had courage , it would be a cautionary tale instead of a hagiography .
It would not only explore the price of greatness , or whatever such branded nonsense .
It would be a warning : You don ’ t need to act this way if you want to win .
It ’ s actually antithetical to what ’ s best about sports .
You can get away with being the bully when you ’ re the best player on the planet .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same as a justification to do so .
It ’ s exercising power over someone just for the sake of doing so .
That ’ s not admirable .
That ’ s abusive .
Rings don ’ t make it right .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
On episodes seven and eight of ESPN’s 10-part Michael Jordan documentary, The Last Dance, we learned that Jordan once became enraged when a rookie named LaBradford Smith (allegedly) put his arm around him and said “nice game” to him on the court. He took that bit of perceived disrespect and used it as fuel to wreck poor Mr. Smith when they played the following night. We also learned that before the 1996 Finals, the coach of the opposing team, George Karl, walked by him in a restaurant without saying hi. He took that bit of perceived disrespect and used it as fuel.
This is basically the core and heart of the magnum opus that is The Last Dance: the lionization of the idea that winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing, and nice guys finish last. It’s as if Shoah were directed by Vince Lombardi. The Last Dance sends the message to everyone—particularly young ballplayers—that winning in sports and life demands that you be the bully. Everything is justified, if the ends involve confetti and rings. Even hauling off and punching someone smaller than you in the face, as Jordan did with teammate Steve Kerr, is remembered as something closer to a bonding experience—a macho rite of passage—than as an embarrassing loss of temper.
The Last Dance, like its protagonist, shrugs its shoulders and says, in effect, that this is the price of greatness. But is it? If this entire series weren’t just an exercise in Jordan brand extension for the 21st century, it might ask this question. It could examine other examples of greatness and ask if being “like Mike” is how you come out a winner. If it did, this thesis would collapse under scrutiny.
Just look at Bill Russell. The Celtics great is the most prolific winner in NBA history, with 11 championships in 13 years. Russell’s style of leadership did not involve demeaning and denigration. The great Frank Deford, in a brilliant 1999 profile of Russell, called him “the most divine teammate there ever was.” “‘He was just so nice to be with on the team,’ says Frank Ramsey, who played with Russell from 1956 to ’64, Russell’s first eight years in the NBA. ‘It was only when others came around that he set up that wall…’”
For Russell, the love was saved for his team. The wall came up as sponsors, fans, and opponents demanded their piece of him. Jordan was the opposite. Outside the team, he gave us that winning smile and sold us products, but his squad got the back of his hand. Jordan was pure capitalism: expanding his brand off the court, and a cutthroat bully with his own team. Russell was pure resistance: finding love and solidarity among teammates and fiercely holding onto his sense of self off of the court. His white teammates who didn’t show him solidarity, particularly on Russell’s proud struggles against racism, still loved him then and feel guilty today that they didn’t do more. One gets the feeling that the only regrets Jordan’s teammates have is that they didn’t stand up to him more and instead let him break their will. Russell had teammates who became his brothers for life. Jordan has generated only wary respect and resentful awe. The only people who “ride or die” for Jordan are personal assistants, trainers, and bodyguards: people paid to be in his presence. Comparing Russell to Jordan is like comparing Mr. Chips to Charles Foster Kane: Both got results, but that’s where the comparison ends
There are poignant, human moments in Episodes 7 and 8 of The Last Dance: one where Jordan stops filming his interview when he ponders just how intense he felt he had to be toward his teammates, and weighs the cost of that intensity, tears in his eyes. The other shows him in 1996 crying on the floor on Father’s Day, after vanquishing the Seattle Sonics in the NBA Finals. Both are reminders that we are not only dealing with a brand of relentless competitiveness. We are watching a human being who has been damaged, and then never hesitated to damage those around him.
If The Last Dance had courage, it would be a cautionary tale instead of a hagiography. It would not only explore the price of greatness, or whatever such branded nonsense. It would be a warning: You don’t need to act this way if you want to win. It’s actually antithetical to what’s best about sports. You can get away with being the bully when you’re the best player on the planet. But being able to bully someone is not the same as a justification to do so. It’s exercising power over someone just for the sake of doing so. That’s not admirable. That’s abusive. Rings don’t make it right.


thenation--2020-05-13--SCOTUS May Have Just Decided to Exempt Trump From the Rule of Law

On Tuesday , the Supreme Court heard arguments on two cases about Donald Trump ’ s tax returns and other key financial records .
On the surface , the issue was whether Trump ’ s accountants , Mazars USA , as well as his longtime lender Deutsche Bank , had to comply with subpoenas for Trump-related documents issued by the United States House of Representatives and the Manhattan district attorney ’ s office .
That ’ s a pretty big issue , given that Donald Trump has gone to unprecedented lengths to keep his business dealings secret , and given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in our elections while the Manhattan district attorney , Cy Vance , is investigating financial crimes .
But to reduce this legal battle to another front in Trump ’ s ongoing efforts to be the least transparent and most corrupt president in American history minimizes what ’ s at stake in these two cases .
What ’ s at stake is the very idea of a nation in which no single person is above the law .
A subpoena from the government is not a polite request .
The government is not asking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an order from the government to hand over information it believes is relevant to an ongoing investigation .
A person can ’ t just ignore a subpoena ; they can ’ t treat it like a bible salesman knocking at their front door .
They must answer it .
Unless that person is Donald Trump , apparently .
Every other person in this country has to comply with a subpoena , whether it is issued by their local prosecutor or the Congress of the United States , but Trump argues that he , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this most basic function of the rule of law .
That ’ s what is at stake in these cases : whether the president of this country , by sheer dint of his job title , is so beyond the reach of law that he can simply ignore a legal order that would bind any other person .
This isn ’ t about whether Trump ’ s ( likely fraudulent ) tax returns ever see the light of day ; this is about whether Trump is a textbook despot who only has to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
During the three hours of oral arguments on Tuesday , the Supreme Court ’ s conservative justices seemed to side with despotism .
The case against Trump is airtight , assuming Trump is a normal human who can be constrained by such pedestrian forces as physics or the law .
To side with Trump , the court must elevate him to the same monarchical status the US Senate did when they acquitted Trump of impeachment charges .
It seems that the conservative justices are as eager to crown Trump as the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stake , one might have expected Trump ’ s lawyers to show up with some amazingly rigorous or technically deft legal arguments explaining why Trump can ignore the law .
There are , after all , established ways for ordinary people or non-despotic rulers to fight government subpoenas .
People often argue that a subpoena seeks documents or information that is privileged in some way , and the law recognizes all sorts of privileged information that does not need to be turned over to the government .
Failing that , people often argue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” which usually results in some information being turned over to the government while some is held back .
Trump ’ s legal team made none of these arguments .
Instead , Trump ’ s lawyers argued in broad daylight that the reason Trump does not have to comply with the subpoenas is that being president provides him with a “ blanket immunity ” from answering subpoenas .
They further argued that these subpoenas should be ignored because they “ harassed ” the president .
According to Trump ’ s lawyers , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if it would be too “ distracting ” for him to do so .
These are not legal arguments .
They are not arguments one would make or could make in defense of an ordinary citizen .
As a legal proposition , it is laughable to suggest that some entirely routine operation of law can be suspended indefinitely just because some official doesn ’ t have time to follow the rules .
Trump has lost this case in front of every lower court that has heard it precisely because his arguments make no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of lower courts that were not controlled by conservative judges handpicked for their loyalty to the Republican agenda over the rule of law .
The Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives who have no shame ( or fear of reversal ) when it comes to doing Trump ’ s bidding .
As it is , the decision to entertain Trump ’ s legal foolishness has already done significant damage to the rule of law , because Trump has been able to use this fight to stall lawful investigations into his corruption .
During @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seemed poised to give Trump at least a partial victory .
Justices John Roberts , Clarence Thomas , Samuel Alito , and alleged attempted rapist Brett Kavanaugh all embraced the term “ presidential harassment ” as if they were being fed notes from Trump ’ s Twitter feed .
They repeatedly questioned lawyers representing the House and Vance ’ s office about how the president could possibly be expected to respond to subpoenas that , per Trump ’ s lawyers , were designed to harass or distract him from his official duties .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gorsuch maintained enough intellectual dignity to refrain from harping on the Trump-approved “ harassment ” theme and instead focused on whether there was any principle that could limit the House ’ s authority to subpoena the president ( or anybody else ) for anything at all .
For the most part , lawyers for the House and Vance struggled with these questions—Vox ’ s Ian Millhiser called the oral arguments a “ disaster ” —and , despite my best attempts , I struggle to understand why they had such trouble .
There is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House can subpoena .
There is an entire legal canon about what constitutes valid defenses against the government ’ s near limitless subpoena power , and “ presidential harassment ” is not one of them .
The conservatives justices were basically asking , “ How do we blot out the sun ?
” and liberal lawyers kept playing along , trying to invent a giant sun blocker to appease them , instead of saying , “ What kind of evil cartoon billionaire would try to block the sun ?
” There is something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to accept the terms of the debate as defined by the most recent Republican who shouted at them .
It ’ s frustrating , and it ’ s the reason Democrats always seem like they ’ re losing even when they have facts , law , and logic on their side .
More than two hours into oral arguments , the lawyer representing the district attorney ’ s office , Carey Dunne , finally said that the “ speculative mental distress ” Trump may suffer as a result of these subpoenas is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the subpoenas .
Dunne ’ s line is the only one anybody should use to respond to the Republican whinging about harassment .
President Snowflake can not use the White House as a safe space to hide from the law .
The end .
Despite the successful efforts of the House and Vance attorneys to walk into every trap the conservatives set for them , the day may not have been a total loss .
I think the most likely outcome is that the Supreme Court will allow Trump to continue ignoring the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order him to comply with the subpoena issued by Vance .
During his first question to Dunne , Chief Justice John Roberts previewed how I believe he will split this baby .
He said that , while the House has an “ ongoing relationship ” with the president ( and thus could arguably punish him for ignoring their subpoenas by engaging in legislative retribution ) , local prosecutors have no such relationship .
Roberts asked if the standard for letting Trump ignore subpoenas should be “ higher ” when he ’ s ignoring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way to wrangle or deal with the president .
Roberts ’ s argument is , quite simply , bonkers .
Again , I don ’ t accept the premise that Trump should be allowed to ignore subpoenas , and I certainly don ’ t accept Roberts ’ s suggestion that courts should not enforce congressional subpoenas because Congress can find some other way to be mean to the president .
It ’ s like saying you can drink and drive in a Volvo because it ’ s kinda slow , but you can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ferrari because nobody can catch up to you .
We Didn ’ t Need Video to Know Ahmaud Arbery Was Lynched SCOTUS Just Found a Way to Inflict More Terror on Immigrants It ’ s Time to Bring the Supreme Court Into the Modern Era—and the Light But I believe that Roberts thinks splitting the cases in this way allows him to appease Trump while not destroying the very notion of a chief executive who is subject to laws .
I think Roberts cares more about The New York Times writing that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about being fair or defending the institution of law against despotic overreach .
And siding with the conservatives in one 5-4 decision while siding with the liberals in the other 5-4 decision is exactly the kind of both-sides catnip mainstream court reporters will lap up .
Trump should lose both cases , 9-0 , and he should be admonished for wasting everybody ’ s time .
But in a world with Brett Kavanaugh ( who suggested that the Constitution wants presidents to be immune to investigations ) , Samuel Alito ( who suggested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long-con scheme by the Democrats to drive the president to distraction ) , and Clarence Thomas ( who suggested that Congress doesn ’ t even have the authority to subpoena anybody , ever ) , we can not expect a unanimous defense of the rule of law .
And we certainly can ’ t expect to see Trump ’ s tax returns at any point before the next election .
Despite the breathless coverage of these cases , neither involves the public release of these documents .
The House wants authorization to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a number of investigations ; Vance ’ s office wants to present the documents to a grand jury , which is sworn to secrecy .
During the arguments , conservatives ( mainly Alito ) made snide comments suggesting that the real liberal plan was to get these documents and then leak them to the press .
That ’ s not a legal argument , but conservative Supreme Court justices ripping lines of argument from Infowars clips is pretty much where we are in this country .
Trump has already succeeded in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disclosing basic financial information .
He has already succeeded in using the office of the president to shield himself from potential prosecution of his suspected financial crimes .
Trump has already won .
The only question now is how much the rest of us will lose .
We should expect decisions on these two cases in late June .
The Supreme Court will then tell us how much more of our democracy must be sacrificed in the service of Donald Trump .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments on two cases about Donald Trump’s tax returns and other key financial records. On the surface, the issue was whether Trump’s accountants, Mazars USA, as well as his longtime lender Deutsche Bank, had to comply with subpoenas for Trump-related documents issued by the United States House of Representatives and the Manhattan district attorney’s office. That’s a pretty big issue, given that Donald Trump has gone to unprecedented lengths to keep his business dealings secret, and given that the House is investigating foreign interference in our elections while the Manhattan district attorney, Cy Vance, is investigating financial crimes.
But to reduce this legal battle to another front in Trump’s ongoing efforts to be the least transparent and most corrupt president in American history minimizes what’s at stake in these two cases. What’s at stake is the very idea of a nation in which no single person is above the law.
A subpoena from the government is not a polite request. The government is not asking for a favor. A subpoena is an order from the government to hand over information it believes is relevant to an ongoing investigation. A person can’t just ignore a subpoena; they can’t treat it like a bible salesman knocking at their front door. They must answer it.
Unless that person is Donald Trump, apparently. Every other person in this country has to comply with a subpoena, whether it is issued by their local prosecutor or the Congress of the United States, but Trump argues that he, and he alone, is immune from this most basic function of the rule of law. That’s what is at stake in these cases: whether the president of this country, by sheer dint of his job title, is so beyond the reach of law that he can simply ignore a legal order that would bind any other person. This isn’t about whether Trump’s (likely fraudulent) tax returns ever see the light of day; this is about whether Trump is a textbook despot who only has to follow laws when he feels like it.
During the three hours of oral arguments on Tuesday, the Supreme Court’s conservative justices seemed to side with despotism. The case against Trump is airtight, assuming Trump is a normal human who can be constrained by such pedestrian forces as physics or the law. To side with Trump, the court must elevate him to the same monarchical status the US Senate did when they acquitted Trump of impeachment charges. It seems that the conservative justices are as eager to crown Trump as the Senate Republicans were.
Given what was at stake, one might have expected Trump’s lawyers to show up with some amazingly rigorous or technically deft legal arguments explaining why Trump can ignore the law. There are, after all, established ways for ordinary people or non-despotic rulers to fight government subpoenas. People often argue that a subpoena seeks documents or information that is privileged in some way, and the law recognizes all sorts of privileged information that does not need to be turned over to the government. Failing that, people often argue that government subpoenas are “overbroad,” which usually results in some information being turned over to the government while some is held back. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
Trump’s legal team made none of these arguments. Instead, Trump’s lawyers argued in broad daylight that the reason Trump does not have to comply with the subpoenas is that being president provides him with a “blanket immunity” from answering subpoenas. They further argued that these subpoenas should be ignored because they “harassed” the president. According to Trump’s lawyers, Trump doesn’t have to answer subpoenas if it would be too “distracting” for him to do so. Current Issue View our current issue
These are not legal arguments. They are not arguments one would make or could make in defense of an ordinary citizen. As a legal proposition, it is laughable to suggest that some entirely routine operation of law can be suspended indefinitely just because some official doesn’t have time to follow the rules. Trump has lost this case in front of every lower court that has heard it precisely because his arguments make no sense.
But Trump lost in front of lower courts that were not controlled by conservative judges handpicked for their loyalty to the Republican agenda over the rule of law. The Supreme Court is controlled by conservatives who have no shame (or fear of reversal) when it comes to doing Trump’s bidding. As it is, the decision to entertain Trump’s legal foolishness has already done significant damage to the rule of law, because Trump has been able to use this fight to stall lawful investigations into his corruption.
During arguments, the conservatives on the court seemed poised to give Trump at least a partial victory. Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and alleged attempted rapist Brett Kavanaugh all embraced the term “presidential harassment” as if they were being fed notes from Trump’s Twitter feed. They repeatedly questioned lawyers representing the House and Vance’s office about how the president could possibly be expected to respond to subpoenas that, per Trump’s lawyers, were designed to harass or distract him from his official duties. As I remember it, only Neil Gorsuch maintained enough intellectual dignity to refrain from harping on the Trump-approved “harassment” theme and instead focused on whether there was any principle that could limit the House’s authority to subpoena the president (or anybody else) for anything at all.
For the most part, lawyers for the House and Vance struggled with these questions—Vox’s Ian Millhiser called the oral arguments a “disaster”—and, despite my best attempts, I struggle to understand why they had such trouble. There is no real limiting principle on what the House can subpoena. There is an entire legal canon about what constitutes valid defenses against the government’s near limitless subpoena power, and “presidential harassment” is not one of them. The conservatives justices were basically asking, “How do we blot out the sun?” and liberal lawyers kept playing along, trying to invent a giant sun blocker to appease them, instead of saying, “What kind of evil cartoon billionaire would try to block the sun?”
There is something about Democrats that makes them perpetually willing to accept the terms of the debate as defined by the most recent Republican who shouted at them. It’s frustrating, and it’s the reason Democrats always seem like they’re losing even when they have facts, law, and logic on their side. More than two hours into oral arguments, the lawyer representing the district attorney’s office, Carey Dunne, finally said that the “speculative mental distress” Trump may suffer as a result of these subpoenas is not a constitutional basis for him to ignore the subpoenas. Dunne’s line is the only one anybody should use to respond to the Republican whinging about harassment. President Snowflake cannot use the White House as a safe space to hide from the law. The end.
Despite the successful efforts of the House and Vance attorneys to walk into every trap the conservatives set for them, the day may not have been a total loss. I think the most likely outcome is that the Supreme Court will allow Trump to continue ignoring the subpoenas issued by the House but will order him to comply with the subpoena issued by Vance.
During his first question to Dunne, Chief Justice John Roberts previewed how I believe he will split this baby. He said that, while the House has an “ongoing relationship” with the president (and thus could arguably punish him for ignoring their subpoenas by engaging in legislative retribution), local prosecutors have no such relationship. Roberts asked if the standard for letting Trump ignore subpoenas should be “higher” when he’s ignoring a local prosecutor who has no other way to wrangle or deal with the president.
Roberts’s argument is, quite simply, bonkers. Again, I don’t accept the premise that Trump should be allowed to ignore subpoenas, and I certainly don’t accept Roberts’s suggestion that courts should not enforce congressional subpoenas because Congress can find some other way to be mean to the president. It’s like saying you can drink and drive in a Volvo because it’s kinda slow, but you can’t drink and drive in a Ferrari because nobody can catch up to you. More from Mystal We Didn’t Need Video to Know Ahmaud Arbery Was Lynched Elie Mystal SCOTUS Just Found a Way to Inflict More Terror on Immigrants Elie Mystal It’s Time to Bring the Supreme Court Into the Modern Era—and the Light Elie Mystal
But I believe that Roberts thinks splitting the cases in this way allows him to appease Trump while not destroying the very notion of a chief executive who is subject to laws. I think Roberts cares more about The New York Times writing that he was “fair” than he cares about being fair or defending the institution of law against despotic overreach. And siding with the conservatives in one 5-4 decision while siding with the liberals in the other 5-4 decision is exactly the kind of both-sides catnip mainstream court reporters will lap up.
Trump should lose both cases, 9-0, and he should be admonished for wasting everybody’s time. But in a world with Brett Kavanaugh (who suggested that the Constitution wants presidents to be immune to investigations), Samuel Alito (who suggested that every subpoena was part of a long-con scheme by the Democrats to drive the president to distraction), and Clarence Thomas (who suggested that Congress doesn’t even have the authority to subpoena anybody, ever), we cannot expect a unanimous defense of the rule of law.
And we certainly can’t expect to see Trump’s tax returns at any point before the next election. Despite the breathless coverage of these cases, neither involves the public release of these documents. The House wants authorization to see Trump’s financial records as part of a number of investigations; Vance’s office wants to present the documents to a grand jury, which is sworn to secrecy. During the arguments, conservatives (mainly Alito) made snide comments suggesting that the real liberal plan was to get these documents and then leak them to the press. That’s not a legal argument, but conservative Supreme Court justices ripping lines of argument from Infowars clips is pretty much where we are in this country.
Trump has already succeeded in his goal of running for president twice without disclosing basic financial information. He has already succeeded in using the office of the president to shield himself from potential prosecution of his suspected financial crimes. Trump has already won. The only question now is how much the rest of us will lose.
We should expect decisions on these two cases in late June. The Supreme Court will then tell us how much more of our democracy must be sacrificed in the service of Donald Trump.