motherjones--2020-02-10--Buttigieg Is Declared the Winner in Iowa, Showing How Much the State Has Changed

It took nearly a week , but former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg has been declared the winner of the Iowa caucuses ’ state delegate count , narrowly beating Sen. Bernie Sanders , who , since nothing about the Iowa caucuses can be simple , won the tally that is most akin to a popular vote .
The Iowa Democratic Party announced Sunday that Buttigieg would come out on top , winning 14 delegates to Sanders ’ 12 , although the Associated Press has yet to call the race and it appears that inconsistencies in the results remain .
Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last week ’ s caucuses , while former Vice President Joe Biden , the presumptive frontrunner for the nomination , finished fourth .
Buttigieg ’ s rise in Iowa is telling .
It showed that the more moderate lane of the Democratic voter base might find a fresh-faced political newcomer more appealing than a decades-long politician with immense political baggage .
( Buttigieg wasn ’ t born when Biden started his second term in the Senate . )
And while he hasn ’ t emphasized it , Buttigieg is running a trailblazing campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a serious shot at capturing the nomination of one of the two main political parties .
Donations from LGBTQ funders helped spur his initial rise , but as I wrote when I followed him around Iowa last week , he made scant mention on the stump of his unique role in national politics .
An openly gay candidate winning a presidential contest is noteworthy nationally , of course , but it ’ s especially remarkable given Iowa ’ s history on LGBTQ rights .
It was one of just three states where same-sex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court legalized marriage in 2009 .
But Iowa opened the door to same-sex marriage through a court ruling , not legislation , and there were signs that the public was wasn ’ t entirely on board .
Three of the seven judges behind the decision were voted out of office the next year , after a vicious campaign by conservative activists .
Suburban and especially rural Iowans led the backlash against same-sex marriage .
Ten years later , Buttigieg ’ s success in Iowa came thanks to his performance in many of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in most of the state ’ s urban areas , while Buttigieg cleaned up many of the sparsely populated , historically Catholic counties in eastern Iowa that backed Trump in 2016 and opposed marriage equality a decade ago .
“ He ’ s getting support in the areas where we lost the worst on marriage , ” Iowa Democratic Party chair Troy Price , who previously ran an LGBTQ rights group that helped sue to legalize marriage , told me last week .
“ It ’ s the suburban areas , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s where he ’ s doing really well.
” In 2012 , I spent time in Clayton County , a rural area in northeastern Iowa that voted heavily against the three judges in 2010 , to assess how perceptions of same-sex marriage had change since it had become legal .
I found that that there were still plenty of people there opposed to marriage equality—one pastor told me that people accepting same-sex marriage don ’ t “ follow the word of God as it ’ s written ” —but the handful of same-sex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hostility of their neighbors .
They were just part of the community .
“ Nobody is anonymous here , ” one half of an older married gay couple told me , “ and that ’ s what makes it very gratifying .
That you are known.
” Buttigieg won the vote in Clayton County by 15 points .
It was one of his strongest counties in the state .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Update, February 27: On Thursday, the Iowa Democratic Party released recount results from the 2020 caucuses. Former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg remained in first place, with 14 delegates. Senator Bernie Sanders has 12 delegates.
It took nearly a week, but former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg has been declared the winner of the Iowa caucuses’ state delegate count, narrowly beating Sen. Bernie Sanders, who, since nothing about the Iowa caucuses can be simple, won the tally that is most akin to a popular vote.
The Iowa Democratic Party announced Sunday that Buttigieg would come out on top, winning 14 delegates to Sanders’ 12, although the Associated Press has yet to call the race and it appears that inconsistencies in the results remain. Sen. Elizabeth Warren finished a solid third in last week’s caucuses, while former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive frontrunner for the nomination, finished fourth.
Buttigieg’s rise in Iowa is telling. It showed that the more moderate lane of the Democratic voter base might find a fresh-faced political newcomer more appealing than a decades-long politician with immense political baggage. (Buttigieg wasn’t born when Biden started his second term in the Senate.)
And while he hasn’t emphasized it, Buttigieg is running a trailblazing campaign as the first openly gay candidate with a serious shot at capturing the nomination of one of the two main political parties. Donations from LGBTQ funders helped spur his initial rise, but as I wrote when I followed him around Iowa last week, he made scant mention on the stump of his unique role in national politics.
An openly gay candidate winning a presidential contest is noteworthy nationally, of course, but it’s especially remarkable given Iowa’s history on LGBTQ rights. It was one of just three states where same-sex couples could wed when the state Supreme Court legalized marriage in 2009. But Iowa opened the door to same-sex marriage through a court ruling, not legislation, and there were signs that the public was wasn’t entirely on board. Three of the seven judges behind the decision were voted out of office the next year, after a vicious campaign by conservative activists. Suburban and especially rural Iowans led the backlash against same-sex marriage.
Ten years later, Buttigieg’s success in Iowa came thanks to his performance in many of those same rural counties. Sanders outperformed Buttigieg in most of the state’s urban areas, while Buttigieg cleaned up many of the sparsely populated, historically Catholic counties in eastern Iowa that backed Trump in 2016 and opposed marriage equality a decade ago.
“He’s getting support in the areas where we lost the worst on marriage,” Iowa Democratic Party chair Troy Price, who previously ran an LGBTQ rights group that helped sue to legalize marriage, told me last week. “It’s the suburban areas, it’s the rural areas, that’s where he’s doing really well.”
In 2012, I spent time in Clayton County, a rural area in northeastern Iowa that voted heavily against the three judges in 2010, to assess how perceptions of same-sex marriage had change since it had become legal. I found that that there were still plenty of people there opposed to marriage equality—one pastor told me that people accepting same-sex marriage don’t “follow the word of God as it’s written”—but the handful of same-sex couples in town had helped thaw the hostility of their neighbors. They were just part of the community. “Nobody is anonymous here,” one half of an older married gay couple told me, “and that’s what makes it very gratifying. That you are known.”
Buttigieg won the vote in Clayton County by 15 points. It was one of his strongest counties in the state.


motherjones--2020-02-10--Trump’s Budget Is a $292 Billion Attack on Poor Americans

President Donald Trump ’ s proposed budget would take an axe to the social safety net , making huge cuts to cash and food benefits for low-income Americans .
The White House released its proposal for the 2021 budget on Monday .
It is not expected to become law : The Democratic-controlled House is certain to vote against it .
But the document shows just how committed the president is to slashing benefits for the poor .
Trump ’ s $ 4.8 trillion budget calls for steep cuts to welfare programs , including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ( commonly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Assistance for Needy Families , the biggest cash assistance program .
The proposal calls for slashing SNAP funding by $ 182 billion over the next 10 years , a sharp reduction from the $ 58 billion the government spent on SNAP in 2019 .
Partly , those savings would come from significantly tightening eligibility requirements for SNAP .
Currently , able-bodied SNAP recipients between the ages of 18 and 49 can receive food stamps for three months at a time and must prove that they are working at least 20 hours a week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the work requirement rule to people up to the age of 65 .
Initially , states with high unemployment rates were allowed to apply for waivers that would exempt recipients from the three-month limit .
But beginning April 1 , a new federal rule makes acquiring those waivers much more difficult .
The rule is expected to remove 700,000 people from the food stamp rolls .
Other welfare programs don ’ t fare much better in Trump ’ s budget proposal .
It would cut $ 15 billion from TANF over the next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grants $ 16.5 billion annually , a level advocates say is insufficient to meet the needs of poor families because it has not increased since 1996 .
The total cuts to welfare programs for the next decade come out to $ 292 billion .
While the budget slashes countless programs that help the poor , it would increase military spending .
Congressional Democrats have already slammed the president ’ s proposal .
“ Trump ’ s immoral budget is full of reckless and cruel cuts to health care , education , housing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rep. Barbara Lee ( D-Calif. ) tweeted on Monday .
“ Congress must and will reject it .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
President Donald Trump’s proposed budget would take an axe to the social safety net, making huge cuts to cash and food benefits for low-income Americans.
The White House released its proposal for the 2021 budget on Monday. It is not expected to become law: The Democratic-controlled House is certain to vote against it. But the document shows just how committed the president is to slashing benefits for the poor.
Trump’s $4.8 trillion budget calls for steep cuts to welfare programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (commonly known as food stamps) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the biggest cash assistance program.
The proposal calls for slashing SNAP funding by $182 billion over the next 10 years, a sharp reduction from the $58 billion the government spent on SNAP in 2019. Partly, those savings would come from significantly tightening eligibility requirements for SNAP. Currently, able-bodied SNAP recipients between the ages of 18 and 49 can receive food stamps for three months at a time and must prove that they are working at least 20 hours a week. The Trump budget calls for extending the work requirement rule to people up to the age of 65.
Initially, states with high unemployment rates were allowed to apply for waivers that would exempt recipients from the three-month limit. But beginning April 1, a new federal rule makes acquiring those waivers much more difficult. The rule is expected to remove 700,000 people from the food stamp rolls.
Other welfare programs don’t fare much better in Trump’s budget proposal. It would cut $15 billion from TANF over the next decade. The cash assistance program currently grants $16.5 billion annually, a level advocates say is insufficient to meet the needs of poor families because it has not increased since 1996.
The total cuts to welfare programs for the next decade come out to $292 billion. While the budget slashes countless programs that help the poor, it would increase military spending.
Congressional Democrats have already slammed the president’s proposal. “Trump’s immoral budget is full of reckless and cruel cuts to health care, education, housing, basic food assistance and more,” Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) tweeted on Monday. “Congress must and will reject it.”


motherjones--2020-02-10--GOP Senators Tried to Stop Trump From Firing Megadonor Gordon Sondland

On Friday , President Donald Trump took his vengeance campaign to a new level when he summarily removed two key impeachment witnesses—National Security Council official Alexander Vindman and Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland—from their posts .
Trump also removed Vindman ’ s twin brother from the NSC .
The president ’ s actions sparked immediate outrage—including , apparently , from some Republican lawmakers .
Well , sort of .
According to a New York Times article over the weekend , a group of GOP senators that included Susan Collins ( Maine ) , Martha McSally ( Ariz. ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thom Tillis ( N.C. ) “ tried to stop ” Trump from firing Sondland .
The senators privately argued to White House officials that the optics of such a move would be terrible and that Sondland should instead be allowed to leave on his own terms , the Times reported .
But the Times story included another remarkable tidbit .
According to the paper , these same senators had no objection to the removal of Vindman , who on Friday was escorted out of the White House by security guards : The senators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Colonel Vindman , who is viewed less sympathetically by the president ’ s allies .
Republicans considered some of Colonel Vindman ’ s comments during his testimony overtly political and , in any case , believed it was untenable for him to remain on the staff of a president with whom he broke so publicly .
At first blush , the idea that Vindman could be “ viewed less sympathetically ” than Sondland is difficult to comprehend .
Sondland appeared to be an incompetent ambassador who had essentially purchased his position by donating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inaugural committee .
He played a leading role in pressing Ukraine to investigate Trump ’ s political enemies and was forced to revise his congressional testimony after initially omitting significant details .
Vindman is an Iraq war veteran , Purple Heart recipient , and Ukraine expert who reported Sondland ’ s nefarious activities to White House lawyers and then jeopardized his own career by testifying .
At second blush , though , it ’ s entirely obvious why Republican senators viewed Vindman “ less sympathetically ” than Sondland : The former EU ambassador @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s start with Tillis .
According to FEC records , Sondland has donated more than $ 38,000 to Tillis ’ various political committees since 2016 .
As the Oregonian explained last year : Sondland first donated to Tillis in 2016 .
That same year , Sondland and [ his wife Katherine ] Durant ’ s foundation donated for the first time to Duke University in Durham , North Carolina .
Duke received $ 1.7 million from the foundation over the next three years .
Both of Sondland and Durant ’ s children now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ June 2018 Senate confirmation hearing on his nomination as European Union ambassador .
He cited Sondland ’ s family history as the child of Jewish immigrants who escaped Nazi Germany , his business experience and his ability to build relationships and manage competing interests .
“ I would also tell you he ’ s a man of great character and a great mentor to two of his kids who had the good sense to go to a North Carolina school , ” Tillis said .
Sondland hasn ’ t donated directly to Collins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in recent years , he has donated more than $ 68,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee , which supports GOP Senate candidates .
And as it happens , Tillis , Collins , and McSally all have tough reelection fights coming up this fall .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
On Friday, President Donald Trump took his vengeance campaign to a new level when he summarily removed two key impeachment witnesses—National Security Council official Alexander Vindman and Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland—from their posts. Trump also removed Vindman’s twin brother from the NSC. The president’s actions sparked immediate outrage—including, apparently, from some Republican lawmakers. Well, sort of.
According to a New York Times article over the weekend, a group of GOP senators that included Susan Collins (Maine), Martha McSally (Ariz.), Ron Johnson (Wis.), and Thom Tillis (N.C.) “tried to stop” Trump from firing Sondland. The senators privately argued to White House officials that the optics of such a move would be terrible and that Sondland should instead be allowed to leave on his own terms, the Times reported.
But the Times story included another remarkable tidbit. According to the paper, these same senators had no objection to the removal of Vindman, who on Friday was escorted out of the White House by security guards:
The senators did not express the same concern about Colonel Vindman, who is viewed less sympathetically by the president’s allies. Republicans considered some of Colonel Vindman’s comments during his testimony overtly political and, in any case, believed it was untenable for him to remain on the staff of a president with whom he broke so publicly.
At first blush, the idea that Vindman could be “viewed less sympathetically” than Sondland is difficult to comprehend. Sondland appeared to be an incompetent ambassador who had essentially purchased his position by donating $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee. He played a leading role in pressing Ukraine to investigate Trump’s political enemies and was forced to revise his congressional testimony after initially omitting significant details. Vindman is an Iraq war veteran, Purple Heart recipient, and Ukraine expert who reported Sondland’s nefarious activities to White House lawyers and then jeopardized his own career by testifying.
At second blush, though, it’s entirely obvious why Republican senators viewed Vindman “less sympathetically” than Sondland: The former EU ambassador is a Republican megadonor.
Let’s start with Tillis. According to FEC records, Sondland has donated more than $38,000 to Tillis’ various political committees since 2016. As the Oregonian explained last year:
Sondland first donated to Tillis in 2016. That same year, Sondland and [his wife Katherine] Durant’s foundation donated for the first time to Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. Duke received $1.7 million from the foundation over the next three years. Both of Sondland and Durant’s children now attend the school…Tillis introduced Sondland at the June 2018 Senate confirmation hearing on his nomination as European Union ambassador. He cited Sondland’s family history as the child of Jewish immigrants who escaped Nazi Germany, his business experience and his ability to build relationships and manage competing interests. “I would also tell you he’s a man of great character and a great mentor to two of his kids who had the good sense to go to a North Carolina school,” Tillis said.
Sondland hasn’t donated directly to Collins, Johnson, or McSally. But in recent years, he has donated more than $68,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which supports GOP Senate candidates. And as it happens, Tillis, Collins, and McSally all have tough reelection fights coming up this fall.


motherjones--2020-02-10--The Great New Hampshire Voter Freak-Out

The Great New Hampshire Voter Freak-Out

Jessica , a 29-year-old elementary teacher , is vexed , highly vexed .
She stands in the gym of the high school in Lebanon , New Hampshire , holding her three-month-old daughter .
A few feet away , her fidgety two-year-old son is being tended to by Jessica ’ s mother .
Surrounded by Elizabeth Warren supporters who are waiting for the candidate to arrive for a town hall , Jessica can ’ t make up her mind .
And it ’ s two days before the Granite State holds the first primary election of the 2020 presidential race .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote for the Democrat who can win in November , ” she says .
And who is that ?
a reporter asks .
“ I don ’ t know , ” she replies .
“ Can you tell me ?
Please ?
” It doesn ’ t help Jessica to know that a great deal of New Hampshire Democratic voters share her plight .
There are certainly many residents who have their man or woman .
Rallies for all the candidates are full of committed supporters .
But the crowds do contain a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At a Sanders event in Hanover that drew hundreds of Bernie devotees from Dartmouth University , the first row of seats contained not only the candidate ’ s most fervent supporters but voters , who had arrived hours earlier to be at the front of the line , who were unsure how they would vote on Tuesday .
Maybe Warren .
Maybe Buttigieg .
Maybe Sanders .
They hoped that seeing Sanders up close and personal would help them resolve what to do .
Many of the undecideds are driving themselves crazy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ forth between candidates .
It could be Sanders one day , Warren the next , or maybe Buttigieg , Biden , or Klobuchar .
And , they report , the choice is a difficult one .
That ’ s because many of them are trying to do the impossible .
These still-pondering Granite Staters largely have one priority : removing Donald Trump from the White House .
Like Jessica , they yearn to vote for the Democrat who has the best chance of booting Trump .
And they believe there is a calculation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ definitive answer .
The problem for them—and the Democratic Party—is that there isn ’ t .
Such an algorithm doesn ’ t exist .
No candidate in this pack at this point can reasonably claim that his or her case for electability is ironclad—or even far superior than those of his or her rivals .
Sanders contends he can both appeal to working class voters who went for Trump and attract voters who don ’ t tend to vote .
Perhaps .
But will his standing as a democratic socialist turn away voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attack ?
Pete Buttigieg says he can draw on his middle-America roots to pull in moderates and Republicans .
It ’ s possible .
It ’ s also possible his lack of experience and sexual orientation might be a no-go for general election voters .
Joe Biden has the resumé and claims he can appeal to middle-class voters in key swing states .
But his performance as a candidate has prompted the obvious comparison to a boxer past his prime .
Warren asserts her fight against Washington and corporate corruption can resonate beyond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a champion .
Yet her failure to stay in the top-tier of the race raises questions .
And so on .
There are no political experts—no consultants , no pundits , no pollsters—who can say which of these arguments truly bests the others .
It ’ s all supposin ’ .
Every night at the bar at the DoubleTree Hotel in Manchester , reporters covering the primary gather and compare notes , and no one within this group has much of a better grasp on this question than the voters they talked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is clear : There is no one Democratic candidate without an obvious potential flaw .
And there is no way to measure the possible impact of these possible flaws ahead of time .
The best one can do is guess .
Many New Hampshire voters have done so , and they can tell you why their chosen candidate is the person who has the greatest chance of kicking Trump to the curb .
Others are still searching for a clarity that eludes them .
At the Warren event in Lebanon , Doreen Somers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Center , praised Warren for being “ so smart.
” But she said she would vote for “ whoever can go up best against Trump.
” So beyond Warren , she is also considering Andrew Yang and Amy Klobuchar : “ Warren could hold her own with Trump , but maybe the other two would be more powerful on the stage.
” Joan Beardsley , a retired math teacher , said she wants to know which candidates have studied videotapes of the 2016 debates between Trump and Hillary Clinton .
She would vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s unlikely any of the contenders have yet done that , she replied , “ Then it ’ s Elizabeth.
” She paused and added , “ But maybe Bernie.
” David Perlman , who retired from the energy finance business , noted that he spent a long time attempting to determine the candidate most likely to win in November .
“ I was going nuts trying to figure it out.
” Then he realized this was not an accomplishable task .
“ I stopped doing that , ” he said , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inspires me the most and whose ideas I like the most .
And then it became much easier.
” For him , that candidate was Warren .
The Democratic field offers voters a wide range of choices .
But when it comes to electability—a quality that can not be easily assessed before the fact—there is no ideal candidate .
Trump ’ s presence in the White House has caused many voters to conclude the responsible thing to do is to put aside their own policy or personal preferences to pick a candidate who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they knew who that was .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Jessica, a 29-year-old elementary teacher, is vexed, highly vexed. She stands in the gym of the high school in Lebanon, New Hampshire, holding her three-month-old daughter. A few feet away, her fidgety two-year-old son is being tended to by Jessica’s mother. Surrounded by Elizabeth Warren supporters who are waiting for the candidate to arrive for a town hall, Jessica can’t make up her mind. And it’s two days before the Granite State holds the first primary election of the 2020 presidential race. “I want to be strategic and vote for the Democrat who can win in November,” she says. And who is that? a reporter asks. “I don’t know,” she replies. “Can you tell me? Please?”
It doesn’t help Jessica to know that a great deal of New Hampshire Democratic voters share her plight. There are certainly many residents who have their man or woman. Rallies for all the candidates are full of committed supporters. But the crowds do contain a significant percentage of voters still struggling. At a Sanders event in Hanover that drew hundreds of Bernie devotees from Dartmouth University, the first row of seats contained not only the candidate’s most fervent supporters but voters, who had arrived hours earlier to be at the front of the line, who were unsure how they would vote on Tuesday. Maybe Warren. Maybe Buttigieg. Maybe Sanders. They hoped that seeing Sanders up close and personal would help them resolve what to do.
No candidate in this pack at this point can reasonably claim that his or her case for electability is ironclad—or even far superior than those of his or her rivals.
Many of the undecideds are driving themselves crazy. They say that they swing back and forth between candidates. It could be Sanders one day, Warren the next, or maybe Buttigieg, Biden, or Klobuchar. And, they report, the choice is a difficult one. That’s because many of them are trying to do the impossible. These still-pondering Granite Staters largely have one priority: removing Donald Trump from the White House. Like Jessica, they yearn to vote for the Democrat who has the best chance of booting Trump. And they believe there is a calculation to be performed that will yield a definitive answer. The problem for them—and the Democratic Party—is that there isn’t. Such an algorithm doesn’t exist.
No candidate in this pack at this point can reasonably claim that his or her case for electability is ironclad—or even far superior than those of his or her rivals. Sanders contends he can both appeal to working class voters who went for Trump and attract voters who don’t tend to vote. Perhaps. But will his standing as a democratic socialist turn away voters and provide Trump an easy line of attack? Pete Buttigieg says he can draw on his middle-America roots to pull in moderates and Republicans. It’s possible. It’s also possible his lack of experience and sexual orientation might be a no-go for general election voters. Joe Biden has the resumé and claims he can appeal to middle-class voters in key swing states. But his performance as a candidate has prompted the obvious comparison to a boxer past his prime. Warren asserts her fight against Washington and corporate corruption can resonate beyond those progressives who have long embraced her as a champion. Yet her failure to stay in the top-tier of the race raises questions. And so on.
There are no political experts—no consultants, no pundits, no pollsters—who can say which of these arguments truly bests the others. It’s all supposin’. Every night at the bar at the DoubleTree Hotel in Manchester, reporters covering the primary gather and compare notes, and no one within this group has much of a better grasp on this question than the voters they talked to that day. The bottom line is clear: There is no one Democratic candidate without an obvious potential flaw. And there is no way to measure the possible impact of these possible flaws ahead of time.
The best one can do is guess. Many New Hampshire voters have done so, and they can tell you why their chosen candidate is the person who has the greatest chance of kicking Trump to the curb. Others are still searching for a clarity that eludes them.
At the Warren event in Lebanon, Doreen Somers, who works at the Dartmouth Medical Center, praised Warren for being “so smart.” But she said she would vote for “whoever can go up best against Trump.” So beyond Warren, she is also considering Andrew Yang and Amy Klobuchar: “Warren could hold her own with Trump, but maybe the other two would be more powerful on the stage.” Joan Beardsley, a retired math teacher, said she wants to know which candidates have studied videotapes of the 2016 debates between Trump and Hillary Clinton. She would vote for that person. Told it’s unlikely any of the contenders have yet done that, she replied, “Then it’s Elizabeth.” She paused and added, “But maybe Bernie.”
David Perlman, who retired from the energy finance business, noted that he spent a long time attempting to determine the candidate most likely to win in November. “I was going nuts trying to figure it out.” Then he realized this was not an accomplishable task. “I stopped doing that,” he said, “and I decided to focus on who inspires me the most and whose ideas I like the most. And then it became much easier.” For him, that candidate was Warren.
The Democratic field offers voters a wide range of choices. But when it comes to electability—a quality that cannot be easily assessed before the fact—there is no ideal candidate. Trump’s presence in the White House has caused many voters to conclude the responsible thing to do is to put aside their own policy or personal preferences to pick a candidate who can trounce Trump. Now if only they knew who that was.


motherjones--2020-02-10--ICE Stops Using Jail Where Detainees Were Beaten and Pepper-Sprayed

In August , Mother Jones reported that asylum seekers at a Louisiana jail were pepper-sprayed and beaten after protesting their indefinite detention .
Now , following a damning inspection that confirmed the use of force , Immigration and Customs Enforcement has stopped using the jail .
The Bossier Parish Corrections Center stopped housing ICE detainees in the past few weeks , says Lt. Bill Davis of the Bossier Parish Sheriff ’ s Office .
“ ICE had been decreasing the number of detainees they were sending us for the last couple of months , ” Davis says .
“ So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t need the facilities anymore.
” ICE has been taking fewer people into custody in recent months , as border crossings have declined amid the Trump administration ’ s sharp crackdown on asylum seekers .
The Nakamoto Group , the company ICE pays to inspect detention centers , concluded in a December report that force was used against at least one detainee during the August protest .
“ Force was utilized on this detainee while he was unconscious , ” the report states , “ and a review of the video evidence revealed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of force.
” The company further faulted the facility for failing to include the incident in an after-action report .
The officer who used force , the nature of which was not detailed in the inspection report , was not disciplined .
The jail also failed to investigate several other unspecified “ physical responses of staff ” during the protest .
The inspection , which has not been previously reported , was posted last month on ICE ’ s website .
An excerpt of the Nakamoto Group ’ s inspection .
An ICE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether the agency ’ s decision to stop using the jail was related to the problems identified by the Nakamoto Group .
Louisiana attorneys had heard rumors that ICE planned to stop using the jail prior to the inspection .
Across the country , the number of people detained by ICE has fallen from a record high of more than 55,000 to 39,983 at the start of the month , though that ’ s still about 5,000 more than at the end of the Obama administration .
The asylum seekers detained—and in some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had come to the United States exercising their legal right to seek protection from persecution .
Instead of releasing asylum seekers while they await court hearings , as has been the case in the past , the Trump administration has subjected most of them to indefinite detention , often in jails that also hold convicted criminals .
The Nakamoto Group painted an unusually bleak picture of life inside the jail .
Inspectors found that detainees at the Bossier jail were “ inconsolable ” about their situations .
“ They complained , almost unanimously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the courts ; lack of attention from ICE officers ; and lack of knowledge regarding deportation status , ” the report states .
Text messages provided to Mother Jones in August by attorney Lara Nochomovitz depicted a chaotic scene at the Bossier jail as Cuban detainees protested their indefinite detention .
“ There are lots of cops who came from another prison , they beat up the Cubans , they pepper-spray them and handcuff them , ” one of the detainees wrote in Spanish .
“ There ’ s even an ambulance here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
” At the time , Davis called the incident a “ small disturbance ” that began when about 30 people started yelling at a lunch table .
Davis said that although they didn ’ t get physically violent , deputies used pepper spray to “ deescalate ” the situation .
He said that one of the detainees had to be transported to a local hospital “ for anxiety attack issues ” but denied that anyone was beaten .
Nakamoto Group inspectors determined that 158 Cubans participated in the protest—far more than was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” was used against them .
The report states that , at “ a minimum , ” a proper investigation of the incident should have established “ review teams ” that included ICE staff and health care workers at the jail , not just the jail ’ s security staff .
According to the report , those teams should have taken statements from everyone involved , reviewed video footage , and collected all other available evidence .
“ Every physical response that went beyond the routine application of restraints should have been investigated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Staff that were determined to have applied either unjustified or excessive force should have been disciplined and re-trained.
” None of that apparently happened .
The Nakamoto Group faulted ICE for failing to monitor conditions .
Inspectors found that ICE officers were not conducting the weekly visits required by the agency ’ s detention standards .
During one two-month period , inspectors were unable to find evidence of any ICE visits .
The report recommended that ICE conduct announced and unannounced visits to monitor conditions and speak with detainees .
The ICE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether those visits occurred .
In a January 2019 inspection , the Nakamoto Group identified 122 deficiencies at the Bossier jail , compared to an average of 11 at the other ICE detention centers it inspected last year .
In December , it found 50 .
Despite the deficiencies , the facility indicated to inspectors that it had not been fined by ICE for non-compliance .
Last year , the Department of Homeland Security ’ s Office of Inspector General found that ICE routinely fails to hold noncompliant detention centers accountable through financial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Nakamoto Group , finding that the company ’ s inspections “ do not fully examine actual conditions or identify all compliance deficiencies ” and that its inspectors “ are not always thorough.
” Independent investigations have come to similar conclusions .
Scott Shuchart , who spent eight years at DHS ’ s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties , told the Project on Government Oversight , “ Nakamoto has no credibility because of the volume of problems it has failed to uncover at multiple facilities over multiple years…It is a checklist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ light of the company ’ s track record of underreporting deficiencies , the Bossier inspection report is all the more striking .
The Bossier jail is located in Plain Dealing , about 30 miles north of Shreveport , and held about 260 immigration detainees on an average day last year .
ICE started using the jail in June 2018 and began using seven for-profit detention centers in Louisiana in 2019 .
Nochomovitz says most of her Bossier clients have been transferred to River Correctional Center , one of the new for-profit jails .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be improving at Bossier , her clients are much happier at River .
“ It ’ s still jail , ” she adds .
ICE paid local authorities more than $ 60 per night for each person housed at the Bossier jail , more than twice the rate the state of Louisiana pays for criminal detainees .
Julian Whittington , the Bossier Parish sheriff , made no secret of the fact that money played a role in his decision to move out more than 180 prisoners to make room for ICE detainees .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Davis dismissed the political controversies over immigration .
“ We don ’ t care about that , ” he said .
“ Our job is to house inmates…whether they ’ re ICE inmates , or whether they ’ re parish or state , we ’ re housing them .
That ’ s it.
” He called the jail a “ top-notch correctional facility .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
In August, Mother Jones reported that asylum seekers at a Louisiana jail were pepper-sprayed and beaten after protesting their indefinite detention. Now, following a damning inspection that confirmed the use of force, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has stopped using the jail.
The Bossier Parish Corrections Center stopped housing ICE detainees in the past few weeks, says Lt. Bill Davis of the Bossier Parish Sheriff’s Office. “ICE had been decreasing the number of detainees they were sending us for the last couple of months,” Davis says. “So they’ve decided they don’t need the facilities anymore.” ICE has been taking fewer people into custody in recent months, as border crossings have declined amid the Trump administration’s sharp crackdown on asylum seekers.
“Force was utilized on this detainee while he was unconscious,” the report states.
The Nakamoto Group, the company ICE pays to inspect detention centers, concluded in a December report that force was used against at least one detainee during the August protest. “Force was utilized on this detainee while he was unconscious,” the report states, “and a review of the video evidence revealed that it was a clearly inappropriate application of force.”
The company further faulted the facility for failing to include the incident in an after-action report. The officer who used force, the nature of which was not detailed in the inspection report, was not disciplined. The jail also failed to investigate several other unspecified “physical responses of staff” during the protest. The inspection, which has not been previously reported, was posted last month on ICE’s website.
An excerpt of the Nakamoto Group’s inspection.
An ICE spokesman did not respond to inquiries about whether the agency’s decision to stop using the jail was related to the problems identified by the Nakamoto Group. Louisiana attorneys had heard rumors that ICE planned to stop using the jail prior to the inspection. Across the country, the number of people detained by ICE has fallen from a record high of more than 55,000 to 39,983 at the start of the month, though that’s still about 5,000 more than at the end of the Obama administration.
The asylum seekers detained—and in some cases beaten or pepper-sprayed—at the Bossier jail had come to the United States exercising their legal right to seek protection from persecution. Instead of releasing asylum seekers while they await court hearings, as has been the case in the past, the Trump administration has subjected most of them to indefinite detention, often in jails that also hold convicted criminals.
The Nakamoto Group painted an unusually bleak picture of life inside the jail. Inspectors found that detainees at the Bossier jail were “inconsolable” about their situations. “They complained, almost unanimously, about the lack of information from the courts; lack of attention from ICE officers; and lack of knowledge regarding deportation status,” the report states.
Text messages provided to Mother Jones in August by attorney Lara Nochomovitz depicted a chaotic scene at the Bossier jail as Cuban detainees protested their indefinite detention. “There are lots of cops who came from another prison, they beat up the Cubans, they pepper-spray them and handcuff them,” one of the detainees wrote in Spanish. “There’s even an ambulance here. Help us please this is ugly!”
At the time, Davis called the incident a “small disturbance” that began when about 30 people started yelling at a lunch table. Davis said that although they didn’t get physically violent, deputies used pepper spray to “deescalate” the situation. He said that one of the detainees had to be transported to a local hospital “for anxiety attack issues” but denied that anyone was beaten.
Nakamoto Group inspectors determined that 158 Cubans participated in the protest—far more than was previously disclosed—and that a “chemical agent” was used against them. The report states that, at “a minimum,” a proper investigation of the incident should have established “review teams” that included ICE staff and health care workers at the jail, not just the jail’s security staff. According to the report, those teams should have taken statements from everyone involved, reviewed video footage, and collected all other available evidence. “Every physical response that went beyond the routine application of restraints should have been investigated individually,” the report states. “Staff that were determined to have applied either unjustified or excessive force should have been disciplined and re-trained.” None of that apparently happened.
The Nakamoto Group faulted ICE for failing to monitor conditions. Inspectors found that ICE officers were not conducting the weekly visits required by the agency’s detention standards. During one two-month period, inspectors were unable to find evidence of any ICE visits. The report recommended that ICE conduct announced and unannounced visits to monitor conditions and speak with detainees. The ICE spokesman did not respond to inquiries about whether those visits occurred.
In a January 2019 inspection, the Nakamoto Group identified 122 deficiencies at the Bossier jail, compared to an average of 11 at the other ICE detention centers it inspected last year. In December, it found 50. Despite the deficiencies, the facility indicated to inspectors that it had not been fined by ICE for non-compliance. Last year, the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General found that ICE routinely fails to hold noncompliant detention centers accountable through financial penalties.
The same DHS report criticized the Nakamoto Group, finding that the company’s inspections “do not fully examine actual conditions or identify all compliance deficiencies” and that its inspectors “are not always thorough.” Independent investigations have come to similar conclusions. Scott Shuchart, who spent eight years at DHS’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, told the Project on Government Oversight, “Nakamoto has no credibility because of the volume of problems it has failed to uncover at multiple facilities over multiple years…It is a checklist driven, superficial inspection process.” In light of the company’s track record of underreporting deficiencies, the Bossier inspection report is all the more striking.
The Bossier jail is located in Plain Dealing, about 30 miles north of Shreveport, and held about 260 immigration detainees on an average day last year. ICE started using the jail in June 2018 and began using seven for-profit detention centers in Louisiana in 2019. Nochomovitz says most of her Bossier clients have been transferred to River Correctional Center, one of the new for-profit jails. She says that while conditions appeared to be improving at Bossier, her clients are much happier at River. “It’s still jail,” she adds.
ICE paid local authorities more than $60 per night for each person housed at the Bossier jail, more than twice the rate the state of Louisiana pays for criminal detainees. Julian Whittington, the Bossier Parish sheriff, made no secret of the fact that money played a role in his decision to move out more than 180 prisoners to make room for ICE detainees.
In May, before the protest, Davis dismissed the political controversies over immigration. “We don’t care about that,” he said. “Our job is to house inmates…whether they’re ICE inmates, or whether they’re parish or state, we’re housing them. That’s it.” He called the jail a “top-notch correctional facility.”


motherjones--2020-02-10--Here’s Our Internal Style Guide. Tell Us Where We’re Wrong.

It didn ’ t take long for 2020 to become the kind of rumbling , brink-of-war election year that 2019 foreshadowed , with President Trump ’ s overseas outbursts and domestic distractions threatening to fog up impeachment and the election .
As the year unfolds , Mother Jones and the rest of the national media have our work cut out for us , from fact-checking to reality-checking , which takes more than reporting .
In the Trump era , it takes seeing through smokescreens in the media , scare tactics in government , and language tricks everywhere .
Words ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what “ white supremacy ” and “ white nationalism ” mean , “ extortion ” and “ quid pro quo ” mean , “ cancel culture ” means , “ detention ” means .
To that end our staff has been debating and rewriting our style guide to make sure it reflects the most accurate , accountable language in areas of race , gender , abortion , incarceration , immigration , climate science , and more .
Today , Mother Jones is publishing its style guide , the handbook our editors and reporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s the first time in our 44-year history that we ’ re releasing it publicly .
We ’ re sharing it to encourage readers , and ourselves , to learn out loud about words ’ consequences and constraints .
What this means is a living guide that ’ s constantly updated , but whose goals are unchanging : challenge hidden biases in language , avoid euphemisms that creep into national vocabulary ( like “ internment ” when you mean incarceration ) , and amplify a diverse range of voices .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of newsrooms have released theirs : BuzzFeed News , the Guardian , the New York Times , Rewire.News , BBC .
More newsrooms should tip their hands .
Some highlights in ours : distinctions between disinformation and misinformation ; suppression and depression of voter turnout ; victims and survivors .
You ’ ll see a default to gender-neutral occupational titles ( with exceptions ) and climate language like accepting scientific facts instead of believing in them .
• When should we use Latinx ?
Check our entry ; see if you agree .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ capitalized ( but not white ) in all references to race or should Mother Jones defer to individual writers ’ and sources ’ discretion ( as we do now ) to affirm personal choice even at the cost of consistency ?
• What ’ s the distinction between “ white supremacy ” and “ white nationalism ” ?
See our entry .
• Should we drop the hashtag from # MeToo to reflect the movement ’ s broadening beyond its social media origins ?
• Should we replace “ conspiracy theory ” with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ term like it ) to preserve the scientific meaning of theory as an accepted body of explanations , the opposite of the flatly wrong just-a-theory use , as some scientists are pitching us to do ?
Or allow both meanings ?
• Should we use “ lab-grown ” or another term for synthetically grown animal meat ?
The biggest fallacy to avoid in style guides : the false choice between descriptivism and prescriptivism .
What a scam .
We ’ ve been sold this myth that style manuals have to choose between describing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each requires the other .
You can order a la carte .
There are some gutlessly neutral , deeply flawed style guides out there .
One news organization ’ s—left unnamed as a courtesy ( the news org is good but its style guide is abysmal ) —has this dose of overcorrection : “ Do not label a person as racist.
” Because , we ’ re told , “ source dignity and reader clarity are prioritized when specific actions , rather than general labels , are specified in a story.
” In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ banning “ racist ” make sense ?
This kind of hedging and shuffling and sleight of hand is exactly what repulses readers and allows racism to go unnamed .
Accuracy requires the word when it clearly applies .
Another dose of overcaution from a newsroom ’ s internal guidelines : “ ‘ Terrorism/terrorists ’ : Do not use .
One person ’ s terrorist is another ’ s freedom fighter.
” False equivalencies like this are a familiar misfire from down-the-middle , earnest editors with good intentions but bad grammar and misguided politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the best balance .
“ Terrorist ” can be used as clearly to describe white supremacist terrorists as jihadist terrorists and anyone else who meets an exacting definition based on ideology , intent , and impact .
The word is not empty , innately subjective , or bluntly bigoted as an instrument of empire in all cases ; allow and use the word accurately .
Banning it would only confirm the serious charge that progressive-posturing reporters resort to cherry-picked euphemisms instead of drawing hard distinctions and calling something exactly what it is .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ take a stand—see our guidelines on ability and disability , religion and atheism , abortion and law—we also don ’ t make blanket pronouncements in cases where there ’ s good reason to leave things open or let writers and sources define their own terms .
Our style guide is here , always in progress .
Reach us at styleguide @ motherjones.com and weigh in with comments .
Our copy team will answer all of your nontrolling questions ( and most of your trolling ones ) .
Enter the breach .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
It didn’t take long for 2020 to become the kind of rumbling, brink-of-war election year that 2019 foreshadowed, with President Trump’s overseas outbursts and domestic distractions threatening to fog up impeachment and the election. As the year unfolds, Mother Jones and the rest of the national media have our work cut out for us, from fact-checking to reality-checking, which takes more than reporting. In the Trump era, it takes seeing through smokescreens in the media, scare tactics in government, and language tricks everywhere. Words’ meanings are increasingly heightened; it matters what “white supremacy” and “white nationalism” mean, “extortion” and “quid pro quo” mean, “cancel culture” means, “detention” means. To that end our staff has been debating and rewriting our style guide to make sure it reflects the most accurate, accountable language in areas of race, gender, abortion, incarceration, immigration, climate science, and more.
Today, Mother Jones is publishing its style guide, the handbook our editors and reporters use for internal guidance on word choice. It’s the first time in our 44-year history that we’re releasing it publicly.
We’re sharing it to encourage readers, and ourselves, to learn out loud about words’ consequences and constraints. What this means is a living guide that’s constantly updated, but whose goals are unchanging: challenge hidden biases in language, avoid euphemisms that creep into national vocabulary (like “internment” when you mean incarceration), and amplify a diverse range of voices. Find our guide here.
A handful of newsrooms have released theirs: BuzzFeed News, the Guardian, the New York Times, Rewire.News, BBC. More newsrooms should tip their hands. Some highlights in ours: distinctions between disinformation and misinformation; suppression and depression of voter turnout; victims and survivors. You’ll see a default to gender-neutral occupational titles (with exceptions) and climate language like accepting scientific facts instead of believing in them.
Questions we’re debating:
• When should we use Latinx? Check our entry; see if you agree.
• Should Black and Brown always be capitalized (but not white) in all references to race or should Mother Jones defer to individual writers’ and sources’ discretion (as we do now) to affirm personal choice even at the cost of consistency?
• What’s the distinction between “white supremacy” and “white nationalism”? See our entry.
• Should we drop the hashtag from #MeToo to reflect the movement’s broadening beyond its social media origins?
• Should we replace “conspiracy theory” with “conspiracy claim” (or a term like it) to preserve the scientific meaning of theory as an accepted body of explanations, the opposite of the flatly wrong just-a-theory use, as some scientists are pitching us to do? Or allow both meanings?
• Should we use “lab-grown” or another term for synthetically grown animal meat?
The biggest fallacy to avoid in style guides: the false choice between descriptivism and prescriptivism. What a scam. We’ve been sold this myth that style manuals have to choose between describing or prescribing how words work. But each requires the other. You can order a la carte.
There are some gutlessly neutral, deeply flawed style guides out there. One news organization’s—left unnamed as a courtesy (the news org is good but its style guide is abysmal)—has this dose of overcorrection: “Do not label a person as racist.” Because, we’re told, “source dignity and reader clarity are prioritized when specific actions, rather than general labels, are specified in a story.” In what world of dignity and clarity does banning “racist” make sense? This kind of hedging and shuffling and sleight of hand is exactly what repulses readers and allows racism to go unnamed. Accuracy requires the word when it clearly applies.
Another dose of overcaution from a newsroom’s internal guidelines: “‘Terrorism/terrorists’: Do not use. One person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.” False equivalencies like this are a familiar misfire from down-the-middle, earnest editors with good intentions but bad grammar and misguided politics. This is a pendulum swing past the best balance. “Terrorist” can be used as clearly to describe white supremacist terrorists as jihadist terrorists and anyone else who meets an exacting definition based on ideology, intent, and impact. The word is not empty, innately subjective, or bluntly bigoted as an instrument of empire in all cases; allow and use the word accurately. Banning it would only confirm the serious charge that progressive-posturing reporters resort to cherry-picked euphemisms instead of drawing hard distinctions and calling something exactly what it is.
While Mother Jones does not hesitate to take a stand—see our guidelines on ability and disability, religion and atheism, abortion and law—we also don’t make blanket pronouncements in cases where there’s good reason to leave things open or let writers and sources define their own terms.
Our style guide is here, always in progress. Reach us at styleguide@motherjones.com and weigh in with comments. Our copy team will answer all of your nontrolling questions (and most of your trolling ones). Enter the breach.


motherjones--2020-02-11--After Iowa, Americans Should Get Used to Slow Elections

There were many , many problems that led to the implosion of the Iowa Democratic Party ’ s caucuses and the fact that it may never be known who actually won more delegates last week .
And while the Democratic campaigns long ago moved on to New Hampshire—even as Iowa ’ s results remain in dispute—the slow count after the caucuses should offer Americans an enduring lesson : Reliable election results take time , and perhaps elections officials , the press , and the general public should learn to live with that .
“ One of the biggest problems with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says Rick Hasen , a law professor at the University of California , Irvine who specializes in election administration .
After past caucuses , results were announced late on the same night , in time for cable talkers and newspaper front pages to chew the outcome over and produce momentum-boosting narratives that helped define the future of the race .
This year ’ s delays allowed space for the legitimacy of the contest to be immediately questioned .
“ Had it been announced that it would take a couple days for everything [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you wouldn ’ t have had all of this anxiety , followed by the statements about quality control , and all the things that made it look like a slow-moving car crash.
” Hasen , the author of the newly-published Election Meltdown : Dirty Tricks , Distrust , and the Threat to American Democracy , says that with more jurisdictions adopting early voting or broader absentee voting procedures that generally take longer to process , the public needs to stop thinking about election night and start grappling with an election period starting about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extending out a few weeks after .
He points to the 2018 midterm Congressional elections in California as a prime example .
In that case , late-arriving absentee ballots flipped what preliminary and incomplete counts made look like Republican wins to their Democratic opponents .
President Donald Trump implied that the late returns somehow constituted “ voter fraud ” and Rep. Paul Ryan ( R-Wisc . )
, then the Republican Speaker of the House , also questioned the results , calling the situation “ bizarre.
” “ The suggestion was if it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s some kind of underhandedness going on , ” Hasen says , “ when , in fact , good election administration sometimes takes time.
” Hasen says election officials should work to clear up how long it will take to complete counts and get things right to politicians , the press , and the public .
A good example of this , he says , was the way that Neal Kelly , the registrar of voters in Orange County , California , told voters after the 2018 midterm primaries that counting the remaining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helping to reset expectations in a jurisdiction home to several close and closely watched House elections .
Without such proper messaging and widespread understanding , Hasen warns that slow counts could become yet another reason animating Americans ’ distrust of elections .
“ Delay , in and of itself , in announcing election results is not a problem if people understand what ’ s going on and people have confidence in the system , ” Hasen says .
“ What Iowa did was convince people not only that it was late , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trusted.
” Looking ahead to November , Hasen cites the potential for confusion kicked off by sweeping election law changes in Pennsylvania as “ one of the things I ’ m really worried about.
” The reforms will allow any voter in the perennially heated electoral battleground state to request a mail-in ballot while extending the deadline by which election administrators must receive them .
The changes raise the possibility that numbers suggesting a narrow victory for one candidate early on election night could look very different as late-arriving ballots are counted .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be what appears to be a Trump victory eventually shifting to the Democratic candidate .
“ That could cause a lot of problems , ” he said .
Given that the president and his inner circle were eager to almost immediately and baselessly claim that the Iowa debacle reflected a “ rigged ” election , who knows what Trump would do if numbers that first made it look like his own campaign had clinched Pennsylvania ’ s Electoral College votes shifted in favor of another candidate once all votes were counted .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scenarios .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
There were many, many problems that led to the implosion of the Iowa Democratic Party’s caucuses and the fact that it may never be known who actually won more delegates last week.
And while the Democratic campaigns long ago moved on to New Hampshire—even as Iowa’s results remain in dispute—the slow count after the caucuses should offer Americans an enduring lesson: Reliable election results take time, and perhaps elections officials, the press, and the general public should learn to live with that.
“Delay…is not a problem if people understand what’s going on.”
“One of the biggest problems with Iowa was about expectation setting,” says Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine who specializes in election administration. After past caucuses, results were announced late on the same night, in time for cable talkers and newspaper front pages to chew the outcome over and produce momentum-boosting narratives that helped define the future of the race. This year’s delays allowed space for the legitimacy of the contest to be immediately questioned. “Had it been announced that it would take a couple days for everything [to be clear] then I think you wouldn’t have had all of this anxiety, followed by the statements about quality control, and all the things that made it look like a slow-moving car crash.”
Hasen, the author of the newly-published Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy, says that with more jurisdictions adopting early voting or broader absentee voting procedures that generally take longer to process, the public needs to stop thinking about election night and start grappling with an election period starting about a month before Election Day proper and extending out a few weeks after.
He points to the 2018 midterm Congressional elections in California as a prime example. In that case, late-arriving absentee ballots flipped what preliminary and incomplete counts made look like Republican wins to their Democratic opponents. President Donald Trump implied that the late returns somehow constituted “voter fraud” and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), then the Republican Speaker of the House, also questioned the results, calling the situation “bizarre.”
“The suggestion was if it’s taking time, there’s some kind of underhandedness going on,” Hasen says, “when, in fact, good election administration sometimes takes time.”
Hasen says election officials should work to clear up how long it will take to complete counts and get things right to politicians, the press, and the public. A good example of this, he says, was the way that Neal Kelly, the registrar of voters in Orange County, California, told voters after the 2018 midterm primaries that counting the remaining ballots would “take weeks,” helping to reset expectations in a jurisdiction home to several close and closely watched House elections. Without such proper messaging and widespread understanding, Hasen warns that slow counts could become yet another reason animating Americans’ distrust of elections.
“Delay, in and of itself, in announcing election results is not a problem if people understand what’s going on and people have confidence in the system,” Hasen says. “What Iowa did was convince people not only that it was late, but that the results were not to be trusted.”
Looking ahead to November, Hasen cites the potential for confusion kicked off by sweeping election law changes in Pennsylvania as “one of the things I’m really worried about.” The reforms will allow any voter in the perennially heated electoral battleground state to request a mail-in ballot while extending the deadline by which election administrators must receive them. The changes raise the possibility that numbers suggesting a narrow victory for one candidate early on election night could look very different as late-arriving ballots are counted. The result, Hasen said, could be what appears to be a Trump victory eventually shifting to the Democratic candidate.
“That could cause a lot of problems,” he said. Given that the president and his inner circle were eager to almost immediately and baselessly claim that the Iowa debacle reflected a “rigged” election, who knows what Trump would do if numbers that first made it look like his own campaign had clinched Pennsylvania’s Electoral College votes shifted in favor of another candidate once all votes were counted. “It’s one of my nightmare scenarios.”


motherjones--2020-02-11--Trump to Payday Lenders: Let’s Rip America Off Again

When South Dakotans voted 3–to–1 to ban payday loans , they must have hoped it would stick .
Interest on the predatory cash advances averaged an eye-popping 652 percent—borrow a dollar , owe $ 6.50—until the state axed them in 2016 , capping rates at a fraction of that in a decisive referendum .
Donald Trump ’ s finance czars had another idea .
In November , the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ( along with the even more obscure Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ) floated a permanent loophole for payday lenders that would essentially make the South @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moot—they could launder their loans through out-of-state banks , which aren ’ t subject to state caps on interest .
Payday lenders arrange the loans , the banks issue them , and the payday lenders buy them back .
Every year , borrowers shell out close to $ 10 billion in fees on $ 90 billion in high-priced , short-term loans , numbers that only grew under the Trump administration .
The Community Financial Services Association of America estimates that the US has nearly 19,000 payday lenders—so called because you ’ re supposedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of pawnshops or other poverty-industry staples .
“ Even when the loan is repeatedly re-borrowed , ” the CFPB wrote in 2017 , many borrowers wind up in default and getting chased by a debt collector or having their car or truck seized by their lender.
” Payday loans “ trap consumers in a lifetime of debt , ” top Senate Banking Committee Democrat Sherrod Brown told A Plus in 2015 .
When South Dakota ’ s anti-payday rule took effect , the legal loan sharks collapsed .
Lenders , which spent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law , shut down en masse .
But it was a success story for South Dakotans like Maxine Broken Nose , whose car was repossessed by a lender at the Black Hills Powwow after she paid off a $ 243.60 balance one day late .
Her story and others—Broken Nose ’ s family watched repo men come for “ about 30 ” cars at the powwow—are featured in a documentary from the Center for Responsible Lending .
At the time , South Dakota was the 15th jurisdiction to cap interest rates , joining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers can ’ t even live paycheck-to-paycheck .
Georgia considers payday loans racketeering .
Arkansas limits interest to 17 percent .
West Virginia never allowed them in the first place .
Many states ban usury , the practice of gouging consumers on debt when they have nowhere better to turn .
But those laws were set up to stop an under-regulated spiderweb of local , storefront cash advance shops—they don ’ t keep payday lenders from teaming up with big out-of-state banks , and they can ’ t go toe-to-toe with hostile federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other hand , has been cozying up to payday lenders for years .
In 2018 , Trump picked banking-industry lawyer Jelena McWilliams to run the FDIC , which is tasked with “ supervising financial institutions for safety and soundness and consumer protection.
” In a 2018 Real News Network interview , ex-regulator and economics professor Bill Black said McWilliams was “ fully invested with the Trump agenda ” and would “ slaughter ” financial regulations .
While McWilliams ’ Obama-era predecessors led a tough crackdown on quick cash loans , the Wall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ encouraged banks to resume making them .
And last February , the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—another consumer-protection agency turned extension of the banking lobby—rolled back Obama-era rules that told lenders to “ assess a borrower ’ s ability to pay back debt before making loans to low-income customers ” : The FDIC rule would override a 2nd Circuit ruling , Madden v. Midland Funding , that says state usury laws can follow a loan around even if they ’ re sold to an out-of-state buyer .
The FDIC rule is based on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As long as a loan starts out legit , the bank can sell it on , with the same interest , to anyone .
If the bank lends you a dollar at 1,000 percent interest—a real rate that payday lenders actually charge—and they ’ re not bound by the state rule , anyone can buy that loan from the bank and keep charging that 1000 percent .
According to the National Consumer Law Center , which calls the FDIC rule the “ rent-a-bank ” proposal , at least five FDIC-regulated banks are now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states .
The motivation is obvious : The banks get a cut of a hugely profitable business .
Payday loans have been a tough industry to regulate .
From a 2013 ProPublica report reprinted in Mother Jones : In 2008 , payday lenders suffered a major defeat when the Ohio legislature banned high-cost loans .
That same year , they lost again when they dumped more than $ 20 million into an effort to roll back the law : The public voted against it by nearly two-to-one .
But five years later , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Ohio , charging annual rates that can approach 700 percent .
It ’ s just one example of the industry ’ s resilience .
In state after state where lenders have confronted unwanted regulation , they have found ways to continue to deliver high-cost loans .
Importantly , California passed its Fair Access to Credit Act last October , setting the same 36-percent limit as South Dakota on consumer loans .
The California bill doesn ’ t apply to loans below $ 2,500 , but California , which boasts a bigger economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bellwether for national regulations .
The timing of the FDIC proposal—a month after the Fair Access bill passed—suggests the California law may have been the final straw for Trump ’ s regulators .
Still , both payday lenders and bankers have backed a version of the FDIC rule for years .
And although payday lenders have a lobby—which brags about its access to the White House and includes some major Trump fundraisers—it ’ s nothing like the lobbying power wielded by the biggest banks , whose alumni line every Trump finance agency .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ broader restrictions on buying and selling people ’ s debts , and they ’ re the real heavyweights in the push to relax federal rules on loan sales .
The FDIC rule will help banks “ bypass ” the ruling , one financial services company wrote , which is “ good news for all secondary loan markets.
” Bankers were fighting for looser regulations on sketchy loans ( hello , mortgage crisis ) before check cashing shops existed .
Last Wednesday , the House Financial Services Committee , chaired by California Rep. Maxine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rent-a-bank ” rule and in favor of legislation to override it .
A bill now before the committee , the Veterans and Consumers Fair Credit Act , would take South Dakota ’ s 36 percent cap nationwide .
A federal law , which would supersede the Trump administration , is the only guaranteed fix to the loophole .
Payday loan bans have been widely popular , winning support from both liberals and conservatives .
In a 2017 Pew survey , 70 percent of Americans agreed that payday loans need more regulation .
Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress , where the banking lobby spent $ 61 million last year and where 70 percent of lobbyists are former government staff .
If the bill passes in the House , a handful of Republican votes could put most of that back in borrowers ’ pockets , ending the cycle of repossessions , defaults , and wrecked credit that hound borrowers like Maxine Broken Nose .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
When South Dakotans voted 3–to–1 to ban payday loans, they must have hoped it would stick. Interest on the predatory cash advances averaged an eye-popping 652 percent—borrow a dollar, owe $6.50—until the state axed them in 2016, capping rates at a fraction of that in a decisive referendum.
Donald Trump’s finance czars had another idea. In November, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (along with the even more obscure Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) floated a permanent loophole for payday lenders that would essentially make the South Dakota law, and many others, moot—they could launder their loans through out-of-state banks, which aren’t subject to state caps on interest. Payday lenders arrange the loans, the banks issue them, and the payday lenders buy them back.
Every year, borrowers shell out close to $10 billion in fees on $90 billion in high-priced, short-term loans, numbers that only grew under the Trump administration. The Community Financial Services Association of America estimates that the US has nearly 19,000 payday lenders—so called because you’re supposedly borrowing against your next paycheck—with many run out of pawnshops or other poverty-industry staples. “Even when the loan is repeatedly re-borrowed,” the CFPB wrote in 2017, many borrowers wind up in default and getting chased by a debt collector or having their car or truck seized by their lender.” Payday loans “trap consumers in a lifetime of debt,” top Senate Banking Committee Democrat Sherrod Brown told A Plus in 2015.
When South Dakota’s anti-payday rule took effect, the legal loan sharks collapsed. Lenders, which spent more than $1 million fighting the law, shut down en masse. But it was a success story for South Dakotans like Maxine Broken Nose, whose car was repossessed by a lender at the Black Hills Powwow after she paid off a $243.60 balance one day late. Her story and others—Broken Nose’s family watched repo men come for “about 30” cars at the powwow—are featured in a documentary from the Center for Responsible Lending.
At the time, South Dakota was the 15th jurisdiction to cap interest rates, joining a red-and-blue mix of states where many workers can’t even live paycheck-to-paycheck. Georgia considers payday loans racketeering. Arkansas limits interest to 17 percent. West Virginia never allowed them in the first place. Many states ban usury, the practice of gouging consumers on debt when they have nowhere better to turn. But those laws were set up to stop an under-regulated spiderweb of local, storefront cash advance shops—they don’t keep payday lenders from teaming up with big out-of-state banks, and they can’t go toe-to-toe with hostile federal agencies.
The Trump administration, on the other hand, has been cozying up to payday lenders for years. In 2018, Trump picked banking-industry lawyer Jelena McWilliams to run the FDIC, which is tasked with “supervising financial institutions for safety and soundness and consumer protection.” In a 2018 Real News Network interview, ex-regulator and economics professor Bill Black said McWilliams was “fully invested with the Trump agenda” and would “slaughter” financial regulations. While McWilliams’ Obama-era predecessors led a tough crackdown on quick cash loans, the Wall Street Journal reported in September that McWilliams encouraged banks to resume making them. And last February, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—another consumer-protection agency turned extension of the banking lobby—rolled back Obama-era rules that told lenders to “assess a borrower’s ability to pay back debt before making loans to low-income customers”:
The decision to weaken the payday lending rule was first proposed by acting director Mick Mulvaney, who now serves as President Donald Trump’s acting chief of staff…Mulvaney, who has concurrently been in charge of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), is a longtime friend of the payday lenders. (The industry donated more than $60,000 to his campaigns when Mulvaney was a congressman from South Carolina.) While in charge of the CFPB, Mulvaney quietly closed investigations and scrapped lawsuits aimed at payday lenders around the country.
The FDIC rule would override a 2nd Circuit ruling, Madden v. Midland Funding, that says state usury laws can follow a loan around even if they’re sold to an out-of-state buyer. The FDIC rule is based on a controversial doctrine called “valid-when-made”: As long as a loan starts out legit, the bank can sell it on, with the same interest, to anyone. If the bank lends you a dollar at 1,000 percent interest—a real rate that payday lenders actually charge—and they’re not bound by the state rule, anyone can buy that loan from the bank and keep charging that 1000 percent. According to the National Consumer Law Center, which calls the FDIC rule the “rent-a-bank” proposal, at least five FDIC-regulated banks are now facilitating ultra-high-interest loans in 30 or more states. The motivation is obvious: The banks get a cut of a hugely profitable business.
Payday loans have been a tough industry to regulate. From a 2013 ProPublica report reprinted in Mother Jones:
In 2008, payday lenders suffered a major defeat when the Ohio legislature banned high-cost loans. That same year, they lost again when they dumped more than $20 million into an effort to roll back the law: The public voted against it by nearly two-to-one. But five years later, hundreds of payday loan stores still operate in Ohio, charging annual rates that can approach 700 percent. It’s just one example of the industry’s resilience. In state after state where lenders have confronted unwanted regulation, they have found ways to continue to deliver high-cost loans.
Importantly, California passed its Fair Access to Credit Act last October, setting the same 36-percent limit as South Dakota on consumer loans. The California bill doesn’t apply to loans below $2,500, but California, which boasts a bigger economy that most countries, is often a bellwether for national regulations. The timing of the FDIC proposal—a month after the Fair Access bill passed—suggests the California law may have been the final straw for Trump’s regulators.
Still, both payday lenders and bankers have backed a version of the FDIC rule for years. And although payday lenders have a lobby—which brags about its access to the White House and includes some major Trump fundraisers—it’s nothing like the lobbying power wielded by the biggest banks, whose alumni line every Trump finance agency. Bankers hate the Madden ruling for its broader restrictions on buying and selling people’s debts, and they’re the real heavyweights in the push to relax federal rules on loan sales. The FDIC rule will help banks “bypass” the ruling, one financial services company wrote, which is “good news for all secondary loan markets.” Bankers were fighting for looser regulations on sketchy loans (hello, mortgage crisis) before check cashing shops existed.
Last Wednesday, the House Financial Services Committee, chaired by California Rep. Maxine Waters, heard arguments against the “rent-a-bank” rule and in favor of legislation to override it. A bill now before the committee, the Veterans and Consumers Fair Credit Act, would take South Dakota’s 36 percent cap nationwide. A federal law, which would supersede the Trump administration, is the only guaranteed fix to the loophole.
Payday loan bans have been widely popular, winning support from both liberals and conservatives. In a 2017 Pew survey, 70 percent of Americans agreed that payday loans need more regulation. Now, they’ll be tested in Congress, where the banking lobby spent $61 million last year and where 70 percent of lobbyists are former government staff. If the bill passes in the House, a handful of Republican votes could put most of that back in borrowers’ pockets, ending the cycle of repossessions, defaults, and wrecked credit that hounds borrowers like Maxine Broken Nose.


motherjones--2020-02-11--Prosecutors Want to Put Roger Stone in Prison for Up to 9 Years

The Justice Department released its sentencing memo for Roger Stone on Monday and it ’ s not looking great for the longtime Trump consigliere : Department prosecutors asked a federal judge for a sentence of up to nine years in prison .
Stone was convicted in November of five counts of making false statements to Congress , obstructing justice , and witness tampering .
“ A sentence that includes a period of incarceration would serve as a powerful reminder that our democratic processes can function only if those called to testify tell the truth , and that serious consequences lie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” prosecutors say in the memo .
Stone ’ s trial revealed that the colorful Trump adviser had sold himself to the Trump campaign back in 2016 as a conduit to WikiLeaks , passing along to the campaign info about the group ’ s plans to release Democratic emails that we now know were stolen by Russian intelligence .
Evidence in the trial showed that Stone communicated directly with Trump about WikiLeaks during the campaign—a revelation that suggests Trump likely lied in written answers to Special Counsel Robert Mueller when he claimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Stone or knowing that his longtime adviser had “ discussed WikiLeaks with individuals associated with my campaign.
” The sentencing memo notes that Stone is subject to a stiffer sentence because he was convicted of an offense that “ involved causing or threatening to cause physical injury to a person , or property damage , in order to obstruct the administration of justice.
” That refers to an April 2017 email Stone sent to Randy Credico , a former radio host and Stone associate , that stated , “ Prepare to die @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stone threatened to take Credico ’ s dog “ away from [ him ] .
” Prosecutors argued these messages aimed to keep Credico from telling the truth , specifically in challenging Stone ’ s claim to the House Intelligence Committee that Credico was his only intermediary to WikiLeaks in 2016 .
The memo also asks Judge Amy Berman Jackson to take into account a February 18 , 2019 , Instagram post in which Stone posted a picture of her with a “ symbol that appears to be a crosshairs next to her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criticized her oversight of the case and noted she was appointed by President Barack Obama .
After that incident , Jackson imposed a gag order on Stone—which he apparently broke when Alex Jones , the far right conspiracy theorist , read on Infowars a message Stone apparently sent Jones asking Trump to pardon him ; the memo also makes note of this apparent violation .
“ Roger Stone obstructed Congress ’ s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election , lied under oath , and tampered with a witness , ” prosecutors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ And when his crimes were revealed by the indictment in this case , he displayed contempt for this Court and the rule of law .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The Justice Department released its sentencing memo for Roger Stone on Monday and it’s not looking great for the longtime Trump consigliere: Department prosecutors asked a federal judge for a sentence of up to nine years in prison. Stone was convicted in November of five counts of making false statements to Congress, obstructing justice, and witness tampering.
“A sentence that includes a period of incarceration would serve as a powerful reminder that our democratic processes can function only if those called to testify tell the truth, and that serious consequences lie in store for those who do not,” prosecutors say in the memo.
Stone’s trial revealed that the colorful Trump adviser had sold himself to the Trump campaign back in 2016 as a conduit to WikiLeaks, passing along to the campaign info about the group’s plans to release Democratic emails that we now know were stolen by Russian intelligence. Evidence in the trial showed that Stone communicated directly with Trump about WikiLeaks during the campaign—a revelation that suggests Trump likely lied in written answers to Special Counsel Robert Mueller when he claimed not to recall “discussing WikiLeaks with” Stone or knowing that his longtime adviser had “discussed WikiLeaks with individuals associated with my campaign.”
The sentencing memo notes that Stone is subject to a stiffer sentence because he was convicted of an offense that “involved causing or threatening to cause physical injury to a person, or property damage, in order to obstruct the administration of justice.” That refers to an April 2017 email Stone sent to Randy Credico, a former radio host and Stone associate, that stated, “Prepare to die, cocksucker.” In another email, Stone threatened to take Credico’s dog “away from [him].” Prosecutors argued these messages aimed to keep Credico from telling the truth, specifically in challenging Stone’s claim to the House Intelligence Committee that Credico was his only intermediary to WikiLeaks in 2016.
The memo also asks Judge Amy Berman Jackson to take into account a February 18, 2019, Instagram post in which Stone posted a picture of her with a “symbol that appears to be a crosshairs next to her head,” along with commentary that criticized her oversight of the case and noted she was appointed by President Barack Obama. After that incident, Jackson imposed a gag order on Stone—which he apparently broke when Alex Jones, the far right conspiracy theorist, read on Infowars a message Stone apparently sent Jones asking Trump to pardon him; the memo also makes note of this apparent violation.
“Roger Stone obstructed Congress’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, lied under oath, and tampered with a witness,” prosecutors say at the conclusion of their memo. “And when his crimes were revealed by the indictment in this case, he displayed contempt for this Court and the rule of law.”
Read the sentencing memo here:


motherjones--2020-02-11--Mystery Woman Targets Sanders Campaign in Suspected Sting Operation

Sanders campaign operatives believe his campaign may have been the target of an attempted sting operation , after a woman recently attempted to bait local Sanders allies into discussing shady fundraising tactics in phone calls and in one in-person interaction .
New Hampshire Executive Councilor Andru Volinsky , a longtime Sanders ally who ’ s running for governor , received one of these calls on Monday evening , less than an hour before he was to appear onstage at Sanders ’ 7,500-person “ Bernie Beats Trump ” rally in Durham .
The caller , identifying herself as Megan MacDonald , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gubernatorial campaign .
She claimed to represent Our Revolution , the Sanders-aligned organization spun from his 2016 campaign , and unidentified gambling interests , according to Volinksy .
She volunteered to help Volinsky raise funds through both this organization and the gambling industry .
Volinsky asked her to provide a resumé to describe her fundraising qualifications , and MacDonald said she didn ’ t have one .
An Our Revolution spokesperson says it has never employed anyone with that name and has no connections to gambling interests .
MacDonald also asked Volinsky if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s “ boiler room ” —the nerve center where campaign staff and loyalists would gather on election night—and asked him where it would be located .
Volinsky declined her offer to help , and he did not provide her an address .
A New Hampshire Democratic Party official received a phone call on Monday from a woman identifying herself as Megan MacDonald , who said she wanted to help Volinsky with fundraising and requested Volinsky ’ s contact information .
Last Thursday , a woman who introduced herself as MacDonald attended a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Somersworth , New Hampshire .
According to an attendee , MacDonald claimed to be a political tourist from Chicago .
This person said MacDonald asked him leading questions suggesting Hillary Clinton had “ stolen ” the 2016 Democratic nomination from Sanders and inquired whether someone could vote in multiple primaries across different states .
The source said that a camera crew entered the event a few minutes before MacDonald did and departed moments after she left .
They identified themselves as media but did not have credentials .
Shannon Jackson , Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these are the only contacts that he is aware of between the campaign and MacDonald .
Mother Jones tried to reach MacDonald via the phone numbers she had used to reach Volinsky and the New Hampshire Democrats ’ staffer .
Neither call was answered .
A voicemail left at one of the numbers was not returned .
An email sent to an address she had given the New Hampshire Democrats ’ staffer was not returned .
The Sanders camp is well-acquainted with efforts to infiltrate its operation .
During the 2016 cycle , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for conducting sting operations against liberal targets , secretly recorded Sanders staffers in their Manchester , New Hampshire , office .
Last month , the group conducted operations against Sanders ’ organization in Iowa and South Carolina .
Project Veritas did not respond to a request for comment .
The Sanders campaign tells Mother Jones it has developed guides for staff and volunteers to help them identify the signs of a potential sting .
“ Being the frontrunner in the race , we ’ re going to get attention—both good and bad , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a shame we have to be guarded—we want to embrace and bring in as many people as possible .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Sanders campaign operatives believe his campaign may have been the target of an attempted sting operation, after a woman recently attempted to bait local Sanders allies into discussing shady fundraising tactics in phone calls and one in-person interaction.
New Hampshire Executive Councilor Andru Volinsky, a longtime Sanders ally who’s running for governor, received one of these calls on Monday evening, less than an hour before he was to appear onstage at Sanders’ 7,500-person “Bernie Beats Trump” rally in Durham. The caller, identifying herself as Megan MacDonald, offered to fundraise for Volinsky’s gubernatorial campaign. She claimed to represent Our Revolution, the Sanders-aligned organization spun from his 2016 campaign, and unidentified gambling interests, according to Volinksy. She volunteered to help Volinsky raise funds through both this organization and the gambling industry. Volinsky asked her to provide a resume to describe her fundraising qualifications, and MacDonald said she didn’t have one. An Our Revolution spokesperson says it has never employed anyone with that name and has no connections to gambling interests.
MacDonald also asked Volinsky if she could volunteer in the Sanders campaign’s “boiler room”—the nerve center where campaign staff and loyalists would gather on election night—and asked him where it would be located. Volinsky declined her offer to help, and he did not provide her an address.
A New Hampshire Democratic Party official received a phone call Monday from a woman identifying herself as Megan MacDonald, who said she wanted to help Volinsky with fundraising and requested Volinsky’s contact information.
Last Thursday, a woman who introduced herself as MacDonald attended a Sanders campaign roundtable geared toward LGTBQ voters in Somersworth, New Hampshire. According to an attendee, MacDonald claimed to be a political tourist from Chicago. This person said MacDonald asked him leading questions suggesting Hillary Clinton had “stolen” the 2016 Democratic nomination from Sanders and inquired whether someone could vote in multiple primaries across different states. The source said that a camera crew entered the event a few minutes before MacDonald did and departed moments after she left. They identified themselves as media but did not have credentials.
Shannon Jackson, Sanders’ New Hampshire campaign director, says these are the only contacts he’s aware of between the campaign and MacDonald. Mother Jones tried to reach MacDonald via the phone numbers she’d used to reach Volinsky and the New Hampshire Democrats’ staffer. Neither call was answered. A voicemail left at one of the numbers was not returned. An email sent to an address she had given the New Hampshire Democrats’ staffer was not returned.
The Sanders camp is well acquainted with efforts to infiltrate its operation. During the 2016 cycle, Project Veritas, a right-wing group known for conducting sting operations against liberal targets, secretly recorded Sanders staffers in their Manchester, New Hampshire, office. Last month, the group conducted operations against Sanders’ organization in Iowa and South Carolina. Project Veritas did not respond to a request for comment.
The Sanders campaign tells Mother Jones it has developed guides for staff and volunteers to help identify the signs of a potential sting. “Being the frontrunner in the race, we’re going to get attention—both good and bad,” Jackson said. “It’s a shame we have to be guarded—we want to embrace and bring in as many people as possible.”