motherjones--2020-08-18--The Postmaster General Will Suspend Some Mail Changes Until After the Election

Amid allegations that the Trump administration is sabotaging United States Postal Service ahead of the November election , postmaster general Louis DeJoy announced Tuesday that he was suspending some of the recent controversial changes that have likely contributed to significant postal delays around the country .
“ To avoid even the appearance of any impact on election mail , I am suspending these initiatives until after the election is concluded , ” DeJoy said in a statement .
According to DeJoy , the suspensions will apply to maintaining consistent retail hours , keeping mail processing equipment and blue collection boxes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the future closures of mail processing facilities .
But critics questioned its failure to address other agency changes that have likely contributed to the widespread mail delivery delays .
Those include the directive for workers to leave late-arriving mail for the following day and the move to end the Postal Service ’ s longstanding practice of treating election mail with priority , no matter the postage rate—two changes election advocates warn could significantly disrupt mail-in voting .
( For a look at how the agency ’ s changes have already disrupted mailing in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ read my colleague AJ Vicens ’ report here . )
It also wasn ’ t clear whether the agency would replace the blue collection boxes that have been already been removed .
In his statement , DeJoy addressed the sudden prohibition on overtime pay but was curiously vague .
“ We reassert that overtime has , and will continue to be , approved as needed , ” he said while declining to outline the criteria for such approval .
The statement comes ahead of two congressional appearances that DeJoy , a Trump megadonor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ May , will make over the next week amid intense bi-partisan criticism over the proposed changes , not to mention the president ’ s admission that he hopes to block congressional funding for the agency because he believes it will help boost his reelection chances .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Amid allegations that the Trump administration is sabotaging United States Postal Service ahead of the November election, postmaster general Louis DeJoy announced Tuesday that he was suspending some of the recent controversial changes that have likely contributed to significant postal delays around the country.
“To avoid even the appearance of any impact on election mail, I am suspending these initiatives until after the election is concluded,” DeJoy said in a statement.
According to DeJoy, the suspensions will apply to maintaining consistent retail hours, keeping mail processing equipment and blue collection boxes where they currently are, and preventing the future closures of mail processing facilities. But critics questioned its failure to address other agency changes that have likely contributed to the widespread mail delivery delays. Those include the directive for workers to leave late-arriving mail for the following day and the move to end the Postal Service’s longstanding practice of treating election mail with priority, no matter the postage rate—two changes election advocates warn could significantly disrupt mail-in voting. (For a look at how the agency’s changes have already disrupted mailing in Michigan, a key battleground state, read my colleague AJ Vicens’ report here.) It also wasn’t clear whether the agency would replace the blue collection boxes that have been already been removed.
In his statement, DeJoy addressed the sudden prohibition on overtime pay but was curiously vague. “We reassert that overtime has, and will continue to be, approved as needed,” he said while declining to outline the criteria for such approval.
The statement comes ahead of two congressional appearances that DeJoy, a Trump megadonor who was appointed to the position in May, will make over the next week amid intense bi-partisan criticism over the proposed changes, not to mention the president’s admission that he hopes to block congressional funding for the agency because he believes it will help boost his reelection chances.


motherjones--2020-08-18--A GOP Congressman Received “Sensitive Documents” From Russian Officials in 2016

Former GOP Rep. Dana Rohrabacher had more extensive contacts with Russian officials attempting to influence US politics than previously known , the Senate Intelligence Committee said in a report released Monday .
The findings on Rohrabacher are part of the committee ’ s fifth and final volume detailing Russian interference in the 2016 election .
The final report focuses on counterintelligence .
The efforts to influence Rohrabacher , who formerly chaired a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee that oversaw relations with Russia , are among examples of the Kremlin ’ s success in exerting influence in Washington .
The panel examined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in April 2016 as part of a congressional delegation .
During the visit , the lawmaker and an aide , Paul Behrends , brushed off the concerns of diplomats in the US embassy and “ separated from the group ” to attend a meeting with “ a close confidant ” of Vladimir Putin , the report said .
They also accepted a folder containing what a Russian official claimed were “ sensitive ” materials .
These Russian efforts dovetailed with Moscow ’ s attempts a few months later to help the Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what they claimed was damaging information related to Hillary Clinton .
Rohrabacher did not respond to requests for comment from Mother Jones .
“ We were just doing our job , ” Behrends said in a short call Tuesday , noting the information , at the time , “ had nothing to do with the election.
” Behrends , who was fired from his job on the House Foreign Affairs Committee after reports on his ties to Russian lobbyists , said attention to the matter has hurt his career .
“ I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he said , before ending the call .
Rohrabacher ’ s ties to Russia are well-documented .
A former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan who was first elected to represent southern California in 1988 , he began his career as zealous cold warrior .
After the fall of the Iron Curtain and an early-90s drunken arm-wrestling contest with Putin , Rohrabacher became a leading congressional advocate for closer ties to Russia , gaining the moniker , “ Putin ’ s favorite congressman.
” The FBI reportedly warned Rohrabacher in 2012 that Russian spies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ June 2016 , House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy ( R-Calif. ) told colleagues : “ There ’ s two people I think Putin pays : Rohrabacher and Trump.
” McCarthy , who reportedly said “ Swear to God ” when lawmakers laughed at that assertion , has claimed he was joking .
The committee report describes an April 2016 meeting that Rohrabacher and Behrends had in Moscow with Vladimir Yakunin , the former president of Russian Railways and a close confidant of Putin .
Yakunin at the time was under US sanctions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ significantly involved in Russian influence activities , including those targeting elections.
” Much of the report ’ s information on Yakunin is redacted .
Rohrabacher told the committee that Yakunin asked him to look at material Russian prosecutors had assembled related to the Magnitsky Act , a 2012 law imposing sanctions on Russian officials .
Rohrabacher and Behrends then met with another man , Konstantin Kosachev , the chair of the Council of the Federation Committee on Foreign Affairs .
Kosachev was later sanctioned by the United States , and the committee says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russian influence activities , including those targeting the United States.
” During this meeting , Kosachev handed Rohrabacher a note asking if Rohrabacher would accept “ sensitive documents.
” Rohrabacher agreed .
The lawmaker was then “ approached by several individuals who handed him a folder of documents , ” the report says .
Rohrabacher didn ’ t know who the men were , but he later told the committee he believed they were from the Russian prosecutor ’ s office .
The Atlantic revealed details of Rohrabacher ’ s trip in 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Moscow were concerned that Rohrabacher had met with Russian intelligence agents .
The material Rohrabacher received included unsubstantiated allegations that three Americans—Dirk , Robert , and Daniel Ziff—who had donated money to Hillary Clinton and other Democrats , had engaged in financial fraud in Russia .
The allegations were part of a Russian effort to undermine the Magnitsky Act .
The Russian material noted that the Ziff brothers had invested with Bill Browder , a former investor in Russia and a major critic of Putin .
Browder is a lead proponent of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sergei Magnitsky , a Russian lawyer who died in prison in 2009 .
After returning from Russia , Rohrabacher unsuccessfully attempted to change the name of the law , a step advocated by Russian lobbyists .
( Browder has denied the Russian allegations , while the Ziffs have avoided commenting . )
A few months after the delegation ’ s trip , a Russian lawyer , Natalia Veselnitskaya , outlined the same allegations during a meeting in Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr. , Jared Kushner , and Paul Manafort , who at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ official .
Trump Jr. agreed to the meeting after being promised political dirt on Clinton , part of what a British publicist told him was “ Russia and its government ’ s support ” for his father .
Special counsel Robert Mueller later indicted Veselnitskaya , who remains in Russia , for falsely claiming that she had not worked with Russia ’ s prosecutor general ’ s office .
Veselnitskaya pressed for Trump to support the repeal the Magnitsky Act .
At the Trump Tower meeting , Trump Jr. said his father would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Mueller ’ s 2019 report .
( The law remains in effect . )
The committee said that the substance of the documents Veselnitskaya brought to the 2016 meeting and the ones Rohrabacher received “ are similar , and parts of the two documents are nearly , or completely , identical.
” Although the information Veselnitskaya provided at the Trump Tower meeting proved politically useless , Rohrabacher ’ s receipt of the same material months earlier from the Russian government supports the conclusion that the Kremlin was involved in both efforts .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ later pleaded guilty to acting as an unregistered Russian agent—and Alexander Torshin , an influential Russian central bank official who oversaw Butina ’ s efforts .
Butina had multiple meetings with Rohrabacher between 2015 and 2017 .
In an August 2016 direct message exchange , Torshin and Butina discussed Rohrabacher ’ s friendly views on Russia .
“ You won ’ t believe it : he supports the annexation of Crimea to Russia , ” Butina wrote , also noting Rohrabacher ’ s opposition to US sanctions on Russia .
“ Precisely for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under the watch of the RF MFA , ” Torshin responded , referring to Russia ’ s Ministry of Foreign Affairs .
It ’ s not clear what “ under the watch ” means .
Rohrabacher has denied any clandestine ties to Russia and has publicly promoted his views .
In 2018 , Rohrabacher defended the Trump campaign officials ’ decision to meet with Veselnitskaya .
He told Mother Jones ‘ David Corn : “ There ’ s not a person in this town who would not take a meeting to get material @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rohrabacher ’ s defeat later that year by Democrat Harley Rouda .
Rohrabacher has since moved to York , Maine , and has become a lobbyist .
A longtime advocate of legalizing marijuana , he has worked as a consultant for cannabis companies .
In May , he registered to lobby Congress and Vice President Mike Pence ’ s office for a Virginia biotechnology company , Linear Technologies , that says it is working on a “ cure for Covid-19 and other diseases.
” Linear is led by Tim Yale , a Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ County who says he is is also working with Rudy Giuliani on a documentary related to Joe Biden and Ukraine .
Giuliani has pushed unsubstantiated allegations made by pro-Russian Ukrainians , including one parliamentarian who a top US intelligence official recently warned was “ spreading claims about corruption ” meant to undermine Biden .
The Senate committee ’ s report recommends steps for members of Congress to avoid being manipulated by foreign intelligence , urging congressional leaders to work with the US intelligence community to assess risks of foreign travel .
These recommendations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s success in cultivating Rohrabacher .
This article has been updated with comments from Paul Behrends .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Former GOP Rep. Dana Rohrabacher had more extensive contacts with Russian officials attempting to influence US politics than previously known, the Senate Intelligence Committee said in a report released Monday.
The findings on Rohrabacher are part of the committee’s fifth and final volume detailing Russian interference in the 2016 election. The final report focuses on counterintelligence. The efforts to influence Rohrabacher, who formerly chaired a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee that oversaw relations with Russia, are among examples of the Kremlin’s success in exerting influence in Washington.
The panel examined a trip to Russia that Rohrabacher took in April 2016 as part of a congressional delegation. During the visit, the lawmaker and an aide, Paul Behrends, brushed off the concerns of diplomats in the US embassy and “separated from the group” to attend a meeting with “a close confidant” of Vladimir Putin, the report said. They also accepted a folder containing what a Russian official claimed were “sensitive” materials. These Russian efforts dovetailed with Moscow’s attempts a few months later to help the Donald Trump’s presidential campaign by passing on what they claimed was damaging information related to Hillary Clinton. Rohrabacher did not respond to requests for comment from Mother Jones.
“We were just doing our job,” Behrends said in a short call Tuesday, noting the information, at the time, “had nothing to do with the election.” Behrends, who was fired from his job on the House Foreign Affairs Committee after reports on his ties to Russian lobbyists, said attention to the matter has hurt his career. “I’m tired of this gratuitous bullshit,” he said, before ending the call.
Rohrabacher’s ties to Russia are well-documented. A former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan who was first elected to represent southern California in 1988, he began his career as zealous cold warrior. After the fall of the Iron Curtain and an early-90s drunken arm-wrestling contest with Putin, Rohrabacher became a leading congressional advocate for closer ties to Russia, gaining the moniker, “Putin’s favorite congressman.” The FBI reportedly warned Rohrabacher in 2012 that Russian spies were trying to recruit him.
In June 2016, House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) told colleagues: “There’s two people I think Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump.” McCarthy, who reportedly said “Swear to God” when lawmakers laughed at that assertion, has claimed he was joking.
The committee report describes an April 2016 meeting that Rohrabacher and Behrends had in Moscow with Vladimir Yakunin, the former president of Russian Railways and a close confidant of Putin. Yakunin at the time was under US sanctions. The committee said that Yakunin “is significantly involved in Russian influence activities, including those targeting elections.” Much of the report’s information on Yakunin is redacted.
Rohrabacher told the committee that Yakunin asked him to look at material Russian prosecutors had assembled related to the Magnitsky Act, a 2012 law imposing sanctions on Russian officials. Rohrabacher and Behrends then met with another man, Konstantin Kosachev, the chair of the Council of the Federation Committee on Foreign Affairs. Kosachev was later sanctioned by the United States, and the committee says that he is “significantly involved in Russian influence activities, including those targeting the United States.”
During this meeting, Kosachev handed Rohrabacher a note asking if Rohrabacher would accept “sensitive documents.” Rohrabacher agreed. The lawmaker was then “approached by several individuals who handed him a folder of documents,” the report says. Rohrabacher didn’t know who the men were, but he later told the committee he believed they were from the Russian prosecutor’s office.
The Atlantic revealed details of Rohrabacher’s trip in 2017, reporting that State Department officials in Moscow were concerned that Rohrabacher had met with Russian intelligence agents.
The material Rohrabacher received included unsubstantiated allegations that three Americans—Dirk, Robert, and Daniel Ziff—who had donated money to Hillary Clinton and other Democrats, had engaged in financial fraud in Russia. The allegations were part of a Russian effort to undermine the Magnitsky Act. The Russian material noted that the Ziff brothers had invested with Bill Browder, a former investor in Russia and a major critic of Putin. Browder is a lead proponent of the Magnitsky Act, which is named after Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer who died in prison in 2009. After returning from Russia, Rohrabacher unsuccessfully attempted to change the name of the law, a step advocated by Russian lobbyists. (Browder has denied the Russian allegations, while the Ziffs have avoided commenting.)
A few months after the delegation’s trip, a Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, outlined the same allegations during a meeting in Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort, who at the time was a top Trump campaign official. Trump Jr. agreed to the meeting after being promised political dirt on Clinton, part of what a British publicist told him was “Russia and its government’s support” for his father. Special counsel Robert Mueller later indicted Veselnitskaya, who remains in Russia, for falsely claiming that she had not worked with Russia’s prosecutor general’s office.
Veselnitskaya pressed for Trump to support the repeal the Magnitsky Act. At the Trump Tower meeting, Trump Jr. said his father would consider doing so if elected, according to Mueller’s 2019 report. (The law remains in effect.)
The committee said that the substance of the documents Veselnitskaya brought to the 2016 meeting and the ones Rohrabacher received “are similar, and parts of the two documents are nearly, or completely, identical.”
Although the information Veselnitskaya provided at the Trump Tower meeting proved politically useless, Rohrabacher’s receipt of the same material months earlier from the Russian government supports the conclusion that the Kremlin was involved in both efforts.
Rohrabacher was also targeted by Maria Butina—who later pleaded guilty to acting as an unregistered Russian agent—and Alexander Torshin, an influential Russian central bank official who oversaw Butina’s efforts. Butina had multiple meetings with Rohrabacher between 2015 and 2017. In an August 2016 direct message exchange, Torshin and Butina discussed Rohrabacher’s friendly views on Russia.
“You won’t believe it: he supports the annexation of Crimea to Russia,” Butina wrote, also noting Rohrabacher’s opposition to US sanctions on Russia.
“Precisely for this reason I think that he is under the watch of the RF MFA,” Torshin responded, referring to Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It’s not clear what “under the watch” means.
Rohrabacher has denied any clandestine ties to Russia and has publicly promoted his views. In 2018, Rohrabacher defended the Trump campaign officials’ decision to meet with Veselnitskaya. He told Mother Jones‘ David Corn: “There’s not a person in this town who would not take a meeting to get material like that.”
Such views contributed to Rohrabacher’s defeat later that year by Democrat Harley Rouda. Rohrabacher has since moved to York, Maine, and has become a lobbyist. A longtime advocate of legalizing marijuana, he has worked as a consultant for cannabis companies. In May, he registered to lobby Congress and Vice President Mike Pence’s office for a Virginia biotechnology company, Linear Technologies, that says it is working on a “cure for Covid-19 and other diseases.” Linear is led by Tim Yale, a Republican operative from Rohrabacher’s native Orange County who says he is is also working with Rudy Giuliani on a documentary related to Joe Biden and Ukraine. Giuliani has pushed unsubstantiated allegations made by pro-Russian Ukrainians, including one parliamentarian who a top US intelligence official recently warned was “spreading claims about corruption” meant to undermine Biden.
The Senate committee’s report recommends steps for members of Congress to avoid being manipulated by foreign intelligence, urging congressional leaders to work with the US intelligence community to assess risks of foreign travel. These recommendations appear to be based on Russia’s success in cultivating Rohrabacher.
This article has been updated with comments from Paul Behrends.


motherjones--2020-08-18--How Many Times Does Bernie Sanders Have to Say He’s All-In for Biden, Anyway?

At the 2016 Democratic National Convention , Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders found himself struggling to control the political revolution he ’ d started .
It had been a long and contentious primary against Hillary Clinton , and many Sanders delegates traveled to Philadelphia determined to have the last word .
I interviewed one man from Wisconsin who said he was hunger-striking until Sanders won the nomination .
Sanders had not dropped out and endorsed Clinton even after the primaries had ended , and he ’ d given some credence to the idea that the race might still be up in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When that become more readily apparent early in the convention , Sanders addressed his delegates in a ballroom in the downtown convention center and urged them to support Hillary Clinton and reject Trump ’ s “ bigotry.
” The event turned rowdy .
Sanders talked up progressive victories in the party platform and discussed the organizing work that would continue in the months to come , but he was frequently interrupted .
Supporters booed when Clinton ’ s name came up .
They shouted “ Not with her !
” and “ Only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nomination the next night , some Sanders delegates walked out .
On Monday , in the penultimate address of the first day of the weirdest convention in recent memory , Sanders gave the whole party unity thing another shot .
Maybe it just works better without the crowd .
Standing in front of stacked firewood ( take that , bookshelves ) at an otherwise empty Burlington restaurant , he made a personal and concise case for his former rival .
Sanders is not a man prone to brevity .
He once published an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a very long speech he gave in the Senate .
It was titled The Speech .
On the campaign trail he would sometimes speak for an hour .
At the 2016 convention , he held the floor for 30 minutes .
At the 2020 convention , with the logs as his witness , he spoke for just eight .
And he sounded , at times , un-Bernie-like .
There was a canned dig ( “ Nero fiddled while Rome burned—Trump golfs ” ) and a trademark Bidenism ( “ the soul of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ familiar Sanders lines sounded a little off in this stunted context , as if he were reading someone else ’ s idea of a Bernie Sanders speech rather than the real deal .
At one point , he noted positively that Biden supported raising the minimum wage to “ 15 dollars an hour.
” The Sanders I saw on the stump always said “ 15 bucks an hour.
” Who was this imposter ?
But Sanders was there to do a job , and he did it .
He bridged the divide between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time as necessary , with only the subtlest acknowledgment of their serious policy disagreements .
“ We are the only industrialized nation not to guarantee health care for all people , ” he said , and “ Joe and I disagree on the best path to get to universal coverage.
” But rather than get into what that disagreement was—a fight that more or less dominated every single Democratic primary debate—he added quickly that Biden “ has a plan that will greatly expand health care and lower the cost of prescription drugs.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paid family leave and childcare programs and , like everyone else who spoke , contrasted Biden with the demagogue in the White house .
And he was there on the night-one program not just as the leader of a large and vocal political coalition but as the ideological counterpoint to a man with whom he disagrees far more than he does Joe Biden—former Ohio Republican Gov .
John Kasich , whose pre-recorded remarks aired at the convention just a short while earlier .
Together , they formed the scaffolding of Biden ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fence : It ’ s not that Biden shares either Kasich ’ s or Sanders ’ politics—it ’ s that he is someone two people as different as John Kasich and Bernie Sanders can both get behind .
“ These are not normal times , ” said Kasich , standing in a gravel driveway , looking up at a drone .
“ This is not normal , ” noted Sanders in his own remarks .
“ And we must never treat it like it is.
” He was describing Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in a way , the alliances it necessitated .
“ As long as I am here , I will work with progressives , moderates , and , yes , conservatives , to preserve this nation from a threat that so many of our heroes fought and died to defeat.
” None of this should come as a surprise .
In his praise of Biden on Monday , Sanders was simply doing what he talked about doing throughout his campaign—over and over and over again .
Although Sanders campaigned for Clinton in 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporters were less likely to vote for Trump in 2016 than 2008 Clinton supporters were to support John McCain , the stigma of perceived disloyalty from disgruntled Democrats stuck with him .
In his second run for president , no matter how many times he promised to support the Democratic nominee , Sanders kept getting asked a variation of the same question : okay but…are you sure ?
He said it last March : He said it last October : He said in January .
He said it in February : He said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when you ’ ve spent your career crashing parties ( Sanders ’ first book is called Outsider in the House ) and calling various elements of the party leadership corrupt , to convince committed partisans that you ’ re one of them .
And he never truly will be .
But Sanders has been trying to tell Democrats all cycle that he is a team player , and that if the time came for it , he ’ d deliver a performance exactly like he did Monday evening .
Now maybe they @ @ @ @ @

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
At the 2016 Democratic National Convention, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders found himself struggling to control the political revolution he’d started. It had been a long and contentious primary against Hillary Clinton, and many Sanders delegates traveled to Philadelphia determined to have the last word. I interviewed one man from Wisconsin who said he was hunger-striking until Sanders won the nomination. Sanders had not dropped out and endorsed Clinton even after the primaries had ended, and he’d given some credence to the idea that the race might still be up in the air.
It was not. When that become more readily apparent early in the convention, Sanders addressed his delegates in a ballroom in the downtown convention center and urged them to support Hillary Clinton and reject Trump’s “bigotry.” The event turned rowdy. Sanders talked up progressive victories in the party platform and discussed the organizing work that would continue in the months to come, but he was frequently interrupted. Supporters booed when Clinton’s name came up. They shouted “Not with her!” and “Only you! When Clinton officially won the nomination the next night, some Sanders delegates walked out.
On Monday, in the penultimate address of the first day of the weirdest convention in recent memory, Sanders gave the whole party unity thing another shot. Maybe it just works better without the crowd. Standing in front of stacked firewood (take that, bookshelves) at an otherwise empty Burlington restaurant, he made a personal and concise case for his former rival. Sanders is not a man prone to brevity. He once published an entire book that was just the transcript of a very long speech he gave in the Senate. It was titled The Speech. On the campaign trail he would sometimes speak for an hour. At the 2016 convention, he held the floor for 30 minutes. At the 2020 convention, with the logs as his witness, he spoke for just eight.
And he sounded, at times, un-Bernie-like. There was a canned dig (“Nero fiddled while Rome burned—Trump golfs”) and a trademark Bidenism (“the soul of our nation”). Even the familiar Sanders lines sounded a little off in this stunted context, as if he were reading someone else’s idea of a Bernie Sanders speech rather than the real deal. At one point, he noted positively that Biden supported raising the minimum wage to “15 dollars an hour.” The Sanders I saw on the stump always said “15 bucks an hour.” Who was this imposter?
But Sanders was there to do a job, and he did it. He bridged the divide between the two rival campaigns in as little time as necessary, with only the subtlest acknowledgment of their serious policy disagreements. “We are the only industrialized nation not to guarantee health care for all people,” he said, and “Joe and I disagree on the best path to get to universal coverage.” But rather than get into what that disagreement was—a fight that more or less dominated every single Democratic primary debate—he added quickly that Biden “has a plan that will greatly expand health care and lower the cost of prescription drugs.” Sanders highlighted Biden’s support for paid family leave and childcare programs and, like everyone else who spoke, contrasted Biden with the demagogue in the White house.
And he was there on the night-one program not just as the leader of a large and vocal political coalition but as the ideological counterpoint to a man with whom he disagrees far more than he does Joe Biden—former Ohio Republican Gov. John Kasich, whose pre-recorded remarks aired at the convention just a short while earlier. Together, they formed the scaffolding of Biden’s pitch to voters who may be on the fence: It’s not that Biden shares either Kasich’s or Sanders’ politics—it’s that he is someone two people as different as John Kasich and Bernie Sanders can both get behind.
“These are not normal times,” said Kasich, standing in a gravel driveway, looking up at a drone.
“This is not normal,” noted Sanders in his own remarks. “And we must never treat it like it is.” He was describing Trump’s “authoritarian” leanings, but also, in a way, the alliances it necessitated. “As long as I am here, I will work with progressives, moderates, and, yes, conservatives, to preserve this nation from a threat that so many of our heroes fought and died to defeat.”
None of this should come as a surprise. In his praise of Biden on Monday, Sanders was simply doing what he talked about doing throughout his campaign—over and over and over again. Although Sanders campaigned for Clinton in 2016, and the data showed that Sanders supporters were less likely to vote for Trump in 2016 than 2008 Clinton supporters were to support John McCain, the stigma of perceived disloyalty from disgruntled Democrats stuck with him. In his second run for president, no matter how many times he promised to support the Democratic nominee, Sanders kept getting asked a variation of the same question: okay but…are you sure?
He said it last March:
Bernie Sanders vows to support the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is. #ctl #p2 pic.twitter.com/VnytnVVnSZ — PoliticusUSA (@politicususa) March 9, 2019
He said it last October:
.@BernieSanders tells @NikolenDC he’d support Joe Biden if he’s the Democratic nominee for president. “We'll rally around whoever that candidate is.” https://t.co/aYIcGo5zvO pic.twitter.com/LHH0iRpfyG — CBS News (@CBSNews) October 21, 2019
He said in January.
He said it in February:
Presidential candidate and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders pledges to support the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is https://t.co/8epIb4I9VH #SandersTownHall pic.twitter.com/h1UfmCUjGj — CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) February 26, 2019
He said it this March:
Bernie Sanders says he'd support Joe Biden if he's the nominee: "I hope to win the nomination. But if I don't win the nomination, I, and I think every other Democratic candidate, is prepared to come together to do everything humanly possible to defeat Donald Trump" #DemDebate pic.twitter.com/vCJH5CmXgG — CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) March 16, 2020
It is hard, when you’ve spent your career crashing parties (Sanders’ first book is called Outsider in the House) and calling various elements of the party leadership corrupt, to convince committed partisans that you’re one of them. And he never truly will be. But Sanders has been trying to tell Democrats all cycle that he is a team player, and that if the time came for it, he’d deliver a performance exactly like he did Monday evening. Now maybe they will finally believe him.


motherjones--2020-08-17--Donald Warne: We Need More Indigenous Doctors, Stat. Here’s How to Do It.

As the world grapples with the devastation of the coronavirus , one thing is clear : The United States simply wasn ’ t prepared .
Despite repeated warnings from infectious disease experts over the years , we lacked essential beds , equipment , and medication ; public health advice was confusing ; and our leadership offered no clear direction while sidelining credible health professionals and institutions .
Infectious disease experts agree that it ’ s only a matter of time before the next pandemic hits , and that one could be even more deadly .
So how do we fix @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In this Mother Jones series , we ’ re asking experts from a wide range of disciplines one question : What are the most important steps we can take to make sure we ’ re better prepared next time around ?
A member of the Oglala Lakota tribe from the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota , Dr. Donald Warne had an early interest in medical work—he comes from a long line of traditional healers .
Today , Warne oversees the Master of Public Health degree program and a specialized PhD in Indigenous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He ’ s also the director of Indians into Medicine , a program that creates much-needed pathways for Indigenous students to enter careers in health .
Like other communities of color , Native Americans have been hit hard by COVID-19 , with seven different tribes currently seeing case rates between 2,200 and 12,850 per 100,000—higher than the rates of any US state .
Risk factors include tendencies toward intergenerational homes and high rates of preexisting conditions like diabetes and lung disease , but Dr. Warne also notes that Native communities have long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On developing the Indian Health Service : American Indians and Alaskan Natives are the only population in the US that ’ s actually born with a legal right to health services .
That ’ s based on hundreds of treaties signed between tribal nations and the federal government , which included language like “ promise of all proper care and protection ” in exchange for land and natural resources .
The treaties are contracts , and the federal government has never lived up to its treaty obligations—so they are in breach of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not “ free health care.
” It ’ s the largest prepaid health plan in history , because of everything we gave up for basic social services like housing , education and health care .
That ’ s why there ’ s a Bureau of Indian Affairs , that ’ s why there ’ s an Indian Health Service .
That ’ s really the starting point .
When you look at public health infrastructure , you need to have a good workforce ; you need to have good information systems ; and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buildings .
We don ’ t have any of that , in terms of adequate levels , because it ’ s been under-resourced relative to other communities .
Our ability to investigate outbreaks and conduct surveillance in a public health crisis is really diminished because of policy decisions from Congress , to never fully fund IHS .
In public health , we try to prevent disease and in medicine , we treat disease .
Because of the longstanding , intergenerational underfunding , all the resources get used up for medical care , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disease prevention programs in Indian Country .
We don ’ t have healthy food programs .
And then on the other end of the spectrum , when it comes to higher levels of care , when people are very sick from COVID-19 , quite often they need Intensive Care Unit admission , they also need ventilators .
But we typically don ’ t have those services on reservations either .
It ’ s going to require a generation of good policy to make up for generations of bad policy , but among the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ IHS .
We ’ re not asking for anything unusual , all we ’ re asking for is the federal government to live up to its treaty obligations .
The United States is one of the first nations to point the finger at human rights abuses around the globe , but those countries can easily put the finger back at us for the way it ’ s treated its Indigenous people .
On preparing Indian Country for a future pandemic : Most of the [ disease response ] infrastructure needs to be built @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t exist .
One starting point would be with the Tribal Epidemiology Centers—there ’ s basically one for each of the 12 areas of the Indian Health Service .
They ’ re funded mainly through IHS , but they have other sources of funding , including the CDC .
Their various levels of capacities are dependent on resources , but we do have this network of centers that could assist tribes with building communications and information systems , and with smaller tribes , perhaps pool resources .
They can work to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data collection and analysis , and even do community health needs assessments and determine where needs are within each individual community .
That ’ s one piece of infrastructure that ’ s , again , terribly inadequately resourced , but at least the network exists .
One thing that COVID-19 has done is shine a bright light on these inadequacies .
Some basic things that we take for granted if we live in a city or suburb , are just not available in tribal communities : connectivity and communication systems , cell phone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ services are not always available , particularly in the more impoverished communities .
It ’ s impossible to quarantine people when you don ’ t have adequate housing .
On the need for culturally competent care : A public health program that is effective in the white population of Boston is not necessarily going to be effective for American Indians [ on the ] Pine Ridge [ Indian Reservation ] .
That ’ s why much of the work I do now is on workforce development—teaching a curriculum that incorporates the culturally relevant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well as traditions and ceremonies , because those are not just important components of who we are as Indigenous people , but also important components of a public health system .
We can not just assume that one size fits all .
For example , the CDC will tell us that we have to have tobacco-free workplaces and tobacco-free policies .
But in the Northern Plains , we have a longstanding relationship with tobacco—not cigarettes , but a blend of herbs that are medicinal and healing .
When we have culturally inept approaches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re actually alienating an entire segment of community and culturally based strength through prayer and ceremony .
When you tell Indians they have to be tobacco-free , you ’ re telling us we have to be prayer-free .
The CDC has taken our input and made significant improvements—again , that ’ s not an issue if you live in Atlanta or Boston , but it ’ s a huge issue if you live in the Northern Plains .
On why it ’ s important to build up the Native health workforce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data regarding health education and health professional programs , people tend to work with communities that they ’ re familiar with .
It ’ s much more likely that someone from a reservation will go back to work there than to expect someone who ’ s not from the reservation to go work in that community .
So we have to build our own .
We have to have pathways programs , from grade school all the way through medical school , and that ’ s part of what we do at [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We have a Summer Institute—it ’ s going on virtually right now , because of the pandemic—but usually we have 50 middle and high school kids from American Indian communities all over the country come to spend six weeks with us at UND .
They have courses in biology , chemistry , physics , math , communications and health , and we do fun things and cultural things on nights and weekends .
We nurture and develop a lot of our future health professionals in those pathways programs .
The challenge again—it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s so terribly underfunded that we can ’ t support all the kids who want to participate .
To me , that ’ s just a travesty .
This year we had well over 100 applications for 48 spots .
And we shouldn ’ t be turning any kid away , but that ’ s the circumstances that we ’ re in .
So even the workforce development is hindered by Congress not adequately funding Indian Health Service .
On the relationship between tribes and other public health authorities : In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ area office has a very good relationship with the tribes , and in other areas it ’ s a strange or even adversarial relationship , with the IHS programs and administrators not viewed as advocates .
In some places it ’ s working incredibly well , in some places it ’ s dysfunctional .
That does have a huge impact on quality of communication and access to resources .
When you look at tribes and states , one of the most adversarial relationships is in South Dakota , where I ’ m from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just the latest in a long line of political leaders who don ’ t respect tribal sovereignty , and she certainly doesn ’ t respect public health principles .
[ Gov .
Noem has tried to stop the Pine Ridge and Cheyenne River Reservations from maintaining COVID-19 checkpoints on their borders . ]
It ’ s not that the borders are closed—it ’ s a health check : If someone has a fever they do contact tracing ; if someone is from a hotspot , they ’ re not allowed in .
Cheyenne @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve now tested about 2000 people , there ’ s only six positives because of what they ’ re doing to control the population .
It ’ s one of the lowest positive rates in the nation .
Thank God , because they ’ re at incredibly high risk for for catastrophic outcomes .
If they have an outbreak of COVID-19 on Cheyenne River , it would basically be a mirror image of what ’ s happening in Navajo [ Nation ] .
It is absolutely a tribal sovereignty issue .
Of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was diagnosed because of the checkpoint , and then they went to quarantine .
Two of their family members were diagnosed .
But without the checkpoint , that one case could have become 200 .
When Governor Noem is saying that you just need to open up the borders , without any health checkpoints , that ’ s disregard for human life .
People will die .
People have died in tribal communities because of the quick spread of the disease .
[ We have ] inadequate housing , poverty , and inadequate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ factors like diabetes , heart disease , and lung disease .
So if the tribe is exercising its sovereignty to have a health check , the government has no business to get in the way of that .
I think it ’ s just criminal what she ’ s done .
It ’ s good public health and she ’ s trying to get in the way of it .

As the world grapples with the devastation of the coronavirus, one thing is clear: The United States simply wasn’t prepared. Despite repeated warnings from infectious disease experts over the years, we lacked essential beds, equipment, and medication; public health advice was confusing; and our leadership offered no clear direction while sidelining credible health professionals and institutions. Infectious disease experts agree that it’s only a matter of time before the next pandemic hits, and that one could be even more deadly. So how do we fix what COVID-19 has shown was broken? In this Mother Jones series, we’re asking experts from a wide range of disciplines one question: What are the most important steps we can take to make sure we’re better prepared next time around?
A member of the Oglala Lakota tribe from the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, Dr. Donald Warne had an early interest in medical work—he comes from a long line of traditional healers. Today, Warne oversees the Master of Public Health degree program and a specialized PhD in Indigenous Health at the University of North Dakota. He’s also the director of Indians into Medicine, a program that creates much-needed pathways for Indigenous students to enter careers in health. Like other communities of color, Native Americans have been hit hard by COVID-19, with seven different tribes currently seeing case rates between 2,200 and 12,850 per 100,000—higher than the rates of any US state. Risk factors include tendencies toward intergenerational homes and high rates of preexisting conditions like diabetes and lung disease, but Dr. Warne also notes that Native communities have long grappled with lack of basic health infrastructure.
On developing the Indian Health Service: American Indians and Alaskan Natives are the only population in the US that’s actually born with a legal right to health services. That’s based on hundreds of treaties signed between tribal nations and the federal government, which included language like “promise of all proper care and protection” in exchange for land and natural resources. The treaties are contracts, and the federal government has never lived up to its treaty obligations—so they are in breach of contract. The Indian Health Service is not “free health care.” It’s the largest prepaid health plan in history, because of everything we gave up for basic social services like housing, education and health care. That’s why there’s a Bureau of Indian Affairs, that’s why there’s an Indian Health Service. That’s really the starting point.
Cell phone access, high speed internet access—those basic services are not always available, particularly in the more impoverished tribal communities.
When you look at public health infrastructure, you need to have a good workforce; you need to have good information systems; and you need to have good equipment and buildings. We don’t have any of that, in terms of adequate levels, because it’s been under-resourced relative to other communities. Our ability to investigate outbreaks and conduct surveillance in a public health crisis is really diminished because of policy decisions from Congress, to never fully fund IHS.
In public health, we try to prevent disease and in medicine, we treat disease. Because of the longstanding, intergenerational underfunding, all the resources get used up for medical care, with very little left for health promotion and disease prevention programs in Indian Country. We don’t have healthy food programs. And then on the other end of the spectrum, when it comes to higher levels of care, when people are very sick from COVID-19, quite often they need Intensive Care Unit admission, they also need ventilators. But we typically don’t have those services on reservations either.
It’s going to require a generation of good policy to make up for generations of bad policy, but among the most important things is to fully fund IHS. We’re not asking for anything unusual, all we’re asking for is the federal government to live up to its treaty obligations. The United States is one of the first nations to point the finger at human rights abuses around the globe, but those countries can easily put the finger back at us for the way it’s treated its Indigenous people.
On preparing Indian Country for a future pandemic: Most of the [disease response] infrastructure needs to be built from the ground up. It doesn’t exist. One starting point would be with the Tribal Epidemiology Centers—there’s basically one for each of the 12 areas of the Indian Health Service. They’re funded mainly through IHS, but they have other sources of funding, including the CDC. Their various levels of capacities are dependent on resources, but we do have this network of centers that could assist tribes with building communications and information systems, and with smaller tribes, perhaps pool resources. They can work to do regional public health programming, and surveillance data collection and analysis, and even do community health needs assessments and determine where needs are within each individual community. That’s one piece of infrastructure that’s, again, terribly inadequately resourced, but at least the network exists.
One thing that COVID-19 has done is shine a bright light on these inadequacies. Some basic things that we take for granted if we live in a city or suburb, are just not available in tribal communities: connectivity and communication systems, cell phone access, high speed internet access—those basic services are not always available, particularly in the more impoverished communities. It’s impossible to quarantine people when you don’t have adequate housing.
On the need for culturally competent care: A public health program that is effective in the white population of Boston is not necessarily going to be effective for American Indians [on the] Pine Ridge [Indian Reservation]. That’s why much of the work I do now is on workforce development—teaching a curriculum that incorporates the culturally relevant values, beliefs and behaviors, as well as traditions and ceremonies, because those are not just important components of who we are as Indigenous people, but also important components of a public health system. We cannot just assume that one size fits all.
The CDC will tell us that we have to have tobacco-free workplaces and tobacco-free policies. But in the Northern Plains, we have a longstanding relationship with tobacco.
For example, the CDC will tell us that we have to have tobacco-free workplaces and tobacco-free policies. But in the Northern Plains, we have a longstanding relationship with tobacco—not cigarettes, but a blend of herbs that are medicinal and healing. When we have culturally inept approaches saying everything has to be tobacco-free, we’re actually alienating an entire segment of community and culturally based strength through prayer and ceremony. When you tell Indians they have to be tobacco-free, you’re telling us we have to be prayer-free. The CDC has taken our input and made significant improvements—again, that’s not an issue if you live in Atlanta or Boston, but it’s a huge issue if you live in the Northern Plains.
On why it’s important to build up the Native health workforce: If you look at all the data regarding health education and health professional programs, people tend to work with communities that they’re familiar with. It’s much more likely that someone from a reservation will go back to work there than to expect someone who’s not from the reservation to go work in that community. So we have to build our own. We have to have pathways programs, from grade school all the way through medical school, and that’s part of what we do at [the University of North Dakota]. We have a Summer Institute—it’s going on virtually right now, because of the pandemic—but usually we have 50 middle and high school kids from American Indian communities all over the country come to spend six weeks with us at UND. They have courses in biology, chemistry, physics, math, communications and health, and we do fun things and cultural things on nights and weekends. We nurture and develop a lot of our future health professionals in those pathways programs.
The challenge again—it’s funded mainly through IHS, and it’s so terribly underfunded that we can’t support all the kids who want to participate. To me, that’s just a travesty. This year we had well over 100 applications for 48 spots. And we shouldn’t be turning any kid away, but that’s the circumstances that we’re in. So even the workforce development is hindered by Congress not adequately funding Indian Health Service.
On the relationship between tribes and other public health authorities: In some areas of the IHS, the area office has a very good relationship with the tribes, and in other areas it’s a strange or even adversarial relationship, with the IHS programs and administrators not viewed as advocates. In some places it’s working incredibly well, in some places it’s dysfunctional. That does have a huge impact on quality of communication and access to resources.
If a tribe is exercising its sovereignty to have a health check, the government has no business to get in the way of that.
When you look at tribes and states, one of the most adversarial relationships is in South Dakota, where I’m from. [Governor] Kristi Noem is just the latest in a long line of political leaders who don’t respect tribal sovereignty, and she certainly doesn’t respect public health principles. [Gov. Noem has tried to stop the Pine Ridge and Cheyenne River Reservations from maintaining COVID-19 checkpoints on their borders.]
It’s not that the borders are closed—it’s a health check: If someone has a fever they do contact tracing; if someone is from a hotspot, they’re not allowed in. Cheyenne River, for example, they’ve now tested about 2000 people, there’s only six positives because of what they’re doing to control the population. It’s one of the lowest positive rates in the nation. Thank God, because they’re at incredibly high risk for for catastrophic outcomes. If they have an outbreak of COVID-19 on Cheyenne River, it would basically be a mirror image of what’s happening in Navajo [Nation]. It is absolutely a tribal sovereignty issue.
Of the six they diagnosed, one of them was diagnosed because of the checkpoint, and then they went to quarantine. Two of their family members were diagnosed. But without the checkpoint, that one case could have become 200.
When Governor Noem is saying that you just need to open up the borders, without any health checkpoints, that’s disregard for human life. People will die. People have died in tribal communities because of the quick spread of the disease. [We have] inadequate housing, poverty, and inadequate nutrition, and all of those risk factors like diabetes, heart disease, and lung disease. So if the tribe is exercising its sovereignty to have a health check, the government has no business to get in the way of that. I think it’s just criminal what she’s done. It’s good public health and she’s trying to get in the way of it.


motherjones--2020-08-19--Facebook Announces Crackdown on QAnon, Antifa, and Militias

Facebook said on Wednesday that it will be taking enforcement action targeting communities related to the QAnon conspiracy theory amid a larger crackdown against what it said were “ anarchist groups that support violent acts amidst protests ” including elements of Antifa and “ US-based militia organizations.
” In a post on its website , Facebook explained that people from these groups would still be allowed to post on its platform “ so long as they do not otherwise violate our content policies ” but that the company would “ restrict their ability to organize on our platform.
” Facebook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pages and groups on its namesake product as well as accounts on Instagram involved in discussions of violence .
Under the changes , Facebook says it has already removed over 790 groups , 100 pages , and 1,500 ads tied to QAnon , blocked over 300 hashtags on both Facebook and Instagram , and “ additionally imposed restrictions ” on over 12,000 Instagram and Facebook pages .
In the post , the company outlined plans to limit the spread and reach of the targeted groups by either removing them from Facebook outright , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limiting their appearances in recommendations , searches , and on users ’ newsfeeds .
The company said that it would also prohibit such groups from using ads and monetization and fundraising tools .
It ’ s not immediately clear why Facebook would include antifa alongside action targeting QAnon and militia organizations .
Since 1994 , right-wing terrorism has been responsible for the murder of hundreds , while antifa has been responsible for zero deaths .
QAnon , the sprawling right-wing conspiracy theory about a cabal of elite liberal pedophiles has already likely been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its three short years of existence .
The FBI has also deemed it to be a pressing threat .
One of the creators of a dataset at the Center for Strategic and International Studies tracking terrorism incidents explained to the Guardian that the data shows that “ the most significant domestic terrorism threat comes from white supremacists ” as well as “ anti-government militias.
” He noted that the data found that “ left-wing terrorism ” was not a “ major terrorism threat.
” Facebook has strained to project a measure of evenhandedness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases where problems are largely confined to its right-wing users .
For example , the head of Facebook ’ s D.C. office Joel Kaplan , for example , pushed Mark Zuckerberg to include right-wing sites like the Daily Caller in its fact-checking programs alongside centrist news outlets , despite its ties to white supremacists .
Facebook ’ s decision to include antifa and anarchists alongside groups with established records of violence is consistent with that strategy .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Facebook said on Wednesday that it will be taking enforcement action targeting communities related to the QAnon conspiracy theory amid a larger crackdown against what it said were “anarchist groups that support violent acts amidst protests” including elements of Antifa and “US-based militia organizations.”
In a post on its website, Facebook explained that people from these groups would still be allowed to post on its platform “so long as they do not otherwise violate our content policies” but that the company would “restrict their ability to organize on our platform.”
Facebook said that the new enforcement would cover pages and groups on its namesake product as well as accounts on Instagram involved in discussions of violence.
The company outlined plans to limit the spread and reach of the targeted groups.
Under the changes, Facebook says it has already removed over 790 groups, 100 pages, and 1,500 ads tied to QAnon, blocked over 300 hashtags on both Facebook and Instagram, and “additionally imposed restrictions” on over 12,000 Instagram and Facebook pages.
In the post, the company outlined plans to limit the spread and reach of the targeted groups by either removing them from Facebook outright, or through a series of actions including limiting their appearances in recommendations, searches, and on users’ newsfeeds. The company said that it would also prohibit such groups from using ads and monetization and fundraising tools.
It’s not immediately clear why Facebook would include antifa alongside action targeting QAnon and militia organizations. Since 1994, right-wing terrorism has been responsible for the murder of hundreds, while antifa has been responsible for zero deaths.
QAnon, the sprawling right-wing conspiracy theory about a cabal of elite liberal pedophiles has already likely been responsible for at least one murder in its three short years of existence. The FBI has also deemed it to be a pressing threat. One of the creators of a dataset at the Center for Strategic and International Studies tracking terrorism incidents explained to the Guardian that the data shows that “the most significant domestic terrorism threat comes from white supremacists” as well as “anti-government militias.” He noted that the data found that “left-wing terrorism” was not a “major terrorism threat.”
Facebook has strained to project a measure of evenhandedness in its enforcement actions, even in cases where problems are largely confined to its right-wing users. For example, the head of Facebook’s D.C. office Joel Kaplan, for example, pushed Mark Zuckerberg to include right-wing sites like the Daily Caller in its fact-checking programs alongside centrist news outlets, despite its ties to white supremacists. Facebook’s decision to include antifa and anarchists alongside groups with established records of violence is consistent with that strategy.


motherjones--2020-08-19--A Republican-Backed Senate Report Shows Trump and His Backers Are Russian Dupes

The Committee observed numerous Russian-government actors from late 2016 until at least January 2020 consistently spreading overlapping false narratives which sought to discredit investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections and spread false information about the events of 2016 .
Manafort , Kilimnik , [ Putin-friendly Russian oligarch Oleg ] Deripaska , and others associated with Deripaska participated in these influence operations .
As part of these efforts , Manafort and Kilimnik both sought to promote the narrative that Ukraine , not Russia , had interfered in the 2016 U.S. election .
The report notes that Kiliminik—whom it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and a “ Russian intelligence officer ” — “ almost certainly helped arrange some of the first public messaging that Ukraine had interfered in the U.S. election.
” He did this , according to the report , by being a source for a Financial Times story in August 2016 that reported Ukraine ’ s leaders were working against Trump .
At the same time , Kilimnik was pushing out information suggesting that Manafort , who had been accused of corruptly accepting millions of dollars for his consulting work for a pro-Russia Ukrainian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had been framed .
The report states that Kilimnik helped write an opinion article for Serhiy Lyovochkin , a top Ukrainian politician in the Party of Regions , which claimed that the case against Manafort had been “ manufactur [ ed ] ” and that Trump had no Russia ties .
There was “ no real fire behind all this smoke , ” the article said .
In early 2017 , U.S. News & World Report published this opinion piece that was secretly written by a Russian intelligence officer .
Significant portions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russian venture to develop the Ukrainian counter-narrative are redacted .
But it does disclose that Manafort pushed this view and that during a February 2017 meeting with Trump Jr. , he “ discussed how Ukraine , not Russia had meddled in the election.
” Last year , the Washington Post reported that Giuliani , Trump ’ s personal lawyer , had “ consulted several times with Manafort through the federal prisoner ’ s lawyer in pursuit of information…that would bolster his theory that the real story of 2016 is not Russian interference to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support Hillary Clinton.
” Kilimink , according to the intelligence committee ’ s report , used a Twitter account under the alias @ PBaranenko to spread information supporting this distraction .
At one point , Kilimnik retweeted a story by Sputnik reporter Lee Stranahan , who claimed that interactions between a Democratic Party official and the Ukrainian government was “ THE REAL 2016 Election Interference.
” The report ’ s descriptions of Deripaska ’ s attempt to disseminate the Ukrainian alibi are largely redacted .
But the committee notes , “ it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts and those undertaken by Kilimnik and Manafort.
” Meanwhile , according to the report , the Kremlin was all in on this endeavor : [ I ] n mid-2017 , other Russian-government proxies and personas worked to spread the false narrative that Ukraine interfered in the U.S. election .
On July 12 , 2017 , [ pro-Russian hacktivists ] Cyber Berkut—which had been dormant for months—alleged on its blog that Ukraine had interfered in the 2016 U.S. elections .
In the post , Cyber Berkut claimed that hacked emails revealed a set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] Viktor Pinchuk and the Clinton Foundation .
On July 13 , 2017 , @ USA_Gunslinger , a long-running false persona account of the [ Russian disinformation outfit ] Internet Research Agency ( IRA ) , tweeted about “ Clinton and her campaign team ’ s collusion with Ukraine to interfere in the US election.
” About this time , Ukrainian parliamentarian Andrii Derkach sent a letter to Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko asking Lutsenko to investigate Ukrainian “ interference ” in the US election .
Derkach , whose father is a former KGB @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s intelligence service , studied at Moscow ’ s FSB Academy , which trains Russian intelligence officers , in the 1990s .
He later joined Ukraine ’ s pro-Russian Party of Regions .
The report doesn ’ t dwell on this fact , but this is a Russian-linked pol pushing for a Ukrainian probe that would advance the Ukraine-not-Russia-interfered theory .
( Last December , Derkach met in Kiev with Giuliani , and he has been part of a group of Ukrainians spreading allegations about Vice President Joe Biden .
This month , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Counterintelligence and Security Center , named Derkach as assisting a clandestine Russian effort to “ denigrate ” Biden . )
The section of the report on this Russian influence operation contains numerous references to stories by conservative journalist John Solomon , published in The Hill , which promoted unfounded accusations about Biden ’ s actions in Ukraine .
But many of these passages are redacted .
One Solomon article mentioned in the report cited Lutsenko ’ s claim that he had “ opened a probe into alleged attempts by Ukrainians to interfere in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the committee report notes that Kilimnik , using a false persona , retweeted this piece .
( “ Kilimnik repeatedly tweeted information related to the Bidens and Ukraine , much of which originated from Solomon , ” the report says . )
Moreover , the report reveals that Kilimnik had reached out to Lutsenko “ in an apparent effort to propose that Lutsenko pursue political office with the assistance of Kilimnik and others.
” So Kilimink—a Russian intelligence officer and Manafort crony—offered to back a Ukrainian politician who could mount an investigation that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ukraine .

The Committee observed numerous Russian-government actors from late 2016 until at least January 2020 consistently spreading overlapping false narratives which sought to discredit investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections and spread false information about the events of 2016. Manafort, Kilimnik, [Putin-friendly Russian oligarch Oleg] Deripaska, and others associated with Deripaska participated in these influence operations. As part of these efforts, Manafort and Kilimnik both sought to promote the narrative that Ukraine, not Russia, had interfered in the 2016 U.S. election.
The report notes that Kiliminik—whom it describes as both a “Kremlin agent” and a “Russian intelligence officer”—“almost certainly helped arrange some of the first public messaging that Ukraine had interfered in the U.S. election.” He did this, according to the report, by being a source for a Financial Times story in August 2016 that reported Ukraine’s leaders were working against Trump. At the same time, Kilimnik was pushing out information suggesting that Manafort, who had been accused of corruptly accepting millions of dollars for his consulting work for a pro-Russia Ukrainian party called the Party of Regions, had been framed. The report states that Kilimnik helped write an opinion article for Serhiy Lyovochkin, a top Ukrainian politician in the Party of Regions, which claimed that the case against Manafort had been “manufactur[ed]” and that Trump had no Russia ties. There was “no real fire behind all this smoke,” the article said. In early 2017, U.S. News & World Report published this opinion piece that was secretly written by a Russian intelligence officer.
Significant portions of the report’s section on this Russian venture to develop the Ukrainian counter-narrative are redacted. But it does disclose that Manafort pushed this view and that during a February 2017 meeting with Trump Jr., he “discussed how Ukraine, not Russia had meddled in the election.” Last year, the Washington Post reported that Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, had “consulted several times with Manafort through the federal prisoner’s lawyer in pursuit of information…that would bolster his theory that the real story of 2016 is not Russian interference to elect Trump, but Ukrainian efforts to support Hillary Clinton.”
Kilimink, according to the intelligence committee’s report, used a Twitter account under the alias @PBaranenko to spread information supporting this distraction. At one point, Kilimnik retweeted a story by Sputnik reporter Lee Stranahan, who claimed that interactions between a Democratic Party official and the Ukrainian government was “THE REAL 2016 Election Interference.”
The report’s descriptions of Deripaska’s attempt to disseminate the Ukrainian alibi are largely redacted. But the committee notes, “it is likely that some coordination occurred between Deripaska-directed efforts and those undertaken by Kilimnik and Manafort.”
Meanwhile, according to the report, the Kremlin was all in on this endeavor:
[I]n mid-2017, other Russian-government proxies and personas worked to spread the false narrative that Ukraine interfered in the U.S. election. On July 12, 2017, [pro-Russian hacktivists] Cyber Berkut—which had been dormant for months—alleged on its blog that Ukraine had interfered in the 2016 U.S. elections. In the post, Cyber Berkut claimed that hacked emails revealed a set of financial transactions between [Ukrainian oligarch] Viktor Pinchuk and the Clinton Foundation. On July 13, 2017, @USA_Gunslinger, a long-running false persona account of the [Russian disinformation outfit] Internet Research Agency (IRA), tweeted about “Clinton and her campaign team’s collusion with Ukraine to interfere in the US election.”
About this time, Ukrainian parliamentarian Andrii Derkach sent a letter to Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko asking Lutsenko to investigate Ukrainian “interference” in the US election. Derkach, whose father is a former KGB officer who became head of Ukraine’s intelligence service, studied at Moscow’s FSB Academy, which trains Russian intelligence officers, in the 1990s. He later joined Ukraine’s pro-Russian Party of Regions. The report doesn’t dwell on this fact, but this is a Russian-linked pol pushing for a Ukrainian probe that would advance the Ukraine-not-Russia-interfered theory. (Last December, Derkach met in Kiev with Giuliani, and he has been part of a group of Ukrainians spreading allegations about Vice President Joe Biden. This month, William Evanina, director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, named Derkach as assisting a clandestine Russian effort to “denigrate” Biden.)
The section of the report on this Russian influence operation contains numerous references to stories by conservative journalist John Solomon, published in The Hill, which promoted unfounded accusations about Biden’s actions in Ukraine. But many of these passages are redacted. One Solomon article mentioned in the report cited Lutsenko’s claim that he had “opened a probe into alleged attempts by Ukrainians to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.” And the committee report notes that Kilimnik, using a false persona, retweeted this piece. (“Kilimnik repeatedly tweeted information related to the Bidens and Ukraine, much of which originated from Solomon,” the report says.) Moreover, the report reveals that Kilimnik had reached out to Lutsenko “in an apparent effort to propose that Lutsenko pursue political office with the assistance of Kilimnik and others.” So Kilimink—a Russian intelligence officer and Manafort crony—offered to back a Ukrainian politician who could mount an investigation that would shift the focus from Russia to Ukraine.


motherjones--2020-08-19--The Supreme Court Will Hear Obamacare Case Exactly One Week After the Election

The Supreme Court will hear Texas v. United States , the case that threatens to undo Obamacare and leave 23 million Americans uninsured , on November 10—exactly one week after the presidential election .
The lawsuit , brought by Republican attorneys general , argues that the lack of a financial penalty tied to the individual mandate , which the GOP ’ s 2017 tax bill set to zero , invalidates the entirety of the Affordable Care Act .
The Trump administration has helped boost the lawsuit , which , beyond ending the insurance mandate , could erase popular consumer protections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people with preexisting conditions or the ability for children to remain on their parents ’ insurance until they turn 26 .
Democrats have been pushing for the case to be heard before November 3 to keep the president ’ s opposition to the ACA in voters ’ minds on Election Day .
The decision to hold oral arguments for the case a week later could dampen how much it would influence Americans ’ choices at the polls ( though no matter when the court scheduled the hearing , any ruling was unlikely until @ @ @ @ @ @ @

“A VOICE OF REASON.” “A DAILY DOSE OF SANITY.”
“A daily dose of sanity.” “Like chatting with a friend who actually knows what they’re talking about.” That’s how readers describe our free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. See why: Sign up today to get reporting that helps you cut through the noise, plus deep dives on underreported topics.
“Like chatting with a friend who actually knows what they’re talking about.” That’s how readers describe our free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. See why: Sign up today to get reporting that helps you cut through the noise, plus deep dives on underreported topics.
Close Thank you for subscribing!
By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from Mother Jones and our partners.


motherjones--2020-08-19--“The Post Office Has Always Been Political”

It ’ s a story ripped straight from the headlines : A millionaire with no experience in mail delivery and a complex web of personal business interests is appointed postmaster general by the popular-vote-losing Republican president he gave $ 200,000 to help elect .
Liberal critics of the president , such as the Nation , cry foul .
It is corruption , plain and simple .
The president was Benjamin Harrison .
What , you thought I was talking about someone else ?
As Devin Leonard explains in his lively history of the post office , Neither Snow Nor Rain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Postal Service , John Wanamaker was a department-store magnate and an easy target : a Gilded Age campaign donor placed in charge of one of the nation ’ s most storied institutions .
What could go wrong ?
But instead of chopping away at the post office , Wanamaker tried to revamp it .
He pitched ahead-of-his time ideas like free rural delivery , parcel shipping , and postal banking .
This was 1889 , not 2020—even the businessmen thought the post office should be more than a business .
Flash forward to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been inverted .
Three months after being appointed postmaster general , Louis DeJoy , a Republican logistics CEO who gave $ 1.2 million to President Donald Trump ’ s victory fund , has taken a hatchet to United States Postal Service .
Citizens ( including veterans ) can ’ t get their medication or pay their bills on time .
Meanwhile , the president has vowed to starve the Postal Service of needed emergency funds in order to inhibit its ability to handle absentee ballots .
“ We ’ ve never had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Postal Service or the post office like this , ” North Carolina A & T State University history professor Philip Rubio told me .
Rubio , a former postal worker , is the author of two books about the post office .
His most recent , Undelivered : From the Great Postal Strike of 1970 to the Manufactured Crisis of the U.S .
Postal Service , was published in June , just as the crisis entered its latest stage .
“ This is an historic crisis , and it ’ s an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ It ’ s ironic when you think about it—when Nixon signed the Postal Reorganization Act 50 years ago , he said for once and for all we can take politics out of the post office , ” Rubio said .
“ But you just can ’ t do that .
The post office has always been political—not just a political football , but in the past it was one of the coaches .
Now it ’ s more of a football.
” Understanding the ways in which the post office was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different about today .
As Rubio explains , for the first two centuries of its existence , the United States Post Office was a cabinet-level department , and the postmaster general was a key cog in partisan political operations .
“ It was a rare postmaster general who actually had any post office experience , ” Rubio said .
“ They were oftentimes campaign managers , they were political appointees , they were political allies , donors.
” They were , in other words , a lot like Louis DeJoy .
Franklin D. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ James Farley , served simultaneously as chairman of the Democratic National Committee .
He ’ d previously been FDR ’ s campaign manager and later tried to run for president himself .
Lyndon Johnson ’ s postmaster general , Larry O ’ Brien , became chairman of the DNC just a few months after leaving his post .
( If the name sounds familiar , it ’ s because he later became commissioner of the NBA ; the championship trophy is named for him . )
In the 19th century , before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President James Garfield by a patronage seeker , post office jobs were doled out as political favors .
And those workers were often expected to get out the vote for the party in power .
Leonard writes that the department even employed “ special agents ” who “ spied on postmasters to make sure they encouraged customers to vote for the political party in power with sufficient zeal.
” The post office was meant to facilitate politics .
Lawmakers viewed it as a necessary cog in the growth of democratic institutions , connecting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ correspondence and newspapers—which in those days , were fiercely partisan .
As the USPS notes on its site , the local newspaper publisher and the local postmaster were often the same person .
The post office was a tool for not just electioneering but the handling of elections themselves .
“ In the Civil War we actually had an election—something that you just don ’ t see anywhere else in history , ” Rubio said .
And “ 150,000 Union army troops were able to vote .
They didn ’ t come home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voted in the field .
They were voting absentee or they voted by proxy.
” ( The war led to another innovation—for the first time , the post office began home delivery in select cities . )
The history of the Postal Service is a series of political choices and fights .
Congress ’ decision to let the private sector run the telegraph ( which , Rubio noted , was originally developed with the post office in mind ) was a political choice .
Rural free delivery was a political choice—a controversial and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ book , to ascendant populist trends at the turn of the century .
President William Howard Taft ’ s decision to introduce postal banking a few years later , and to allow the post office to deliver packages , were political choices , driven by a belief that the department could and should take on a far greater role than carrying letters .
The post office was also an enforcement mechanism for political norms , helping to suppress anti-slavery tracts before the Civil War and materials considered politically radical or sexually explicit for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personnel and the policies changed , the belief in the post office as a public entity rather than a business was a constant .
“ It was always fundamentally about service , ” Rubio said .
“ There have always been business aspects to it , it ’ d be silly to deny that… But for years it was selling postage but it was also asking for subsidies .
It wasn ’ t demanding some kind of handouts because it couldn ’ t balance its books or run itself efficiently like a business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and corporations of the 19th century that ran themselves into the ground with or without government subsidies .
Those subsidies were there for a reason—they were going to help develop sectors of the American economy and population : advertising , publishing , rural populations , things like that.
” In other words , the idea that the post office should be operated like a business , cutting costs and services to maximize its profits is an entirely modern one .
The first big shift came with the reorganization of 1970 .
President Nixon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a semi-autonomous and self-sufficient , much like the Tennessee Valley Authority or FDIC ; a presidential commission comprised largely of CEOs believed it should cut costs and run itself more like a private-sector enterprise .
But postal workers , who had gone without raises for years amid often hostile working conditions , were opposed .
When Nixon ’ s plan picked up steam , workers in New York City launched a wildcat strike , soon followed by postal unions in other cities .
The nation ’ s mail service ground to halt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Guard to sort and deliver mail .
The postal workers made their point .
In the end , Nixon signed a compromise into law .
The United States Post Office became the United States Postal Service .
The postmaster general was removed from the cabinet and was no longer appointed by the president ; instead , they ’ d be chosen by a board of governors selected by the president .
Nixon would get his wish—the USPS would operate semi-independently—but the unions would also get something out of it too ; workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to collectively bargain .
This created the USPS as we know it today , an “ unholy compromise , ” in Rubio ’ s words , tasked with the “ internal conundrum ” of providing universal services while also largely paying for itself .
Things didn ’ t dramatically change at first—even then , the idea of the post office as a public good endured .
“ The 1970 crisis was certainly a crisis at the post office but it was never an existential crisis , ” Rubio says .
“ Nobody questioned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If anything it reaffirmed how important the post office was for American life.
” Also significant was what wasn ’ t in the law : much of the language used by conservatives today to minimize the agency .
Trump himself maligns it as “ money-losing.
” “ Just look through it and type in words like ‘ business , ’ ‘ corporation , ’ ‘ self-supporting , ’ ” Rubio said .
“ Nothing like that turns up.
” Instead , the text called for the agency to be “ operated as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nation together , ” and stated that costs should not “ impair ” the agency ’ s commitment to providing such service .
“ There ’ s like eight or nine elements here that read like the preamble to the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.
” But in the decades that followed the postal reorganization , the rhetoric around USPS shifted .
Once the post office was detached from the rest of the government , it was easier to chip away at its revenue stream and cut off supplemental funds .
Private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mounted Washington lobbying efforts to curtail USPS ’ mission , and the ascendant conservative movement , which sought to privatize all manner of government functions and ( very selectively ) obsessed over making programs revenue-neutral , set its sights on the service .
Finally , in 2006 , Congress passed the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act , which as defenders of the USPS have noted ever since , saddled the agency with pre-funding its retirement benefits to the tune of $ 5.5 billion a year for 10 years .
At the same time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from expanding its range of services ( as it had in the past ) beyond mail and parcel delivery , satisfying private-sector interests that feared a government-backed competitor moving into their space .
( So much for postal e-mail . )
So USPS would have to be run like business , except with none of the freedom to innovate or balance its own books .
The funding mandate , which took effect shortly before the Great Recession , put the USPS in a financial hole it has never gotten out of .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suspending his overhaul of the Postal Service until after the election .
Prompt delivery of ballots , he said , would be his “ number one priority.
” But by then , Congress had gotten involved .
The Senate will hold hearings on Friday ; the House will grill DeJoy on Monday .
Even President Trump , reading the room for once , offered a cryptic suggestion of support : Political fights about the Postal Service , according to Rubio , are part of the natural give and take of a democracy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because it serves the needs of all Americans , ” he argued .
“ For decades , even though there was contentiousness between the labor unions and management , it ’ s managed to survive , as long as the two major political parties agreed that , even if it was political , it should not be partisan .
Now it ’ s become a partisan weapon .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
It’s a story ripped straight from the headlines: A millionaire with no experience in mail delivery and a complex web of personal business interests is appointed postmaster general by the popular-vote-losing Republican president he gave $200,000 to help elect. Liberal critics of the president, such as the Nation, cry foul. It is corruption, plain and simple.
The president was Benjamin Harrison. What, you thought I was talking about someone else?
As Devin Leonard explains in his lively history of the post office, Neither Snow Nor Rain: A History of the United States Postal Service, John Wanamaker was a department-store magnate and an easy target: a Gilded Age campaign donor placed in charge of one of the nation’s most storied institutions. What could go wrong? But instead of chopping away at the post office, Wanamaker tried to revamp it. He pitched ahead-of-his time ideas like free rural delivery, parcel shipping, and postal banking. This was 1889, not 2020—even the businessmen thought the post office should be more than a business.
Flash forward to today, though, and the story has been inverted. Three months after being appointed postmaster general, Louis DeJoy, a Republican logistics CEO who gave $1.2 million to President Donald Trump’s victory fund, has taken a hatchet to United States Postal Service. Citizens (including veterans) can’t get their medication or pay their bills on time. Meanwhile, the president has vowed to starve the Postal Service of needed emergency funds in order to inhibit its ability to handle absentee ballots.
“We’ve never had a sitting president that’s attacked the Postal Service or the post office like this,” North Carolina A&T State University history professor Philip Rubio told me. Rubio, a former postal worker, is the author of two books about the post office. His most recent, Undelivered: From the Great Postal Strike of 1970 to the Manufactured Crisis of the U.S. Postal Service, was published in June, just as the crisis entered its latest stage.
“This is an historic crisis, and it’s an entirely political one,” he said. “It’s ironic when you think about it—when Nixon signed the Postal Reorganization Act 50 years ago, he said for once and for all we can take politics out of the post office,” Rubio said. “But you just can’t do that. The post office has always been political—not just a political football, but in the past it was one of the coaches. Now it’s more of a football.”
Understanding the ways in which the post office was politicized then helps crystallize what’s different about today. As Rubio explains, for the first two centuries of its existence, the United States Post Office was a cabinet-level department, and the postmaster general was a key cog in partisan political operations. “It was a rare postmaster general who actually had any post office experience,” Rubio said. “They were oftentimes campaign managers, they were political appointees, they were political allies, donors.” They were, in other words, a lot like Louis DeJoy.
Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first postmaster general, James Farley, served simultaneously as chairman of the Democratic National Committee. He’d previously been FDR’s campaign manager and later tried to run for president himself. Lyndon Johnson’s postmaster general, Larry O’Brien, became chairman of the DNC just a few months after leaving his post. (If the name sounds familiar, it’s because he later became commissioner of the NBA; the championship trophy is named for him.)
In the 19th century, before the civil-service reforms that followed the assassination of President James Garfield by a patronage seeker, post office jobs were doled out as political favors. And those workers were often expected to get out the vote for the party in power. Leonard writes that the department even employed “special agents” who “spied on postmasters to make sure they encouraged customers to vote for the political party in power with sufficient zeal.”
“We’ve never had a sitting president that’s attacked the Postal Service or the post office like this… This is an historic crisis, and it’s an entirely political one.”
The post office was meant to facilitate politics. Lawmakers viewed it as a necessary cog in the growth of democratic institutions, connecting people and ideas in the form of correspondence and newspapers—which in those days, were fiercely partisan. As the USPS notes on its site, the local newspaper publisher and the local postmaster were often the same person.
The post office was a tool for not just electioneering but the handling of elections themselves. “In the Civil War we actually had an election—something that you just don’t see anywhere else in history,” Rubio said. And “150,000 Union army troops were able to vote. They didn’t come home. For the most part, they voted in the field. They were voting absentee or they voted by proxy.” (The war led to another innovation—for the first time, the post office began home delivery in select cities.)
The history of the Postal Service is a series of political choices and fights. Congress’ decision to let the private sector run the telegraph (which, Rubio noted, was originally developed with the post office in mind) was a political choice. Rural free delivery was a political choice—a controversial and expensive response, Leonard noted in his book, to ascendant populist trends at the turn of the century. President William Howard Taft’s decision to introduce postal banking a few years later, and to allow the post office to deliver packages, were political choices, driven by a belief that the department could and should take on a far greater role than carrying letters. The post office was also an enforcement mechanism for political norms, helping to suppress anti-slavery tracts before the Civil War and materials considered politically radical or sexually explicit for decades after it.
But while the personnel and the policies changed, the belief in the post office as a public entity rather than a business was a constant. “It was always fundamentally about service,” Rubio said. “There have always been business aspects to it, it’d be silly to deny that… But for years it was selling postage but it was also asking for subsidies. It wasn’t demanding some kind of handouts because it couldn’t balance its books or run itself efficiently like a business. Consider the banks, railroads, and corporations of the 19th century that ran themselves into the ground with or without government subsidies. Those subsidies were there for a reason—they were going to help develop sectors of the American economy and population: advertising, publishing, rural populations, things like that.”
In other words, the idea that the post office should be operated like a business, cutting costs and services to maximize its profits is an entirely modern one. The first big shift came with the reorganization of 1970. President Nixon was pushing to incorporate the post office as a semi-autonomous and self-sufficient, much like the Tennessee Valley Authority or FDIC; a presidential commission comprised largely of CEOs believed it should cut costs and run itself more like a private-sector enterprise. But postal workers, who had gone without raises for years amid often hostile working conditions, were opposed. When Nixon’s plan picked up steam, workers in New York City launched a wildcat strike, soon followed by postal unions in other cities. The nation’s mail service ground to halt. Desperate, Nixon called in the National Guard to sort and deliver mail.
The postal workers made their point. In the end, Nixon signed a compromise into law. The United States Post Office became the United States Postal Service. The postmaster general was removed from the cabinet and was no longer appointed by the president; instead, they’d be chosen by a board of governors selected by the president. Nixon would get his wish—the USPS would operate semi-independently—but the unions would also get something out of it too; workers got new pay raises and the right to collectively bargain.
This created the USPS as we know it today, an “unholy compromise,” in Rubio’s words, tasked with the “internal conundrum” of providing universal services while also largely paying for itself. Things didn’t dramatically change at first—even then, the idea of the post office as a public good endured. “The 1970 crisis was certainly a crisis at the post office but it was never an existential crisis,” Rubio says. “Nobody questioned the need of the post office. If anything it reaffirmed how important the post office was for American life.”
Also significant was what wasn’t in the law: much of the language used by conservatives today to minimize the agency. Trump himself maligns it as “money-losing.” “Just look through it and type in words like ‘business,’ ‘corporation,’ ‘self-supporting,’” Rubio said. “Nothing like that turns up.” Instead, the text called for the agency to be “operated as a basic and fundamental service to bind the nation together,” and stated that costs should not “impair” the agency’s commitment to providing such service. “There’s like eight or nine elements here that read like the preamble to the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.”
But in the decades that followed the postal reorganization, the rhetoric around USPS shifted. Once the post office was detached from the rest of the government, it was easier to chip away at its revenue stream and cut off supplemental funds. Private delivery services such as FedEx and UPS mounted Washington lobbying efforts to curtail USPS’ mission, and the ascendant conservative movement, which sought to privatize all manner of government functions and (very selectively) obsessed over making programs revenue-neutral, set its sights on the service.
Finally, in 2006, Congress passed the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, which as defenders of the USPS have noted ever since, saddled the agency with pre-funding its retirement benefits to the tune of $5.5 billion a year for 10 years. At the same time, the law barred the post office from expanding its range of services (as it had in the past) beyond mail and parcel delivery, satisfying private-sector interests that feared a government-backed competitor moving into their space. (So much for postal e-mail.) So USPS would have to be run like business, except with none of the freedom to innovate or balance its own books. The funding mandate, which took effect shortly before the Great Recession, put the USPS in a financial hole it has never gotten out of.
On Tuesday, DeJoy announced that he was suspending his overhaul of the Postal Service until after the election. Prompt delivery of ballots, he said, would be his “number one priority.” But by then, Congress had gotten involved. The Senate will hold hearings on Friday; the House will grill DeJoy on Monday. Even President Trump, reading the room for once, offered a cryptic suggestion of support:
SAVE THE POST OFFICE! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 17, 2020
Political fights about the Postal Service, according to Rubio, are part of the natural give and take of a democracy. “The post office should remain political, because it serves the needs of all Americans,” he argued. “For decades, even though there was contentiousness between the labor unions and management, it’s managed to survive, as long as the two major political parties agreed that, even if it was political, it should not be partisan. Now it’s become a partisan weapon.”