motherjones--2020-10-08--Don’t Let Pence Normalize the Chaos

Don’t Let Pence Normalize the Chaos

Last night , Vice President Mike Pence and Sen. Kamala Harris ( D-Calif. ) took to the stage for the first and only vice presidential debate .
Normally inconsequential , this one was historic for a few reasons .
It ’ s the first time a Black woman appeared as number two on a presidential ticket .
It ’ s the first time both presidential candidates are so old the chance of the VP becoming president is likely .
And it ’ s the first time that nearly 212,000 people in the United States have died of a pandemic while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At the debate venue at the University of Utah , masks were required and candidates were separated by plexiglass , a visual reminder of this administration ’ s failure to respond to a public health crisis that has resulted in monumental death , suffering , and economic devastation .
Plus , after months of denying its seriousness , the president is now suffering from the disease that also has torn through his White House staff and the Republican Party .
Since March , Pence has been the head of the White House coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an understatement to say he ’ s done a bad job .
But instead of recognizing the peril the country is in and promising a more effective response ( because taking some responsibility for the catastrophe is beyond him ) , Pence dodged , deflected , and lied his way through the 90 minutes .
His strategy ?
Normalize the chaos that surrounds us .
There ’ s deep irony at work here .
This is an administration that has been far from normal and has reached new levels of dysfunction after President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump is completely unhinged , sabotaging his own health and the health of everyone around him while downplaying and a disease that required his own hospitalization .
What we saw last night was how Pence is just Trump camouflaged in the veneer of calm reasonableness .
When Harris blasted the Trump administration ’ s disastrous coronavirus response , Pence shook his head sadly , feigned injured outrage , and immediately shifted the target from his failures to the courage of the American people .
“ When you say what the American people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hasn ’ t worked , that ’ s a great disservice to the sacrifices the American people have made , ” Pence said .
Of course , that is not even close to what Harris was suggesting , nor did he mention that the extreme level of sacrifice was a direct result of his failures .
Pence is trafficking in the same demented bullshit as Trump , but he ’ s saying it in a Very Serious Way .
Of course , Pence didn ’ t do anything that the rest of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the week since Trump ’ s diagnosis , and even during his hospitalization at Walter Reed Medical Center , the GOP has fully embraced the coronavirus , demanding we learn to live with it—indeed , to normalize it .
Rep. Matt Gaetz ( R-Fla. ) who once wore a gas mask on the floor of the US House in order to mock coronavirus restrictions now tweeted a different message : The virus will get us all .
The demand to live with a virus that has killed so many and will continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same grand GOP plan to normalize the abnormal that began with Trump ’ s 2016 campaign .
That ’ s when Pence was routinely deployed to humanize the then-candidate to his Republican senate colleagues like Sens .
Ted Cruz ( R-Tex . )
and Mike Lee ( R-Utah ) who were wary of Trump—Cruz especially given Trump ’ s treatment of both his wife and father .
( It worked , both Senators are now Trump loyalists . )
Surely , living with the virus means washing your hands , wearing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Instead , nearly everything Trump and his party has done ensures that even more people will become infected , and some of them will die from COVID .
Just take a look .
Even though 34 people contracted the coronavirus at the White House , Trump is still eschewing masks .
On Tuesday , Trump ’ s economic adviser Larry Kudlow said the president had returned to the Oval Office but declined to say whether or not he was wearing a mask .
Later , White House officials said he had yet to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the White House announced that Trump had returned to work on Wednesday , and everyone who came into contact with him was wearing personal protective equipment .
Still , no word on Trump ’ s masking habits .
Pence ’ s approach to safety protocols match Trump ’ s .
Ahead of the vice presidential debate , his staff objected to the 12 feet distance between candidates and even proposal that plexiglass dividers be placed on stage .
Though the objection to the dividers might have been as much a concern about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s failure in dealing with the pandemic .
Plus , they ’ re still planning on traveling and holding in-person events .
Why miss an opportunity to infect more people , right ?
Pence is scheduled to go to The Villages , a heavily Republican retirement community in Florida on Saturday .
The community of 50,000 in central Florida has long been a haven for mostly middle-class Republicans who wanted to indulge in day drinking and golf .
But recently , it gained notoriety for a video in which a Trump supporter on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
” at some protesters .
Trump retweeted the video and left it up for hours before removing it .
Since Trump announced his diagnosis , the few people still convinced that Trump is going to pivot to presidential behavior any minute now were convinced that actually getting the virus would finally calm him down—and even help his reelection chances .
“ If he comes out of this thing a little bit humbled and focused on speeding up vaccines and trying to safely reopen the country , ” Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-S.C. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ then I think he ’ ll probably be okay.
” Pence spoke last night as if Trump really was a changed man .
“ Our nation has gone through a very challenging time this year , ” he said , his voice dripping with saccharine .
“ But I want the American people to know that from the very first day , President Donald Trump has put the health of Americans first.
” In reality , Trump has simply doubled down on his denial—as did his VP .
They both continue to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way faster than any scientist says is possible .
Trump even asserts that it ’ s not that bad , and hey maybe he ’ s immune from a disease he clearly still has !
And even though the public health restrictions , which have been prolonged because of government inaction , has caused an unprecedented economic crisis , Trump abruptly pulled the plug on congressional negotiations over a relief bill .
To anyone outside of the Trump bubble—and now , perhaps given all the positive COVID tests in the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it—the events of the last week have been infuriating and maddening .
Now we can add the experience of watching Pence , supposedly a more normal politician than the reality TV star president , look into the camera and insist that everything was fine .
Perhaps , there was no better symbol for the final act of the entire Trump administration ’ s damaging regime than the beleaguered president climbing up on a balcony and unmasking himself despite the serious risk to himself and others in doing so .
The entire Republican Party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disabusing itself from any illusion of common sense , decency , or democracy .
Instead , the GOP has become the party of suffering , illness , indifference , and death .
But even as the country finds out in real time just how depraved this administration can get , Trump will continue to send his straight man out to reassure the voters that there is absolutely nothing to see here .
You ’ re doing just fine .
“ You know there ’ s not a day gone by that I haven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s lost a loved one , ” Pence said on the debate stage last night about the coronavirus victims .
“ And I want all of you to know that you ’ ll always be in our hearts and in our prayers .
”

Last night, Vice President Mike Pence and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) took to the stage for the first and only vice presidential debate. Normally inconsequential, this one was historic for a few reasons. It’s the first time a Black woman appeared as number two on a presidential ticket. It’s the first time both presidential candidates are so old the chance of the VP becoming president is likely. And it’s the first time that nearly 212,000 people in the United States have died of a pandemic while a presidential campaign was taking place.
At the debate venue at the University of Utah, masks were required and candidates were separated by plexiglass, a visual reminder of this administration’s failure to respond to a public health crisis that has resulted in monumental death, suffering, and economic devastation. Plus, after months of denying its seriousness, the president is now suffering from the disease that also has torn through his White House staff and the Republican Party. Since March, Pence has been the head of the White House coronavirus task force, and it’s an understatement to say he’s done a bad job. But instead of recognizing the peril the country is in and promising a more effective response (because taking some responsibility for the catastrophe is beyond him), Pence dodged, deflected, and lied his way through the 90 minutes. His strategy? Normalize the chaos that surrounds us.
There’s deep irony at work here. This is an administration that has been far from normal and has reached new levels of dysfunction after President Trump was diagnosed with COVID-19 last week. Trump is completely unhinged, sabotaging his own health and the health of everyone around him while downplaying and a disease that required his own hospitalization.
What we saw last night was how Pence is just Trump camouflaged in the veneer of calm reasonableness. When Harris blasted the Trump administration’s disastrous coronavirus response, Pence shook his head sadly, feigned injured outrage, and immediately shifted the target from his failures to the courage of the American people. “When you say what the American people have done over these last eight months hasn’t worked, that’s a great disservice to the sacrifices the American people have made,” Pence said. Of course, that is not even close to what Harris was suggesting, nor did he mention that the extreme level of sacrifice was a direct result of his failures. Pence is trafficking in the same demented bullshit as Trump, but he’s saying it in a Very Serious Way.
Of course, Pence didn’t do anything that the rest of the Republican Party isn’t doing. In the week since Trump’s diagnosis, and even during his hospitalization at Walter Reed Medical Center, the GOP has fully embraced the coronavirus, demanding we learn to live with it—indeed, to normalize it. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) who once wore a gas mask on the floor of the US House in order to mock coronavirus restrictions now tweeted a different message: The virus will get us all.
If this virus can get into the Oval, there is no place where it could not possibly infect one of our fellow Americans. We can protect the vulnerable, but we must live our lives. No lockdown can save everyone from everything. — Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) October 6, 2020
The demand to live with a virus that has killed so many and will continue to kill so many is part of the same grand GOP plan to normalize the abnormal that began with Trump’s 2016 campaign. That’s when Pence was routinely deployed to humanize the then-candidate to his Republican senate colleagues like Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) who were wary of Trump—Cruz especially given Trump’s treatment of both his wife and father. (It worked, both Senators are now Trump loyalists.)
Surely, living with the virus means washing your hands, wearing a mask, and avoiding crowded events. Instead, nearly everything Trump and his party has done ensures that even more people will become infected, and some of them will die from COVID.
Just take a look. Even though 34 people contracted the coronavirus at the White House, Trump is still eschewing masks. On Tuesday, Trump’s economic adviser Larry Kudlow said the president had returned to the Oval Office but declined to say whether or not he was wearing a mask. Later, White House officials said he had yet to return to work. The following day, the White House announced that Trump had returned to work on Wednesday, and everyone who came into contact with him was wearing personal protective equipment. Still, no word on Trump’s masking habits.
Pence’s approach to safety protocols match Trump’s. Ahead of the vice presidential debate, his staff objected to the 12 feet distance between candidates and even proposal that plexiglass dividers be placed on stage. Though the objection to the dividers might have been as much a concern about having the omnipresent reminder of Pence’s failure in dealing with the pandemic. Plus, they’re still planning on traveling and holding in-person events. Why miss an opportunity to infect more people, right? Pence is scheduled to go to The Villages, a heavily Republican retirement community in Florida on Saturday.
Campaign announces that Pence is going to The Villages in Florida, the country's largest retirement community, for a "MAGA Event" on October 10. — Annie Karni (@anniekarni) October 7, 2020
The community of 50,000 in central Florida has long been a haven for mostly middle-class Republicans who wanted to indulge in day drinking and golf. But recently, it gained notoriety for a video in which a Trump supporter on a golf cart yells “WHITE POWER!” at some protesters. Trump retweeted the video and left it up for hours before removing it.
Since Trump announced his diagnosis, the few people still convinced that Trump is going to pivot to presidential behavior any minute now were convinced that actually getting the virus would finally calm him down—and even help his reelection chances. “If he comes out of this thing a little bit humbled and focused on speeding up vaccines and trying to safely reopen the country,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told Politico earlier this week, “then I think he’ll probably be okay.”
“I want the American people to know that from the very first day, President Donald Trump has put the health of Americans first.”
Pence spoke last night as if Trump really was a changed man. “Our nation has gone through a very challenging time this year,” he said, his voice dripping with saccharine. “But I want the American people to know that from the very first day, President Donald Trump has put the health of Americans first.”
In reality, Trump has simply doubled down on his denial—as did his VP. They both continue to tell the public a vaccine is on the way faster than any scientist says is possible. Trump even asserts that it’s not that bad, and hey maybe he’s immune from a disease he clearly still has! And even though the public health restrictions, which have been prolonged because of government inaction, has caused an unprecedented economic crisis, Trump abruptly pulled the plug on congressional negotiations over a relief bill.
To anyone outside of the Trump bubble—and now, perhaps given all the positive COVID tests in the White House, even for some who are within it—the events of the last week have been infuriating and maddening. Now we can add the experience of watching Pence, supposedly a more normal politician than the reality TV star president, look into the camera and insist that everything was fine. Perhaps, there was no better symbol for the final act of the entire Trump administration’s damaging regime than the beleaguered president climbing up on a balcony and unmasking himself despite the serious risk to himself and others in doing so. The entire Republican Party is now finally and completely unmasked, disabusing itself from any illusion of common sense, decency, or democracy. Instead, the GOP has become the party of suffering, illness, indifference, and death.
But even as the country finds out in real time just how depraved this administration can get, Trump will continue to send his straight man out to reassure the voters that there is absolutely nothing to see here. You’re doing just fine. “You know there’s not a day gone by that I haven’t thought of every American family that’s lost a loved one,” Pence said on the debate stage last night about the coronavirus victims. “And I want all of you to know that you’ll always be in our hearts and in our prayers.”


motherjones--2020-10-08--Bill Barr Is Using an Old Voter Suppression Tactic. Don’t Fall for It.

A pattern has emerged in recent years that ’ s easy to spot .
Right before an election , Republican officials in battleground states announce voter fraud investigations .
The goal is obvious : suppressing turnout .
But what ’ s new this year is that it this underhanded tactic is being employed by the president and the Justice Department .
The DOJ has long prohibited its prosecutors from public investigations that may sway the outcome of an election or taint its legitimacy .
But under Bill Barr , the Trump administration has decided to break this rule , unleashing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ powers for political ends .
Two stark examples of this strategy come from Alabama and Georgia .
In 2017 , ahead of Alabama ’ s special Senate election , the Republican secretary of state , John Merrill , claimed that nearly 700 people had illegally voted in the Republican primary .
He wanted to prosecute the alleged offenders for felonies that would carry a prison sentence of up to 10 years .
But Merrill had overblown an insignificant incident .
Probate judges ultimately found that 140 people had voted in the Democratic primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party ’ s runoff .
That ’ s likely because so-called “ crossover voting ” was legal until the state legislature made it a crime earlier that year—a change Merrill did very little to publicize .
Judges recommended no cases for prosecution , and the issue ended with a whimper .
But not before Merrill ’ s claims generated scary headlines about voter fraud and felonies carrying 10-year sentences .
It was a ploy straight from the voter-suppression playbook .
A similar tactic was employed in Georgia in 2018 .
Two days before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kemp came out with an explosive announcement : he was investigating the state Democratic Party for attempting to hack into the state ’ s voter registration system .
At the time , Kemp was both the state ’ s top election official and the Republican nominee for governor in a dead-heat race against Democrat Stacey Abrams .
Kemp had a history of bogus voter fraud allegations against his political opponents , and many recognized the brazen tactic this time .
Election law expert Rick Hasen called it “ perhaps the most outrageous example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ era ” and “ banana republic stuff.
” But the allegation allowed Kemp to accuse his opponent and the opposition party of a serious crime , distracting from his own failures as secretary of state .
Kemp won a narrow victory by less than 55,000 votes .
In May 2020 , the state ’ s attorney general , a Republican , confirmed what was suspected all along : there was no evidence of any crime .
Over the last month , the Trump administration has taken a page from Alabama and Georgia .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ informed President Donald Trump that nine mail-in military ballots , seven of them cast for Trump , were discarded at an election office in Luzerne County , Pennsylvania .
The White House press secretary told reporters that “ ballots for the president ” had been “ cast aside.
” Trump hyped it in an interview on Fox News Radio , prompting the local US attorney investigating the incident to put out a ( inaccurate , then corrected ) statement about the investigation .
The situation quickly went viral , generating hype about fraud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been trying to gin up for months ( actually , years ) .
While still under investigation , there is no evidence of malfeasance in Pennsylvania .
It appears a single contract worker at the election office had tossed the ballots in a Republican-controlled country , and that election officials had quickly alerted authorities , appropriately handling the situation .
Yet Trump and the Justice Department had successfully generated news about voter fraud , a central strategy as the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee fight court battles to make it harder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contest absentee ballots after the election .
The wrongdoing was on the part of the Trump administration .
“ The GOP has practiced a simple playbook for *years* : make up a bonkers story about massive fraud & announce an investigation , ” Daniel Nichanian , founding editor of the Appeal ’ s criminal justice-focused Political Report , tweeted after the Pennsylvania incident , linking to the previous episodes in Alabama and Georgia .
“ Generate breathless headlines & mistrust , & goes viral .
Later when story fizzles , that gets tiny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not just Georgia and Alabama .
GOP officials and operatives have a long history of making false allegations of voter fraud , only to see their accusations fall apart once scrutinized .
But airing such charges right before an election threatens to destabilize and delegitimize it .
As in Alabama and Georgia , the allegations can be used to scare voters away from the polls for fear of prosecution or attack a political opponent .
But it ’ s particularly shocking for the US Justice Department to engage in these scare tactics .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ agency to comment on the ongoing investigation in Pennsylvania , but doing so violated a longstanding department policy not to interfere in elections for fear of influencing the results .
A department handbook warns that starting public investigations close to an election “ runs the obvious risk of chilling legitimate voting and campaign activities .
It also runs the significant risk of interjecting the investigation itself as an issue , both in the campaign and in the adjudication of any ensuing election contest.
” There are instances in which the agency has broken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Comey ’ s decision to repeatedly update the public on an investigation into Hillary Clinton , helping to elect Donald Trump—but these guidelines have acted as a bulwark against election interference by government officials for decades .
Until last week .
On Friday , the Justice Department rescinded part of this guidance , in place for at least 40 years , freeing prosecutors to launch public election-related investigations during the run-up to Election Day .
According to ProPublica , the department ’ s Public Integrity Section has informed federal prosecutors of a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elections policy.
” The exception cites investigations into any alleged election offense by a federal official or employee , including employees of the US Postal Service and the Department of Defense .
The exception is broad , but it singles out the Postal Service for scrutiny just as Trump , his campaign , and his party seek to restrict mail-in voting through lawsuits and contest counting of mailed in ballots .
The updated policy likely precedes an increase in fraud allegations from the Justice Department itself .
And it appears to be part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transform the department into an arm of the Trump campaign , ready to engage in a longstanding GOP voter suppression tactic—and possibly aid the Trump campaign ’ s legal efforts to get ballots tossed during the vote-counting process .
“ It ’ s incredibly painful for me to say , ” former DOJ civil rights official Justin Levitt told ProPublica , “ but given what we ’ ve seen recently , Americans shouldn ’ t trust DOJ announcements right now.
” When Barr was confirmed in February 2019 , the initial consensus was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and respect the Justice Department ’ s longstanding role as an independent institution .
Barr quickly showed that confidence in him as a by-the-book institutionalist was misplaced .
He misrepresented the findings of Robert Mueller ’ s investigation into Russian interference so significantly that a federal judge later said in a ruling that Barr ’ s “ lack of candor specifically call [ s ] into question Attorney General Barr ’ s credibility.
” Barr set up his own investigations into Trump ’ s wild allegations of DOJ misconduct against his 2016 campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 election , generating his own October surprise .
Barr has interfered in department investigations on behalf of Trump cronies Roger Stone and Michael Flynn .
He ousted the US attorney in the Southern District of New York who was investigating Trump ’ s allies , including Rudy Giuliani , in an episode that blew up in Barr ’ s face .
This summer , Barr played a visible role in Trump ’ s war against Black Lives Matter protests , ordering federal forces to use chemical irritants against peaceful protesters in Lafayette @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Trump could stage a photo op at St. John ’ s Church .
Since Barr has torched his credibility , any allegations of fraud emanating from the Justice Department in the coming weeks should be viewed skeptically .
Barr is using an old playbook .
You ’ ve been warned .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
A pattern has emerged in recent years that’s easy to spot. Right before an election, Republican officials in battleground states announce voter fraud investigations. The goal is obvious: suppressing turnout. But what’s new this year is that it this underhanded tactic is being employed by the president and the Justice Department. The DOJ has long prohibited its prosecutors from public investigations that may sway the outcome of an election or taint its legitimacy. But under Bill Barr, the Trump administration has decided to break this rule, unleashing the agency to use its law enforcement powers for political ends.
Two stark examples of this strategy come from Alabama and Georgia. In 2017, ahead of Alabama’s special Senate election, the Republican secretary of state, John Merrill, claimed that nearly 700 people had illegally voted in the Republican primary. He wanted to prosecute the alleged offenders for felonies that would carry a prison sentence of up to 10 years. But Merrill had overblown an insignificant incident. Probate judges ultimately found that 140 people had voted in the Democratic primary, then illegally voted in the Republican Party’s runoff. That’s likely because so-called “crossover voting” was legal until the state legislature made it a crime earlier that year—a change Merrill did very little to publicize. Judges recommended no cases for prosecution, and the issue ended with a whimper. But not before Merrill’s claims generated scary headlines about voter fraud and felonies carrying 10-year sentences. It was a ploy straight from the voter-suppression playbook.
A similar tactic was employed in Georgia in 2018. Two days before the midterms, Secretary of State Brian Kemp came out with an explosive announcement: he was investigating the state Democratic Party for attempting to hack into the state’s voter registration system. At the time, Kemp was both the state’s top election official and the Republican nominee for governor in a dead-heat race against Democrat Stacey Abrams. Kemp had a history of bogus voter fraud allegations against his political opponents, and many recognized the brazen tactic this time. Election law expert Rick Hasen called it “perhaps the most outrageous example of election administration partisanship in the modern era” and “banana republic stuff.” But the allegation allowed Kemp to accuse his opponent and the opposition party of a serious crime, distracting from his own failures as secretary of state. Kemp won a narrow victory by less than 55,000 votes. In May 2020, the state’s attorney general, a Republican, confirmed what was suspected all along: there was no evidence of any crime.
Over the last month, the Trump administration has taken a page from Alabama and Georgia. In September, Attorney General Bill Barr informed President Donald Trump that nine mail-in military ballots, seven of them cast for Trump, were discarded at an election office in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. The White House press secretary told reporters that “ballots for the president” had been “cast aside.” Trump hyped it in an interview on Fox News Radio, prompting the local US attorney investigating the incident to put out a (inaccurate, then corrected) statement about the investigation. The situation quickly went viral, generating hype about fraud that the president and his campaign have been trying to gin up for months (actually, years). While still under investigation, there is no evidence of malfeasance in Pennsylvania. It appears a single contract worker at the election office had tossed the ballots in a Republican-controlled country, and that election officials had quickly alerted authorities, appropriately handling the situation. Yet Trump and the Justice Department had successfully generated news about voter fraud, a central strategy as the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee fight court battles to make it harder to vote by mail and prepare to contest absentee ballots after the election. The wrongdoing was on the part of the Trump administration.
“The GOP has practiced a simple playbook for *years*: make up a bonkers story about massive fraud & announce an investigation,” Daniel Nichanian, founding editor of the Appeal’s criminal justice-focused Political Report, tweeted after the Pennsylvania incident, linking to the previous episodes in Alabama and Georgia. “Generate breathless headlines & mistrust, & goes viral. Later when story fizzles, that gets tiny shred of attention.”
It’s not just Georgia and Alabama. GOP officials and operatives have a long history of making false allegations of voter fraud, only to see their accusations fall apart once scrutinized. But airing such charges right before an election threatens to destabilize and delegitimize it. As in Alabama and Georgia, the allegations can be used to scare voters away from the polls for fear of prosecution or attack a political opponent. But it’s particularly shocking for the US Justice Department to engage in these scare tactics.
Remember the DOJ announcement of voter fraud in Pennsylvania earlier this week? Not only did it violate DOJ policy, not only did they get the facts wrong & have to delete the release, now we learn, there was NO voter fraud at all, just administrative error https://t.co/rpYbbOrDsB https://t.co/lK3ZRb6S76 — Joyce Alene (@JoyceWhiteVance) September 26, 2020
Not only was it inappropriate for the agency to comment on the ongoing investigation in Pennsylvania, but doing so violated a longstanding department policy not to interfere in elections for fear of influencing the results. A department handbook warns that starting public investigations close to an election “runs the obvious risk of chilling legitimate voting and campaign activities. It also runs the significant risk of interjecting the investigation itself as an issue, both in the campaign and in the adjudication of any ensuing election contest.” There are instances in which the agency has broken with this policy—including, infamously, James Comey’s decision to repeatedly update the public on an investigation into Hillary Clinton, helping to elect Donald Trump—but these guidelines have acted as a bulwark against election interference by government officials for decades.
Until last week. On Friday, the Justice Department rescinded part of this guidance, in place for at least 40 years, freeing prosecutors to launch public election-related investigations during the run-up to Election Day. According to ProPublica, the department’s Public Integrity Section has informed federal prosecutors of a new “exception to the general interference with elections policy.” The exception cites investigations into any alleged election offense by a federal official or employee, including employees of the US Postal Service and the Department of Defense. The exception is broad, but it singles out the Postal Service for scrutiny just as Trump, his campaign, and his party seek to restrict mail-in voting through lawsuits and contest counting of mailed in ballots.
The updated policy likely precedes an increase in fraud allegations from the Justice Department itself. And it appears to be part of Barr’s ongoing effort to transform the department into an arm of the Trump campaign, ready to engage in a longstanding GOP voter suppression tactic—and possibly aid the Trump campaign’s legal efforts to get ballots tossed during the vote-counting process. “It’s incredibly painful for me to say,” former DOJ civil rights official Justin Levitt told ProPublica, “but given what we’ve seen recently, Americans shouldn’t trust DOJ announcements right now.”
When Barr was confirmed in February 2019, the initial consensus was that he would play by the rules and respect the Justice Department’s longstanding role as an independent institution. Barr quickly showed that confidence in him as a by-the-book institutionalist was misplaced. He misrepresented the findings of Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference so significantly that a federal judge later said in a ruling that Barr’s “lack of candor specifically call[s] into question Attorney General Barr’s credibility.” Barr set up his own investigations into Trump’s wild allegations of DOJ misconduct against his 2016 campaign and pushed to release it before the 2020 election, generating his own October surprise. Barr has interfered in department investigations on behalf of Trump cronies Roger Stone and Michael Flynn. He ousted the US attorney in the Southern District of New York who was investigating Trump’s allies, including Rudy Giuliani, in an episode that blew up in Barr’s face. This summer, Barr played a visible role in Trump’s war against Black Lives Matter protests, ordering federal forces to use chemical irritants against peaceful protesters in Lafayette Park across from the White House so that Trump could stage a photo op at St. John’s Church.
Since Barr has torched his credibility, any allegations of fraud emanating from the Justice Department in the coming weeks should be viewed skeptically. Barr is using an old playbook. You’ve been warned.


motherjones--2020-10-08--Amy Coney Barrett’s Confirmation Could Be a Huge Setback for Gun Safety Laws

In June , when the Supreme Court decided that it wasn ’ t going to take up any firearm-related cases in its next term , gun control groups were surprised and relieved .
The nation ’ s highest court had nearly a dozen of gun cases up for potential consideration and a ruling on any one of them could have had a significant impact on the gun safety laws passed in numerous states since District of Columbia v. Heller 12 years ago , which overturned DC ’ s longtime ban on gun ownership and affirmed that the Second Amendment protects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a firearm for the purpose of self-defense .
And with a firm conservative majority on the Supreme Court—thanks to Trump ’ s appointments of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh—it seemed poised that an expansion of the Second Amendment was all but inevitable .
But it didn ’ t happen , scoring a major short-term victory for gun control advocates .
Now , with the Senate poised to confirm Amy Coney Barrett—Trump ’ s pick to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg—gun rights advocates are once again terrified about how the Supreme Court might dismantle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mistake : Amy Coney Barrett is a gun rights extremist who has no place on the Supreme Court , and we unequivocally oppose her confirmation , ” says John Feinblatt , the president of Everytown for Gun Safety , the gun control group that ’ s largely funded by billionaire Michael Bloomberg .
Shannon Watts , the founder of Moms Demand Action , a subsidiary organization of Everytown , echoes Feinblatt ’ s concerns : “ Amy Coney Barrett ’ s alarming interpretation of the Second Amendment would make her an ideal Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a terrible one for the safety of the American people , ” she says .
At this point , there isn ’ t much that Democratic lawmakers or any advocacy group that opposes Barrett can really do to stop Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ’ s rush to confirm her .
But a spokesperson for Everytown says that the two groups are nonetheless trying , focusing “ on digital rather than in-person actions.
” Their volunteers have helped to deliver more 35,000 messages opposing Barrett ’ s confirmation to senators , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ memos explaining why Barrett poses such a threat to gun safety laws , in hopes that they might have some sort of sway on any on-the-fence senators .
On Thursday , a group of 31 gun safety organizations , including Everytown , Moms Demand , the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence , the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence , sent a letter to McConnell , Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-N.Y. ) , and the top two members on the Senate Judiciary Committee , Lindsey Graham ( R-S.C. ) and Dianne Feinstein @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rushing to confirm a Supreme Court nominee with such radical Second Amendment views .
“ Simply put : pushing through a nominee who may support the adoption of a radically dangerous interpretation of the Second Amendment would undermine the will and safety , health , and well-being of all American people , including the constituents you represent , ” the letter states .
Barrett does not have a lengthy track record of ruling on Second Amendment cases .
But the one gun-related case she has ruled on says a lot about her views @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appointed by Trump to the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 2017—was part of a three-judge panel that ruled in Kanter v Barr .
The case centered on a Wisconsin man named Rickey Kanter who was convicted of felony mail fraud and sentenced to more than a year in prison .
Under both federal and Wisconsin law , anyone convicted of a felony is prohibited from possessing a firearm .
Because his conviction was not for a violent crime , Kanter filed a lawsuit arguing that not being allowed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his Second Amendment rights .
Ultimately , the Seventh Circuit upheld the federal law , finding that felony dispossession laws are “ substantially related to the government ’ s important interest in preventing gun violence ” and that the court is “ entitled to categorically disqualify all felons—even nonviolent felons like Kanter—because both have found that such individuals are more likely to abuse firearms.
” But Barrett was the lone dissenting opinion in the case .
In her dissent , she took an extremist view of the Second Amendment , arguing that non-violent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who used his business to defraud Medicare out of hundreds of thousands of dollars—should not be barred from possessing a firearm because it ’ s unconstitutional .
In her dissent , she did not mince words in her disagreement with her colleagues , writing that the court ’ s ruling “ treats the Second Amendment as a ‘ second-class right.
’ ” She disagreed with the statistical evidence cited by her colleagues that shows that felons , even those convicted of non-violent offenses , are more likely to commit gun-related crimes .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns , ” she wrote .
“ But that power extends only to people who are dangerous .
Founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons.
” About two months after the Kanter ruling , Barrett spoke at Hillsdale College , a private conservative college in Michigan .
During the conversation , she was asked about her dissenting opinion in Kanter v Barr , which she used to clarify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ herself as an “ originalist ” of the Second Amendment .
In writing her dissent in the Kanter case , she concluded that there is “ no blanket authorization to just take the right to possess a gun away from someone who committed a felony , ” and even admitted that “ that sounds kind of radical , to say felons can have firearms , ” but defended it nonetheless .
In essence , Barrett likened the right for any individual to own a gun for the purposes of self-defense to basic civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she might be skeptical of any limitations placed on gun ownership based on prior criminal convictions—even violent ones .
Though the Supreme Court isn ’ t set to hear any gun-related cases in its current term , there ’ s still a number of challenges to state gun safety laws tied up in the lower courts that could make it to the Supreme Court in the future—and who ’ s ruling on them could severely impact gun safety laws throughout the country .
The next round of cases could prove to be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ v. City of Chicago , wherein the court applied the standards of Heller to state laws , not just federal jurisdictions .
A pair of cases in New York related to the state ’ s public carry law could be the first opportunity for the next Supreme Court session to make a ruling on the Second Amendment .
One of the cases , New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Beach , is a lawsuit that ’ s very similar to one that was originally dismissed by the Supreme Court in late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawsuit , which is a challenge to New York ’ s public-carry licensing system , was recently rejected by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals .
Like the recent Supreme Court case , the plaintiff in this lawsuit is the National Rifle Association ’ s New York affiliate .
A petition from the plaintiffs to seek another Supreme Court review is due next month , and with Barrett on the court , the ruling might not be the same .
Another case that could be brought before the Supreme Court in the near @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenge to California ’ s ban on large-capacity magazines .
In August , a divided Ninth Circuit panel struck down the ban calling it unconstitutional .
California ’ s attorney general has since requested an en banc rehearing—a request for a case to be heard before the entire bench rather than just one judge or a panel .
But if that ’ s denied , the state could appeal to the Supreme Court for a review as early as the beginning of next year .
All of this amounts to what could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if Trump and McConnell are successful in confirming Barrett—especially considering that her nomination is heavily supported by the Judicial Crisis Network , a conservative dark money group with ties to the NRA .
Even as every Democrat in Congress is opposed to considering Barrett before the election , there ’ s little power that they have in blocking a confirmation hearing and vote , which terrifies gun safety advocates .
“ For our movement , an even more conservative Supreme Court is a threat to gun safety laws across the country , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence , said in a statement to Mother Jones .
“ There is every reason to fear that Judge Barrett would advance the extreme and unfounded views of the gun lobby on the Supreme Court , threatening needed , common-sense and hard-won gun safety laws across the country .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
In June, when the Supreme Court decided that it wasn’t going to take up any firearm-related cases in its next term, gun control groups were surprised and relieved. The nation’s highest court had nearly a dozen of gun cases up for potential consideration and a ruling on any one of them could have had a significant impact on the gun safety laws passed in numerous states since District of Columbia v. Heller 12 years ago, which overturned DC’s longtime ban on gun ownership and affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own a firearm for the purpose of self-defense. And with a firm conservative majority on the Supreme Court—thanks to Trump’s appointments of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh—it seemed poised that an expansion of the Second Amendment was all but inevitable. But it didn’t happen, scoring a major short-term victory for gun control advocates.
Now, with the Senate poised to confirm Amy Coney Barrett—Trump’s pick to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg—gun rights advocates are once again terrified about how the Supreme Court might dismantle gun safety laws. “Make no mistake: Amy Coney Barrett is a gun rights extremist who has no place on the Supreme Court, and we unequivocally oppose her confirmation,” says John Feinblatt, the president of Everytown for Gun Safety, the gun control group that’s largely funded by billionaire Michael Bloomberg. Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action, a subsidiary organization of Everytown, echoes Feinblatt’s concerns: “Amy Coney Barrett’s alarming interpretation of the Second Amendment would make her an ideal Supreme Court Justice for the NRA, but a terrible one for the safety of the American people,” she says.
At this point, there isn’t much that Democratic lawmakers or any advocacy group that opposes Barrett can really do to stop Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s rush to confirm her. But a spokesperson for Everytown says that the two groups are nonetheless trying, focusing “on digital rather than in-person actions.” Their volunteers have helped to deliver more 35,000 messages opposing Barrett’s confirmation to senators, and the two groups have released a number of memos explaining why Barrett poses such a threat to gun safety laws, in hopes that they might have some sort of sway on any on-the-fence senators.
On Thursday, a group of 31 gun safety organizations, including Everytown, Moms Demand, the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, sent a letter to McConnell, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and the top two members on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), urging them against rushing to confirm a Supreme Court nominee with such radical Second Amendment views. “Simply put: pushing through a nominee who may support the adoption of a radically dangerous interpretation of the Second Amendment would undermine the will and safety, health, and well-being of all American people, including the constituents you represent,” the letter states.
Barrett does not have a lengthy track record of ruling on Second Amendment cases. But the one gun-related case she has ruled on says a lot about her views. Back in 2019, Barrett—who was appointed by Trump to the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 2017—was part of a three-judge panel that ruled in Kanter v Barr. The case centered on a Wisconsin man named Rickey Kanter who was convicted of felony mail fraud and sentenced to more than a year in prison. Under both federal and Wisconsin law, anyone convicted of a felony is prohibited from possessing a firearm.
“Make no mistake: Amy Coney Barrett is a gun rights extremist who has no place on the Supreme Court.”
Because his conviction was not for a violent crime, Kanter filed a lawsuit arguing that not being allowed to own a gun was a violation of his Second Amendment rights. Ultimately, the Seventh Circuit upheld the federal law, finding that felony dispossession laws are “substantially related to the government’s important interest in preventing gun violence” and that the court is “entitled to categorically disqualify all felons—even nonviolent felons like Kanter—because both have found that such individuals are more likely to abuse firearms.”
But Barrett was the lone dissenting opinion in the case. In her dissent, she took an extremist view of the Second Amendment, arguing that non-violent felons—even a serious one like Kanter, who used his business to defraud Medicare out of hundreds of thousands of dollars—should not be barred from possessing a firearm because it’s unconstitutional. In her dissent, she did not mince words in her disagreement with her colleagues, writing that the court’s ruling “treats the Second Amendment as a ‘second-class right.’” She disagreed with the statistical evidence cited by her colleagues that shows that felons, even those convicted of non-violent offenses, are more likely to commit gun-related crimes. “History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns,” she wrote. “But that power extends only to people who are dangerous. Founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons.”
About two months after the Kanter ruling, Barrett spoke at Hillsdale College, a private conservative college in Michigan. During the conversation, she was asked about her dissenting opinion in Kanter v Barr, which she used to clarify her view points even more, describing herself as an “originalist” of the Second Amendment. In writing her dissent in the Kanter case, she concluded that there is “no blanket authorization to just take the right to possess a gun away from someone who committed a felony,” and even admitted that “that sounds kind of radical, to say felons can have firearms,” but defended it nonetheless. In essence, Barrett likened the right for any individual to own a gun for the purposes of self-defense to basic civil rights like voting, and hinted that she might be skeptical of any limitations placed on gun ownership based on prior criminal convictions—even violent ones.
Though the Supreme Court isn’t set to hear any gun-related cases in its current term, there’s still a number of challenges to state gun safety laws tied up in the lower courts that could make it to the Supreme Court in the future—and who’s ruling on them could severely impact gun safety laws throughout the country. The next round of cases could prove to be the most consequential since 2010’s McDonald v. City of Chicago, wherein the court applied the standards of Heller to state laws, not just federal jurisdictions. A pair of cases in New York related to the state’s public carry law could be the first opportunity for the next Supreme Court session to make a ruling on the Second Amendment. One of the cases, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Beach, is a lawsuit that’s very similar to one that was originally dismissed by the Supreme Court in late April for being moot. The Beach lawsuit, which is a challenge to New York’s public-carry licensing system, was recently rejected by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Like the recent Supreme Court case, the plaintiff in this lawsuit is the National Rifle Association’s New York affiliate. A petition from the plaintiffs to seek another Supreme Court review is due next month, and with Barrett on the court, the ruling might not be the same.
Another case that could be brought before the Supreme Court in the near future is Duncan v. Becerra, a challenge to California’s ban on large-capacity magazines. In August, a divided Ninth Circuit panel struck down the ban calling it unconstitutional. California’s attorney general has since requested an en banc rehearing—a request for a case to be heard before the entire bench rather than just one judge or a panel. But if that’s denied, the state could appeal to the Supreme Court for a review as early as the beginning of next year.
All of this amounts to what could be a doomsday scenario for gun safety groups if Trump and McConnell are successful in confirming Barrett—especially considering that her nomination is heavily supported by the Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative dark money group with ties to the NRA. Even as every Democrat in Congress is opposed to considering Barrett before the election, there’s little power that they have in blocking a confirmation hearing and vote, which terrifies gun safety advocates. “For our movement, an even more conservative Supreme Court is a threat to gun safety laws across the country,” Kris Brown, the president of the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, said in a statement to Mother Jones. “There is every reason to fear that Judge Barrett would advance the extreme and unfounded views of the gun lobby on the Supreme Court, threatening needed, common-sense and hard-won gun safety laws across the country.”


motherjones--2020-10-08--How Mike Pence Helped the Coronavirus at the Veep Debate

Vice President Mike Pence , the guy in charge of the White House coronavirus task force , boosted the spread of the killer virus on Wednesday night when he debated Sen. Kamala Harris , the Democratic nominee for vice president .
Sure , this sounds strange .
He ’ s supposed to be doing all that can be done to counter the deadly pandemic that has claimed the lives of more than 210,000 Americans .
But it ’ s clear that his task force has failed miserably .
( The United States has one of the highest coronavirus death tolls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the debate , Pence essentially winked at the anti-maskers , whose opposition to wearing face coverings has contributed to the ongoing and out-of-control transmission of deadly COVID-19 .
The first question at the debate predictably focused on the pandemic .
USA Today ’ s Susan Page , the moderator , asked Harris how she and Joe Biden would combat the killer virus , should they win .
Harris began with an opening shot at Trump and Pence : “ The American people have witnessed what is the greatest failure of any presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” She noted that Biden had a plan for testing , contract tracing , and vaccine distribution .
And she slammed Trump for downplaying the pandemic and for not encouraging mask-wearing : “ The president said , ‘ You ’ re on one side of his ledger if you wear a mask .
You ’ re on the other side of his ledger if you don ’ t . '
” According to Dr. Anthony Fauci and other public health experts , mask-wearing and social distancing are the two most important steps to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But Trump and his crew have constantly denigrated masks and turned mask-wearing into an us-versus-them political controversy in which Trumpers perversely oppose masks as an act of freedom and a sign of loyalty to Trump .
Pence directly fueled those sentiments at the debate .
Page questioned Pence about the recent Rose Garden event for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett , which may have been a superspreader event .
As Page noted , there were few masks and no social distancing at this shindig .
“ How can you expect Americans to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to protect themselves from COVID when you at the White House have not been doing so ?
” she asked Pence ( steering clear of Trump ’ s own infection ) .
Pence was supporting the argument of the anti-maskers : don ’ t tell us what to do , we should be free to wear a mask or not .
Not at this point in the debate or any other did the vice president encourage Americans to wear masks and practice social-distancing .
In fact , he didn ’ t even use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On the national stage , as thousands of Americans continue to die weekly , the head of the White House pandemic task force said absolutely nothing to the American people about what they can do to arrest the continuing spread of COVID-19 .
This was profound negligence .
But it was in keeping with his boss ’ s conduct .
When Trump returned to the White House after being hospitalized , he quickly and irresponsibly whipped off his mask , though he remained contagious and people were in his vicinity .
Not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basic act of leadership at the debate ; he belittled Biden and Harris for considering a mask mandate .
He depicted a sound and easy-to-implement public health policy that could save lives ( and help revive the economy ) as an assault on freedom .
This was a continuation of Trump ’ s not-too-silent war on masks .
For the fools who gather at Trump rallies without wearing masks or who cause scenes at big box stores when asked to put one on , Trump and Pence are on their side .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these two men as reasons to continue their pandemic-fueling conduct .
There was so much that Pence did wrong at the debate .
In a scoundrel ’ s move , he equated criticism of the Trump administration ’ s response to the pandemic with criticism of “ the American people ” and “ the sacrifices the American people have made.
” He interrupted Harris repeatedly ( yet not as much as Trump interrupted Biden ) .
He told multiple lies , including claiming that Trump has “ always ” been truthful about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a plan to protect pre-existing conditions for health insurance , though no plan has been released and the Trump-Pence administration is suing in federal court to strike down the law that does protect patients with preexisting conditions .
He slavishly defended Trump , at one point proclaiming , “ This is a president who respects and cherishes all of the American people.
” Does anyone believe that ?
Much of Pence ’ s malfeasance at the debate was the usual political spin .
But his great sin was failing to use the event @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Instead , the vice president provided ammo to those Trump supporters who believe the pandemic is a hoax and masks are not necessary .
In this way , he gave aid and comfort to the virus .
Pence was a traitor to his own task force .

Vice President Mike Pence, the guy in charge of the White House coronavirus task force, boosted the spread of the killer virus on Wednesday night when he debated Sen. Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee for vice president. Sure, this sounds strange. He’s supposed to be doing all that can be done to counter the deadly pandemic that has claimed the lives of more than 210,000 Americans. But it’s clear that his task force has failed miserably. (The United States has one of the highest coronavirus death tolls of all wealthy nations.) And during the debate, Pence essentially winked at the anti-maskers, whose opposition to wearing face coverings has contributed to the ongoing and out-of-control transmission of deadly COVID-19.
The first question at the debate predictably focused on the pandemic. USA Today’s Susan Page, the moderator, asked Harris how she and Joe Biden would combat the killer virus, should they win. Harris began with an opening shot at Trump and Pence: “The American people have witnessed what is the greatest failure of any presidential administration in the history of our country.” She noted that Biden had a plan for testing, contract tracing, and vaccine distribution. And she slammed Trump for downplaying the pandemic and for not encouraging mask-wearing: “The president said, ‘You’re on one side of his ledger if you wear a mask. You’re on the other side of his ledger if you don’t.'”
According to Dr. Anthony Fauci and other public health experts, mask-wearing and social distancing are the two most important steps to take to beat back the pandemic. But Trump and his crew have constantly denigrated masks and turned mask-wearing into an us-versus-them political controversy in which Trumpers perversely oppose masks as an act of freedom and a sign of loyalty to Trump. Pence directly fueled those sentiments at the debate.
Page questioned Pence about the recent Rose Garden event for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, which may have been a superspreader event. As Page noted, there were few masks and no social distancing at this shindig. “How can you expect Americans to follow the administration’s safety guidelines to protect themselves from COVID when you at the White House have not been doing so?” she asked Pence (steering clear of Trump’s own infection).
Pence replied:
Many of the people who were at that event, Susan, actually were tested for coronavirus, and it was an outdoor event, which all of our scientists regularly and routinely advise. The difference here is President Trump and I trust the American people to make choices in the best interest of their health. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris consistently talk about mandates…We’re about freedom and respecting the freedom of the American people.
Pence was supporting the argument of the anti-maskers: don’t tell us what to do, we should be free to wear a mask or not. Not at this point in the debate or any other did the vice president encourage Americans to wear masks and practice social-distancing. In fact, he didn’t even use the word “mask” once. On the national stage, as thousands of Americans continue to die weekly, the head of the White House pandemic task force said absolutely nothing to the American people about what they can do to arrest the continuing spread of COVID-19. This was profound negligence. But it was in keeping with his boss’s conduct. When Trump returned to the White House after being hospitalized, he quickly and irresponsibly whipped off his mask, though he remained contagious and people were in his vicinity.
Not only did Pence not engage in the most basic act of leadership at the debate; he belittled Biden and Harris for considering a mask mandate. He depicted a sound and easy-to-implement public health policy that could save lives (and help revive the economy) as an assault on freedom. This was a continuation of Trump’s not-too-silent war on masks. For the fools who gather at Trump rallies without wearing masks or who cause scenes at big box stores when asked to put one on, Trump and Pence are on their side. The anti-maskers can view the words and actions of these two men as reasons to continue their pandemic-fueling conduct.
There was so much that Pence did wrong at the debate. In a scoundrel’s move, he equated criticism of the Trump administration’s response to the pandemic with criticism of “the American people” and “the sacrifices the American people have made.” He interrupted Harris repeatedly (yet not as much as Trump interrupted Biden). He told multiple lies, including claiming that Trump has “always” been truthful about the pandemic. He insisted Trump has a plan to protect pre-existing conditions for health insurance, though no plan has been released and the Trump-Pence administration is suing in federal court to strike down the law that does protect patients with preexisting conditions. He slavishly defended Trump, at one point proclaiming, “This is a president who respects and cherishes all of the American people.” Does anyone believe that?
Much of Pence’s malfeasance at the debate was the usual political spin. But his great sin was failing to use the event to help the nation combat the pandemic. Instead, the vice president provided ammo to those Trump supporters who believe the pandemic is a hoax and masks are not necessary. In this way, he gave aid and comfort to the virus. Pence was a traitor to his own task force.


motherjones--2020-10-09--A Native Nation’s Impossible Fight to Stop Trump’s Wall From Dividing Its Land

In the remote California desert about 50 miles east of San Diego , five protesters gather around a backhoe parked at the US-Mexico border .
The sun owns the cloudless sky , and dust coats everyone ’ s skin .
A construction worker flips through a set of keys , preparing to dig a trench for a new stretch of President Trump ’ s border fence , while the protesters try to engage him .
He doesn ’ t give them any reaction until the moment before he steps up into the cab : “ You ’ re trespassing.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ land !
” says one of the protesters .
“ It ’ s government land , ” the worker replies , and starts the engine .
“ He ’ s going to try to move it , ” shouts one of the protesters , prompting three others to climb into the backhoe ’ s giant bucket .
After a minute , the worker shuts off the engine , descends from the cab , and walks away .
Similar scenes to this one , from July , have unfolded repeatedly .
The protesters are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 13 tribes that have shared culture , language , and land for more than 12,000 years .
Originally , they lived in an area that encompassed all of present-day San Diego County and much of Baja California .
The Spanish moved into the area in 1769 , Mexico drove out Spain by 1821 , and the United States drew a border in 1848 after a two-year war with Mexico .
That relatively new political line partitioned the Kumeyaay ’ s land , putting half in Mexico and half in the United States .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts at protecting what remains of their sovereignty .
When Congress outlawed indigenous religious ceremonies in 1883 , the Kumeyaay starting holding “ fiestas ” that look a lot like county fairs , with baseball games , pie-eating contests , and tug-of-war competitions .
Then , late at night , they would sneak in their religious events .
Today , even though the Kumeyaay land includes open desert that abuts the international line and members of the tribes live on both sides , Border Patrol requires that Kumeyaay obtain advance written permission to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filing the requests told me it ’ s become harder and harder to get approval under the Trump administration .
Some Kumeyaay skirt the system and cross their ancient desert without permission , but that will soon be impossible : In June , the US Army Corps of Engineers began construction on a 30-foot high barrier made of steel bollards which will , for the first time , physically divide all of the Kumeyaay land in half .
On August 11 , one of the tribes filed a lawsuit to stop work while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has promised to complete 450 miles of new fencing by the end of the year , including the 14-mile stretch through Kumeyaay land .
Joe Biden has pledged to stop construction along the border if elected , though he has also said he won ’ t tear down any fencing that ’ s in place when he takes office .
The Kumeyaay know that their only hope for avoiding the irreparable severing of their land is to run out the clock on the Trump administration and stave off work for a few more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been showing up regularly to block the tanker trucks and flatbeds , backhoes and cranes .
Today , by some estimates , there are 5,000 Kumeyaay living in the United States and 1,500 in Mexico , and sometimes nearly 100 of them show up for the protests .
But most days there are about 20 and they arrive by 5:30 a.m. to beat the workers , who in turn are trying to beat the heat , which can reach 90 degrees by 8 a.m. during the summer .
Under a dark blue sky @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sunrise ceremony with prayers and songs .
In the early days of protests , before things became more confrontational with law enforcement , the circle spread out across the border , as Kumeyaay from the United States and Mexico joined together to sing to the pulse of rattles , shuffling their feet in unison .
“ It ’ s really powerful to have the Kumeyaay from Baja come up , ” says Olympia Beltran , who ’ s been at the protests regularly since the beginning of July .
“ To have dancers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just shows how insignificant the physical line is .
It demonstrates the power of an ancient society.
” The protests gained traction in a matter of days—videos of scenes like the backhoe standoff went viral , and Sen. Kamala Harris tweeted in support .
In response , the Army Corps adapted by shifting between locations along the 14-mile construction zone .
“ There ’ s no way to catch up , ” says Angela Elliott Santos , the chair of the Manzanita band of Kumeyaay .
“ When we stop them at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a different site.
” There are laws that protect the environment and the Kumeyaay from invasive construction projects , but the Real ID Act of 2005 gave the homeland security secretary broad authority to disregard those laws in the interest of national security .
In March , acting secretary Chad Wolf waived 28 laws to build this particular stretch of border fencing , including the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act .
Even so , the US government is legally required to enter into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make sure their cultural sites are protected .
Whether the government has fulfilled this obligation depends on how one defines consultation .
Border Patrol won ’ t answer specific questions about the protests because of ongoing litigation .
The agency did send letters to Kumeyaay tribes in March , informing them that the laws would be waived and the work would commence .
A written statement from Border Patrol in August emphasized the agency ’ s commitment to “ responsible environmental stewardship ” and said there had been “ several conversations ” with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have taken place between Border Patrol and protesters , but “ there has never been a formal government-to-government consultation , ” says Michelle LaPena , the lawyer representing the La Posta band of Kumeyaay .
In previous cases involving other tribes , consultation has also included giving certified cultural monitors access to the construction sites .
If the monitors make any significant discoveries , such as pottery or human remains , then work stops so these items can be recovered and construction plans can be amended , if possible , to minimize the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be respectfully treated , moved out of the way , and given to the tribe so they can be respectfully reburied , ” says LaPena .
Kumeyaay protesters who were onsite when work began in late June say there were no monitors present .
After the protests gained attention , the Army Corps started giving monitors access to worksites , but it didn ’ t change much .
“ They took me to monitor an area where the bedrock had already been blown up , ” says John Eagle Spirit Elliott , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When the dust settles after an explosion like that , you really can ’ t see anything .
The rate at which they ’ re trenching and the amount of dirt that ’ s being moved , it ’ s very hard for any monitor—no matter how much experience you have—to really see and protect any artifacts or bones.
” He adds , “ There are no words I can use to convey how terrible the scene is .
It ’ s hard for the monitors to go out there—physically and spiritually.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that there are cultural resources out there , ” says LaPena .
“ The sad possibility is that the dirt comes out of the trencher and potentially has human remains in it .
Then that ’ s made into cement and becomes a part of the border wall.
” At least two monitors have discovered what they believe to be human bones , according to signed declarations in federal court .
Border Patrol told the court it hasn ’ t found any cultural sites within a 60-foot easement along the border .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond this thin strip .
New access roads have been created , along with staging areas for supplies and heavy equipment .
Indigenous Americans scored perhaps their biggest legal victory in decades in July , when the Supreme Court affirmed the sovereignty of tribes in Oklahoma , citing the US government ’ s treaty obligations .
The Kumeyaay have no such legal anchor .
The 1852 Treaty of Santa Ysabel set aside about 20 percent of present-day San Diego County for the tribes .
But the Senate never ratified the treaty , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken by a series of executive orders , leaving them with only a fraction of the land they ’ d been promised .
“ The lack of ratification of the treaty means there was never a legal transfer of title from the Kumeyaay people , ” says Kumeyaay historian Michael Connolly Miskwish .
“ In other words , the San Diego region , and the border itself , sits on un-ceded Kumeyaay land.
” Many of the elders who know this history best haven ’ t been able to join the protests because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affected indigenous people .
There is always at least one medic present , to deal not only with the virus and the risk of heat exhaustion but also the ever-present threat of violence .
Local landowners , many of them armed , turn up on occasion to tell the Kumeyaay that they ’ re “ trespassing on American soil , ” as one said in a confrontation captured on video .
“ We ’ re ready for really bad things to happen , ” says Beltran , herself a medic who regularly carries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Patrol agents onsite do little to control the counterprotests .
“ We have to have the presence of mind to be respectful and speak eloquently to these Border Patrol agents , ” Beltran says , “ because as soon as we start sharing our grief , as soon as we start crying , as soon as our volume gets higher because of the grief that we ’ re experiencing , they don ’ t listen to us anymore .
They say , ‘ Okay , we ’ re done .
This is irrational.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I ’ m sure they would feel the same way if their church was bulldozed.
” Beltran says she frequently sees “ Trump 2020 ” stickers on the hardhats of the Army Corps contractors , and one worker told her , “ You need to just accept that this is America now .
Get over it .
It ’ s been hundreds of years .
Why are you all still out here ?
” In August , after nearly two months of protests , a judge denied the Kumeyaay ’ s request @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It was a devastating blow , but Beltran says her elders remind her to take a long view .
“ The sense of time is very different for Kumeyaay , ” she told me .
“ I think we ’ re all feeling grief and sadness having witnessed so much be destroyed , but we have to look at it that it ’ s just temporary.
” DW Gibson is the author of the new book 14 Miles : Building the Border Wall .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
In the remote California desert about 50 miles east of San Diego, five protesters gather around a backhoe parked at the US-Mexico border. The sun owns the cloudless sky, and dust coats everyone’s skin. A construction worker flips through a set of keys, preparing to dig a trench for a new stretch of President Trump’s border fence, while the protesters try to engage him. He doesn’t give them any reaction until the moment before he steps up into the cab: “You’re trespassing.”
“You’re trespassing on Kumeyaay land!” says one of the protesters.
“It’s government land,” the worker replies, and starts the engine.
“He’s going to try to move it,” shouts one of the protesters, prompting three others to climb into the backhoe’s giant bucket. After a minute, the worker shuts off the engine, descends from the cab, and walks away.
Similar scenes to this one, from July, have unfolded repeatedly. The protesters are Kumeyaay, members of a nation of 13 tribes that have shared culture, language, and land for more than 12,000 years. Originally, they lived in an area that encompassed all of present-day San Diego County and much of Baja California. The Spanish moved into the area in 1769, Mexico drove out Spain by 1821, and the United States drew a border in 1848 after a two-year war with Mexico. That relatively new political line partitioned the Kumeyaay’s land, putting half in Mexico and half in the United States.
Since then, the Kumeyaay have become experts at protecting what remains of their sovereignty. When Congress outlawed indigenous religious ceremonies in 1883, the Kumeyaay starting holding “fiestas” that look a lot like county fairs, with baseball games, pie-eating contests, and tug-of-war competitions. Then, late at night, they would sneak in their religious events.
Today, even though the Kumeyaay land includes open desert that abuts the international line and members of the tribes live on both sides, Border Patrol requires that Kumeyaay obtain advance written permission to cross. The person in charge of filing the requests told me it’s become harder and harder to get approval under the Trump administration. Some Kumeyaay skirt the system and cross their ancient desert without permission, but that will soon be impossible: In June, the US Army Corps of Engineers began construction on a 30-foot high barrier made of steel bollards which will, for the first time, physically divide all of the Kumeyaay land in half.
On August 11, one of the tribes filed a lawsuit to stop work while various legal questions are settled. Trump has promised to complete 450 miles of new fencing by the end of the year, including the 14-mile stretch through Kumeyaay land. Joe Biden has pledged to stop construction along the border if elected, though he has also said he won’t tear down any fencing that’s in place when he takes office. The Kumeyaay know that their only hope for avoiding the irreparable severing of their land is to run out the clock on the Trump administration and stave off work for a few more months.
And so they’ve been showing up regularly to block the tanker trucks and flatbeds, backhoes and cranes. Today, by some estimates, there are 5,000 Kumeyaay living in the United States and 1,500 in Mexico, and sometimes nearly 100 of them show up for the protests. But most days there are about 20 and they arrive by 5:30 a.m. to beat the workers, who in turn are trying to beat the heat, which can reach 90 degrees by 8 a.m. during the summer. Under a dark blue sky, the protesters circle up for a sunrise ceremony with prayers and songs. In the early days of protests, before things became more confrontational with law enforcement, the circle spread out across the border, as Kumeyaay from the United States and Mexico joined together to sing to the pulse of rattles, shuffling their feet in unison. “It’s really powerful to have the Kumeyaay from Baja come up,” says Olympia Beltran, who’s been at the protests regularly since the beginning of July. “To have dancers and singers from both sides meet face-to-face just shows how insignificant the physical line is. It demonstrates the power of an ancient society.”
The protests gained traction in a matter of days—videos of scenes like the backhoe standoff went viral, and Sen. Kamala Harris tweeted in support. In response, the Army Corps adapted by shifting between locations along the 14-mile construction zone.
“There’s no way to catch up,” says Angela Elliott Santos, the chair of the Manzanita band of Kumeyaay. “When we stop them at a critical site, they turn on machines at a different site.”
There are laws that protect the environment and the Kumeyaay from invasive construction projects, but the Real ID Act of 2005 gave the homeland security secretary broad authority to disregard those laws in the interest of national security. In March, acting secretary Chad Wolf waived 28 laws to build this particular stretch of border fencing, including the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. Even so, the US government is legally required to enter into “consultation” with the tribes to make sure their cultural sites are protected. Whether the government has fulfilled this obligation depends on how one defines consultation.
Border Patrol won’t answer specific questions about the protests because of ongoing litigation. The agency did send letters to Kumeyaay tribes in March, informing them that the laws would be waived and the work would commence. A written statement from Border Patrol in August emphasized the agency’s commitment to “responsible environmental stewardship” and said there had been “several conversations” with Kumeyaay leaders.
Informal conversations at worksites have taken place between Border Patrol and protesters, but “there has never been a formal government-to-government consultation,” says Michelle LaPena, the lawyer representing the La Posta band of Kumeyaay. In previous cases involving other tribes, consultation has also included giving certified cultural monitors access to the construction sites. If the monitors make any significant discoveries, such as pottery or human remains, then work stops so these items can be recovered and construction plans can be amended, if possible, to minimize the impact on the site. “Remains should be respectfully treated, moved out of the way, and given to the tribe so they can be respectfully reburied,” says LaPena.
Kumeyaay protesters who were onsite when work began in late June say there were no monitors present. After the protests gained attention, the Army Corps started giving monitors access to worksites, but it didn’t change much. “They took me to monitor an area where the bedrock had already been blown up,” says John Eagle Spirit Elliott, a certified Kumeyaay cultural monitor. “When the dust settles after an explosion like that, you really can’t see anything. The rate at which they’re trenching and the amount of dirt that’s being moved, it’s very hard for any monitor—no matter how much experience you have—to really see and protect any artifacts or bones.” He adds, “There are no words I can use to convey how terrible the scene is. It’s hard for the monitors to go out there—physically and spiritually.”
“There’s no way to catch up. When we stop them at a critical site, they turn on machines at a different site.”
“The equipment operators have no idea that there are cultural resources out there,” says LaPena. “The sad possibility is that the dirt comes out of the trencher and potentially has human remains in it. Then that’s made into cement and becomes a part of the border wall.”
At least two monitors have discovered what they believe to be human bones, according to signed declarations in federal court. Border Patrol told the court it hasn’t found any cultural sites within a 60-foot easement along the border. But the footprint of the work goes far beyond this thin strip. New access roads have been created, along with staging areas for supplies and heavy equipment.
Indigenous Americans scored perhaps their biggest legal victory in decades in July, when the Supreme Court affirmed the sovereignty of tribes in Oklahoma, citing the US government’s treaty obligations. The Kumeyaay have no such legal anchor. The 1852 Treaty of Santa Ysabel set aside about 20 percent of present-day San Diego County for the tribes. But the Senate never ratified the treaty, and the Kumeyaay’s land was eventually taken by a series of executive orders, leaving them with only a fraction of the land they’d been promised. “The lack of ratification of the treaty means there was never a legal transfer of title from the Kumeyaay people,” says Kumeyaay historian Michael Connolly Miskwish. “In other words, the San Diego region, and the border itself, sits on un-ceded Kumeyaay land.”
Many of the elders who know this history best haven’t been able to join the protests because of the pandemic, which has disproportionately affected indigenous people. There is always at least one medic present, to deal not only with the virus and the risk of heat exhaustion but also the ever-present threat of violence. Local landowners, many of them armed, turn up on occasion to tell the Kumeyaay that they’re “trespassing on American soil,” as one said in a confrontation captured on video. “We’re ready for really bad things to happen,” says Beltran, herself a medic who regularly carries tourniquets and chest seals.
The Border Patrol agents onsite do little to control the counterprotests. “We have to have the presence of mind to be respectful and speak eloquently to these Border Patrol agents,” Beltran says, “because as soon as we start sharing our grief, as soon as we start crying, as soon as our volume gets higher because of the grief that we’re experiencing, they don’t listen to us anymore. They say, ‘Okay, we’re done. This is irrational.’ But it’s not irrational. I’m sure they would feel the same way if their church was bulldozed.”
Beltran says she frequently sees “Trump 2020” stickers on the hardhats of the Army Corps contractors, and one worker told her, “You need to just accept that this is America now. Get over it. It’s been hundreds of years. Why are you all still out here?”
In August, after nearly two months of protests, a judge denied the Kumeyaay’s request for an injunction to pause construction. It was a devastating blow, but Beltran says her elders remind her to take a long view. “The sense of time is very different for Kumeyaay,” she told me. “I think we’re all feeling grief and sadness having witnessed so much be destroyed, but we have to look at it that it’s just temporary.”
DW Gibson is the author of the new book 14 Miles: Building the Border Wall.


motherjones--2020-10-09--Mike Pompeo Will Do Anything to Help Trump’s Campaign—Even Pick a Fight With the Pope

Before taking a long-scheduled trip to Rome last week , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo did perhaps the last thing you would expect from a diplomat planning to meet with Pope Francis .
He launched a public critique of the Catholic Church , calling on the pope to end an arrangement between the Vatican and China that permits shared input on the appointment of bishops .
“ The Vatican endangers its moral authority , should it renew the deal , ” Pompeo tweeted late last month .
The criticism stunned Vatican officials , who promptly declined Pompeo ’ s request @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Popes do not regularly meet with US officials so close to a presidential election and , perhaps conscious of his own polarizing reputation in the United States—many conservatives distrust him—Francis was wary of such a meeting .
When asked if Pompeo ’ s visit to Rome sought to “ exploit ” Francis in the run-up to the election , Archbishop Paul Gallagher , the Vatican foreign minister , suggested as much .
“ Well , that ’ s one of the reasons why the Holy Father is not receiving the secretary of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the latest undiplomatic move for America ’ s chief diplomat , who has looked more like a bulldog campaign surrogate than a polite secretary of State in recent weeks .
Four days before leaving for Europe , Pompeo gave a highly-politicized speech in front of the Wisconsin legislature that lambasted China and affirmed his narrow , nationalist view of the world .
This speech came on the heels of other controversial domestic appearances—including at a megachurch in Texas and at the religious right ’ s Value Voters Summit in Washington , DC—that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Similar behavior by any other secretary of State would be unprecedented , but for Pompeo , it ’ s become just the most visible evidence of his push to use the power and influence of the State Department as a tool for Trump ’ s reelection campaign .
“ It is absolutely all about domestic politics for Secretary Pompeo and has been since he joined the administration , ” says Tom Countryman , a former State Department official who now chairs the Arms Control Association , a group that opposes nuclear proliferation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more subtle than the president in utilizing the tools of the government to advance , not just a policy agenda , but an electoral politics agenda .
It has become more blatant in the last few months.
” Even as his own department issues guidance reminding staff not to “ improperly engage the Department of State in the political process , ” Pompeo has used the trappings of his office to promote Trump and appeal to his conservative religious base .
When Pompeo appeared at the Republican National Convention—the first time in more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of State addressed a convention—he did so while on an official government trip to Jerusalem and surrounded by religious imagery : “ with the lights of the Old City and its Jewish , Muslim and Christian shrines visible over his shoulder , ” as the New York Times put it .
Pompeo ’ s clash with the pope appears to have been similarly geared toward appealing to conservative Catholics and evangelical Christians , who have become increasingly aligned in the United States even as Francis and his allies have criticized aspects of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosperity gospel.
” Before heading to Rome , Pompeo even published an op-ed criticizing the Vatican in First Things , a conservative research journal whose editor has been harshly critical of Francis .
The unorthodox op-ed surprised the Vatican and Foggy Bottom in equal measure .
It “ was not cleared by a damn person in the State Department , ” a department official told me .
Massimo Faggioli , a Villanova University professor who studies the Catholic Church , told me that attacks on Francis , who is still generally popular among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the more politically engaged faction of conservative Catholics who despise his progressive approach on some issues , including his attention to climate change and critique of capitalism .
“ My impression is that there ’ s more mobilization of anti-Francis Catholics voting for Trump than Francis Catholics voting for Biden , ” he said .
Religious freedom , which is central to Pompeo ’ s foreign policy rhetoric and his criticism of China , remains a compelling issue for conservative voters , especially evangelicals .
While just 35 percent of US adults think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 46 percent of evangelicals believe that to be the case , according to a poll conducted earlier this year by the Associated Press and the University of Chicago .
Pompeo , himself a devout evangelical Christian , has used religious freedom as a cudgel against traditional US adversaries such as China and Iran , but , like Trump , tends to ignore the plight of Christians and other religious minorities in allied countries , such as Saudi Arabia .
His creation of a Commission on Unalienable Rights , which produced a report delineating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is another not-so-subtle nod to the evangelical base .
The report deemed marriage equality and abortion rights to be nothing more than “ divisive social and political controversies , ” not basic human rights , and gave institutional credence to the State Department ’ s increasingly hostile policies toward LGBTQ people .
Given Pompeo ’ s shameless interest in furthering Trump ’ s political fortunes ( and his own ) , it was no surprise that the campaign tried to solicit him as an actual surrogate .
During a hearing before the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department acting legal adviser Marik String was asked if Trump had requested that Pompeo appear at one of his campaign rallies in October or November 2019 .
While evading the particulars of the question , String substantially confirmed it by saying , “ As I recall , there was a period in 2019 when that issue that you raised came up , and it was reviewed.
” Pompeo never appeared onstage with Trump at a rally , but in his official capacity , but he ’ s constantly made time to meet with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ October , he even visited his home state of Kansas to discuss a possible Senate run with conservative megadonor Charles Koch .
It was one of several taxpayer-funded trips he took to Kansas ahead of the filing deadline in that race , which he ultimately did not join .
He was investigated and then cleared of violating the Hatch Act , which prohibits political activity by government officials , in relation to his visits to Kansas .
But Pompeo has never seemed too concerned about his behavior breaking department norms or even federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump to fire Steve Linick , the department ’ s inspector general , who was investigating Pompeo ’ s role in pushing through weapons sales to Middle Eastern allies and allegations that Pompeo ’ s wife , Susan Pompeo , had used department staff to run personal errands .
Trump complied .
In his statements to the press after Linick ’ s removal , Pompeo showed how disdainfully he views rank-and-file government employees .
Linick , Pompeo told the Washington Post , was “ undermining ” the department and not performing a function @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department.
” Linick , as inspector general , was not supposed to serve Pompeo ’ s interests , just as Pompeo , as secretary of State , is supposed to be an emissary for the entire country , not for Trump ’ s campaign .
That message doesn ’ t appear to resonate with the Trump administration ’ s ultimate team player , who has survived longer than almost any other member of the president ’ s inner circle by never confusing the right thing—the responsible thing—with what best serves Trump ’ s @ @

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Before taking a long-scheduled trip to Rome last week, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo did perhaps the last thing you would expect from a diplomat planning to meet with Pope Francis. He launched a public critique of the Catholic Church, calling on the pope to end an arrangement between the Vatican and China that permits shared input on the appointment of bishops. “The Vatican endangers its moral authority, should it renew the deal,” Pompeo tweeted late last month.
The criticism stunned Vatican officials, who promptly declined Pompeo’s request for a meeting with Francis last week. Popes do not regularly meet with US officials so close to a presidential election and, perhaps conscious of his own polarizing reputation in the United States—many conservatives distrust him—Francis was wary of such a meeting. When asked if Pompeo’s visit to Rome sought to “exploit” Francis in the run-up to the election, Archbishop Paul Gallagher, the Vatican foreign minister, suggested as much. “Well, that’s one of the reasons why the Holy Father is not receiving the secretary of State,” Gallagher said.
It was the latest undiplomatic move for America’s chief diplomat, who has looked more like a bulldog campaign surrogate than a polite secretary of State in recent weeks. Four days before leaving for Europe, Pompeo gave a highly-politicized speech in front of the Wisconsin legislature that lambasted China and affirmed his narrow, nationalist view of the world. This speech came on the heels of other controversial domestic appearances—including at a megachurch in Texas and at the religious right’s Value Voters Summit in Washington, DC—that seem almost micro-targeted to Christian conservative voters. Similar behavior by any other secretary of State would be unprecedented, but for Pompeo, it’s become just the most visible evidence of his push to use the power and influence of the State Department as a tool for Trump’s reelection campaign.
“It is absolutely all about domestic politics for Secretary Pompeo and has been since he joined the administration,” says Tom Countryman, a former State Department official who now chairs the Arms Control Association, a group that opposes nuclear proliferation. “He has not been much more subtle than the president in utilizing the tools of the government to advance, not just a policy agenda, but an electoral politics agenda. It has become more blatant in the last few months.”
Even as his own department issues guidance reminding staff not to “improperly engage the Department of State in the political process,” Pompeo has used the trappings of his office to promote Trump and appeal to his conservative religious base. When Pompeo appeared at the Republican National Convention—the first time in more than 75 years that a sitting secretary of State addressed a convention—he did so while on an official government trip to Jerusalem and surrounded by religious imagery: “with the lights of the Old City and its Jewish, Muslim and Christian shrines visible over his shoulder,” as the New York Times put it.
Pompeo’s clash with the pope appears to have been similarly geared toward appealing to conservative Catholics and evangelical Christians, who have become increasingly aligned in the United States even as Francis and his allies have criticized aspects of the American evangelical tradition, including the “prosperity gospel.” Before heading to Rome, Pompeo even published an op-ed criticizing the Vatican in First Things, a conservative research journal whose editor has been harshly critical of Francis. The unorthodox op-ed surprised the Vatican and Foggy Bottom in equal measure. It “was not cleared by a damn person in the State Department,” a department official told me.
Massimo Faggioli, a Villanova University professor who studies the Catholic Church, told me that attacks on Francis, who is still generally popular among American Catholics, could help turn out the more politically engaged faction of conservative Catholics who despise his progressive approach on some issues, including his attention to climate change and critique of capitalism. “My impression is that there’s more mobilization of anti-Francis Catholics voting for Trump than Francis Catholics voting for Biden,” he said.
Religious freedom, which is central to Pompeo’s foreign policy rhetoric and his criticism of China, remains a compelling issue for conservative voters, especially evangelicals. While just 35 percent of US adults think their religious freedom is under threat, 46 percent of evangelicals believe that to be the case, according to a poll conducted earlier this year by the Associated Press and the University of Chicago.
Pompeo, himself a devout evangelical Christian, has used religious freedom as a cudgel against traditional US adversaries such as China and Iran, but, like Trump, tends to ignore the plight of Christians and other religious minorities in allied countries, such as Saudi Arabia. His creation of a Commission on Unalienable Rights, which produced a report delineating religious freedom as a paramount right, is another not-so-subtle nod to the evangelical base. The report deemed marriage equality and abortion rights to be nothing more than “divisive social and political controversies,” not basic human rights, and gave institutional credence to the State Department’s increasingly hostile policies toward LGBTQ people.
Given Pompeo’s shameless interest in furthering Trump’s political fortunes (and his own), it was no surprise that the campaign tried to solicit him as an actual surrogate. During a hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee last month, State Department acting legal adviser Marik String was asked if Trump had requested that Pompeo appear at one of his campaign rallies in October or November 2019. While evading the particulars of the question, String substantially confirmed it by saying, “As I recall, there was a period in 2019 when that issue that you raised came up, and it was reviewed.”
Pompeo never appeared onstage with Trump at a rally, but in his official capacity, but he’s constantly made time to meet with conservative donors and party bigwigs. Last October, he even visited his home state of Kansas to discuss a possible Senate run with conservative megadonor Charles Koch. It was one of several taxpayer-funded trips he took to Kansas ahead of the filing deadline in that race, which he ultimately did not join. He was investigated and then cleared of violating the Hatch Act, which prohibits political activity by government officials, in relation to his visits to Kansas. But Pompeo has never seemed too concerned about his behavior breaking department norms or even federal law. In May, Pompeo asked Trump to fire Steve Linick, the department’s inspector general, who was investigating Pompeo’s role in pushing through weapons sales to Middle Eastern allies and allegations that Pompeo’s wife, Susan Pompeo, had used department staff to run personal errands. Trump complied. In his statements to the press after Linick’s removal, Pompeo showed how disdainfully he views rank-and-file government employees. Linick, Pompeo told the Washington Post, was “undermining” the department and not performing a function “that was additive for the State Department.”
Linick, as inspector general, was not supposed to serve Pompeo’s interests, just as Pompeo, as secretary of State, is supposed to be an emissary for the entire country, not for Trump’s campaign. That message doesn’t appear to resonate with the Trump administration’s ultimate team player, who has survived longer than almost any other member of the president’s inner circle by never confusing the right thing—the responsible thing—with what best serves Trump’s interests.