motherjones--2020-09-02--Anarchist Activists Say Facebook Banned Them to Placate the Right

Last month , Facebook finally made an announcement that it had been teasing for weeks .
The company said that it would begin taking more aggressive measures targeting QAnon and US-based militia , two groups that have increasingly posed domestic terror threats , including by banning some accounts and pages from its site .
At the same time , the social media company announced it would target groups whose origins ’ lie on the left by taking down anarchist or antifascist accounts that “ support violent acts amidst protests.
” The plan ’ s optics offered a surface-level sort of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ espousing violence will be banned regardless of politics , no questions asked .
But in practice , according to extremism experts and activists , Facebook ’ s enactment of this ban on antifascist accounts has been convoluted , unclear , and unjustified by the standards Facebook has laid out .
About a week after the ban was announced , a friend called Kelly C. Wright to let her know that her account had disappeared .
With the exception of the removal of a couple of comments she had left on news story posts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action on her account before or given her a warning about breaking their rules .
“ I had read your story earlier in the day , so I whipped out my phone and saw that I had been logged off .
And then I popped Facebook up onto my laptop to check , and my account had been banned , ” she recalled over the phone , referencing a post I wrote detailing Facebook ’ s announcement of the ban .
After reaching out to some friends , Wright guessed that her account @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as an administrator of the “ Leftists for Self Defense and Firearm Freedom ” Facebook page , a small page that had barely 1,800 likes .
The other moderators of the group also appeared to have been banned , and the page had been suspended .
“ We didn ’ t ever post anything that even supported revolutionary violence or anything like that , ” says Jason Lee , another moderator .
“ The cover picture for the page was Black Panthers at the California statehouse .
It wasn ’ t anything that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the page said that any support of violence found there would only have be voiced on the condition it was defensive , a posture that Facebook says would not violate its rules .
Facebook didn ’ t just ban Leftists for Self Defense and Firearm Freedom .
When announcing the new policy , the company said it took down 980 groups and 520 pages related to militias and antifascists .
While the company declined to break out this data , it did tell me that antifascists made up a comparatively small silver of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action against 890 Facebook groups and pages it identified as being associated with QAnon . )
Among other pages taken down were two large news sources : It ’ s Going Down , an anarchist platform that helps track far-right extremism , and Crimethinc , “ a decentralized anarchist collective ” that has published antifascist articles .
Neither appears to have a history of openly advocating for violence .
Facebook spokesperson Sally Aldous declined to comment on the ban ’ s targeting of Crimethinc , It ’ s Going Down , or Leftists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or to provide more detailed reasoning for the removals , but she noted that Facebook looks at on and offline factors when making these decisions .
Facebook ’ s decision to take down the antifascist pages and groups is “ extremely bizarre ” according to Megan Squire , a computer science professor who researches online extremism at Elon University .
“ It ’ s not in line with the standards they wrote…This is a very dangerous path that they ’ re going down.
” To Squire , one of the most concerning aspects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capitulate to the right ’ s desire for tit for tat moderation , regardless of circumstances .
Squire and antifascist activists suspect that the bans are exactly what they look like : a “ both-sides ” attempt to placate conservatives who might get mad that only their side is getting moderated .
“ The idea that they would feel a perverse need to both sides this is ridiculous , ” she said on the phone , before recounting a conversation she had with a member of Facebook ’ s policy team who reached @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The very first question that they asked me was , ‘ Well , do you study both sides ?
’ , which is a ridiculous question , ” Squire recalled , explaining that there simply is not an equivalent to far-right extremism .
While a Facebook spokesperson denied that antifascists were included in August ’ s prominent moderation action in an attempt to appease the right , it is impossible to look at their inclusion in the same announcement as a QAnon and militia crackdown and not be suspicious .
While the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a well-worn conservative talking point , it doesn ’ t bear out under any scrutiny .
While right-wing internet users have seized on reports that police are investigating a man who has voiced support for antifa in Saturday ’ s deadly shooting of a man in Portland , antifascists have practically no contemporary record of harming people in the United States .
The Center for Strategic and International Studies , a centrist think tank , has cataloged domestic terror attacks since 1994 and found that in that time period , antifascists killed no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right-wing violence had claimed the lives of 329 people , including 117 victims over the past ten years .
“ Leftwing violence has not been a major terrorism threat , ” Seth Jones , a CSIS researcher who led the project , told The Guardian .
When pressed on its decision to include antifascists alongside far-right groups , a Facebook spokesperson did not have clear answers but stressed that the measures were aimed at addressing groups advocating violence through “ veiled language ” or promoting “ hypothetical violence ” that would be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not give a reason as to why anarchists were targeted before other violent groups that remain on the platform .
While Facebook announced at the end of June that it would ban groups associated with the boogaloo movement , an armed right-wing sub-culture which says it is preparing for a civil war , many pages supporting the group remain .
Facebook ’ s own parameters for what constitutes anarchist and antifascist advocation of violence are extremely vague .
In addition to “ hypothetical violence , ” the spokesperson explained that “ aspirationally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could qualify .
But the company has said not all types of property would be protected from threat , while declining to specify further .
Depicting individuals holding weapons , especially in a “ militant ” way , could trigger action from Facebook .
If all that sounds ambiguous , it ’ s because it is .
“ I actually don ’ t have problems with starting to question and push back against any individual that supports violence in the U.S. , ” says Jones .
But even though some antifascists argue that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says Jones , it ’ s extremely rare that they ever proactively act on these ideas .
At least some of the antifascist groups Facebook targeted don ’ t appear to be committed to proactively carrying out violence .
Wright and other moderators of Leftists for Self Defense and Firearm Freedom say they are not , leading them to guess that the group ’ s banner picture depicting armed Black Panthers somehow triggered their takedown .
Mike Andrews , a member of the It ’ s Going Down editorial collective , explains that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his platform ’ s ideology .
“ We don ’ t want to kill people or hurt people .
We ’ re for people bettering their own conditions .
We want to excite people about coming together and doing things , ” Andrews said .
While he surmises the site ’ s ban could have been prompted by occasional positive coverage of armed groups to oppose neo-confederates .
Last spring Crimethinc published a piece titled “ Against the Logic of the Guillotine , ” which was critical of vengeful violence as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other thoughtful meditations on how society conceptualizes when violence is and isn ’ t legitimate and how the state has a monopoly on it .
Such thinking represents a stark contrast with QAnon ’ s fantasies about murdering supposed pedophiles or the gruesome fantasies envisioned by many armed militia members .
“ Facebook is not being thoughtful or taking expertise on this issue , ” Squire says .
“ They ’ re just figuring it out as they going along .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Last month, Facebook finally made an announcement that it had been teasing for weeks. The company said that it would begin taking more aggressive measures targeting QAnon and US-based militia, two groups that have increasingly posed domestic terror threats, including by banning some accounts and pages from its site. At the same time, the social media company announced it would target groups whose origins’ lie on the left by taking down anarchist or antifascist accounts that “support violent acts amidst protests.”
The plan’s optics offered a surface-level sort of fairness and evenhandedness, implying that groups espousing violence will be banned regardless of politics, no questions asked. But in practice, according to extremism experts and activists, Facebook’s enactment of this ban on antifascist accounts has been convoluted, unclear, and unjustified by the standards Facebook has laid out.
While the looming danger of Antifa to America is a well-worn conservative talking point, it doesn’t bear out.
About a week after the ban was announced, a friend called Kelly C. Wright to let her know that her account had disappeared. With the exception of the removal of a couple of comments she had left on news story posts, Wright says Facebook had never taken action on her account before or given her a warning about breaking their rules.
“I had read your story earlier in the day, so I whipped out my phone and saw that I had been logged off. And then I popped Facebook up onto my laptop to check, and my account had been banned,” she recalled over the phone, referencing a post I wrote detailing Facebook’s announcement of the ban.
After reaching out to some friends, Wright guessed that her account might have been banned because she serves as an administrator of the “Leftists for Self Defense and Firearm Freedom” Facebook page, a small page that had barely 1,800 likes. The other moderators of the group also appeared to have been banned, and the page had been suspended.
“We didn’t ever post anything that even supported revolutionary violence or anything like that,” says Jason Lee, another moderator. “The cover picture for the page was Black Panthers at the California statehouse. It wasn’t anything that advocated for violence.”
Other members of the page said that any support of violence found there would only have be voiced on the condition it was defensive, a posture that Facebook says would not violate its rules.
Facebook didn’t just ban Leftists for Self Defense and Firearm Freedom. When announcing the new policy, the company said it took down 980 groups and 520 pages related to militias and antifascists. While the company declined to break out this data, it did tell me that antifascists made up a comparatively small silver of the numbers. (Facebook also took action against 890 Facebook groups and pages it identified as being associated with QAnon.)
Among other pages taken down were two large news sources: It’s Going Down, an anarchist platform that helps track far-right extremism, and Crimethinc, “a decentralized anarchist collective” that has published antifascist articles. Neither appears to have a history of openly advocating for violence.
Facebook spokesperson Sally Aldous declined to comment on the ban’s targeting of Crimethinc, It’s Going Down, or Leftists for Self Defense and Firearm Freedom, or to provide more detailed reasoning for the removals, but she noted that Facebook looks at on and offline factors when making these decisions.
Facebook’s decision to take down the antifascist pages and groups is “extremely bizarre” according to Megan Squire, a computer science professor who researches online extremism at Elon University. “It’s not in line with the standards they wrote…This is a very dangerous path that they’re going down.”
To Squire, one of the most concerning aspects is Facebook’s seeming willingness to capitulate to the right’s desire for tit for tat moderation, regardless of circumstances. Squire and antifascist activists suspect that the bans are exactly what they look like: a “both-sides” attempt to placate conservatives who might get mad that only their side is getting moderated.
“The idea that they would feel a perverse need to both sides this is ridiculous,” she said on the phone, before recounting a conversation she had with a member of Facebook’s policy team who reached out to learn about her research. “The very first question that they asked me was, ‘Well, do you study both sides?’, which is a ridiculous question,” Squire recalled, explaining that there simply is not an equivalent to far-right extremism.
While a Facebook spokesperson denied that antifascists were included in August’s prominent moderation action in an attempt to appease the right, it is impossible to look at their inclusion in the same announcement as a QAnon and militia crackdown and not be suspicious.
“Leftwing violence has not been a major terrorism threat.”
While the looming danger of antifa to America is a well-worn conservative talking point, it doesn’t bear out under any scrutiny. While right-wing internet users have seized on reports that police are investigating a man who has voiced support for antifa in Saturday’s deadly shooting of a man in Portland, antifascists have practically no contemporary record of harming people in the United States. The Center for Strategic and International Studies, a centrist think tank, has cataloged domestic terror attacks since 1994 and found that in that time period, antifascists killed no one. In that same window, right-wing violence had claimed the lives of 329 people, including 117 victims over the past ten years.
“Leftwing violence has not been a major terrorism threat,” Seth Jones, a CSIS researcher who led the project, told The Guardian.
When pressed on its decision to include antifascists alongside far-right groups, a Facebook spokesperson did not have clear answers but stressed that the measures were aimed at addressing groups advocating violence through “veiled language” or promoting “hypothetical violence” that would be a threat to public safety. The company did not give a reason as to why anarchists were targeted before other violent groups that remain on the platform. While Facebook announced at the end of June that it would ban groups associated with the boogaloo movement, an armed right-wing sub-culture which says it is preparing for a civil war, many pages supporting the group remain.
Facebook’s own parameters for what constitutes anarchist and antifascist advocation of violence are extremely vague. In addition to “hypothetical violence,” the spokesperson explained that “aspirationally encouraging violence” against individuals or property could qualify. But the company has said not all types of property would be protected from threat, while declining to specify further. Depicting individuals holding weapons, especially in a “militant” way, could trigger action from Facebook. If all that sounds ambiguous, it’s because it is.
“I actually don’t have problems with starting to question and push back against any individual that supports violence in the U.S.,” says Jones. But even though some antifascists argue that violence is justified in certain instances, says Jones, it’s extremely rare that they ever proactively act on these ideas.
At least some of the antifascist groups Facebook targeted don’t appear to be committed to proactively carrying out violence. Wright and other moderators of Leftists for Self Defense and Firearm Freedom say they are not, leading them to guess that the group’s banner picture depicting armed Black Panthers somehow triggered their takedown.
Mike Andrews, a member of the It’s Going Down editorial collective, explains that violence isn’t a core part of his platform’s ideology. “We don’t want to kill people or hurt people. We’re for people bettering their own conditions. We want to excite people about coming together and doing things,” Andrews said. While he surmises the site’s ban could have been prompted by occasional positive coverage of armed groups to oppose neo-confederates.
Last spring Crimethinc published a piece titled “Against the Logic of the Guillotine,” which was critical of vengeful violence as a political tool. It has also posted other thoughtful meditations on how society conceptualizes when violence is and isn’t legitimate and how the state has a monopoly on it. Such thinking represents a stark contrast with QAnon’s fantasies about murdering supposed pedophiles or the gruesome fantasies envisioned by many armed militia members.
“Facebook is not being thoughtful or taking expertise on this issue,” Squire says. “They’re just figuring it out as they going along.”


motherjones--2020-09-01--Detainees Describe Dire Conditions After the Hurricane Left ICE Jails Without Water or Power

Hurricane Laura ’ s trail of destruction left several immigration detention centers in Louisiana without power or water , creating such dire conditions at one facility that detainees reported relieving themselves on their dishes , covering up their waste with torn-up pieces of plastic bags to control odors , and sleeping near toilets filled with feces and menstrual blood .
After the Jackson Parish Correctional Center lost power and water last Thursday , temperatures soared without air conditioning and people spent days without working bathrooms , according to six people detained there by Immigration and Customs Enforcement .
The detainees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weren ’ t working and that guards let them sleep outside on Friday because the heat inside was unbearable .
On Saturday , the detainees protested , leading to a disturbance that prompted officers to use force against detainees , according to Jackson Parish Sheriff Andy Brown .
“ The show of force and the less lethal tools we used squashed this event , ” Brown wrote on Facebook .
He said water and power had been restored to the facility .
Starting last year , Immigration and Customs Enforcement started sending asylum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prisons in the Deep South .
Even before Laura struck , detention was hard to endure for the immigrants and asylum seekers being held there .
ICE denied nearly all of their applications to be released on parole .
Then COVID-19 began to spread through the facilities , but again ICE declined most requests for release .
Now people at several of those detention centers are dealing with the fallout from a Category 4 hurricane .
Despite Brown ’ s Facebook post and reporting from the Associated Press and New Orleans Public Radio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an executive with LaSalle Corrections , which runs the Jackson Parish facility , said “ there was no use of force reported at the facility.
” ICE spokesman Bryan Cox did not provide details about the use of force .
Brown did not respond to multiple requests for comment .
Cox did say on Monday that power was back on at Jackson Parish and that water was being pumped in via a tanker .
He added that “ due to extensive planning and preparation , backup systems were promptly put into use and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potable water at ICE facilities.
” Sutterfield ’ s response included the same wording .
But four detainees said Monday that they still couldn ’ t use the toilets in their units .
( Cox did not respond to a follow-up question about reports that the bathrooms remained out of service . )
A Cameroonian asylum seeker who asked to remain anonymous told me that feces and blood from women ’ s menstrual cycles had accumulated in the toilets .
“ We can not sleep because the whole dorm is smelly , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this smell.
” The Cameroonian detainee added that another woman in the unit went to the infirmary over the weekend with a fever .
“ They took her back to the dorm , ” said another Cameroonian woman in the unit .
“ She stayed with us for the whole day.
” The two Cameroonian women said their unit is now being quarantined from the rest of the jail .
They reported that guards only sometimes wear masks .
( LaSalle Corrections previously barred some employees from wearing masks to prevent detainees from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man at Jackson said detainees were relieving themselves on the disposable dishes food is delivered on .
To keep the odor at bay , he and other men in the unit described covering their waste with torn up pieces of plastic bags before putting it in a trash can .
Immigration lawyer Dario Elizondo said a Honduran client of his in a third unit told him that feces was overflowing from a toilet .
Elizondo ’ s client said he was being quarantined with dozens of people who , like the client , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ICE lists only nine active coronavirus cases at Jackson on its website , although the agency ’ s public data is often several days out of date .
( Cox did not respond to a question about whether there had recently been a spike in cases at the facility . )
Three women detained about an hour away at an immigration detention center in Jena , Louisiana , run by the private prison company GEO Group , said Monday that they had running water but not light or air conditioning .
Kerlys , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a group that got pepper-sprayed by guards in April during a confrontation over COVID protections , said the heat was suffocating .
María García , a 63-year-old from Mexico whose age makes her more vulnerable to COVID at the jail , described similar conditions .
Jorge Sarat , a Guatemalan man detained at another LaSalle detention center in Louisiana , said on Tuesday that his facility didn ’ t have electricity or running water for three nights .
It was so hot that the detainees couldn ’ t sleep , he added .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ I thought we were going to die .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Hurricane Laura’s trail of destruction left several immigration detention centers in Louisiana without power or water, creating such dire conditions at one facility that detainees reported relieving themselves on their dishes, covering up their waste with torn-up pieces of plastic bags to control odors, and sleeping near toilets filled with feces and menstrual blood.
After the Jackson Parish Correctional Center lost power and water last Thursday, temperatures soared without air conditioning and people spent days without working bathrooms, according to six people detained there by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The detainees said on Monday that the toilets still weren’t working and that guards let them sleep outside on Friday because the heat inside was unbearable.
On Saturday, the detainees protested, leading to a disturbance that prompted officers to use force against detainees, according to Jackson Parish Sheriff Andy Brown. “The show of force and the less lethal tools we used squashed this event,” Brown wrote on Facebook. He said water and power had been restored to the facility.
Starting last year, Immigration and Customs Enforcement started sending asylum seekers to eight additional for-profit jails and prisons in the Deep South. Even before Laura struck, detention was hard to endure for the immigrants and asylum seekers being held there. ICE denied nearly all of their applications to be released on parole. Then COVID-19 began to spread through the facilities, but again ICE declined most requests for release. Now people at several of those detention centers are dealing with the fallout from a Category 4 hurricane.
Despite Brown’s Facebook post and reporting from the Associated Press and New Orleans Public Radio on the protest, Scott Sutterfield, an executive with LaSalle Corrections, which runs the Jackson Parish facility, said “there was no use of force reported at the facility.” ICE spokesman Bryan Cox did not provide details about the use of force. Brown did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Cox did say on Monday that power was back on at Jackson Parish and that water was being pumped in via a tanker. He added that “due to extensive planning and preparation, backup systems were promptly put into use and precluded any extended absence of power or potable water at ICE facilities.” Sutterfield’s response included the same wording. But four detainees said Monday that they still couldn’t use the toilets in their units. (Cox did not respond to a follow-up question about reports that the bathrooms remained out of service.)
A Cameroonian asylum seeker who asked to remain anonymous told me that feces and blood from women’s menstrual cycles had accumulated in the toilets. “We cannot sleep because the whole dorm is smelly,” she said. “We eat in this smell.”
The Cameroonian detainee added that another woman in the unit went to the infirmary over the weekend with a fever. “They took her back to the dorm,” said another Cameroonian woman in the unit. “She stayed with us for the whole day.” The two Cameroonian women said their unit is now being quarantined from the rest of the jail. They reported that guards only sometimes wear masks. (LaSalle Corrections previously barred some employees from wearing masks to prevent detainees from panicking about COVID-19.)
A Cameroonian said feces and blood from women’s menstrual cycles accumulated in the toilets. “We cannot sleep because the whole dorm is smelly.”
A Cuban man at Jackson said detainees were relieving themselves on the disposable dishes food is delivered on. To keep the odor at bay, he and other men in the unit described covering their waste with torn up pieces of plastic bags before putting it in a trash can. Immigration lawyer Dario Elizondo said a Honduran client of his in a third unit told him that feces was overflowing from a toilet.
Elizondo’s client said he was being quarantined with dozens of people who, like the client, had recently tested positive for COVID-19. ICE lists only nine active coronavirus cases at Jackson on its website, although the agency’s public data is often several days out of date. (Cox did not respond to a question about whether there had recently been a spike in cases at the facility.)
Three women detained about an hour away at an immigration detention center in Jena, Louisiana, run by the private prison company GEO Group, said Monday that they had running water but not light or air conditioning. Kerlys, a Colombian woman who was part of a group that got pepper-sprayed by guards in April during a confrontation over COVID protections, said the heat was suffocating. María García, a 63-year-old from Mexico whose age makes her more vulnerable to COVID at the jail, described similar conditions.
Jorge Sarat, a Guatemalan man detained at another LaSalle detention center in Louisiana, said on Tuesday that his facility didn’t have electricity or running water for three nights. It was so hot that the detainees couldn’t sleep, he added. “It was horrible,” Sarat said. “I thought we were going to die.”


motherjones--2020-09-03--New Engineering Report Finds Privately Built Border Wall Will Fail

This story was published originally by ProPublica , a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power .
Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox .
It ’ s not a matter of if a privately built border fence along the shores of the Rio Grande will fail , it ’ s a matter of when , according to a new engineering report on the troubled project .
The report is one of two new studies set to be filed in federal court this week that found numerous deficiencies in the 3-mile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ North Dakota-based Fisher Sand and Gravel .
The reports confirm earlier reporting from ProPublica and The Texas Tribune , which found that segments of the structure were in danger of overturning due to extensive erosion if not fixed and properly maintained .
Fisher dismissed the concerns as normal post-construction issues .
Donations that paid for part of the border fence are at the heart of an indictment against members of the We Build the Wall nonprofit , which raised more than $ 25 million to help President Donald Trump build a border wall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , We Build the Wall founder Brian Kolfage and two others connected to the organization are accused of siphoning donor money to pay off personal debt and fund lavish lifestyles .
All four , who face up to 20 years in prison on each of the two counts they face , have pleaded not guilty , and Bannon has called the charges a plot to stop border wall construction .
We Build the Wall , whose executive board is made up of influential immigration hard-liners like Bannon , Kris Kobach and Tom Tancredo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cost of the $ 42 million private border fence project south of Mission , Texas .
Last year , the nonprofit also hired Fisher to build a half-mile fence segment in Sunland Park , New Mexico , outside El Paso .
Company president Tommy Fisher , a frequent guest on Fox News , had called the Rio Grande fence the “ Lamborghini ” of border walls and bragged that his company ’ s methods could help Trump reach his Election Day goal of about 500 new miles of barriers along the southern border @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the two reports on behalf of ProPublica and The Texas Tribune likened Fisher ’ s fence to a used Toyota Yaris .
“ It seems like they are cutting corners everywhere , ” said Alex Mayer , a professor of civil engineering at the University of Texas at El Paso .
“ It ’ s not a Lamborghini , it ’ s a $ 500 used car.
” Since Fisher ’ s companies embarked on construction of the Rio Grande fence , the Trump administration has awarded about $ 2 billion in federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the border wall in other locations .
Fisher agreed to the inspection as part of ongoing lawsuits against Fisher Sand and Gravel filed last year by the National Butterfly Center and the International Boundary and Water Commission .
They unsuccessfully sought to convince a federal judge to stop the construction of the project until the potential impacts of the wall on the Rio Grande could be determined .
Mark Tompkins , an environmental engineer hired by the wildlife refuge , noted in his report that widespread erosion and scouring occurred after heavy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ July , but that the fence has yet to experience a flood of the Rio Grande .
“ Fisher Industries ’ private bollard fence will fail during extreme high flow events , ” concluded Tompkins , who specializes in river management .
“ When extreme flow events , laden with sediment and debris , completely undermine the foundation of the fence and create a flow path under the fence or cause a segment of the fence to topple into the river , unpredictable and damaging hydraulics will occur , ” he added in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Experts have said the fence will face a never-ending battle with erosion given its proximity to the water and the sandy , silty material of the banks .
In the Rio Grande Valley , the federal government usually builds sections of the wall miles inland on top of existing levees , partly due to erosion concerns .
A second report , based on a geotechnical and structural inspection by the Millennium Engineers Group of Pharr , Texas , also hired by the National Butterfly Center , found that the fence was stable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a host of issues .
They include soil erosion on the river side—in some areas gaps up to three feet wide and waist deep , concrete cracking , construction flaws and what the firm concluded was likely substandard construction material below the fence ’ s foundation .
The Millennium engineers called for a clay covering to protect the embankment from erosion , as well as closely monitoring the project .
Its conclusion : “ The geography at the wall ’ s construction location in comparison to the river bend is not at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a copy of an operation and maintenance plan , Fisher Sand and Gravel plans quarterly inspections of the fence as well as extra checkups after large storms .
The company had also said it would plant grasses that better hold in place the sandy riverbank and add a layer of rocks to lessen erosion .
New soil will also be “ treated and seeded ” to help fill ground cover .
Tompkins called the maintenance plan “ completely inadequate ” and a “ haphazard and unprofessional approach to long-term maintenance.
” Tommy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t comment on the reports because he hadn ’ t reviewed them .
But he added that his company has fixed all of the erosion , in part by adding a 10-foot-wide road made out of rocks for the Border Patrol to drive over that his crew considered big enough so it wouldn ’ t be as easily displaced .
He estimates it will cost up to $ 150,000 .
“ Bottom line , if you want border security on the border you have to think outside the box , ” he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what we ’ ve done.
” In July , Fisher appeared on a podcast hosted by Bannon , who called Fisher “ kind of a mentor ” who “ taught me really about how you actually have to build a wall.
” Asked about the engineering concerns , which Bannon said were part of a “ hit piece , ” Fisher called them “ absolutely nonsense.
” “ I would invite any of these engineers that so-called said this was gon na fall over , I ’ ll meet ‘ em there next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ re talking about , you probably shouldn ’ t start talking , ” he said .
“ It ’ s working unbelievably well .
There ’ s a little erosion maintenance we have to maintain.
” But to experts , Fisher ’ s planned fixes are inadequate .
“ To me , it ’ s almost like putting a Band-Aid on a gaping wound , ” said Adriana E. Martinez , a Southern Illinois University Edwardsville professor and geomorphologist who reviewed the reports on behalf of ProPublica and The Texas Tribune @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have said that they too have found “ significant erosion , ” but spokeswoman Sally Spener said she couldn ’ t elaborate on that or on mitigation plans due to pending litigation .
The binational body regulates building in the floodplain between the U.S. and Mexico because structures can worsen flooding and alter the course of the river , potentially violating international water treaties .
The Mexican section of the commission has said it worries the wall could obstruct the river ’ s flow or be knocked down by the force of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tried to distance himself from the private fence after the ProPublica/Tribune stories , saying that he had never agreed with it and that it had been done to make him look bad .
He again distanced himself from the project and We Build the Wall after the charges against Bannon and the others .
“ When I read about it , I didn ’ t like it , ” he said .
“ It was showboating and maybe looking for funds .
But you ’ ll have to see what happens.
” Last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ met with Customs and Border Protection officials about donating the group ’ s first border wall project—a half-mile fence in Sunland Park , New Mexico , just outside El Paso .
According to a memo obtained by The Nation , CBP called it an “ overall positive meet and greet.
” But the federal agency identified several areas of concern with the Sunland Park project , including the possibility that it would require an environmental assessment , but also the fact that Fisher Industries had inflated the speed with which it could complete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this small project shows that some claims may have been inflated due to lack of experience with this type of work , ” the memo states .
Fisher has said he wants to donate the Rio Grande fence to the federal government as well , although it ’ s unclear whether the government will take it .
The fence likely will come with a hefty tax bill if not donated , after Hidalgo County recently appraised the land ’ s value at more than $ 20 million , which Fisher said his company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regarding the pending federal lawsuits is scheduled for Sept. 10 .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
This story was published originally by ProPublica, a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
It’s not a matter of if a privately built border fence along the shores of the Rio Grande will fail, it’s a matter of when, according to a new engineering report on the troubled project.
The report is one of two new studies set to be filed in federal court this week that found numerous deficiencies in the 3-mile border fence, built this year by North Dakota-based Fisher Sand and Gravel. The reports confirm earlier reporting from ProPublica and The Texas Tribune, which found that segments of the structure were in danger of overturning due to extensive erosion if not fixed and properly maintained. Fisher dismissed the concerns as normal post-construction issues.
Donations that paid for part of the border fence are at the heart of an indictment against members of the We Build the Wall nonprofit, which raised more than $25 million to help President Donald Trump build a border wall.
Former Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon, We Build the Wall founder Brian Kolfage and two others connected to the organization are accused of siphoning donor money to pay off personal debt and fund lavish lifestyles. All four, who face up to 20 years in prison on each of the two counts they face, have pleaded not guilty, and Bannon has called the charges a plot to stop border wall construction.
We Build the Wall, whose executive board is made up of influential immigration hard-liners like Bannon, Kris Kobach and Tom Tancredo, contributed $1.5 million of the cost of the $42 million private border fence project south of Mission, Texas.
Last year, the nonprofit also hired Fisher to build a half-mile fence segment in Sunland Park, New Mexico, outside El Paso.
Company president Tommy Fisher, a frequent guest on Fox News, had called the Rio Grande fence the “Lamborghini” of border walls and bragged that his company’s methods could help Trump reach his Election Day goal of about 500 new miles of barriers along the southern border.
Instead, one engineer who reviewed the two reports on behalf of ProPublica and The Texas Tribune likened Fisher’s fence to a used Toyota Yaris.
“It seems like they are cutting corners everywhere,” said Alex Mayer, a professor of civil engineering at the University of Texas at El Paso. “It’s not a Lamborghini, it’s a $500 used car.”
Since Fisher’s companies embarked on construction of the Rio Grande fence, the Trump administration has awarded about $2 billion in federal contracts to the firms to build segments of the border wall in other locations.
Fisher agreed to the inspection as part of ongoing lawsuits against Fisher Sand and Gravel filed last year by the National Butterfly Center and the International Boundary and Water Commission. They unsuccessfully sought to convince a federal judge to stop the construction of the project until the potential impacts of the wall on the Rio Grande could be determined.
Mark Tompkins, an environmental engineer hired by the wildlife refuge, noted in his report that widespread erosion and scouring occurred after heavy rain events such as Hurricane Hanna in July, but that the fence has yet to experience a flood of the Rio Grande.
“Fisher Industries’ private bollard fence will fail during extreme high flow events,” concluded Tompkins, who specializes in river management.
“When extreme flow events, laden with sediment and debris, completely undermine the foundation of the fence and create a flow path under the fence or cause a segment of the fence to topple into the river, unpredictable and damaging hydraulics will occur,” he added in an affidavit to be filed in court.
Experts have said the fence will face a never-ending battle with erosion given its proximity to the water and the sandy, silty material of the banks. In the Rio Grande Valley, the federal government usually builds sections of the wall miles inland on top of existing levees, partly due to erosion concerns.
A second report, based on a geotechnical and structural inspection by the Millennium Engineers Group of Pharr, Texas, also hired by the National Butterfly Center, found that the fence was stable for now, but that it faces a host of issues. They include soil erosion on the river side—in some areas gaps up to three feet wide and waist deep, concrete cracking, construction flaws and what the firm concluded was likely substandard construction material below the fence’s foundation.
The Millennium engineers called for a clay covering to protect the embankment from erosion, as well as closely monitoring the project.
Its conclusion: “The geography at the wall’s construction location in comparison to the river bend is not at a favorable location for long-term performance.”
According to a copy of an operation and maintenance plan, Fisher Sand and Gravel plans quarterly inspections of the fence as well as extra checkups after large storms. The company had also said it would plant grasses that better hold in place the sandy riverbank and add a layer of rocks to lessen erosion. New soil will also be “treated and seeded” to help fill ground cover.
Tompkins called the maintenance plan “completely inadequate” and a “haphazard and unprofessional approach to long-term maintenance.”
Tommy Fisher said Tuesday that he couldn’t comment on the reports because he hadn’t reviewed them. But he added that his company has fixed all of the erosion, in part by adding a 10-foot-wide road made out of rocks for the Border Patrol to drive over that his crew considered big enough so it wouldn’t be as easily displaced. He estimates it will cost up to $150,000.
“Bottom line, if you want border security on the border you have to think outside the box,” he said. “I feel very comfortable with what we’ve done.”
In July, Fisher appeared on a podcast hosted by Bannon, who called Fisher “kind of a mentor” who “taught me really about how you actually have to build a wall.”
Asked about the engineering concerns, which Bannon said were part of a “hit piece,” Fisher called them “absolutely nonsense.”
“I would invite any of these engineers that so-called said this was gonna fall over, I’ll meet ‘em there next week…If you don’t know what you’re talking about, you probably shouldn’t start talking,” he said. “It’s working unbelievably well. There’s a little erosion maintenance we have to maintain.”
But to experts, Fisher’s planned fixes are inadequate.
“To me, it’s almost like putting a Band-Aid on a gaping wound,” said Adriana E. Martinez, a Southern Illinois University Edwardsville professor and geomorphologist who reviewed the reports on behalf of ProPublica and The Texas Tribune.
Officials with the International Boundary Commission have said that they too have found “significant erosion,” but spokeswoman Sally Spener said she couldn’t elaborate on that or on mitigation plans due to pending litigation. The binational body regulates building in the floodplain between the U.S. and Mexico because structures can worsen flooding and alter the course of the river, potentially violating international water treaties.
The Mexican section of the commission has said it worries the wall could obstruct the river’s flow or be knocked down by the force of the water, according to Spener.
Trump tried to distance himself from the private fence after the ProPublica/Tribune stories, saying that he had never agreed with it and that it had been done to make him look bad. He again distanced himself from the project and We Build the Wall after the charges against Bannon and the others.
“When I read about it, I didn’t like it,” he said. “It was showboating and maybe looking for funds. But you’ll have to see what happens.”
Last November, We Build the Wall representatives met with Customs and Border Protection officials about donating the group’s first border wall project—a half-mile fence in Sunland Park, New Mexico, just outside El Paso. According to a memo obtained by The Nation, CBP called it an “overall positive meet and greet.”
But the federal agency identified several areas of concern with the Sunland Park project, including the possibility that it would require an environmental assessment, but also the fact that Fisher Industries had inflated the speed with which it could complete the project.
“Their performance on this small project shows that some claims may have been inflated due to lack of experience with this type of work,” the memo states.
Fisher has said he wants to donate the Rio Grande fence to the federal government as well, although it’s unclear whether the government will take it. The fence likely will come with a hefty tax bill if not donated, after Hidalgo County recently appraised the land’s value at more than $20 million, which Fisher said his company will fight.
The next court hearing regarding the pending federal lawsuits is scheduled for Sept. 10.


motherjones--2020-09-03--How Broken Do You Have to Be to Buy a Trump Book?

In her forthcoming memoir , Speaking for Myself : Faith , Freedom , and the Fight of Our Lives Inside the Trump White House , former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders shares a surreal moment .
President Trump , upon catching the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un flashing a flirtatious wink at Sanders during the 2018 summit between the two countries , jokingly instructed her to “ take one for the team.
” “ Kim Jong Un hit on you !
He did !
” Sanders quotes the president exclaiming .
“ He fucking hit on you !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ settles it .
You ’ re going to North Korea and taking one for the team !
Your husband and kids will miss you , but you ’ ll be a hero to your country !
” The episode is among a string of revelations in the latest insider account from an ever-expanding cast of characters , who after enjoying prominent roles in serving the president , have turned their access into becoming best-selling authors .
They include the former FBI director James Comey , former National Security Adviser John Bolton , former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Omarosa Manigault-Newman , the former “ Apprentice ” contestant who parlayed her reality-star roots into a brief yet highly tumultuous career as a White House political aide .
A relatively new phenomenon in the annals of presidential administrations , so-called Trump books are consistent commercial triumphs , and it ’ s unsurprising that publishers are keen to keep riding the wave .
“ However you feel about the president in political terms or existential terms for what he might do for or to the country , he makes great copy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Simon & Schuster , told the New York Times .
But when the subject is Trump , a man who often appears physically incapable of exercising any restraint , the insatiable appetite hits strangely .
After all , what more can be evinced from insider accounts about a man who doesn ’ t keep anything close to the chest , whose horrifying nature is routinely up for public consumption anyway ?
The appeal reflects a deeper emptiness among an audience hyper-vigilant to the unprecedented nature of these times but who apparently depend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sure , such accounts might make for a good headline , but is a perverse boredom behind their overwhelming popularity ?
Why not just surrender to an almost-algorithmic release of artless literary offerings to choose what you do with your spare time ?
Consider this week ’ s winking anecdote .
Sanders ’ account from the 2018 summit generated a slew of headlines , as well as remarks on social media over Trump ’ s oafish behavior .
But while cringe-inducing , the revelation was still shockingly staid for a man who stands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women .
The frat boy call to “ take one for the team , ” while wholly inappropriate , is a mild version of the 2005 recording that captured Trump bragging about groping women without their consent .
But for Sanders , who is reportedly contemplating a run for Arkansas governor , it was the perfect attention-grabbing nugget : salaciously wrapped to create a splash , yet yawn-inducing enough to avoid Trump ’ s vengeance .
( In fact , he probably reveled in the disclosure . )
A book like this with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-serving mechanism for a woman who ’ s all in for Trump , and voracious readers are happy to literally buy into the project .
Meanwhile , the sexual assault allegations feel increasingly like an addendum pushed to the margins of the Trump discourse .
Then there ’ s the tell-all about Melania Trump , written by a former friend and former “ trusted adviser ” to the first lady , Stephanie Winston Wolkoff .
Here , the attraction to Winston Wolkoff ’ s book is easy to grasp ; It pries open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts to seal her private life from the public .
Does Melania truly desire to be freed , is often the reigning question , and perhaps Winston Wolkoff ’ s insider account will provide enough clues to reach a conclusion .
While I suppose it ’ s good fodder for gossip , I can ’ t help but question what kind of person is spending money to find out .
Like her husband ’ s rampant sexism , the answer seems pretty clear , even without a former confidante ’ s participation and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The desire to wring sense out of these chaotic times is near-universal .
But books by former Trump officials—some of them unreliable narrators with a prolific record of lies , others attempting self-rehabilitation—hawking insider knowledge just don ’ t feel like the answer .
Of course , not everyone reads for the same purpose ; you might enjoy this chaos .
But for those seeking some respite , may I recommend , Luster , by Raven Leilani ?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
In her forthcoming memoir, Speaking for Myself: Faith, Freedom, and the Fight of Our Lives Inside the Trump White House, former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders shares a surreal moment. President Trump, upon catching the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un flashing a flirtatious wink at Sanders during the 2018 summit between the two countries, jokingly instructed her to “take one for the team.”
“Kim Jong Un hit on you! He did!” Sanders quotes the president exclaiming. “He fucking hit on you!”
“Well, Sarah, that settles it. You’re going to North Korea and taking one for the team! Your husband and kids will miss you, but you’ll be a hero to your country!”
The episode is among a string of revelations in the latest insider account from an ever-expanding cast of characters, who after enjoying prominent roles in serving the president, have turned their access into becoming best-selling authors. They include the former FBI director James Comey, former National Security Adviser John Bolton, former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, and Omarosa Manigault-Newman, the former “Apprentice” contestant who parlayed her reality-star roots into a brief yet highly tumultuous career as a White House political aide.
A relatively new phenomenon in the annals of presidential administrations, so-called Trump books are consistent commercial triumphs, and it’s unsurprising that publishers are keen to keep riding the wave. “However you feel about the president in political terms or existential terms for what he might do for or to the country, he makes great copy,” Eamon Dolan, an executive editor of Simon & Schuster, told the New York Times. But when the subject is Trump, a man who often appears physically incapable of exercising any restraint, the insatiable appetite hits strangely. After all, what more can be evinced from insider accounts about a man who doesn’t keep anything close to the chest, whose horrifying nature is routinely up for public consumption anyway? The appeal reflects a deeper emptiness among an audience hyper-vigilant to the unprecedented nature of these times but who apparently depend on these books for further saturation. Sure, such accounts might make for a good headline, but is a perverse boredom behind their overwhelming popularity? Why not just surrender to an almost-algorithmic release of artless literary offerings to choose what you do with your spare time?
Consider this week’s winking anecdote. Sanders’ account from the 2018 summit generated a slew of headlines, as well as remarks on social media over Trump’s oafish behavior. But while cringe-inducing, the revelation was still shockingly staid for a man who stands accused of sexual misconduct by dozens of women. The frat boy call to “take one for the team,” while wholly inappropriate, is a mild version of the 2005 recording that captured Trump bragging about groping women without their consent. But for Sanders, who is reportedly contemplating a run for Arkansas governor, it was the perfect attention-grabbing nugget: salaciously wrapped to create a splash, yet yawn-inducing enough to avoid Trump’s vengeance. (In fact, he probably reveled in the disclosure.) A book like this with an anecdote like that is merely a self-serving mechanism for a woman who’s all in for Trump, and voracious readers are happy to literally buy into the project. Meanwhile, the sexual assault allegations feel increasingly like an addendum pushed to the margins of the Trump discourse.
Then there’s the tell-all about Melania Trump, written by a former friend and former “trusted adviser” to the first lady, Stephanie Winston Wolkoff. Here, the attraction to Winston Wolkoff’s book is easy to grasp; It pries open the first lady’s notoriously tight-lipped efforts to seal her private life from the public. Does Melania truly desire to be freed, is often the reigning question, and perhaps Winston Wolkoff’s insider account will provide enough clues to reach a conclusion. While I suppose it’s good fodder for gossip, I can’t help but question what kind of person is spending money to find out. Like her husband’s rampant sexism, the answer seems pretty clear, even without a former confidante’s participation and subsequent writing about such palace intrigue.
The desire to wring sense out of these chaotic times is near-universal. But books by former Trump officials—some of them unreliable narrators with a prolific record of lies, others attempting self-rehabilitation—hawking insider knowledge just don’t feel like the answer. Of course, not everyone reads for the same purpose; you might enjoy this chaos. But for those seeking some respite, may I recommend, Luster, by Raven Leilani?


motherjones--2020-09-03--Donald Trump and His Allies Are Trying to Rewrite the History of Charlottesville

It was one of the defining moments of Donald Trump ’ s presidency .
On August 15 , 2017 , three days after a white supremacist drove a car into a crowd of counterprotesters at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville , Virginia , killing 32-year-old Heather Heyer , Trump held a press conference in the lobby of his New York City tower .
He started off okay , reiterating “ in the strongest possible terms ” his condemnation of “ this egregious display of hatred , bigotry , and violence.
” But as the press conference continued , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rally ’ s participants and reapportion blame onto political critics won out .
“ You had some very bad people in that group , ” Trump said , at one point , of the white supremacist protest .
“ But you also had people that were very fine people , on both sides , ” he continued , thus equating a racist mob with people who showed up to protest a racist mob .
In case there was any ambiguity , Trump spelled it out a few minutes later : “ You had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that were there to innocently protest , ” he said , adding : “ There are two sides to a story.
” Trump was rebuked by Republican House and Senate leaders ( though not always by name ) , foreign heads of state , and his chief economics adviser .
On Fox News ’ The Five , conservative talking head Greg Gutfeld called Trump ’ s remarks “ pure ignorance.
” That was then .
Three years later , Trump ’ s “ very fine people ” moment has become foundational to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ soul of the nation ” is in peril , and Trump and his supporters have settled on a different line : They argue that Trump simply never said what he said about Charlottesville .
A slick video from the right-wing PragerU on “ The Charlottesville Lie ” has more than 3 million views on YouTube .
The pro-Trump site Breitbart News has published at least 61 stories on what it calls the “ Charlottesville Hoax ” since the beginning of 2019 .
On Monday , after Biden once again criticized Trump for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Pittsburgh TV station , the president ’ s reelection campaign pushed out a video purporting to debunk it as one of “ 4 BIG Biden lies.
” In effect , Trump and his supporters have turned one of his presidency ’ s lowest moments into a loyalty test , by redefining what happened in the context of three of the pillars of his fall campaign—an attempt to delegitimize “ the media , ” defend his most militant supporters , and cast the president ’ s opponents as violent radicals .
To understand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spun , it helps to revisit what he actually said .
When he praised “ very fine people , ” Trump insisted that he was not condoning the behavior of the white supremacists , but instead praising some other group of people who were there in support of Confederate monuments .
“ I ’ m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists—because they should be condemned totally , ” he said .
“ But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists.
” Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argue that it ’ s false to say Trump praised white supremacists .
But that requires a willful ignorance of who organized the rally and who attended it .
Unite the Right was not some spontaneous demonstration , nor was it a big-tent gathering meant to rope in a broad coalition .
It was plainly advertised as a white supremacist rally , by and for neo-Nazis .
It was supposed to be menacing .
And it was the only rally in Charlottesville that day ( other than the counterprotests ) .
There was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s fact-checker noted that “ The 207-page independent review commissioned by Charlottesville…makes no mention of peaceful pro-statue demonstrators.
” “ I looked the night before , ” Trump said at one point during his press conference .
“ If you look , there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee.
” The rally “ the night before ” was the famous tiki-torch parade , in which attendees shouted “ Jews will not replace us ” —not the kind of thing you can find yourself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Right ’ s support of the Lee statue was mostly just a pretext .
As Vox ’ s Jane Coaston noted , “ it is fascinating just how little the statue of Lee , or honoring Confederate veterans , seemed to matter to the organizers and attendees of Unite the Right.
” Instead , promotional materials for the rally described it as an attempt to , for instance , “ end Jewish influence in America.
” Trump ’ s comments could only hold water in a different factual universe , in which a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a different sort of people .
As it is , the term for someone attending a white supremacist rally is “ a white supremacist , ” and the words of condemnation Trump managed for some are less significant than the words of sympathy he offered for others .
And he did more than just sympathize .
Not only was he saying that “ some ” attendees at a white supremacist rally were “ fine people , ” his impulse was to use the aftermath of a terrorist attack to say that he also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what happened in Charlottesville as an attack on his own supporters , so he defended their honor .
“ So this week it ’ s Robert E. Lee , ” Trump said .
“ I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down .
I wonder , is it George Washington next week ?
And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after ?
You know , you really do have to ask yourself , where does it stop ?
” You weren ’ t imagining this .
It ’ s all on tape .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ website .
There was a reason David Duke immediately thanked Trump for his “ honesty & courage ” afterwards .
There ’ s a reason why so many Republicans who have otherwise had Trump ’ s back felt compelled to criticize him then .
Trump “ messed up , ” said then-speaker-of-the-house Paul Ryan .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell issued a statement saying “ there are no good neo-Nazis.
” Sen. Tim Scott ( R-S.C. ) visited the White House to explain to the president why Trump ’ s comments were “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the story diverges .
Trump ’ s critics within the party had little incentive to dwell on the incident ; continuing to criticize someone for both-sidesing Nazis would , after all , raise uncomfortable questions about why they continued to support someone both-sidesing Nazis .
So the dissenters got their statements out , but over the next three years , the Charlottesville Truthers drowned them out .
By late 2018 , Dilbert creator and Trump fan Scott Adams was calling the idea that Trump had praised white supremacists “ fake news ” on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Steve Cortes , a former member of Trump ’ s National Hispanic Advisory Council and current campaign adviser , dubbed it the “ Charlottesville hoax ” in a column at RealClearPolitics .
By that point the Bulwark , a site founded by conservative Trump critics , had caught on to this shift , describing it as an effort “ to create a more palatable version that would fit comfortably with their support for Trump.
” But the biggest catalyst for this evolution was Joe Biden .
When the former vice president kicked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 , his very first word was “ Charlottesville.
” “ The President of the United States assigned a moral equivalence between those spreading hate and those with the courage to stand against it , ” Biden said in his launch video .
“ In that moment , I knew the threat to this nation was unlike any I ’ d ever seen in my lifetime.
” Rationalizing Trump ’ s words became essential , not just to defend the president but to undercut his most likely Democratic opponent .
So supporters began @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a popular pro-Trump commentator , said on Fox News that “ you can go and you can look up the full speech at what Trump said—he specifically said I ’ m not speaking about white supremacists or Nazis.
” On The View , Texas Rep. Dan Crenshaw claimed that “ in the same sentence ” Trump had stated he was “ definitely not referring to white nationalists.
” Around this time , Trump himself revisited his comments in an interview with conservative radio host Mark Levin .
“ You never said anything positive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue to push that line , don ’ t they ?
” Levin asked .
“ That ’ s a terrible thing that they keep bringing up , ” Trump said .
“ And I actually said , two different ways .
And I actually said it every way you can say it .
But I said you had bad people in both groups , and I said you had good people in both groups.
” Levin , helpfully , suggested that “ by groups you mean protestors , not the Klan and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Many of those people were from University of Virginia , they were from all around the neighborhood , the area , ” Trump said , and , once again , indicated that they had a point : Lee was “ probably the greatest general in the history of our country in terms of strategic brilliance.
” When Prager U ’ s video , featuring Steve Cortes , dropped a few months later , Trump retweeted it .
Now even Gutfeld , who initially chided Trump ’ s “ ignorance , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” There ’ s an existential need among Trump defenders to belabor this point , to become mini Jim Garrisons rewinding the tape to show what really happened .
It ’ s become an article of faith conservatives must echo in order to properly support Trump .
But it also serves another function : Charlottesville was also a formative moment in the creation of antifa as a conservative bête noir .
What Trump alluded to at his 2017 press conference—that counter-protestors “ with the black outfits and with the helmets , and with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the violence—echoed for months in the form Fox News segments about the violent and illiberal left .
Now those fears have become the very linchpin of the president ’ s fall campaign .
Three years after Charlottesville , the party is increasingly receptive to the idea of vigilante violence against leftist demonstrators .
At the Republican National Convention , the party featured the McCloskeys , the rich St. Louis couple famous for pointing guns at Black Lives Matter protestors marching through their gated community .
A member of Congress from Louisiana , Clay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black demonstrators .
Unlike Heather Heyer ’ s killer , Kyle Rittenhouse , the Illinois teenager who allegedly crossed state lines with an assault rifle to confront Black Lives Matter protesters in Wisconsin and shot three people , has become a conservative celebrity .
Tucker Carlson praised him as a patriot willing to stand up where Democratic cities wouldn ’ t— “ 17-year-olds with rifles decided they had to maintain order when no one else would , ” he said .
An incoming Republican member of Congress shared a meme hailing Rittenhouse for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fundraising site raised a quarter of a million dollars for Rittenhouse ’ s legal defense .
And on Monday , Trump broke his silence on the episode by asserting that Rittenhouse had acted in self-defense .
“ He was in very big trouble , ” Trump said .
“ He probably would have been killed.
” This time , he didn ’ t equivocate ; the very fine people are only on his side now .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
It was one of the defining moments of Donald Trump’s presidency. On August 15, 2017, three days after a white supremacist drove a car into a crowd of counterprotesters at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, killing 32-year-old Heather Heyer, Trump held a press conference in the lobby of his New York City tower.
He started off okay, reiterating “in the strongest possible terms” his condemnation of “this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence.” But as the press conference continued, Trump’s impulse to defend the rally’s participants and reapportion blame onto political critics won out. “You had some very bad people in that group,” Trump said, at one point, of the white supremacist protest. “But you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides,” he continued, thus equating a racist mob with people who showed up to protest a racist mob. In case there was any ambiguity, Trump spelled it out a few minutes later: “You had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest,” he said, adding: “There are two sides to a story.”
Trump was rebuked by Republican House and Senate leaders (though not always by name), foreign heads of state, and his chief economics adviser. On Fox News’ The Five, conservative talking head Greg Gutfeld called Trump’s remarks “pure ignorance.” That was then. Three years later, Trump’s “very fine people” moment has become foundational to the Biden campaign’s message that the “soul of the nation” is in peril, and Trump and his supporters have settled on a different line: They argue that Trump simply never said what he said about Charlottesville.
A slick video from the right-wing PragerU on “The Charlottesville Lie” has more than 3 million views on YouTube. The pro-Trump site Breitbart News has published at least 61 stories on what it calls the “Charlottesville Hoax” since the beginning of 2019. On Monday, after Biden once again criticized Trump for his Charlottesville comments in an interview with a Pittsburgh TV station, the president’s reelection campaign pushed out a video purporting to debunk it as one of “4 BIG Biden lies.”
Joe Biden keeps lying about President Trump, and the media keeps letting him get away with it. Here's 4 BIG Biden lies in just one interview. Roll the tape! pic.twitter.com/USygXepZ3v — Trump War Room – Text TRUMP to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) September 1, 2020
In effect, Trump and his supporters have turned one of his presidency’s lowest moments into a loyalty test, by redefining what happened in the context of three of the pillars of his fall campaign—an attempt to delegitimize “the media,” defend his most militant supporters, and cast the president’s opponents as violent radicals.
To understand how Trump’s remarks have been spun, it helps to revisit what he actually said. When he praised “very fine people,” Trump insisted that he was not condoning the behavior of the white supremacists, but instead praising some other group of people who were there in support of Confederate monuments. “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists—because they should be condemned totally,” he said. “But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists.”
Trump’s defenders have seized on that line to argue that it’s false to say Trump praised white supremacists. But that requires a willful ignorance of who organized the rally and who attended it. Unite the Right was not some spontaneous demonstration, nor was it a big-tent gathering meant to rope in a broad coalition. It was plainly advertised as a white supremacist rally, by and for neo-Nazis. It was supposed to be menacing. And it was the only rally in Charlottesville that day (other than the counterprotests). There was no second group. The Washington Post’s fact-checker noted that “The 207-page independent review commissioned by Charlottesville…makes no mention of peaceful pro-statue demonstrators.”
“I looked the night before,” Trump said at one point during his press conference. “If you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee.”
The rally “the night before” was the famous tiki-torch parade, in which attendees shouted “Jews will not replace us”—not the kind of thing you can find yourself unintentionally partaking in. And Unite the Right’s support of the Lee statue was mostly just a pretext. As Vox’s Jane Coaston noted, “it is fascinating just how little the statue of Lee, or honoring Confederate veterans, seemed to matter to the organizers and attendees of Unite the Right.” Instead, promotional materials for the rally described it as an attempt to, for instance, “end Jewish influence in America.”
Trump’s comments could only hold water in a different factual universe, in which a different sort of rally was attended by a different sort of people. As it is, the term for someone attending a white supremacist rally is “a white supremacist,” and the words of condemnation Trump managed for some are less significant than the words of sympathy he offered for others.
And he did more than just sympathize. Not only was he saying that “some” attendees at a white supremacist rally were “fine people,” his impulse was to use the aftermath of a terrorist attack to say that he also believed they were right. Trump viewed what happened in Charlottesville as an attack on his own supporters, so he defended their honor.
“So this week it’s Robert E. Lee,” Trump said. “I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?”
You weren’t imagining this. It’s all on tape. The transcript is on the White House website. There was a reason David Duke immediately thanked Trump for his “honesty & courage” afterwards. There’s a reason why so many Republicans who have otherwise had Trump’s back felt compelled to criticize him then. Trump “messed up,” said then-speaker-of-the-house Paul Ryan. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell issued a statement saying “there are no good neo-Nazis.” Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) visited the White House to explain to the president why Trump’s comments were “painful.”
Trump’s comments could only hold water in a different factual universe, in which a different sort of rally was attended by a different sort of people. As it is, the term for someone attending a white supremacist rally is “a white supremacist.”
But that’s where the story diverges. Trump’s critics within the party had little incentive to dwell on the incident; continuing to criticize someone for both-sidesing Nazis would, after all, raise uncomfortable questions about why they continued to support someone both-sidesing Nazis. So the dissenters got their statements out, but over the next three years, the Charlottesville Truthers drowned them out.
By late 2018, Dilbert creator and Trump fan Scott Adams was calling the idea that Trump had praised white supremacists “fake news” on Fox News. A few months later, Steve Cortes, a former member of Trump’s National Hispanic Advisory Council and current campaign adviser, dubbed it the “Charlottesville hoax” in a column at RealClearPolitics. By that point the Bulwark, a site founded by conservative Trump critics, had caught on to this shift, describing it as an effort “to create a more palatable version that would fit comfortably with their support for Trump.”
But the biggest catalyst for this evolution was Joe Biden. When the former vice president kicked off his presidential campaign in April of 2019, his very first word was “Charlottesville.”
“The President of the United States assigned a moral equivalence between those spreading hate and those with the courage to stand against it,” Biden said in his launch video. “In that moment, I knew the threat to this nation was unlike any I’d ever seen in my lifetime.”
Rationalizing Trump’s words became essential, not just to defend the president but to undercut his most likely Democratic opponent. So supporters began parsing the transcript.
Candace Owens, a popular pro-Trump commentator, said on Fox News that “you can go and you can look up the full speech at what Trump said—he specifically said I’m not speaking about white supremacists or Nazis.”
On The View, Texas Rep. Dan Crenshaw claimed that “in the same sentence” Trump had stated he was “definitely not referring to white nationalists.”
Around this time, Trump himself revisited his comments in an interview with conservative radio host Mark Levin. “You never said anything positive about neo-Nazis and Klansmen, but they continue to push that line, don’t they?” Levin asked.
“That’s a terrible thing that they keep bringing up,” Trump said. “And I actually said, two different ways. And I actually said it every way you can say it. But I said you had bad people in both groups, and I said you had good people in both groups.”
Levin, helpfully, suggested that “by groups you mean protesters, not the Klan and neo-Nazis,” to which Trump assented. “Many of those people were from University of Virginia, they were from all around the neighborhood, the area,” Trump said, and, once again, indicated that they had a point: Lee was “probably the greatest general in the history of our country in terms of strategic brilliance.”
When Prager U’s video, featuring Steve Cortes, dropped a few months later, Trump retweeted it. Now even Gutfeld, who initially chided Trump’s “ignorance,” calls the whole thing a “hoax.”
There’s an existential need among Trump defenders to belabor this point, to become mini Jim Garrisons rewinding the tape to show what really happened. It’s become an article of faith conservatives must echo in order to properly support Trump. But it also serves another function: Charlottesville was also a formative moment in the creation of antifa as a conservative bête noir. What Trump alluded to at his 2017 press conference—that counter-protesters “with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats” shared responsibility for the violence—echoed for months in the form Fox News segments about the violent and illiberal left.
Now those fears have become the very linchpin of the president’s fall campaign. Three years after Charlottesville, the party is increasingly receptive to the idea of vigilante violence against leftist demonstrators. At the Republican National Convention, the party featured the McCloskeys, the rich St. Louis couple famous for pointing guns at Black Lives Matter protesters marching through their gated community. A member of Congress from Louisiana, Clay Higgins, fantasized on Facebook about shooting Black demonstrators.
Unlike Heather Heyer’s killer, Kyle Rittenhouse, the Illinois teenager who allegedly crossed state lines with an assault rifle to confront Black Lives Matter protesters in Wisconsin and shot three people, has become a conservative celebrity. Tucker Carlson praised him as a patriot willing to stand up where Democratic cities wouldn’t—“17-year-olds with rifles decided they had to maintain order when no one else would,” he said. An incoming Republican member of Congress shared a meme hailing Rittenhouse for having “fought back.” A Christian fundraising site raised a quarter of a million dollars for Rittenhouse’s legal defense. And on Monday, Trump broke his silence on the episode by asserting that Rittenhouse had acted in self-defense. “He was in very big trouble,” Trump said. “He probably would have been killed.” This time, he didn’t equivocate; the very fine people are only on his side now.


motherjones--2020-09-03--A New Engineering Report Finds That a Privately Built Border Wall Will Fail