motherjones--2020-06-24--Roger Stone Prosecutor Says “We Were Told That We Could Be Fired” Over Case

A Justice Department lawyer who prosecuted Roger Stone says that he and other career prosecutors “ were told that we could be fired , ” if they resisted political pressure to lower their recommended sentence for the longtime adviser to President Donald Trump .
Aaron Zelinsky , a lead prosecutor on the Stone case , shared new details Wednesday on efforts by his superiors to convince him and his colleagues to give Stone “ a break ” after the self-styled dirty trickster was convicted in November for perjury , obstruction of Congress , and witness tampering .
“ What I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treated differently from any other defendant because of his relationship to the president , ” Zelinsky testified .
Stone is not just Trump ’ s friend .
He was convicted of lying to Congress about his efforts , at Trump ’ s direction , to learn details of WikiLeaks ’ plans during the 2016 campaign to release stolen Democratic emails .
“ Roger Stone lied to the House Intelligence Committee because the truth looked bad for the Trump campaign and the truth looked bad for Donald Trump , ” Zelinsky said in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last November .
Attorney General William Barr has acknowledged that he personally intervened in the Stone case , which Trump has denounced .
In March , Barr also ordered subordinates to drop the case of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn , who pleaded guilty in late 2017 to lying to FBI agents .
Flynn also admitted as part of his guilty plea to secretly acting as a foreign agent for Turkey while advising Trump .
On Wednesday a federal appeals court panel ordered a district court judge to accept DOJ ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The hearing came just days after Barr ousted Geoffrey Berman , the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York , whose office is investigating Trump associates , in an apparent effort to install a less independent prosecutor in the powerful post .
“ Mr .
Barr ’ s actions make clear that , in his Department of Justice , the President ’ s allies get special treatment , the President ’ s enemies—real and imagined—are targeted for extra scrutiny , and the needs of the American people are generally ignored , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ D-N.Y. ) said Wednesday .
Zelinsky testified that ahead of Stone ’ s February 20 sentencing , Timothy Shea , then the acting US Attorney for the District of Columbia , through subordinates , pushed the Stone prosecutors not to follow standard sentencing guidelines for Stone .
Zelinsky said he was told this was because Shea was “ afraid of the president.
” “ We were told that we could be fired if we did not go along with it , ” Zelinsky said .
“ Then we were told that this was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zelinsky named J.P. Cooney , the acting head of DOJ ’ s Fraud and Public Corruption unit , and Cooney ’ s former deputy Alessio Evangelista , as officials who passed on Shea ’ s push to reduce the recommended sentence for Stone .
Zelinksy and his colleagues refused and filed a motion recommending that Stone receive more than seven years in prison .
But after news coverage of that recommendation , Trump , in a 1:48 am tweet on Feb. 11 , called Stone ’ s treatment “ horrible and very unfair.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ day that the Justice Department would issue a new memo recommending a lighter sentence .
The four prosecutors who had worked on the case promptly withdrew in protest .
Barr has said his actions were not prompted by Trump ’ s tweet .
In a statement Tuesday night , Kerri Kupec , a Justice Department spokesperson , acknowledged Barr had directed Shea to override prosecutors ’ initial sentencing recommendation .
But Kupec said Barr did not discuss the sentencing with Trump and argued that Zelinsky ’ s claims were based “ on his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best ) not firsthand knowledge.
” Shea , now the acting head of the Drug Enforcement Administration , declined through a spokesperson to comment .
Barr has refused for more than a year to appear before the House Judiciary Committee .
With Democrats moving to subpoena him , Kupec tweeted Wednesday that he has agreed to testify on July 28 .
But Barr has twice previously agreed to appear before the panel only to claim to be too busy as the date nears .
Another DOJ whistleblower , John Elias , a career @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , testified Wednesday that Barr has repeatedly ordered meritless anti-trust reviews based on political considerations .
Elias said Barr backed 10 reviews of mergers in the cannabis industry that appeared to result from the Attorney General disliking “ the nature of their underlying business.
” Elias also said that the Justice Department had launched an anti-trust review of four automakers last September shortly after Trump tweeted angrily about the companies agreeing to a deal with California to adhere to higher fuel emissions standards than the Trump administration wants .
Elias said there was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
DOJ dropped its inquiry in February .
“ What ’ s happening now is much worse than what happening in Watergate , ” Ayer said , arguing Barr is systemically undoing safeguards against corruption .
“ This guy has got to go .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
A Justice Department lawyer who prosecuted Roger Stone says that he and other career prosecutors “were told that we could be fired,” if they resisted political pressure to lower their recommended sentence for the longtime adviser to President Donald Trump.
Aaron Zelinsky, a lead prosecutor on the Stone case, shared new details Wednesday on efforts by his superiors to convince him and his colleagues to give Stone “a break” after the self-styled dirty trickster was convicted in November for perjury, obstruction of Congress, and witness tampering. “What I heard repeatedly was that Stone was being treated differently from any other defendant because of his relationship to the president,” Zelinsky testified.
Stone is not just Trump’s friend. He was convicted of lying to Congress about his efforts, at Trump’s direction, to learn details of WikiLeaks’ plans during the 2016 campaign to release stolen Democratic emails. “Roger Stone lied to the House Intelligence Committee because the truth looked bad for the Trump campaign and the truth looked bad for Donald Trump,” Zelinsky said in his opening statement at Stone’s trial last November.
Attorney General William Barr has acknowledged that he personally intervened in the Stone case, which Trump has denounced. In May, Barr also ordered subordinates to drop the case of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty in late 2017 to lying to FBI agents. Flynn also admitted as part of his guilty plea to secretly acting as a foreign agent for Turkey while advising Trump. On Wednesday a federal appeals court panel ordered a district court judge to accept DOJ’s motion to drop charges against Flynn.
“What’s happening now is much worse than what happening in Watergate.”
The hearing came just days after Barr ousted Geoffrey Berman, the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, whose office is investigating Trump associates, in an apparent effort to install a less independent prosecutor in the powerful post. “Mr. Barr’s actions make clear that, in his Department of Justice, the President’s allies get special treatment, the President’s enemies—real and imagined—are targeted for extra scrutiny, and the needs of the American people are generally ignored,” House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday.
Zelinsky testified that ahead of Stone’s February 20 sentencing, Timothy Shea, then the acting US Attorney for the District of Columbia, through subordinates, pushed the Stone prosecutors not to follow standard sentencing guidelines for Stone. Zelinsky said he was told this was because Shea was “afraid of the president.”
“We were told that we could be fired if we did not go along with it,” Zelinsky said. “Then we were told that this was not the hill to die on.”
Zelinsky named J.P. Cooney, the acting head of DOJ’s Fraud and Public Corruption unit, and Cooney’s former deputy Alessio Evangelista, as officials who passed on Shea’s push to reduce the recommended sentence for Stone.
Zelinksy and his colleagues refused and filed a motion recommending that Stone receive more than seven years in prison. But after news coverage of that recommendation, Trump, in a 1:48 am tweet on Feb. 11, called Stone’s treatment “horrible and very unfair.” Zelinsky says he learned the next day that the Justice Department would issue a new memo recommending a lighter sentence. The four prosecutors who had worked on the case promptly withdrew in protest. Barr has said his actions were not prompted by Trump’s tweet.
In a statement Tuesday night, Kerri Kupec, a Justice Department spokesperson, acknowledged Barr had directed Shea to override prosecutors’ initial sentencing recommendation. But Kupec said Barr did not discuss the sentencing with Trump and argued that Zelinsky’s claims were based “on his interpretations of events and hearsay (at best) not firsthand knowledge.” Shea, now the acting head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, declined through a spokesperson to comment.
Barr has refused for more than a year to appear before the House Judiciary Committee. With Democrats moving to subpoena him, Kupec tweeted Wednesday that he has agreed to testify on July 28. But Barr has twice previously agreed to appear before the panel only to claim to be too busy as the date nears.
Another DOJ whistleblower, John Elias, a career employee in DOJ’s anti-trust division, testified Wednesday that Barr has repeatedly ordered meritless anti-trust reviews based on political considerations. Elias said Barr backed 10 reviews of mergers in the cannabis industry that appeared to result from the Attorney General disliking “the nature of their underlying business.” Elias also said that the Justice Department had launched an anti-trust review of four automakers last September shortly after Trump tweeted angrily about the companies agreeing to a deal with California to adhere to higher fuel emissions standards than the Trump administration wants. Elias said there was no legitimate anti-trust case against the companies. DOJ dropped its inquiry in February.
Another witness, Donald Ayer, a former deputy attorney general who Barr ousted from that post in 1990 in an earlier stint as attorney general, testified that Barr’s politicizing of the department is “undermining public trust in the system.”
“What’s happening now is much worse than what happening in Watergate,” Ayer said, arguing Barr is systemically undoing safeguards against corruption. “This guy has got to go.”


motherjones--2020-06-24--It Took Stephen Colbert to Finally Do the Interview John Bolton Really Deserves

For the past week , former national security adviser John Bolton has been touting his new tell-all book as an indictment of Donald Trump and of the president ’ s weak-willed surrender to foreign leaders .
But rather than indulging in Bolton ’ s revelations , comedian Stephen Colbert asked the salient question : Why did he ever trust Trump in the first place ?
“ What I thought in 2016 was , we at least have to try it out , ” Bolton , a notorious foreign policy hawk who advocated for the Iraq War , said in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And so I voted for Trump .
Having experienced 17 months of working with him , I can ’ t in good conscience do that again , and that ’ s why I ’ m not gon na vote for him , and I ’ m not gon na vote for Biden.
” “ I guess what ’ s exasperating is there is absolutely nothing that Donald Trump has done that is surprising to me , ” Colbert replied .
“ How did you not know beforehand that he was just callow ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe it was that bad , ” Bolton said .
“ And I know other people say they saw it from the beginning— ” “ But you ’ re an international negotiator , ” Colbert shot back .
“ How could you be naive ?
You ’ ve dealt with the worst people in the world.
” The full video is a delight , with Colbert even managing to get a laugh out of Bolton .
Watch it below :

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
For the past week, former national security adviser John Bolton has been touting his new tell-all book as an indictment of Donald Trump and of the president’s weak-willed surrender to foreign leaders. But rather than indulging in Bolton’s revelations, comedian Stephen Colbert asked the salient question: Why did he ever trust Trump in the first place?
“What I thought in 2016 was, we at least have to try it out,” Bolton, a notorious foreign policy hawk who advocated for the Iraq War, said in an appearance on The Late Show. “And so I voted for Trump. Having experienced 17 months of working with him, I can’t in good conscience do that again, and that’s why I’m not gonna vote for him, and I’m not gonna vote for Biden.”
“I guess what’s exasperating is there is absolutely nothing that Donald Trump has done that is surprising to me,” Colbert replied. “How did you not know beforehand that he was just callow?”
“Because I couldn’t believe it was that bad,” Bolton said. “And I know other people say they saw it from the beginning—”
“But you’re an international negotiator,” Colbert shot back. “How could you be naive? You’ve dealt with the worst people in the world.”
The full video is a delight, with Colbert even managing to get a laugh out of Bolton. Watch it below:


motherjones--2020-06-24--Trump Has Made More Than 18,000 False Claims Since Taking Office. Voters May Have Finally Had Enough

Trump Has Made More Than 18,000 False Claims Since Taking Office. Voters May Have Finally Had Enough.

Nine years after award-winning reporter Glenn Kessler became the editor and chief writer of the Washington Post ’ s “ Fact Checker , ” “ awarding Pinocchios ” has entered the vernacular of Washington insiders as a euphemism for “ calling out falsehoods.
” Using a sliding scale of one to four Pinocchios , Kessler and the fact-check team made it their job to keep track of how well politicians tell the truth—and how far they stray from it .
“ We ’ ve not often used the word ‘ lie , ' ” Kessler said in an interview with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bureau Chief David Corn on this week ’ s edition of the Mother Jones Podcast .
“ Because ‘ lie ’ means deliberate.
” Even so , at last count , the team has awarded more than 18,000 Pinocchios to President Trump for his many , many distortions , false claims , mistruths , and outright lies since the beginning of his term in office .
It ’ s a process that Kessler and his fellow fact-checkers , Salvador Rizzo and Meg Kelly , detail in their new book , Donald Trump and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Falsehoods , Misleading Claims and Flat-Out Lies .
“ He has created his own alternative reality , ” said Kessler of his experience covering Trump , describing an entrenched psychology of denial , aided and abetted by a right-wing media ecosystem , that goes far beyond mere flubs or petty exaggerations .
Kessler describes an all-out attack on the very idea of the truth , with real-world impacts .
“ Let ’ s talk about the coronavirus for instance , ” Kessler said .
“ He convinced himself it was not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Trump has gotten away with four years of habitual lying unscathed , Kessler notes that Trump has had notably low approval ratings throughout .
His style of governing has failed to appeal to the mainstream , which could cost him the election in 2020 .
“ He is the only president since World War II who has never once achieved a 50 percent approval rating , ” Kessler said .
“ He still might win reelection depending on the vagaries of the electoral college and turnout and things like that , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While the fact-check team has committed to keeping up their database of Pinocchios for the first four years of Trump , Kessler is not sure if he ’ d sign up for a second term of fact-checking if Trump gets reelected—especially because Trump ’ s rate of falsehoods have surged from an average rate of six per day during his first year of presidency to 22 now .
“ It ’ s just a terrible time suck , ” Kessler complained .
“ The Post may have to hire a few more people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Listen to David Corn ’ s interview with Glenn Kessler on the Mother Jones Podcast :

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Nine years after award-winning reporter Glenn Kessler became the editor and chief writer of the Washington Post’s “Fact Checker,” “awarding Pinocchios” has entered the vernacular of Washington insiders as a euphemism for “calling out falsehoods.”
Using a sliding scale of one to four Pinocchios, Kessler and the fact-check team made it their job to keep track of how well politicians tell the truth—and how far they stray from it. “We’ve not often used the word ‘lie,'” Kessler said in an interview with Mother Jones‘ Washington, DC, Bureau Chief David Corn on this week’s edition of the Mother Jones Podcast. “Because ‘lie’ means deliberate.” Even so, at last count, the team has awarded more than 18,000 Pinocchios to President Trump for his many, many distortions, false claims, mistruths, and outright lies since the beginning of his term in office. It’s a process that Kessler and his fellow fact-checkers, Salvador Rizzo and Meg Kelly, detail in their new book, Donald Trump and His Assault on Truth: The President’s Falsehoods, Misleading Claims and Flat-Out Lies.
“He has created his own alternative reality,” said Kessler of his experience covering Trump, describing an entrenched psychology of denial, aided and abetted by a right-wing media ecosystem, that goes far beyond mere flubs or petty exaggerations. Kessler describes an all-out attack on the very idea of the truth, with real-world impacts. “Let’s talk about the coronavirus for instance,” Kessler said. “He convinced himself it was not a problem.”
While it may seem like Trump has gotten away with four years of habitual lying unscathed, Kessler notes that Trump has had notably low approval ratings throughout. His style of governing has failed to appeal to the mainstream, which could cost him the election in 2020. “He is the only president since World War II who has never once achieved a 50 percent approval rating,” Kessler said. “He still might win reelection depending on the vagaries of the electoral college and turnout and things like that, but that is a really amazing thing.”
While the fact-check team has committed to keeping up their database of Pinocchios for the first four years of Trump, Kessler is not sure if he’d sign up for a second term of fact-checking if Trump gets reelected—especially because Trump’s rate of falsehoods have surged from an average rate of six per day during his first year of presidency to 22 now.
“It’s just a terrible time suck,” Kessler complained. “The Post may have to hire a few more people for us to keep it up.”
Listen to David Corn’s interview with Glenn Kessler on the Mother Jones Podcast:


motherjones--2020-06-23--The Justice Department Pressured Prosecutors to Go Easy on Roger Stone, Attorney Says

A Justice Department lawyer who prosecuted Roger Stone is alleging that attorneys involved in the case were pressured by their superiors to “ cut Stone a break ” due to his relationship with the president .
Stone was convicted of five counts of making false statements—as well as obstruction of Congress and witness tampering—after lying to the House Intelligence Committee about his efforts in 2016 to contact WikiLeaks regarding Democratic emails hacked by Russia .
Evidence compiled by special counsel Robert Mueller showed that Stone consulted personally with Donald Trump and senior Trump campaign officials about Stone ’ s efforts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for disseminating the stolen emails .
“ What I heard—repeatedly—was that Roger Stone was being treated differently from any other defendant because of his relationship to the President , ” Aaron Zelinsky says in written testimony submitted to the House Judiciary Committee ahead of a hearing scheduled for Wednesday .
“ I was told that the Acting US Attorney for the District of Columbia , Timothy Shea , was receiving heavy pressure from the highest levels of the Department of Justice to cut Stone a break , and that the US Attorney ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on political considerations .
I was also told that the acting US Attorney was giving Stone such unprecedentedly favorable treatment because he was ‘ afraid of the President . '
” Shea was installed as acting head of the DC federal prosecutors ’ office by Attorney General William Barr after Barr removed former US Attorney Jessie Liu .
Shea is now the acting head of the Drug Enforcement Administration .
This alleged meddling in the Stone case appears to be part of a pattern .
Barr later moved to drop a case against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who had already pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators about his contacts with the Russian ambassador to the United States .
And late last Friday , Barr ousted the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York , Geoffrey Berman , who was overseeing several cases related to Trump associates .
Spokespeople for the DOJ , the DC US attorney ’ s office , and the DEA did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Zelinsky ’ s testimony .
Zelinsky describes how Shea and other Justice Department officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to recommend a more lenient sentence for Stone than those prosecutors believed was fair .
Zelinsky says their jobs were threatened .
“ We were told by a supervisor that the US Attorney had political reasons for his instructions , which our supervisor agreed was unethical and wrong , ” he says .
“ However , we were instructed that we should go along with the US Attorney ’ s 10 instructions , because this case was ‘ not the hill worth dying on ‘ and that we could ‘ lose our jobs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line.
” The prosecutors initially suggested that Stones should receive more than seven years in prison .
But the day after a 1:48 am tweet in which Trump complained that the recommendation was “ horrible and very unfair , ” Zelinsky says he learned that the department would issue a new memo recommending a lighter sentence .
In failing to adhere to normal sentencing guidelines , the department “ treated Roger Stone differently and more leniently in ways that are virtually , if not entirely , unprecedented , ” Zelinsky says .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the case in protest of this political interference .
It ’ s not clear if the DOJ reversal actually affected Stone ’ s sentence .
US District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson ultimately sentenced Stone to 40 months in prison , citing “ the egregious nature of Stone ’ s conduct.
” Cleary referring to Trump , Jackson said it was important that the sentence not be influenced by anyone whose “ political career was aided by the defendant .
And surely not someone who has personal involvement in the events underlying @ @ @ @

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
A Justice Department lawyer who prosecuted Roger Stone is alleging that attorneys involved in the case were pressured by their superiors to “cut Stone a break” due to his relationship with the president.
Stone was convicted of five counts of making false statements—as well as obstruction of Congress and witness tampering—after lying to the House Intelligence Committee about his efforts in 2016 to contact WikiLeaks regarding Democratic emails hacked by Russia. Evidence compiled by special counsel Robert Mueller showed that Stone consulted personally with Donald Trump and senior Trump campaign officials about Stone’s efforts to glean information on WikiLeaks’ plans for disseminating the stolen emails.
“What I heard—repeatedly—was that Roger Stone was being treated differently from any other defendant because of his relationship to the President,” Aaron Zelinsky says in written testimony submitted to the House Judiciary Committee ahead of a hearing scheduled for Wednesday. “I was told that the Acting US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Timothy Shea, was receiving heavy pressure from the highest levels of the Department of Justice to cut Stone a break, and that the US Attorney’s sentencing instructions to us were based on political considerations. I was also told that the acting US Attorney was giving Stone such unprecedentedly favorable treatment because he was ‘afraid of the President.'”
Shea was installed as acting head of the DC federal prosecutors’ office by Attorney General William Barr after Barr removed former US Attorney Jessie Liu. Shea is now the acting head of the Drug Enforcement Administration. This alleged meddling in the Stone case appears to be part of a pattern. Barr later moved to drop a case against former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn, who had already pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators about his contacts with the Russian ambassador to the United States. And late last Friday, Barr ousted the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Geoffrey Berman, who was overseeing several cases related to Trump associates. Spokespeople for the DOJ, the DC US attorney’s office, and the DEA did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Zelinsky’s testimony.
Zelinsky describes how Shea and other Justice Department officials pressured the front-line prosecutors in the case to recommend a more lenient sentence for Stone than those prosecutors believed was fair. Zelinsky says their jobs were threatened. “We were told by a supervisor that the US Attorney had political reasons for his instructions, which our supervisor agreed was unethical and wrong,” he says. “However, we were instructed that we should go along with the US Attorney’s 10 instructions, because this case was ‘not the hill worth dying on‘ and that we could ‘lose our jobs’ if we did not toe the line.”
The prosecutors initially suggested that Stones should receive more than seven years in prison. But the day after a 1:48 am tweet in which Trump complained that the recommendation was “horrible and very unfair,” Zelinsky says he learned that the department would issue a new memo recommending a lighter sentence.
In failing to adhere to normal sentencing guidelines, the department “treated Roger Stone differently and more leniently in ways that are virtually, if not entirely, unprecedented,” Zelinsky says. He and other lawyers who prosecuted Stone withdrew from the case in protest of this political interference.
It’s not clear if the DOJ reversal actually affected Stone’s sentence. US District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson ultimately sentenced Stone to 40 months in prison, citing “the egregious nature of Stone’s conduct.” Cleary referring to Trump, Jackson said it was important that the sentence not be influenced by anyone whose “political career was aided by the defendant. And surely not someone who has personal involvement in the events underlying the case.”
Read Zelinsky’s prepared testimony:


motherjones--2020-06-25--Slavery Existed in Illinois, but Schools Don’t Always Teach That History

This story was published originally by ProPublica , a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power .
Sign up for ProPublica ’ s Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox as soon as they are published .
Illinois schools are not required to teach a class in the state ’ s history .
Perhaps as a result , you may be surprised to learn that Illinois at one time allowed slavery .
But Darrel Dexter , a historian and high school social studies teacher in Tamms , has been researching , writing about and teaching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years .
His book about the topic , “ Bondage in Egypt , Slavery in Southern Illinois , ” was published by Southeast Missouri State University in 2011 , and described by one academic reviewer as “ the most comprehensive account to date of racial slavery in Illinois.
” I first met Dexter at the public library in Anna , Illinois , while reporting on its history as a sundown town .
Since then , he ’ s helped me better understand the parts of our state ’ s history often left out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ result , the public ’ s understanding of Illinois history .
I recently spoke with Dexter just ahead of the Juneteenth holiday , which commemorates the ending of slavery .
Here is an edited version of our conversation .
In learning about the Civil War , we typically learn there were “ slave states ” and “ free states.
” In what ways does Illinois complicate those seemingly clear-cut definitions ?
Illinois is what I would call a quasi-slave state .
And what ’ s surprising to people is that it existed here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the colonial slave laws that came from France ( because Illinois was a French territory ) .
And so slavery , at least the enslavement of Africans and then later African American people , started in the French settlements , at least as early as 1720 , maybe even before that .
And then the Northwest Ordinance ( an act that provided a path for much of the Great Lakes region to be admitted to the Union ) stated that there shall be neither slavery nor indentured servitude , nor involuntary servitude , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And so people seem to think , “ Well , that does it for slavery.
” But people still brought slaves in , in violation of the law .
But then as early as 1803 , a loophole was created that [ essentially ] said : “ Bring your slaves to Illinois .
It ’ s fine .
Just go through the formality of an indenture contract.
” Some contracts were for 99 years .
But most indentured people really weren ’ t given a choice .
If your master , or someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ master , or has told you they were your master for , you know , 20 , 30 , 40 years , tells you to put your mark [ signature ] on a paper that says you ’ re willing to continue as my indentured servant , it ’ s not likely that someone would refuse .
This reminds me of something you said once before about slavery being adaptable .
In a talk you gave at the Chicago History Museum last year , you said , “ Slavery was called a ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason is because it can be adapted.
” Can you tell me a bit more about what you meant by that ?
I meant that when people think about slavery , and this is largely due to the fact that so many of us get much of our information from the entertainment media , we envision slavery as the Deep South and working on cotton plantations .
And what really surprised me as I began researching slavery in Illinois was there weren ’ t the big cotton plantations , but at the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our image of slavery is not necessarily wrong , but it ’ s a lot more complicated .
It ’ s a lot broader .
I think that what we tend to do oftentimes is think of slavery and racism as something they have down South and kind of with a judgmental attitude : “ You know , we ’ re not like that [ in Illinois ] .
We don ’ t have slavery here .
We didn ’ t have slaves.
” Actually , we did .
It was just a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the needs that we had for enslaved people .
What were some of those needs and how different did that look ?
Dexter : Here in Union County , although it ’ s not officially documented , when our first log cabin courthouse was built on the square in Jonesboro , the person that received the contract to build that log cabin was a slaveholder named Thomas Cox .
He would have sent enslaved people to work , cutting the trees and building the cabin .
Slaves can work in cornfields just as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fields .
In the years leading up to the Civil War , where was Illinois positioned in terms of slavery ?
1848 was the year that the [ state ] Constitution was passed in Illinois .
That was truly our first “ free ” constitution .
The 1818 Constitution was called a “ free ” constitution , but it allowed indentured servitude .
The 1848 Constitution ended that and made Illinois a free state that did not permit slavery .
But then in 1853 , the state legislature passed a law which made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a crime .
If African Americans remained in Illinois beyond 10 days , they could be arrested and fined .
If they couldn ’ t pay the fines , they were to be auctioned off .
It only lasted five years that we were truly a free state .
What would African Americans who sought new livelihoods in Illinois have faced arriving here in the mid-1800s ?
Well , beginning of course in 1853 , settlement was illegal .
The counties that had a free black population already in 1853 kept detailed records @ @ @ @ @ @ @ listed by name , physical description and origin .
They had to prove that they were free in order to live in Illinois legally .
Those documents… those were what ’ s referred to as “ freedom papers ” ?
Right .
So if you were formerly enslaved or even if you had been born free , you should always have had those freedom papers handy in your pocket .
In the 1820s , Illinois had a state law that said all white men are required to stop any black person and have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I can remember a woman asking me once if I thought this was the beginning of policing of black communities , and I never really saw the connection before she mentioned that .
But every white man was required to do it .
If people could not prove their freedom documentation , they were placed under arrest — basically a citizen ’ s arrest—taken to a justice of the peace , put on trial , advertised in the newspapers as a runaway , and then the white person would receive a reward .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Right .
Chicago newspapers said there were people making a living doing this .
And they became known as the kidnapping gangs , because basically they were kidnapping people to make a profit .
Why don ’ t we learn about this in Illinois ?
We know of Illinois as being the Land of Lincoln , the home state of the Great Emancipator , yet as you say Illinois was a quasi-slave state .
Well , it ’ s definitely ironic .
When the Civil War started , it was promoted as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hundreds of thousands of white men from southern Illinois enlisted not to free the slaves but to restore the Union .
And then by 1863 , when it became more clear it was a war to free the slaves , many people deserted .
Today , the Civil War is taught as a war to free the slaves and that Illinois was a “ free state.
” The reality is it ’ s a little more complicated .
People don ’ t know about it because people don ’ t talk about it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history is not a required class .
If people aren ’ t taught about it and they don ’ t hear the stories , then of course they don ’ t know about it .
That just encourages this myth that in Illinois and in the Northern states there was no racism here .
There was no slavery .
You know , that it ’ s just bad white people in the South that were the problem .
Did Lincoln ’ s assassination sort of let us off the hook in terms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slavery ?
When an important public figure dies , the way that we tell their stories is often shifted to be about their accomplishments , and these nuanced , complicating factors can get pushed away .
I ’ m not sure .
Illinois wasn ’ t the only Northern state that had slavery .
Slavery existed in other Northern states .
In the 1850s , with the publication of “ Uncle Tom ’ s Cabin ” and then stories circulating in the press about the evils of slavery , some people began to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think the pendulum was already moving .
And then of course , when Lincoln was assassinated , that image of the Great Emancipator did help block out the state ’ s history with slavery .
Why would it be important for people to learn about this sort of state history ?
Whenever I write about something that ’ s not flattering to the region or to the state , well-meaning , nice people will say : “ Why do you always write about the negative stuff ?
Why do you always have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were doing research on the Ku Klux Klan in Alexander County and after they did a presentation , someone said to me : “ Why did you have them do this ?
We ’ re trying to forget that .
We ’ re not like that anymore.
” And I keep saying that , until people confront their past and acknowledge that it ’ s there , you can ’ t move forward .

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 ProPublica’s Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox as soon as they are published.
Illinois schools are not required to teach a class in the state’s history. Perhaps as a result, you may be surprised to learn that Illinois at one time allowed slavery. But Darrel Dexter, a historian and high school social studies teacher in Tamms, has been researching, writing about and teaching the history of slavery in Illinois for years. His book about the topic, “Bondage in Egypt, Slavery in Southern Illinois,” was published by Southeast Missouri State University in 2011, and described by one academic reviewer as “the most comprehensive account to date of racial slavery in Illinois.” I first met Dexter at the public library in Anna, Illinois, while reporting on its history as a sundown town. Since then, he’s helped me better understand the parts of our state’s history often left out of classroom curricula and, as a result, the public’s understanding of Illinois history.
I recently spoke with Dexter just ahead of the Juneteenth holiday, which commemorates the ending of slavery. Here is an edited version of our conversation.
In learning about the Civil War, we typically learn there were “slave states” and “free states.” In what ways does Illinois complicate those seemingly clear-cut definitions?
Illinois is what I would call a quasi-slave state. And what’s surprising to people is that it existed here within the law. It begins with the colonial slave laws that came from France (because Illinois was a French territory). And so slavery, at least the enslavement of Africans and then later African American people, started in the French settlements, at least as early as 1720, maybe even before that. And then the Northwest Ordinance (an act that provided a path for much of the Great Lakes region to be admitted to the Union) stated that there shall be neither slavery nor indentured servitude, nor involuntary servitude, except as the punishment of crime. And so people seem to think, “Well, that does it for slavery.” But people still brought slaves in, in violation of the law.
But then as early as 1803, a loophole was created that [essentially] said: “Bring your slaves to Illinois. It’s fine. Just go through the formality of an indenture contract.” Some contracts were for 99 years.
But most indentured people really weren’t given a choice. If your master, or someone who’s claimed to be your master, or has told you they were your master for, you know, 20, 30, 40 years, tells you to put your mark [signature] on a paper that says you’re willing to continue as my indentured servant, it’s not likely that someone would refuse.
This reminds me of something you said once before about slavery being adaptable. In a talk you gave at the Chicago History Museum last year, you said, “Slavery was called a ‘peculiar institution’ for a reason—and the reason is because it can be adapted.” Can you tell me a bit more about what you meant by that?
I meant that when people think about slavery, and this is largely due to the fact that so many of us get much of our information from the entertainment media, we envision slavery as the Deep South and working on cotton plantations. And what really surprised me as I began researching slavery in Illinois was there weren’t the big cotton plantations, but at the same time there was slavery. And so our image of slavery is not necessarily wrong, but it’s a lot more complicated. It’s a lot broader. I think that what we tend to do oftentimes is think of slavery and racism as something they have down South and kind of with a judgmental attitude: “You know, we’re not like that [in Illinois]. We don’t have slavery here. We didn’t have slaves.” Actually, we did. It was just a different form that was adapted to meet the needs that we had for enslaved people.
What were some of those needs and how different did that look?
Dexter: Here in Union County, although it’s not officially documented, when our first log cabin courthouse was built on the square in Jonesboro, the person that received the contract to build that log cabin was a slaveholder named Thomas Cox. He would have sent enslaved people to work, cutting the trees and building the cabin. Slaves can work in cornfields just as well as they can work in cotton fields.
In the years leading up to the Civil War, where was Illinois positioned in terms of slavery?
1848 was the year that the [state] Constitution was passed in Illinois. That was truly our first “free” constitution. The 1818 Constitution was called a “free” constitution, but it allowed indentured servitude. The 1848 Constitution ended that and made Illinois a free state that did not permit slavery.
But then in 1853, the state legislature passed a law which made the settlement of African Americans in Illinois a crime. If African Americans remained in Illinois beyond 10 days, they could be arrested and fined. If they couldn’t pay the fines, they were to be auctioned off. It only lasted five years that we were truly a free state.
What would African Americans who sought new livelihoods in Illinois have faced arriving here in the mid-1800s?
Well, beginning of course in 1853, settlement was illegal. The counties that had a free black population already in 1853 kept detailed records. All the free black people were listed by name, physical description and origin. They had to prove that they were free in order to live in Illinois legally.
Those documents… those were what’s referred to as “freedom papers”?
Right. So if you were formerly enslaved or even if you had been born free, you should always have had those freedom papers handy in your pocket. In the 1820s, Illinois had a state law that said all white men are required to stop any black person and have them prove that they were free. I can remember a woman asking me once if I thought this was the beginning of policing of black communities, and I never really saw the connection before she mentioned that. But every white man was required to do it. If people could not prove their freedom documentation, they were placed under arrest — basically a citizen’s arrest—taken to a justice of the peace, put on trial, advertised in the newspapers as a runaway, and then the white person would receive a reward.
So there was incentive to do this.
Right. Chicago newspapers said there were people making a living doing this. And they became known as the kidnapping gangs, because basically they were kidnapping people to make a profit.
Why don’t we learn about this in Illinois? We know of Illinois as being the Land of Lincoln, the home state of the Great Emancipator, yet as you say Illinois was a quasi-slave state.
Well, it’s definitely ironic. When the Civil War started, it was promoted as the war to save the Union. Hundreds of thousands of white men from southern Illinois enlisted not to free the slaves but to restore the Union. And then by 1863, when it became more clear it was a war to free the slaves, many people deserted.
Today, the Civil War is taught as a war to free the slaves and that Illinois was a “free state.” The reality is it’s a little more complicated. People don’t know about it because people don’t talk about it. Here in Illinois, our state history is not a required class. If people aren’t taught about it and they don’t hear the stories, then of course they don’t know about it. That just encourages this myth that in Illinois and in the Northern states there was no racism here. There was no slavery. You know, that it’s just bad white people in the South that were the problem.
Did Lincoln’s assassination sort of let us off the hook in terms of acknowledging the state’s role in slavery? When an important public figure dies, the way that we tell their stories is often shifted to be about their accomplishments, and these nuanced, complicating factors can get pushed away.
I’m not sure. Illinois wasn’t the only Northern state that had slavery. Slavery existed in other Northern states. In the 1850s, with the publication of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” and then stories circulating in the press about the evils of slavery, some people began to very gradually become abolitionists. So I think the pendulum was already moving. And then of course, when Lincoln was assassinated, that image of the Great Emancipator did help block out the state’s history with slavery.
Why would it be important for people to learn about this sort of state history?
Whenever I write about something that’s not flattering to the region or to the state, well-meaning, nice people will say: “Why do you always write about the negative stuff? Why do you always have to bring that up?” My students were doing research on the Ku Klux Klan in Alexander County and after they did a presentation, someone said to me: “Why did you have them do this? We’re trying to forget that. We’re not like that anymore.” And I keep saying that, until people confront their past and acknowledge that it’s there, you can’t move forward.


motherjones--2020-06-25--Trump Regulators Just Rolled Back a Major Obama Era Bank Reform

On Thursday , five federal regulatory agencies voted to roll back a key financial rule enacted following the 2008 financial crisis .
The change will make it easier for banks to invest in venture capital and will tweak some restrictions on bank investing in hedge funds and private equity—all forms of riskier investing that Congress limited after 2010 .
The revised rule will also shrink the financial cushion that banks are required to keep on hand during certain types of derivatives trading .
This particular change could free up an estimated $ 40 billion of capital for banks to trade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation during the financial crisis , told CNBC that she believes the changes are “ ill-advised ” because “ that $ 40 billion that will no longer be in banks to protect them ” will expose the government to more risk .
Called the Volcker rule , the original version of this regulation has long been one of the most controversial parts of the Dodd-Frank Act , a sweeping package of Wall Street reforms enacted after the 2008 crisis and the bailout that stabilized the financial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s goal was to prevent future taxpayer-funded bailouts , by cracking down on the riskier investing practices by banks that precipitated the crisis , and pushing them to better insulate themselves financially for economic downturns .
Since the start of his presidency , Trump has been vocal about his desire to undo Obama-era financial regulations .
And his administration has already made a number of such changes , including signing a bill that rolled back parts of Dodd-Frank , and paving the way to undo the fiduciary rule , which requires financial advisers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their clients .
This latest roll back of the Volcker Rule is consistent with the administration ’ s commitment to financial deregulation .
When proposing this rule change in January , the five regulatory agencies said that the original Volcker rule had led to confusion and restricted bank activity that it was never meant to cut off .
The goal of these changes , they said , was to streamline the rules around investing in what are known as “ covered funds ” —hedge funds , private equity , and similar firms—to allow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the economic crisis wrought by the Coronavirus pandemic continues , some current and former financial regulators see the loosening of this regulation as potentially increasing risk in the financial system at a time when there is little room for big losses , given the trillions in government spending on pandemic relief to households and businesses and record-high unemployment .
Rostin Behnam , a commissioner on the Commodities Futures Trading Commission , issued a statement of dissent , voicing his opposition to his colleagues ’ decision .
“ As the tenth anniversary of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of crisis , I think it is critical to take a hard look at how far we have come in ten years , and how well markets have adapted to carefully crafted policy intended to create a more resilient financial system , ” he wrote .
“ Chipping away , particularly at a time of great uncertainty , risks a reversion to the past.
” In his statement , Behnam also quotes a letter from the late Paul Volcker , the former Federal Reserve chairman who championed the eponymous rule .
Several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when regulators began floating these changes to the rule , Volcker penned a letter to Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell warning of the consequences should the administration make the proposed change .
“ The new rule amplifies risk in the financial system , increases moral hazard and erodes protections against conflicts of interest that were so glaringly on display during the last crisis , ” wrote Volcker .
Following today ’ s announcement finalizing the Volcker rule changes , bank stocks rose 2 percent .
The rule will take effect on October @ @

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
On Thursday, five federal regulatory agencies voted to roll back a key financial rule enacted following the 2008 financial crisis. The change will make it easier for banks to invest in venture capital and will tweak some restrictions on bank investing in hedge funds and private equity—all forms of riskier investing that Congress limited after 2010.
The revised rule will also shrink the financial cushion that banks are required to keep on hand during certain types of derivatives trading. This particular change could free up an estimated $40 billion of capital for banks to trade with.
Sheila Bair, who served as chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation during the financial crisis, told CNBC that she believes the changes are “ill-advised” because “that $40 billion that will no longer be in banks to protect them” will expose the government to more risk.
Called the Volcker rule, the original version of this regulation has long been one of the most controversial parts of the Dodd-Frank Act, a sweeping package of Wall Street reforms enacted after the 2008 crisis and the bailout that stabilized the financial system in its wake. Dodd-Frank’s goal was to prevent future taxpayer-funded bailouts, by cracking down on the riskier investing practices by banks that precipitated the crisis, and pushing them to better insulate themselves financially for economic downturns.
Since the start of his presidency, Trump has been vocal about his desire to undo Obama-era financial regulations. And his administration has already made a number of such changes, including signing a bill that rolled back parts of Dodd-Frank, and paving the way to undo the fiduciary rule, which requires financial advisers to act in the best interest of their clients. This latest roll back of the Volcker Rule is consistent with the administration’s commitment to financial deregulation.
When proposing this rule change in January, the five regulatory agencies said that the original Volcker rule had led to confusion and restricted bank activity that it was never meant to cut off. The goal of these changes, they said, was to streamline the rules around investing in what are known as “covered funds”—hedge funds, private equity, and similar firms—to allow for some lower-risk activity.
But as the economic crisis wrought by the Coronavirus pandemic continues, some current and former financial regulators see the loosening of this regulation as potentially increasing risk in the financial system at a time when there is little room for big losses, given the trillions in government spending on pandemic relief to households and businesses and record-high unemployment.
Rostin Behnam, a commissioner on the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, issued a statement of dissent, voicing his opposition to his colleagues’ decision.
“As the tenth anniversary of the Dodd-Frank Act sadly coincides with a different kind of crisis, I think it is critical to take a hard look at how far we have come in ten years, and how well markets have adapted to carefully crafted policy intended to create a more resilient financial system,” he wrote. “Chipping away, particularly at a time of great uncertainty, risks a reversion to the past.”
In his statement, Behnam also quotes a letter from the late Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman who championed the eponymous rule. Several months before his death in December 2019, when regulators began floating these changes to the rule, Volcker penned a letter to Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell warning of the consequences should the administration make the proposed change.
“The new rule amplifies risk in the financial system, increases moral hazard and erodes protections against conflicts of interest that were so glaringly on display during the last crisis,” wrote Volcker.
Following today’s announcement finalizing the Volcker rule changes, bank stocks rose 2 percent. The rule will take effect on October 1.


motherjones--2020-06-25--Guards Pepper-Spray Protesting Asylum Seekers at an ICE Detention Center

Guards at an immigration detention center in Louisiana pepper-sprayed asylum seekers this week who were demanding their release , according to two of the protesters .
Menoh Ernest , a Cameroonian asylum seeker at the Richwood Correctional Center in rural northern Louisiana , said about two dozen people were pepper-sprayed on Monday night .
Guards , he said , placed their knees on demonstrators ’ necks while restraining them .
Another Cameroonian asylum seeker who has been detained for nearly 18 months , whom I ’ ll call Wilfred because he did not give permission to use his name , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trouble swallowing after guards “ climbed ” onto his neck .
The incident is the latest in an extensive pattern of Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainees being pepper-sprayed as they push for their release and safer conditions during the coronavirus pandemic .
Hundreds of detained immigrants and asylum seekers have been exposed to pepper spray on at least a dozen occasions since late March .
Unlike with deaths in ICE custody , the agency does not have a policy of disclosing uses of force , including the use of chemical agents , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have gone unreported .
ICE spokesperson Bryan Cox confirmed the pepper-spraying , but he said in an email that the two men ’ s accounts left out “ critical information.
” The pepper-spraying , he said , only “ occurred only after a group of detainees refused repeated commands from facility staff and only after numerous attempts to verbally deescalate the situation were unsuccessful.
” His response did not dispute the detained men ’ s claim that they were protesting peacefully .
Cox said that “ verbal [ deescalation ] attempts were successful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compliant.
” He added , “ however , to maintain orderly facility operations and protect the health and safety of all persons a brief calculated use of [ pepper ] spray was deployed against the group of detainees who refused to comply with directives from facility staff.
” For many people in ICE custody , the sense that neither deportation nor release is imminent is deepening a feeling of being trapped .
Ernest said he ’ s been detained for 11 months , even though a judge ordered him removed from the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s been detained for months after signing a deportation order .
Ernest explained that he was healthy when he entered ICE custody but now suffers from depression and high blood pressure .
He was infected with COVID-19 during an outbreak that started at Richwood in April , he said .
Two guards at the jail died in late April and at least two people in ICE custody at Richwood were hospitalized with COVID-19 .
All 65 people who tested positive have now recovered or been released , according to ICE .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fight to release one of those men . )
The two Cameroonians , along with people from countries including Bangladesh , Nepal , and Uganda , refused to leave the recreation yard on Monday as a way of protesting to demand their release , Wilfred said .
He described guards at Richwood , a for-profit facility run by LaSalle Corrections under a contract with ICE , shaking cans of pepper spray as they approached him and other protesters .
“ When [ the guards ] were coming , we were sitting down , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was no violence.
” Wilfred added that he held up his hand to protect himself while guards sprayed him .
He said he had bruising on his face and leg as a result of the force used to restrain him .
He also told his attorney , Lara Nochomovitz , that guards had “ climbed ” onto his neck .
Asked about Wilfred ’ s claim that a guard placed a knee on his neck , Cox responded , “ After employing OC spray facility staff physically restrained the detainees and took them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ force was conducted in accordance with agency policy and reported to ICE HQ for review , which is standard practice.
” A Cuban man in another dorm at Richwood , who reported having been detained for more than a year , said that even one of the ICE deportation officers at Richwood told him he couldn ’ t understand why the agency is refusing to release some people there .
Even detainees who want to be deported rather than stay in facilities where coronavirus is spreading have continued to spend months in detention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries have been reticent to accept deportees from the United States , which has the world ’ s most coronavirus cases and deaths .
But the Cuban man , like many Richwood detainees I ’ ve spoken to , wondered whether ICE ’ s decision to hold people for such long periods of time was a scheme for enriching private prisons companies .
“ It ’ s like they have us kidnapped here , ” he said , in Spanish .
“ That might sound a bit harsh , but it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It sometimes seems to us like they ’ re running a business here .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Guards at an immigration detention center in Louisiana pepper-sprayed asylum seekers this week who were demanding their release, according to two of the protesters.
Menoh Ernest, a Cameroonian asylum seeker at the Richwood Correctional Center in rural northern Louisiana, said about two dozen people were pepper-sprayed on Monday night. Guards, he said, placed their knees on demonstrators’ necks while restraining them. Another Cameroonian asylum seeker who has been detained for nearly 18 months, whom I’ll call Wilfred because he did not give permission to use his name, reported that he still had bruises and trouble swallowing after guards “climbed” onto his neck.
The incident is the latest in an extensive pattern of Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainees being pepper-sprayed as they push for their release and safer conditions during the coronavirus pandemic. Hundreds of detained immigrants and asylum seekers have been exposed to pepper spray on at least a dozen occasions since late March. Unlike with deaths in ICE custody, the agency does not have a policy of disclosing uses of force, including the use of chemical agents, so it’s possible that some incidents have gone unreported.
ICE spokesperson Bryan Cox confirmed the pepper-spraying, but he said in an email that the two men’s accounts left out “critical information.” The pepper-spraying, he said, only “occurred only after a group of detainees refused repeated commands from facility staff and only after numerous attempts to verbally deescalate the situation were unsuccessful.” His response did not dispute the detained men’s claim that they were protesting peacefully.
Cox said that “verbal [deescalation] attempts were successful in getting approximately ten detainees to become compliant.” He added, “however, to maintain orderly facility operations and protect the health and safety of all persons a brief calculated use of [pepper] spray was deployed against the group of detainees who refused to comply with directives from facility staff.”
For many people in ICE custody, the sense that neither deportation nor release is imminent is deepening a feeling of being trapped. Ernest said he’s been detained for 11 months, even though a judge ordered him removed from the country in December. Wilfred also said he’s been detained for months after signing a deportation order.
Ernest explained that he was healthy when he entered ICE custody but now suffers from depression and high blood pressure. He was infected with COVID-19 during an outbreak that started at Richwood in April, he said. Two guards at the jail died in late April and at least two people in ICE custody at Richwood were hospitalized with COVID-19. All 65 people who tested positive have now recovered or been released, according to ICE. (I wrote earlier this month about the fight to release one of those men.)
The two Cameroonians, along with people from countries including Bangladesh, Nepal, and Uganda, refused to leave the recreation yard on Monday as a way of protesting to demand their release, Wilfred said. He described guards at Richwood, a for-profit facility run by LaSalle Corrections under a contract with ICE, shaking cans of pepper spray as they approached him and other protesters. “When [the guards] were coming, we were sitting down,” he said, “because there was no violence.”
Wilfred added that he held up his hand to protect himself while guards sprayed him. He said he had bruising on his face and leg as a result of the force used to restrain him. He also told his attorney, Lara Nochomovitz, that guards had “climbed” onto his neck.
Asked about Wilfred’s claim that a guard placed a knee on his neck, Cox responded, “After employing OC spray facility staff physically restrained the detainees and took them for medical evaluation. The use of force was conducted in accordance with agency policy and reported to ICE HQ for review, which is standard practice.”
A Cuban man in another dorm at Richwood, who reported having been detained for more than a year, said that even one of the ICE deportation officers at Richwood told him he couldn’t understand why the agency is refusing to release some people there. Even detainees who want to be deported rather than stay in facilities where coronavirus is spreading have continued to spend months in detention, due to bureaucratic delays and because countries have been reticent to accept deportees from the United States, which has the world’s most coronavirus cases and deaths.
But the Cuban man, like many Richwood detainees I’ve spoken to, wondered whether ICE’s decision to hold people for such long periods of time was a scheme for enriching private prisons companies. “It’s like they have us kidnapped here,” he said, in Spanish. “That might sound a bit harsh, but it’s like being kidnapped.” He added, “It sometimes seems to us like they’re running a business here.”


motherjones--2020-06-25--Slavery Existed in Illinois, But Schools Don’t Always Teach That History


motherjones--2020-06-26--There’s Another Confederate Monument in the US Capitol: Jefferson Davis’ Old Desk

Before he was a traitor , Jefferson Davis was a senator from Mississippi .
From the moment he walked out of the US Capitol to join the Confederacy in January 1861 , his mahogany desk in the Senate chamber became a prize to be fought over , both politically and physically .
Sen. Simon Cameron of Pennsylvania claimed to have made this prediction as a parting shot to Davis before his defection : “ I believe , in the justice of God , that a Negro some day will come and occupy your seat.
” In April 1861 , Union @ @ @ @ @ @ @ located Davis ’ former desk and tried to slice it apart .
As Senate official Issac Bassett later recalled : The desk was repaired and put back on the floor .
Sen. Milton Latham , a pro-Southern Democrat from California , unsuccessfully offered to buy it after he took Davis ’ chair home .
In the years to come , there would be more battles over whom the desk rightfully belonged to , and whether it stood for tradition or treachery .
When the dust settled , Davis and his cause were dead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much his .
Two weeks ago , Reps. Barbara Lee ( D-Calif. ) and Bennie Thompson ( D-Miss . )
and Sen. Cory Booker ( D-N.J. ) , introduced bills to remove statues of Davis and 10 0ther men who served in the Confederacy from the Capitol .
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has also called for the statues to go , as well as portraits of four former speakers who were Confederates .
As the effort to scrub tributes to white supremacists from the halls of Congress gains momentum , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ desk that once belonged to the president of the Confederate States of America is overdue .
The fight for Davis ’ Senate desk resumed in 1870 , when Mississippi ’ s legislature named Hiram Rhodes Revels to a serve a one-year term as the state ’ s first Black senator .
( He was also the first African American member of Congress . )
Sen. Revels was sworn in only after a two-day debate in which Democratic holdouts questioned his citizenship and credentials to serve .
While there was speculation that Revels would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he did not occupy it , having assumed the office once held by Albert G. Brown , who had also resigned in 1861 to join the Confederacy .
Yet that didn ’ t diminish the symbolism of Revels ’ ascension to the upper chamber of Congress .
Sen. James Nye of Nevada hailed Revels ’ arrival as “ a magnificent spectacle of retributive justice.
” One typically racist account in a Pennsylvania paper griped , “ The place once occupied by Jefferson Davis is now filled by the huge form of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Davis ’ fortunes , cartoonist Thomas Nast drew him cringing jealously at the sight of the African American senator who “ hath leap ’ d into my seat.
” According to anti-Reconstructionists , the Republicans sought to secure Davis ’ old desk for Revels , a notion a New Orleans paper called “ a wanton insult , so like vomiting on the grave of a dead grandmother.
” But the move was supposedly rebuffed by Edmund G. Ross , the Kansas senator who had been unknowingly seated at the desk .
( Ross @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote to acquit President Andrew Johnson in his 1868 impeachment trial . )
The description of the encounter was suspiciously tidy : And in order to bring it about [ Senators ] Sumner , Wilson and half a dozen other negro-worshipers approached Senator Ross , of Kansas , and said to him , “ Arise , exchange seats with the man and brother , Revels , that history may tell , to the perpetual confusion of Southern chivalry , that a despised negro occupies the seat of the traitor Jeff Davis.
” Mr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paper upon which he was writing .
“ So this , ” said he , “ is the seat in which Davis used to sit ?
” “ And you and the negro you ’ ve got here want me to get out of it and lot the negro get into it , do you ?
” “ Then , ” said Ross , taking up his pen , “ I ’ ve only to say that I ’ ll see you and the negro __________ first.
” For the next two decades @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Desk 60 , was relegated to obscurity .
Bassett , who worked as the Senate ’ s assistant doorkeeper until 1895 , reportedly resisted the entreaties of “ some mighty influential senators ” and refused to identify it “ for fear the visitors will chip off splinters for souvenirs.
” Somehow it was rediscovered in the late 19th century .
Yet when it belonged to Sen. Francis Cockrell of Missouri ( a former Confederate general ) in 1906 , a newspaper reported that its history “ is known but to a few persons.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s senators , the desk came to hold a talismanic allure for them .
Sen. John S. Williams was said to have “ coveted ” it for many years while he served in the House of Representatives .
He took his Senate seat in 1911 , just as a new wave of monuments to the Confederacy was being erected across the South .
Williams received Davis ’ desk due to the “ determined demands which he made for it in his most unreconstructed and rebellious manner , ” as the Saturday Evening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also came to revere the desk .
“ I ’ d rather sit here than any place in the Senate , ” Sen. Pat Harrison said in 1929 .
Sen. J.O .
Eastland , a segregationist who called Black people “ an inferior race , ” reported in 1942 that it was “ the most soughtafter desk in the chamber.
” ( He lost it to a senator from Maryland . )
As the civil rights movement surged in the 1950s , the desk and its symbolism took on new significance .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mississippi journalist still stung by Nast ’ s 87-year-old cartoon complained that it was nothing but “ Radical Republican propaganda ” that falsely suggested that Revels had literally sat in the seat of “ the martyred president of the prostrate South.
” He repeated the claim that “ to further humiliate the South , ” Reconstruction-era Republicans had tried to give Revels the desk .
“ Today , ” Magee gloated , “ a white Senator from the Deep South…sits in the desk where Jefferson Davis once sat.
” In 1963 , liberal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a metaphor for America ’ s painful path toward racial equality .
He related a story in which Vice President Lyndon Johnson pointed out the desk to boxer Sonny Liston during a tour of the Senate chamber .
Johnson showed “ the big Negro ” the scratches left by the Union soldiers , now filled with layers of varnish .
“ The scars of race hatred have been varnished over several times in this country , ” Pearson wrote , “ but they are still there.
” Perhaps as president , Johnson would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and understanding of human nature and his roots in the South , to make them heal forever.
” At that time , the desk had been held for more than a decade by Sen. John C. Stennis , a Democrat who was first elected in 1947 and was known for opposing every piece of civil rights legislation that came before him .
He spoke of the desk with reverence .
“ As one who has as his desk on the Senate floor Jefferson Davis ’ own desk , ” Stennis told a gathering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 1956 , “ my own mind dwells with singular propriety on the great career the Mississippian carved out for himself as a statesman in that body.
” At a 1961 event commemorating the centennial of Davis ’ inauguration as the president of the Confederacy , Stennis gave the drunk history version of how the desk had been damaged .
“ A Union soldier guarding the Senate Chamber one night was drinking , ” he said .
After being caught bayonetting Davis ’ desk , the remorseful soldier “ picked up some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the desk.
” A week after Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1964 , Stennis read an article by Magee into the Congressional Record in which he returned to the misconception that Revels took Davis ’ seat : “ The canard of a Negro succeeding Jefferson Davis in the US Senate lingers through the years.
” As the elderly Stennis went on to be portrayed as a “ mild mannered ” “ pillar of the Senate ” and “ a legend ” ( in Joe Biden ’ s words ) , his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ detail with no connection to his segregationist past .
After he lost a leg to cancer , Stennis attached a brace to the table so he could stand next to it .
“ Stennis ’ Senate desk , like its present owner , has its scars , ” an Associated Press reporter wrote in 1987 .
When Stennis retired in 1989 , the desk was bequeathed to Sen. Thad Cochran and moved to the Republican side of the chamber .
Its relocation , the Economist wrote , was “ a symbol of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also signaled how little had shifted when it came to Mississippi senators fetishizing a piece of furniture .
Stennis ’ seat went to Sen. Trent Lott , who , according to Washingtonian , “ always coveted [ Davis ’ ] desk and hoped to stay in the Senate long enough to have it.
” That day never came , though in 1995 Lott and Cochran penned a resolution to ensure that the desk “ shall at the request of the senior Senator from Mississippi , be assigned to such Senator for use in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” It passed with unanimous consent .
The following year , when Lott became Senate majority leader , Cochran stood at the desk and praised his junior colleague as the latest in a line of “ outstanding ” and “ distinguished ” Mississippi senators starting with Davis .
During his career , Lott did not hide his admiration for Davis .
In 1998 , he said , “ Sometimes I feel closer to Jefferson Davis than any other man in America.
” In 2015 , amid calls to remove the statues of Davis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cochran suggested that removing the statue might lead to more purges of Davis memorabilia .
“ I don ’ t want them taking my desk away either .
That ’ s Jefferson Davis ’ s desk over there where I ’ m sitting , ” he told Roll Call .
“ I ’ m very proud to have that.
” “ Jefferson Davis is a historical figure to be studied and to be honored , ” said Sen. Roger Wicker , who had replaced Lott in 2007 .
“ Was he perfect ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wicker now sits at the Davis desk .
( His office did not respond to a request for comment . )
Even now , the Davis desk is often treated like it ’ s just another example of the Senate ’ s reverence for history and anachronism .
Senators do make a big deal over where they sit : The desks formerly belonging to Daniel Webster and Henry Clay are reserved for the senior senators from New Hampshire and Kentucky , respectively .
Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown wrote an entire book about his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ F. Kennedy , George McGovern , and both Al Gores .
Desk 47 , once used by Warren G. Harding and Richard Nixon , has been seen as tainted .
( Currently held by Sen. Richard Burr , it may not soon shed its scandalous reputation . )
This all may seem quaint , but senators seek out historically significant seats to signal their aspirations and values .
So what is being said by those who have laid claim , through custom and decree , to the desk once used by a white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other racists and terrible men who have served in the Senate , the Davis desk has been turned into a tribute to its original holder .
It might have been simply left as a relic—nothing more than government property ( as Bassett put it ) passed from lawmaker to lawmaker .
( During his time as a desk-hopping senator , Harry S. Truman sat at the desk with no apparent comment . )
Instead , its occupants turned it into a vehicle for rehabilitating Davis ’ reputation .
Much as the nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so it might stay in use , Davis ’ racism and secessionism have been smoothed over so that 21st century white politicians may praise him without embarrassment .
It ’ s time to look past the varnish .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Before he was a traitor, Jefferson Davis was a senator from Mississippi. From the moment he walked out of the US Capitol to join the Confederacy in January 1861, his mahogany desk in the Senate chamber became a prize to be fought over, both politically and physically. Sen. Simon Cameron of Pennsylvania claimed to have made this prediction as a parting shot to Davis before his defection: “I believe, in the justice of God, that a Negro some day will come and occupy your seat.” In April 1861, Union soldiers who were billeted inside the Senate located Davis’ former desk and tried to slice it apart. As Senate official Issac Bassett later recalled:
…I heard a noise, as if someone was splitting wood. I looked over on the Democratic side of the Chamber and behold! There was a crowd [of] soldiers with their bayonets, cutting one of the desks to pieces. I hollered at the top of my voice, “Stop! What are you doing?” Several answered, “We are cutting that damn traitor’s desk to pieces.” I ran in among them and told them it was not his desk, that it belonged to the government. “You were put here to protect, and not to destroy!”
The desk was repaired and put back on the floor. Sen. Milton Latham, a pro-Southern Democrat from California, unsuccessfully offered to buy it after he took Davis’ chair home. In the years to come, there would be more battles over whom the desk rightfully belonged to, and whether it stood for tradition or treachery. When the dust settled, Davis and his cause were dead, but the desk was still very much his.
Two weeks ago, Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), introduced bills to remove statues of Davis and 10 0ther men who served in the Confederacy from the Capitol. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has also called for the statues to go, as well as portraits of four former speakers who were Confederates. As the effort to scrub tributes to white supremacists from the halls of Congress gains momentum, a closer look at the history of the desk that once belonged to the president of the Confederate States of America is overdue.
The fight for Davis’ Senate desk resumed in 1870, when Mississippi’s legislature named Hiram Rhodes Revels to a serve a one-year term as the state’s first Black senator. (He was also the first African American member of Congress.) Sen. Revels was sworn in only after a two-day debate in which Democratic holdouts questioned his citizenship and credentials to serve. While there was speculation that Revels would be seated at Davis’ former desk, he did not occupy it, having assumed the office once held by Albert G. Brown, who had also resigned in 1861 to join the Confederacy.
Yet that didn’t diminish the symbolism of Revels’ ascension to the upper chamber of Congress. Sen. James Nye of Nevada hailed Revels’ arrival as “a magnificent spectacle of retributive justice.” One typically racist account in a Pennsylvania paper griped, “The place once occupied by Jefferson Davis is now filled by the huge form of a Burly African.” Savoring the reversal of Davis’ fortunes, cartoonist Thomas Nast drew him cringing jealously at the sight of the African American senator who “hath leap’d into my seat.”
According to anti-Reconstructionists, the Republicans sought to secure Davis’ old desk for Revels, a notion a New Orleans paper called “a wanton insult, so like vomiting on the grave of a dead grandmother.” But the move was supposedly rebuffed by Edmund G. Ross, the Kansas senator who had been unknowingly seated at the desk. (Ross was already infamous for casting the decisive vote to acquit President Andrew Johnson in his 1868 impeachment trial.) The description of the encounter was suspiciously tidy:
And in order to bring it about [Senators] Sumner, Wilson and half a dozen other negro-worshipers approached Senator Ross, of Kansas, and said to him, “Arise, exchange seats with the man and brother, Revels, that history may tell, to the perpetual confusion of Southern chivalry, that a despised negro occupies the seat of the traitor Jeff Davis.” Mr. Ross looked up from the sheet of paper upon which he was writing. “So this,” said he, “is the seat in which Davis used to sit ?” “Yes,” replied Sumner, “it is.” “And you and the negro you’ve got here want me to get out of it and lot the negro get into it, do you?” “We do,” answered Sumner. “Then,” said Ross, taking up his pen, “I’ve only to say that I’ll see you and the negro __________ first.”
For the next two decades, the desk, also known as Desk 60, was relegated to obscurity. Bassett, who worked as the Senate’s assistant doorkeeper until 1895, reportedly resisted the entreaties of “some mighty influential senators” and refused to identify it “for fear the visitors will chip off splinters for souvenirs.” Somehow it was rediscovered in the late 19th century. Yet when it belonged to Sen. Francis Cockrell of Missouri (a former Confederate general) in 1906, a newspaper reported that its history “is known but to a few persons.”
While not always held by Mississippi’s senators, the desk came to hold a talismanic allure for them. Sen. John S. Williams was said to have “coveted” it for many years while he served in the House of Representatives. He took his Senate seat in 1911, just as a new wave of monuments to the Confederacy was being erected across the South. Williams received Davis’ desk due to the “determined demands which he made for it in his most unreconstructed and rebellious manner,” as the Saturday Evening Post slyly put it.
His successors also came to revere the desk. “I’d rather sit here than any place in the Senate,” Sen. Pat Harrison said in 1929. Sen. J.O. Eastland, a segregationist who called Black people “an inferior race,” reported in 1942 that it was “the most soughtafter desk in the chamber.” (He lost it to a senator from Maryland.)
As the civil rights movement surged in the 1950s, the desk and its symbolism took on new significance. In 1957, Rex Magee, a white Mississippi journalist still stung by Nast’s 87-year-old cartoon complained that it was nothing but “Radical Republican propaganda” that falsely suggested that Revels had literally sat in the seat of “the martyred president of the prostrate South.” He repeated the claim that “to further humiliate the South,” Reconstruction-era Republicans had tried to give Revels the desk. “Today,” Magee gloated, “a white Senator from the Deep South…sits in the desk where Jefferson Davis once sat.”
In 1963, liberal columnist Drew Pearson imagined the desk as a metaphor for America’s painful path toward racial equality. He related a story in which Vice President Lyndon Johnson pointed out the desk to boxer Sonny Liston during a tour of the Senate chamber. Johnson showed “the big Negro” the scratches left by the Union soldiers, now filled with layers of varnish. “The scars of race hatred have been varnished over several times in this country,” Pearson wrote, “but they are still there.” Perhaps as president, Johnson would “be able with his great persuasion and understanding of human nature and his roots in the South, to make them heal forever.”
At that time, the desk had been held for more than a decade by Sen. John C. Stennis, a Democrat who was first elected in 1947 and was known for opposing every piece of civil rights legislation that came before him. He spoke of the desk with reverence. “As one who has as his desk on the Senate floor Jefferson Davis’ own desk,” Stennis told a gathering of the United Daughters of the Confederacy in 1956, “my own mind dwells with singular propriety on the great career the Mississippian carved out for himself as a statesman in that body.”
At a 1961 event commemorating the centennial of Davis’ inauguration as the president of the Confederacy, Stennis gave the drunk history version of how the desk had been damaged. “A Union soldier guarding the Senate Chamber one night was drinking,” he said. After being caught bayonetting Davis’ desk, the remorseful soldier “picked up some of the splintered pieces and tried to restore the desk.” A week after Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1964, Stennis read an article by Magee into the Congressional Record in which he returned to the misconception that Revels took Davis’ seat: “The canard of a Negro succeeding Jefferson Davis in the US Senate lingers through the years.”
As the elderly Stennis went on to be portrayed as a “mild mannered” “pillar of the Senate” and “a legend” (in Joe Biden’s words), his desk was treated as a colorful personal detail with no connection to his segregationist past. After he lost a leg to cancer, Stennis attached a brace to the table so he could stand next to it. “Stennis’ Senate desk, like its present owner, has its scars,” an Associated Press reporter wrote in 1987.
When Stennis retired in 1989, the desk was bequeathed to Sen. Thad Cochran and moved to the Republican side of the chamber. Its relocation, the Economist wrote, was “a symbol of the great shift in southern politics.” It also signaled how little had shifted when it came to Mississippi senators fetishizing a piece of furniture. Stennis’ seat went to Sen. Trent Lott, who, according to Washingtonian, “always coveted [Davis’] desk and hoped to stay in the Senate long enough to have it.” That day never came, though in 1995 Lott and Cochran penned a resolution to ensure that the desk “shall at the request of the senior Senator from Mississippi, be assigned to such Senator for use in carrying out his or her senatorial duties.” It passed with unanimous consent.
The following year, when Lott became Senate majority leader, Cochran stood at the desk and praised his junior colleague as the latest in a line of “outstanding” and “distinguished” Mississippi senators starting with Davis. During his career, Lott did not hide his admiration for Davis. In 1998, he said, “Sometimes I feel closer to Jefferson Davis than any other man in America.”
In 2015, amid calls to remove the statues of Davis and other racists from the Capitol, Cochran suggested that removing the statue might lead to more purges of Davis memorabilia. “I don’t want them taking my desk away either. That’s Jefferson Davis’s desk over there where I’m sitting,” he told Roll Call. “I’m very proud to have that.” “Jefferson Davis is a historical figure to be studied and to be honored,” said Sen. Roger Wicker, who had replaced Lott in 2007. “Was he perfect? No. Was anybody? No.” Wicker now sits at the Davis desk. (His office did not respond to a request for comment.)
Even now, the Davis desk is often treated like it’s just another example of the Senate’s reverence for history and anachronism. Senators do make a big deal over where they sit: The desks formerly belonging to Daniel Webster and Henry Clay are reserved for the senior senators from New Hampshire and Kentucky, respectively. Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown wrote an entire book about his desk, whose former occupants included Robert F. Kennedy, George McGovern, and both Al Gores. Desk 47, once used by Warren G. Harding and Richard Nixon, has been seen as tainted. (Currently held by Sen. Richard Burr, it may not soon shed its scandalous reputation.)
This all may seem quaint, but senators seek out historically significant seats to signal their aspirations and values. So what is being said by those who have laid claim, through custom and decree, to the desk once used by a white supremacist traitor?
Unlike the desks of the other racists and terrible men who have served in the Senate, the Davis desk has been turned into a tribute to its original holder. It might have been simply left as a relic—nothing more than government property (as Bassett put it) passed from lawmaker to lawmaker. (During his time as a desk-hopping senator, Harry S. Truman sat at the desk with no apparent comment.) Instead, its occupants turned it into a vehicle for rehabilitating Davis’ reputation. Much as the nearly 200-year-old desk has been patched and polished so it might stay in use, Davis’ racism and secessionism have been smoothed over so that 21st century white politicians may praise him without embarrassment. It’s time to look past the varnish.


motherjones--2020-06-27--A Latino Man Died in Police Custody in Tucson—and the Public Didn’t Find Out for Two Months

Hundreds of people stood in the summer heat of Tucson , Arizona , on Thursday , candles in hand .
Fourteen times , they chanted the phrase “ Nana , ayúdame ” —Grandma , help me—the last words of a man named Carlos Adrian Ingram-Lopez , who in April died in police custody when officers responding to a domestic call handcuffed and pinned him face-down to the ground for 14 minutes , even as he told them he couldn ’ t breathe .
Ingram-Lopez died on April 21 , but details weren ’ t made public until the Tucson Police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The secrecy surrounding his last living moments—even city officials didn ’ t know about Ingram-Lopez ’ s death until last week—has caused outrage in the southern Arizona city , whose progressive image , some residents believe , is at odds with the way police treat its largely Latinx population .
Shortly after 1 a.m. on April 21 , Ingram-Lopez ’ s grandmother called 911 , saying her grandson “ was drunk , yelling , and running around the house naked.
” At Wednesday ’ s press conference , Tucson police chief Chris Magnus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ body camera , telling the crowd before he pressed play , “ I will share with you that this is a very difficult video to watch , especially knowing that Mr. Ingram-Lopez dies at the end.
” The footage showed Ingram-Lopez running to the garage naked .
“ He was acting in a highly erratic manner but soon became more compliant , ” Magnus said .
He immediately followed an officer ’ s order to get on the ground and lay on his stomach .
Officers quickly pinned him and handcuffed him with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laying face-down on the ground , Ingram-Lopez said he couldn ’ t breathe and repeatedly pleaded for water in English and Spanish : “ Nana , please , some water , I beg you.
” Minutes went by .
Ingram-Lopez began to scream between gargling or choking noises , but officers continued to keep him pinned on the ground .
“ You ’ re gon na get shocked dude , ” one officer said , as Ingram-Lopez continued crying out for help .
“ You ’ re gon na get zapped.
” One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ingram-Lopez ’ s back .
This continued for a few minutes until Ingram-Lopez seemed to calm down .
After a few more minutes , police realized he wasn ’ t breathing and flipped him on his side .
Paramedics would unsuccessfully perform CPR , and Ingram-Lopez died on the floor of his grandmother ’ s garage .
The medical examiner said that Ingram-Lopez had a preexisting heart condition and cocaine in his system but added that the cause of death was “ undetermined , ” Magnus said at the press conference .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the video quickly spread on social media under the hashtag # NanaAyudame .
Some posted about the need for alternatives to police when family members are having a mental health crisis .
Others tallied the number of times Ingram-Lopez cried for his grandmother and the times he said “ I ’ m sorry ” and “ I need water ” before his death .
His case is the latest instance of police killing a person of color in custody .
The Tucson chapter of Black Lives Matter—which had helped organize some protests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ George Floyd—said in a statement that it stood “ in solidarity with the Latinx community that is mourning the murder of one of its own.
” Over the last few weeks , at least three Latinos have been killed by police in California alone : Andres Guardado , Erik Salgado , and Sean Monterrosa .
The calls for reform and for defunding the police continue to grow , even if , nationwide , protests are shrinking in size .
On Twitter , the Latinx organization UnidosUS said of Ingram-Lopez ’ s death , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop , and it must stop now.
” At Wednesday ’ s press conference , Magnus added that an internal police investigation concluded that the three officers involved in Ingram-Lopez ’ s death—Samuel Routledge , Ryan Starbuck , and Jonathan Jackson—committed “ multiple policy violations , ” but that they did not use a chokehold or place their knees on Ingram-Lopez ’ s neck .
Investigators determined that the officers at the scene “ showed complete disregard for the training provided…but most importantly an apparent indifference or inability to recognize an individual in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mitigate the distress.
” On June 18 , the three officers involved submitted their resignations , a day before the investigation concluded ; Magnus said the department “ would ’ ve terminated them ” if they hadn ’ t resigned .
( The Tucson Police Department did not put out a press release reporting the “ in-custody death ” on April 21 . )
“ It is simply not acceptable that mayor and council and the public were not notified of this event after the incident took place , ” Tucson Mayor Regina @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his resignation after playing the video at the press conference Wednesday .
But Tucson ’ s city manager , Michael Ortega , rejected his resignation on Thursday .
According to the Arizona Daily Star , Ortega and Romero , the mayor , expressed support for Magnus , saying he has brought “ forward-thinking ” changes to the police department and is “ exactly what we need in these difficult times.
” Magnus took over as police chief in 2016 as the first openly gay man to lead the department .
Thursday ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a centuries-old local shrine that has long served as a gathering place for Tucsonans to mourn and protest .
People often leave notes with wishes and tuck them in the holes of El Tiradito ’ s adobe walls .
That night , Ingram-Lopez ’ s family demanded that the police department be held accountable , and urged those at the ceremony to not “ forget him and help us fight .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Hundreds of people stood in the summer heat of Tucson, Arizona, on Thursday, candles in hand. Fourteen times, they chanted the phrase “Nana, ayúdame”—Grandma, help me—the last words of a man named Carlos Adrian Ingram-Lopez, who in April died in police custody when officers responding to a domestic call handcuffed and pinned him face-down to the ground for 14 minutes, even as he told them he couldn’t breathe.
Ingram-Lopez died on April 21, but details weren’t made public until the Tucson Police Department held a press conference Wednesday. The secrecy surrounding his last living moments—even city officials didn’t know about Ingram-Lopez’s death until last week—has caused outrage in the southern Arizona city, whose progressive image, some residents believe, is at odds with the way police treat its largely Latinx population.
Shortly after 1 a.m. on April 21, Ingram-Lopez’s grandmother called 911, saying her grandson “was drunk, yelling, and running around the house naked.” At Wednesday’s press conference, Tucson police chief Chris Magnus showed video from an officer’s body camera, telling the crowd before he pressed play, “I will share with you that this is a very difficult video to watch, especially knowing that Mr. Ingram-Lopez dies at the end.”
The footage showed Ingram-Lopez running to the garage naked. “He was acting in a highly erratic manner but soon became more compliant,” Magnus said. He immediately followed an officer’s order to get on the ground and lay on his stomach. Officers quickly pinned him and handcuffed him with his arms behind his back.
While laying face-down on the ground, Ingram-Lopez said he couldn’t breathe and repeatedly pleaded for water in English and Spanish: “Nana, please, some water, I beg you.”
Minutes went by. Ingram-Lopez began to scream between gargling or choking noises, but officers continued to keep him pinned on the ground. “You’re gonna get shocked dude,” one officer said, as Ingram-Lopez continued crying out for help. “You’re gonna get zapped.” One of the officers kept his knee on Ingram-Lopez’s back. This continued for a few minutes until Ingram-Lopez seemed to calm down. After a few more minutes, police realized he wasn’t breathing and flipped him on his side. Paramedics would unsuccessfully perform CPR, and Ingram-Lopez died on the floor of his grandmother’s garage.
The medical examiner said that Ingram-Lopez had a preexisting heart condition and cocaine in his system but added that the cause of death was “undetermined,” Magnus said at the press conference.
The 27-year-old’s cries for his grandmother in the video quickly spread on social media under the hashtag #NanaAyudame. Some posted about the need for alternatives to police when family members are having a mental health crisis. Others tallied the number of times Ingram-Lopez cried for his grandmother and the times he said “I’m sorry” and “I need water” before his death.
His case is the latest instance of police killing a person of color in custody. The Tucson chapter of Black Lives Matter—which had helped organize some protests in the city following the death of George Floyd—said in a statement that it stood “in solidarity with the Latinx community that is mourning the murder of one of its own.”
Over the last few weeks, at least three Latinos have been killed by police in California alone: Andres Guardado, Erik Salgado, and Sean Monterrosa. The calls for reform and for defunding the police continue to grow, even if, nationwide, protests are shrinking in size. On Twitter, the Latinx organization UnidosUS said of Ingram-Lopez’s death, “This epidemic of racialized violence must stop, and it must stop now.”
At Wednesday’s press conference, Magnus added that an internal police investigation concluded that the three officers involved in Ingram-Lopez’s death—Samuel Routledge, Ryan Starbuck, and Jonathan Jackson—committed “multiple policy violations,” but that they did not use a chokehold or place their knees on Ingram-Lopez’s neck. Investigators determined that the officers at the scene “showed complete disregard for the training provided…but most importantly an apparent indifference or inability to recognize an individual in medical distress and take appropriate action to mitigate the distress.” On June 18, the three officers involved submitted their resignations, a day before the investigation concluded; Magnus said the department “would’ve terminated them” if they hadn’t resigned. (The Tucson Police Department did not put out a press release reporting the “in-custody death” on April 21.)
“It is simply not acceptable that mayor and council and the public were not notified of this event after the incident took place,” Tucson Mayor Regina Romero told reporters Wednesday.
Magnus offered his resignation after playing the video at the press conference Wednesday. But Tucson’s city manager, Michael Ortega, rejected his resignation on Thursday. According to the Arizona Daily Star, Ortega and Romero, the mayor, expressed support for Magnus, saying he has brought “forward-thinking” changes to the police department and is “exactly what we need in these difficult times.” Magnus took over as police chief in 2016 as the first openly gay man to lead the department.
Thursday’s vigil was held at El Tiradito, a centuries-old local shrine that has long served as a gathering place for Tucsonans to mourn and protest. People often leave notes with wishes and tuck them in the holes of El Tiradito’s adobe walls. That night, Ingram-Lopez’s family demanded that the police department be held accountable, and urged those at the ceremony to not “forget him and help us fight.”