motherjones--2020-06-11--Trump Ended Asylum at the Border Indefinitely. But Apparently That’s Not Enough.

Over the past couple of years , the Trump administration has been slowing chipping away at asylum seekers ’ ability to seek refuge in the United States .
With the advent of the coronavirus , Donald Trump and Stephen Miller finally had their chance to shut down the border indefinitely , ending asylum as we know it , at least through the 2020 election .
But on Wednesday , they proved that they won ’ t stop until the border is virtually sealed to asylum seekers in the future—COVID-19 or not .
The Department of Homeland Security posted 161 pages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advocates and attorneys , include virtually everything the White House has wanted to do to gut asylum in the United States .
Before most of us could finish reading the dense , legalistic document , Aaron Reichlin-Melnick already had broken it down on Twitter , calling the “ Kafkaesque ” new rules a “ sick joke.
” So I called Reichlin-Melnick , policy counsel at the American Immigration Council , to make sense of what these proposed changes could mean for tens of thousands of people who are seeking refugee here .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump administration is frustrated that it ’ s been losing in court on the definition of asylum , ” he said .
“ So rather than accept that its definition is wrong , it wants to simply change the rules and declare itself the winner.
” The proposed changes would create brand new bars for asylum and redefine what asylum means .
Essentially , Reichlin-Melnick said , the Trump administration is saying : “ If we don ’ t get you one way , we ’ re going to get you another way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you a third way , we ’ ll get you a fourth way .
Every single one of these things are overlapping tools to ensure that no one wins asylum.
” Here are some of the most egregious proposed rules that Reichlin-Melnick flagged : • It bans immigration judges from approving asylum cases based on gender .
“ Say another country institutes the system from The Handmaid ’ s Tale , ” he said .
“ Under these new rules , women would be barred from claiming asylum because they are women .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ will not be granted on the basis of gender.
” • It allows immigration judges to deny asylum before even seeing the person in a courtroom—and reject cases based solely on the information contained in the physical asylum application .
“ This is enormously problematic because many applications are filled out by people without lawyers , ” he said .
“ They may not have full literacy , or speak English so someone else in a detention center filled it out for them .
This would lead to a huge number of details @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a lawyer to dot every I and cross every T. The bad immigration judges would use it to just casually dismiss hundreds of claims from people they believe shouldn ’ t get asylum without ever giving them a chance to have a record.
” • It makes changes to how the United Nations Convention Against Torture is interpreted .
“ They would change the law so that even if you ’ re tortured by a government official in another country , so long as that government official wasn ’ t acting under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so-called rogue official , you wouldn ’ t qualify , ” Reichlin-Melnick said .
“ So let ’ s say a mayor in a small town in Russia orders the local police to torture you , knowing that what he is doing violates Russian law : You would not be able to apply for protection from torture.
” • It significantly restricts asylum for victims of political persecution if it involves a nongovernment organization or a terrorist organization .
“ If you ’ re a Syrian who is persecuted by ISIS because you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be able to claim asylum—as opposed to a Syrian who is being prosecuted because they are Christian , ” he said .
“ They would not be affected by this change.
” • The proposed rules go beyond 2019 ’ s so-called transit ban , which said any non-Mexicans traveling through Mexico were barred from asylum if they hadn ’ t applied first in Mexico .
“ This ruling redefines what it means to be ‘ firmly resettled , ' ” he explains .
“ If you pass through a country and little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obscure provision in that country ’ s law that would ’ ve allowed you to stay there permanently , a judge could declare that you were firmly resettled in that country and are therefore banned from asylum.
” • It disqualifies any asylum seeker who may have two or more layovers in different countries on their way to the United States .
“ That ’ s simply arbitrary and capricious , ” he said .
“ So you can fly Uganda-Nairobi-JFK , that ’ s fine , but if you do Uganda-Nairobi-Doha-JFK because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ re banned from asylum.
” • It disqualifies anyone who failed to report income to the IRS or made a mistake in filing .
“ So that applies to anyone who got to the United States and worked off the books for a few months before you got your work permit , ” Reichlin-Melnick said .
“ Or if you managed to get a lawyer who helped you get an ITIN ( Individual Taxpayer Identification Number ) and filed taxes but you were $ 20 off , you could be denied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filing late.
” • It bans people who have been in the United States without status for one year or longer before applying for asylum .
“ Congress already spoke to that and put a rule into place that says there is a one-year filing deadline for applying for asylum , but there are exceptions to that rule , ” he said .
“ Some people in some circumstances can apply after a year .
Under this rule , Congress ’ intent would be ignored .
Things like that where Congress has directly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and would be struck down.
” • It doesn ’ t say the changes only apply to new applications , so it seems to affect people with pending cases , as well .
“ There are basic legal principals that say you generally can ’ t apply new regulations retrospectively , ” he said , “ but this rule refuses to even acknowledge that principle , and as a result judges could apply the rules to people who filed for asylum years ago.
” Many of these changes hinge on what it means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particular social group ” when claiming persecution .
But Reichlin-Melnick says that ’ s problematic because “ particular social group ” has no definition written into law , so “ they are trying to overturn generations of law that define what it means to be a refugee to fit their narrow definition—which would exclude most people who currently win asylum in the United States.
” Starting Monday , there will be a 30-day comment period open for responses ; by law , the government then has to review the comments before issuing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s unlikely that we ’ ll see a final version of this rule anytime before the fall , and that it may not even be set in stone until after the election ( a new president or a new Congress could overturn the rule ) .
He said some of the “ more blatantly illegal provisions ” could be taken out between now and the final draft : “ But the fact that they included those shows how little they ’ re concerned with following the law and how much they want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they want .
“ This really is death by a thousand cuts , ” he added .
“ Or in the case of some of these bans , it ’ s death by a huge cut to the neck and then if you manage to survive that one , then it ’ s death by a thousand cuts .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Over the past couple of years, the Trump administration has been slowing chipping away at asylum seekers’ ability to seek refuge in the United States. With the advent of the coronavirus, Donald Trump and Stephen Miller finally had their chance to shut down the border indefinitely, ending asylum as we know it, at least through the 2020 election.
But on Wednesday, they proved that they won’t stop until the border is virtually sealed to asylum seekers in the future—COVID-19 or not. The Department of Homeland Security posted 161 pages of proposed regulations that, according to advocates and attorneys, include virtually everything the White House has wanted to do to gut asylum in the United States.
Before most of us could finish reading the dense, legalistic document, Aaron Reichlin-Melnick already had broken it down on Twitter, calling the “Kafkaesque” new rules a “sick joke.” So I called Reichlin-Melnick, policy counsel at the American Immigration Council, to make sense of what these proposed changes could mean for tens of thousands of people who are seeking refugee here. “The top line here is that the Trump administration is frustrated that it’s been losing in court on the definition of asylum,” he said. “So rather than accept that its definition is wrong, it wants to simply change the rules and declare itself the winner.”
The proposed changes would create brand new bars for asylum and redefine what asylum means. Essentially, Reichlin-Melnick said, the Trump administration is saying: “If we don’t get you one way, we’re going to get you another way. If we don’t get you a third way, we’ll get you a fourth way. Every single one of these things are overlapping tools to ensure that no one wins asylum.”
Here are some of the most egregious proposed rules that Reichlin-Melnick flagged:
It bans immigration judges from approving asylum cases based on gender. “Say another country institutes the system from The Handmaid’s Tale,” he said. “Under these new rules, women would be barred from claiming asylum because they are women. Categorically barred. The rule says asylum will not be granted on the basis of gender.”
“Say another country institutes the system from The Handmaid’s Tale,” he said. “Under these new rules, women would be barred from claiming asylum because they are women. Categorically barred. The rule says asylum will not be granted on the basis of gender.” It allows immigration judges to deny asylum before even seeing the person in a courtroom—and reject cases based solely on the information contained in the physical asylum application. “This is enormously problematic because many applications are filled out by people without lawyers,” he said. “They may not have full literacy, or speak English so someone else in a detention center filled it out for them. This would lead to a huge number of details solely because they couldn’t pay for a lawyer to dot every I and cross every T. The bad immigration judges would use it to just casually dismiss hundreds of claims from people they believe shouldn’t get asylum without ever giving them a chance to have a record.”
“This is enormously problematic because many applications are filled out by people without lawyers,” he said. “They may not have full literacy, or speak English so someone else in a detention center filled it out for them. This would lead to a huge number of details solely because they couldn’t pay for a lawyer to dot every I and cross every T. The bad immigration judges would use it to just casually dismiss hundreds of claims from people they believe shouldn’t get asylum without ever giving them a chance to have a record.” It makes changes to how the United Nations Convention Against Torture is interpreted. “They would change the law so that even if you’re tortured by a government official in another country, so long as that government official wasn’t acting under color of the law or was a so-called rogue official, you wouldn’t qualify,” Reichlin-Melnick said. “So let’s say a mayor in a small town in Russia orders the local police to torture you, knowing that what he is doing violates Russian law: You would not be able to apply for protection from torture.”
“They would change the law so that even if you’re tortured by a government official in another country, so long as that government official wasn’t acting under color of the law or was a so-called rogue official, you wouldn’t qualify,” Reichlin-Melnick said. “So let’s say a mayor in a small town in Russia orders the local police to torture you, knowing that what he is doing violates Russian law: You would not be able to apply for protection from torture.” It significantly restricts asylum for victims of political persecution if it involves a nongovernment organization or a terrorist organization. “If you’re a Syrian who is persecuted by ISIS because you oppose them politically, you would not be able to claim asylum—as opposed to a Syrian who is being prosecuted because they are Christian,” he said. “They would not be affected by this change.”
“If you’re a Syrian who is persecuted by ISIS because you oppose them politically, you would not be able to claim asylum—as opposed to a Syrian who is being prosecuted because they are Christian,” he said. “They would not be affected by this change.” The proposed rules go beyond 2019’s so-called transit ban, which said any non-Mexicans traveling through Mexico were barred from asylum if they hadn’t applied first in Mexico. “This ruling redefines what it means to be ‘firmly resettled,'” he explains. “If you pass through a country and little known to you there’s an obscure provision in that country’s law that would’ve allowed you to stay there permanently, a judge could declare that you were firmly resettled in that country and are therefore banned from asylum.”
“This ruling redefines what it means to be ‘firmly resettled,'” he explains. “If you pass through a country and little known to you there’s an obscure provision in that country’s law that would’ve allowed you to stay there permanently, a judge could declare that you were firmly resettled in that country and are therefore banned from asylum.” It disqualifies any asylum seeker who may have two or more layovers in different countries on their way to the United States. “That’s simply arbitrary and capricious,” he said. “So you can fly Uganda-Nairobi-JFK, that’s fine, but if you do Uganda-Nairobi-Doha-JFK because you wanted a cheaper flight, then you’re banned from asylum.”
“That’s simply arbitrary and capricious,” he said. “So you can fly Uganda-Nairobi-JFK, that’s fine, but if you do Uganda-Nairobi-Doha-JFK because you wanted a cheaper flight, then you’re banned from asylum.” It disqualifies anyone who failed to report income to the IRS or made a mistake in filing. “So that applies to anyone who got to the United States and worked off the books for a few months before you got your work permit,” Reichlin-Melnick said. “Or if you managed to get a lawyer who helped you get an ITIN (Individual Taxpayer Identification Number) and filed taxes but you were $20 off, you could be denied asylum just for that. Same with filing late.”
“So that applies to anyone who got to the United States and worked off the books for a few months before you got your work permit,” Reichlin-Melnick said. “Or if you managed to get a lawyer who helped you get an ITIN (Individual Taxpayer Identification Number) and filed taxes but you were $20 off, you could be denied asylum just for that. Same with filing late.” It bans people who have been in the United States without status for one year or longer before applying for asylum. “Congress already spoke to that and put a rule into place that says there is a one-year filing deadline for applying for asylum, but there are exceptions to that rule,” he said. “Some people in some circumstances can apply after a year. Under this rule, Congress’ intent would be ignored. Things like that where Congress has directly spoken to the issue are patently illegal and would be struck down.”
“Congress already spoke to that and put a rule into place that says there is a one-year filing deadline for applying for asylum, but there are exceptions to that rule,” he said. “Some people in some circumstances can apply after a year. Under this rule, Congress’ intent would be ignored. Things like that where Congress has directly spoken to the issue are patently illegal and would be struck down.” It doesn’t say the changes only apply to new applications, so it seems to affect people with pending cases, as well. “There are basic legal principals that say you generally can’t apply new regulations retrospectively,” he said, “but this rule refuses to even acknowledge that principle, and as a result judges could apply the rules to people who filed for asylum years ago.”
Many of these changes hinge on what it means to be a member of a “particular social group” when claiming persecution. But Reichlin-Melnick says that’s problematic because “particular social group” has no definition written into law, so “they are trying to overturn generations of law that define what it means to be a refugee to fit their narrow definition—which would exclude most people who currently win asylum in the United States.”
Starting Monday, there will be a 30-day comment period open for responses; by law, the government then has to review the comments before issuing the final rule. Reichlin-Melnick said it’s unlikely that we’ll see a final version of this rule anytime before the fall, and that it may not even be set in stone until after the election (a new president or a new Congress could overturn the rule). He said some of the “more blatantly illegal provisions” could be taken out between now and the final draft: “But the fact that they included those shows how little they’re concerned with following the law and how much they want to simply rewrite asylum law to do what they want.
“This really is death by a thousand cuts,” he added. “Or in the case of some of these bans, it’s death by a huge cut to the neck and then if you manage to survive that one, then it’s death by a thousand cuts.”


motherjones--2020-06-12--The Republican National Committee Continues to Live in a Fantasyland Where Trump Wins Over Black Vot

The Republican National Committee Continues to Live in a Fantasyland Where Trump Wins Over Black Voters

On May 22 , presumptive Democratic presidential nominee and former Vice President Joe Biden appeared on The Breakfast Club , a syndicated radio show .
During the interview , Charlamagne tha God , its Black host who has a knack for making Democratic politicians appear to be pandering , asked what Biden thought about Black voters who didn ’ t support him .
Biden responded forcefully ( and memorably ) , “ If you have a problem figuring out whether you ’ re for me or Trump , then you ain ’ t Black.
” Biden later apologized , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 1 million advertising blitz highlighting Biden ’ s comments and selling $ 30 “ You Ain ’ t Black ” t-shirts .
“ It was particularly dehumanizing , ” Katrina Pierson , a Black senior adviser to the Trump campaign told Fox News , referring to Biden ’ s comments .
President Donald Trump needs every opportunity he can get to shore up the Black vote .
Last November , in the midst of the Trump-Ukraine scandal , the president ’ s reelection campaign launched Black Voices for Trump , a national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , failed presidential candidate and former pizza mogul Herman Cain , controversial pastor Darrell Scott , and Paris Dennard , the senior communications adviser for Black media affairs at the Republican National Committee .
As I reported last year , the announcement of the campaign ’ s Black vote effort sounded more like a typical Trump rally than a new initiative—the crowd broke out into chants of “ Blacks for Trump !
Blacks for Trump !
” Meanwhile the president outlined his usual talking points of complaining about the media and the investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But several months , one pandemic , and countless incidents of shocking police brutality later ( accompanied by countless incidents of presidential insensitivity ) , the RNC and likely the Trump 2020 campaign , still seems to be operating under the illusion that it has a coherent message that will persuade Black voters to support him .
“ From day one of the campaign President Trump has been committed to earning the vote of Black Americans , ” the RNC ’ s Paris Dennard told me in an email .
But as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black people roil the nation , the president has offered more of the same incompetence and dog-whistling .
When I asked how recent events will square with their effort to reach out to Black voters , Dennard simply recycled old talking points—the once low unemployment numbers , for instance , and criminal justice reform—and asserted that the effort to reach Black voters is going well .
Black support for Trump was low before he even became president .
Ben Carson was just another failed presidential candidate in 2016 when he tepidly endorsed Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out not to be such a great president , which I don ’ t think is the case , I think he ’ s going to surround himself with really good people , ” he said .
“ But even if he didn ’ t , we ’ re only looking at four years as opposed to multiple generations , and perhaps the loss of the American dream forever.
” ( The retired neurosurgeon became Trump ’ s only Black cabinet member as head of the Department of Housing and Urban Development .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ won 8 percent of the Black vote in 2016 and hasn ’ t gotten much more Black support over the last three years .
As I wrote when Blacks Voices for Trump was inaugurated last year : If you ’ ve been paying even a modicum of attention since Trump first walked onto the political stage , those low numbers aren ’ t surprising .
Trump launched his political career by propagating the lie that Barack Obama was a secret Muslim born in Kenya .
He became one of the loudest birthers demanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school records .
In 2017 , after white nationalists descended on Charlottesville , Virginia , and one killed Heather Heyer after plowing his car into a crowd of protesters , Trump said that there were “ very fine people ” on both sides .
He also reportedly referred to Haiti and African countries as “ shithole countries.
” In 2019 alone , Trump suggested four brown and black congresswoman “ go back ” to their countries , despite the fact that three of the four were born in the United States ; called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ late Elijah Cummings ’ congressional district , “ rat infested ” after Cummings criticized the Department of Homeland Security for poor conditions in immigrant detention centers ; and compared the impeachment inquiry process to lynching .
All of those racist remarks obviously occurred when unemployment was low , a pandemic had not yet disrupted lives and the economy , and brutal police killings did not spark a national cry for justice .
In January , the novel coronavirus appeared in the United States and began spreading widely , killing more than 110,000 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ June .
While the Trump administration downplayed the threat and offered no systematic plan for testing or treatment or containing the spread , Black and brown people disproportionately suffered .
Meanwhile , the economy collapsed as a result of the shutdown from the virus , and workers filed more than 40 million unemployment claims .
Then last month , widespread unrest swept the nation after white police officer Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd , a Black man in Minneapolis , by kneeling on his neck for nearly nine minutes .
The video of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protest movement against systemic racism not seen in generations .
In response , there have been no reassuring presidential messages of unity or comfort to Black Americans .
Instead , there have been tweets .
In the last few weeks alone , Trump has tweeted “ when the looting starts , the shooting starts , ” a reference to a racist police chief from the 1960s .
He also retweeted an account smearing Floyd and supported a fake conspiracy theory that the 75-year-old man in Bufffalo who was pushed by police officers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He also urged governors to crack down harder on anti-racism protesters , saying they will look like jerks if they don ’ t “ dominate.
” He referred to those who demonstrated as “ THUGS.
” After pausing his rallies for three months because of the pandemic , Trump announced that the first one would be held on June 19 , also known as Juneteenth , a holiday that celebrates the end of slavery in the United States in Tulsa , Oklahoma , the site of a 1921 massive racist massacre .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ground , via social media , and with Black media outlets of the RNC and Black Voices for Trump we are already seeing tremendous gains , ” Dennard said .
“ This is a national strategic effort with real people from the community , real dollars behind it and seeing real results already , and it is just June.
” Trump ’ s overall approval numbers nationwide have collapsed to just 39 percent .
An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll found that 88 percent of Black people said Trump has increased racial tensions .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black voters thought Biden would do a better job on race relations than Trump .
Dennard disagrees .
“ We look forward to contrasting the 3.5-year record of achievement for the Black Community of President Donald Trump to that of the 44 year record of inaction of Joe Biden , ” he noted .
“ President Trump worked to right the wrongs of the 1994 Crime Bill written by Joe Biden.
” Despite his overwhelming support among Black voters , the former VP is still dogged by his work in the Senate as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sweeping legislation , which critics say helped increased the prison population and enabled a policing system that harms communities of color .
Dennard provides a unique spin on Trump ’ s law and order policies : “ When the President talks about restoring law and order he is talking about protecting those Black-owned businesses literally on fire , being looted and destroyed.
” Trump also had an opportunity to protect Black-owned businesses in the wake of the COVID-19 closures .
The Paycheck Protection Program created by the Small Business Administration was supposed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The federal government has released scant data on who is receiving the loans but according to a survey of 500 Black and Latino business owners by racial equality groups Color of Change and UnidosUS , only 12 percent received help .
Despite the dramatically changed political and social landscape in 2020 , Republicans are relying on the same talking points they ’ ve had for years .
The campaign would like to focus on the 2018 First Step Act , a law that allows early release for certain incarcerated individuals , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communities in which rich developers will get a tax break for “ investing ” in those neighborhoods .
Not that these two accomplishments have come without criticism .
The Department of Justice is actually trying to return some of the people released by the First Step Act to prison .
“ [ Trump ’ s ] Justice Department is actively pushing to send some of these same people back behind bars , and to prevent others from reducing their sentences , ” my colleague Samantha Michaels reported in February , “ which greatly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Trump has touted as one of his signature achievements.
” And many critics are calling foul on opportunity zones , saying they ’ re actually a new scheme to line the pockets of the wealthy .
While Trump struggles to lead a nation through two calamities , videos of police officers violently attacking protesters has caused big shifts in how white Americans view racism and criminal justice .
A Washington Post poll found that 69 percent of Americans believe the recent killings of Black people by police represent a broader national problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Broken down along party lines , 86 percent of Democrats and 47 percent of Republicans agree .
The country appears to be on the cusp of a real reckoning of how policing perpetuates systemic racism and harms Black communities .
“ What the hell do you have to lose ?
” Trump asked a crowd of supporters at an Ohio rally in 2016 .
He was referring to decades of systemic inequality that had left Black people with higher rates of poverty .
The Trump campaign is still using that line to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around , the answer has never been clearer .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
On May 22, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee and former Vice President Joe Biden appeared on The Breakfast Club, a syndicated radio show. During the interview, Charlamagne tha God, its Black host who has a knack for making Democratic politicians appear to be pandering, asked what Biden thought about Black voters who didn’t support him. Biden responded forcefully (and memorably), “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t Black.”
Biden later apologized, but the Trump campaign pounced, launching a $1 million advertising blitz highlighting Biden’s comments and selling $30 “You Ain’t Black” T-shirts. “It was particularly dehumanizing,” Katrina Pierson, a Black senior adviser to the Trump campaign told Fox News, referring to Biden’s comments.
President Donald Trump needs every opportunity he can get to shore up Black votes. Last November, in the midst of the Trump-Ukraine scandal, the president’s reelection campaign launched Black Voices for Trump, a national coalition of prominent Black conservatives including Pierson, failed presidential candidate and former pizza mogul Herman Cain, controversial pastor Darrell Scott, and Paris Dennard, the senior communications adviser for Black media affairs at the Republican National Committee. As I reported last year, the announcement of the campaign’s Black vote effort sounded more like a typical Trump rally than a new initiative—the crowd broke out into chants of “Blacks for Trump! Blacks for Trump!” Meanwhile the president outlined his usual talking points of complaining about the media and the investigation into his dealings with the Russian government.
But several months, one pandemic, and countless incidents of shocking police brutality later (accompanied by countless incidents of presidential insensitivity), the RNC and likely the Trump 2020 campaign, still seems to be operating under the illusion that it has a coherent message that will persuade Black voters to support him.
“From day one of the campaign, President Trump has been committed to earning the vote of Black Americans.”
“From day one of the campaign President Trump has been committed to earning the vote of Black Americans,” the RNC’s Dennard told me in an email. But as crises that have a disproportionate impact on Black people roil the nation, the president has offered more of the same incompetence and dog-whistling. When I asked how recent events will square with their effort to reach out to Black voters, Dennard simply recycled old talking points—the once low unemployment numbers, for instance, and criminal justice reform—and asserted that the effort to reach Black voters is going well.
Black support for Trump was low before he even became president. Ben Carson was just another failed presidential candidate in 2016 when he tepidly endorsed Trump. “Even if Donald Trump turns out not to be such a great president, which I don’t think is the case, I think he’s going to surround himself with really good people,” he said. “But even if he didn’t, we’re only looking at four years as opposed to multiple generations, and perhaps the loss of the American dream forever.” (The retired neurosurgeon became Trump’s only Black cabinet member as head of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.) According to exit polls, Trump won 8 percent of Black votes in 2016 and hasn’t gotten much more Black support over the last three years. As I wrote when Blacks Voices for Trump was inaugurated last year:
If you’ve been paying even a modicum of attention since Trump first walked onto the political stage, those low numbers aren’t surprising. Trump launched his political career by propagating the lie that Barack Obama was a secret Muslim born in Kenya. He became one of the loudest birthers demanding that Obama provide his birth certificate and school records. In 2017, after white nationalists descended on Charlottesville, Virginia, and one killed Heather Heyer after plowing his car into a crowd of protesters, Trump said that there were “very fine people” on both sides. He also reportedly referred to Haiti and African countries as “shithole countries.” In 2019 alone, Trump suggested four brown and black congresswoman “go back” to their countries, despite the fact that three of the four were born in the United States; called Baltimore, which is part of the late Elijah Cummings’ congressional district, “rat infested” after Cummings criticized the Department of Homeland Security for poor conditions in immigrant detention centers; and compared the impeachment inquiry process to lynching.
All of those racist remarks obviously occurred when unemployment was low, a pandemic had not yet disrupted lives and the economy, and brutal police killings did not spark a national cry for justice. In January, the novel coronavirus appeared in the United States and began spreading widely, killing more than 110,000 and infecting close to 2 million people by June. While the Trump administration downplayed the threat and offered no systematic plan for testing or treatment or containing the spread, Black and Brown people disproportionately suffered. Meanwhile, the economy collapsed as a result of the shutdown from the virus, and workers filed more than 40 million unemployment claims. Then last month, widespread unrest swept the nation after white police officer Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd, a Black man in Minneapolis, by kneeling on his neck for nearly nine minutes. The video of the killing started an uprising and a protest movement against systemic racism not seen in generations.
In response, there have been no reassuring presidential messages of unity or comfort to Black Americans. Instead, there have been tweets. In the last few weeks alone, Trump has tweeted “when the looting starts, the shooting starts,” a reference to a racist police chief from the 1960s. He also retweeted an account smearing Floyd and supported a fake conspiracy theory that the 75-year-old man in Bufffalo who was pushed by police officers and left bleeding on the sidewalk was staged. He also urged governors to crack down harder on anti-racism protesters, saying they will look like jerks if they don’t “dominate.” He referred to those who demonstrated as “THUGS.” After pausing his rallies for three months because of the pandemic, Trump announced that the first one would be held on June 19, also known as Juneteenth, a holiday that celebrates the end of slavery in the United States in Tulsa, Oklahoma, the site of a 1921 massive racist massacre.
A Trump rally with rebel flags (a symbol of slavery and racism) in Tulsa, OK (the place of #TulsaMassacre) on Juneteenth (a day of emancipation recognition) is more than a slap in the face to African Americans; it is overt racism from the highest office in the land. #RejectRacism — Congressman Al Green (@RepAlGreen) June 11, 2020
On Friday morning, Trump’s 2020 campaign manager tweeted that the date was no problem, because Abraham Lincoln, who signed the Emancipation Proclamation which freed the slaves, was a Republican.
As the Party of Lincoln, Republicans are proud of what Juneteenth represents and the Emancipation Proclamation.@realDonaldTrump has a solid record of success for Black Americans. It’s @JoeBiden who has the horrible record of racial division and condescension. Facts matter. — Brad Parscale (@parscale) June 11, 2020
“Through the direct engagement on the ground, via social media, and with Black media outlets of the RNC and Black Voices for Trump we are already seeing tremendous gains,” Dennard said. “This is a national strategic effort with real people from the community, real dollars behind it and seeing real results already, and it is just June.”
Trump’s overall approval numbers nationwide have collapsed to just 39 percent. An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll found that 88 percent of Black people said Trump has increased racial tensions. A CNN poll found that 91 percent of Black voters thought Biden would do a better job on race relations than Trump.
“We look forward to contrasting the 3.5-year record of achievement for the Black Community of President Donald Trump to that of the 44 year record of inaction of Joe Biden.”
Dennard disagrees. “We look forward to contrasting the 3.5-year record of achievement for the Black Community of President Donald Trump to that of the 44 year record of inaction of Joe Biden,” he noted. “President Trump worked to right the wrongs of the 1994 Crime Bill written by Joe Biden.” Despite his overwhelming support among Black voters, the former VP is still dogged by his work in the Senate as one of the main architects of the sweeping legislation, which critics say helped increased the prison population and enabled a policing system that harms communities of color.
Dennard provides a unique spin on Trump’s law and order policies: “When the President talks about restoring law and order he is talking about protecting those Black-owned businesses literally on fire, being looted and destroyed.” Trump also had an opportunity to protect Black-owned businesses in the wake of the COVID-19 closures. The Paycheck Protection Program created by the Small Business Administration was supposed to help business owners weather the economic storm. The federal government has released scant data on who is receiving the loans but according to a survey of 500 Black and Latino business owners by racial equality groups Color of Change and UnidosUS, only 12 percent received help.
Despite the dramatically changed political and social landscape in 2020, Republicans are relying on the same talking points they’ve had for years. The campaign would like to focus on the 2018 First Step Act, a law that allows early release for certain incarcerated individuals, and opportunity zones, a program for low-income communities in which rich developers will get a tax break for “investing” in those neighborhoods.
Not that these two accomplishments have come without criticism. The Department of Justice is actually trying to return some of the people released by the First Step Act to prison. “[Trump’s] Justice Department is actively pushing to send some of these same people back behind bars, and to prevent others from reducing their sentences,” my colleague Samantha Michaels reported in February, “which greatly limits who can benefit from the law that Trump has touted as one of his signature achievements.” And many critics are calling foul on opportunity zones, saying they’re actually a new scheme to line the pockets of the wealthy.
While Trump struggles to lead a nation through two calamities, videos of police officers violently attacking protesters has caused big shifts in how white Americans view racism and criminal justice. A Washington Post poll found that 69 percent of Americans believe the recent killings of Black people by police represent a broader national problem, a 26 point increase since 2014. Broken down along party lines, 86 percent of Democrats and 47 percent of Republicans agree. The country appears to be on the cusp of a real reckoning of how policing perpetuates systemic racism and harms Black communities.
“What the hell do you have to lose?” Trump asked a crowd of supporters at an Ohio rally in 2016. He was referring to decades of systemic inequality that had left Black people with higher rates of poverty. The Trump campaign is still using that line to garner Black support. Except this time around, the answer has never been clearer.


motherjones--2020-06-11--Trump Just Showed Us His Core Campaign Message: Chaos in the Streets

Chaos in the streets .
Looters running free .
Rioters threatening you and your family .
Anarchists destroying…everything .
And there ’ s only one way to stop the end of civilization : reelect Donald J. Trump as president .
That ’ s what Trump ’ s core campaign message is becoming .
While once Trump intended to run in 2020 on the strength of the US economy , he has now shifted to a new narrative : Americans are in immediate danger due to the Black Lives Matter protests that have spread across the nation .
Focusing on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the demonstrations ( which have mostly been peaceful ) , Trump is selling a dark and apocalyptic vision .
The end is nigh , unless Trump can deliver the “ LAW & ORDER , ” he repeatedly vows in his tweets .
This isn ’ t any secret .
On Thursday , his campaign sent out an email to supporters that began with this description of the present moment : “ It ’ s past time for Democrat Mayors and Governors to get tough .
Violent thugs are running rampant – these people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the missive noted , was in cahoots with the forces of disruption : “ the Fake News has been inciting hatred and chaos.
” But Trump , his campaign said , was standing strong in the face of this threat : “ President Trump is working around the clock to restore in these communities where liberal leadership has FAILED .
It ’ s time for this madness to END.
” Look out your window .
How much madness and chaos do you see ?
Nevertheless , Trump and his campaign want voters to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overrun by mobs associated with the ongoing protests against police violence and social inequities .
In the past week , Trump has repeatedly tweeted about antifa , the unorganized band of anti-government left-wing activists , as if it is the number one threat to the nation .
( Coronavirus who ? )
Trump has often ignored the orderly protesters and , instead , zeroed in on the isolated incidents of violence , amplifying these actions .
“ If you watch Fake News @ CNN or MSDNC , ” he tweeted on June 3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killers , terrorists , arsonists , anarchists , thugs , hoodlums , looters , ANTIFA & others , would be the nicest , kindest most wonderful people in the Whole Wide World .
No , they are what they are – very bad for our Country !
” And on June 11 , he posted a tweet that seemed to justify the security forces attack on peaceful demonstrators at Lafayette Square across from the White House , which cleared the way for Trump to conduct his Bible-holding photo-op stunt : “ Our great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the area around the White House could hardly believe how easy it was .
‘ A walk in the park ’ , one said .
The protesters , agitators , anarchists ( ANTIFA ) , and others , were handled VERY easily by the Guard , D.C. Police , & S.S. GREAT JOB !
” ( Trump even claimed in a tweet that a 75-year-old longtime peace activist who was pushed to the ground by a Buffalo police officer and seriously injured during a protest was an antifa provocateur . )
So this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But it ’ s really an old playbook .
When Trump accepted the Republican presidential nomination at the party ’ s convention in 2016 , he decried criminal violence and declared that if he were to be elected president he would “ restore law and order to our country… I am the law and order candidate.
” ( “ I alone can fix it , ” he also said , referring to a nation supposedly racked with “ death , destruction and weakness.
” ) During his inaugural address , Trump described the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gangs—and stated , “ This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.
” In the run-up to the 2018 mid-term elections , Trump asserted the nation was in peril due to the caravan of migrants who had approached the US-Mexican border seeking entry and asylum .
He tried to manufacture a crisis— ” very bad people ” are coming to the United States—for political gain .
It didn ’ t work ; the Democrats won control of the House .
Of course , Trump—who weeks ago tweeted , “ when the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ —isn ’ t the first conniving politician to cynically embrace law-and-order as a campaign mantra .
And his current moves are being compared to those of Richard Nixon in 1968 .
As historian Rick Perlstein recently pointed out , Nixon ’ s “ most famous campaign commercial was a montage of riot scenes over a jittery , shrieking electronic soundtrack , the camera lingering on the naked white torso of a mannequin .
Then came Nixon ’ s voice : ‘ So I pledge to you , we will have order in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though , was running as a challenger against Hubert Humphrey , who as the incumbent vice president could be targeted as one of the guys in charge as chaos , protest , and social disorder engulfed the United States .
Trump clearly wants to duck responsibility for the civil unrest that has occurred on his watch while positioning himself as the thin orange line between stability and societal collapse .
It ’ s American Carnage , Part II .
In this script , protesters are malicious marauders who are heading to your town @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and your loved ones from the angry ( black ? )
hordes .
It ’ s a campaign of fear and loathing .
It trades racist dog whistles for bullhorns .
As millions of Americans are rising up to demand adherence to the nation ’ s professed values of justice and equality , Trump is fostering an atmosphere of darkness , despair , and doom .
Be scared , my fellow Americans , be very scared , he says .
Because then he has a better chance of winning your vote .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unleashing in a highly coordinated fashion .
“ The radical Democrats went off the deep end this week , voicing their full-fledged support for defunding our law enforcement while bending the knee to rioters and looters , ” Kimberly Guilfoyle , national chair of the Trump Victory Finance Committee , huffed on Wednesday .
Bending the knee to rioters ?
The intent of that clever phrase is obvious ; it equates the demonstrations against police violence to acquiescence to looting .
They are all thugs : Colin Kaepernick , Nancy Pelosi , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is vital that we re-elect President Trump to keep Joe Biden and the socialist mob from destroying everything that makes America great , ” Mercedes Schlapp , a top strategist for the Trump campaign , proclaimed this week , “ Trump is standing up for law and order , while the radical Democrats have refused to condemn violence in our cities and are working to defund the law enforcement officers who have prevented chaos in our streets.
” The buzz words are glaring .
Let ’ s push those buttons : Chaos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s the plan .
Trump can no longer politically exploit the economy .
He can not tout ( convincingly ) his inept response to the coronavirus pandemic that has claimed the lives of over 110,000 Americans .
He can only cook up a fictitious threat , incite terror , stir panic—and posture as the strong man who can beat back an imaginary calamity .
He is a scared president trying to whip up phantom threats he can then boast of defeating .
This is how he is appealing for support .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the campaign rallies he is starting next week , with a kick-off in Tulsa , Oklahoma ( where 99 years ago , there was indeed a race riot…with white people destroying a black neighborhood and massacring scores of its residents ) .
Trump likes chaos .
He doesn ’ t play by the rules .
He is not encumbered by truth or by norms of decency .
His pitch now is that he can save America from anarchy and disarray .
This latest con of his is hardly surprising .
Perhaps the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is willing to go as president to create the discord that he believes he needs to hold on to power .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Chaos in the streets. Looters running free. Rioters threatening you and your family. Anarchists destroying…everything. And there’s only one way to stop the end of civilization: reelect Donald J. Trump as president.
That’s what Trump’s core campaign message is becoming. While once Trump intended to run in 2020 on the strength of the US economy, he has now shifted to a new narrative: Americans are in immediate danger due to the Black Lives Matter protests that have spread across the nation. Focusing on the limited violence and looting that has accompanied the demonstrations (which have mostly been peaceful), Trump is selling a dark and apocalyptic vision. The end is nigh, unless Trump can deliver the “LAW & ORDER,” he repeatedly vows in his tweets.
This isn’t any secret. On Thursday, his campaign sent out an email to supporters that began with this description of the present moment: “It’s past time for Democrat Mayors and Governors to get tough. Violent thugs are running rampant – these people are ANARCHISTS.” And the media, the missive noted, was in cahoots with the forces of disruption: “the Fake News has been inciting hatred and chaos.” But Trump, his campaign said, was standing strong in the face of this threat: “President Trump is working around the clock to restore LAW AND ORDER in these communities where liberal leadership has FAILED. It’s time for this madness to END.”
Look out your window. How much madness and chaos do you see? Nevertheless, Trump and his campaign want voters to believe their homes are about to be overrun by mobs associated with the ongoing protests against police violence and social inequities.
In the past week, Trump has repeatedly tweeted about antifa, the unorganized band of anti-government left-wing activists, as if it is the number one threat to the nation. (Coronavirus who?) Trump has often ignored the orderly protesters and, instead, zeroed in on the isolated incidents of violence, amplifying these actions. “If you watch Fake News @CNN or MSDNC,” he tweeted on June 3, “you would think that the killers, terrorists, arsonists, anarchists, thugs, hoodlums, looters, ANTIFA & others, would be the nicest, kindest most wonderful people in the Whole Wide World. No, they are what they are – very bad for our Country!” And on June 11, he posted a tweet that seemed to justify the security forces attack on peaceful demonstrators at Lafayette Square across from the White House, which cleared the way for Trump to conduct his Bible-holding photo-op stunt: “Our great National Guard Troops who took care of the area around the White House could hardly believe how easy it was. ‘A walk in the park’, one said. The protesters, agitators, anarchists (ANTIFA), and others, were handled VERY easily by the Guard, D.C. Police, & S.S. GREAT JOB!” (Trump even claimed in a tweet that a 75-year-old longtime peace activist who was pushed to the ground by a Buffalo police officer and seriously injured during a protest was an antifa provocateur.)
So this is Trump’s new playbook. But it’s really an old playbook. When Trump accepted the Republican presidential nomination at the party’s convention in 2016, he decried criminal violence and declared that if he were to be elected president he would “restore law and order to our country… I am the law and order candidate.” (“I alone can fix it,” he also said, referring to a nation supposedly racked with “death, destruction and weakness.”) During his inaugural address, Trump described the country in horrific terms—overrun by crime and gangs—and stated, “This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.” In the run-up to the 2018 mid-term elections, Trump asserted the nation was in peril due to the caravan of migrants who had approached the US-Mexican border seeking entry and asylum. He tried to manufacture a crisis—”very bad people” are coming to the United States—for political gain. It didn’t work; the Democrats won control of the House.
Of course, Trump—who weeks ago tweeted, “when the looting starts, the shooting starts”—isn’t the first conniving politician to cynically embrace law-and-order as a campaign mantra. And his current moves are being compared to those of Richard Nixon in 1968. As historian Rick Perlstein recently pointed out, Nixon’s “most famous campaign commercial was a montage of riot scenes over a jittery, shrieking electronic soundtrack, the camera lingering on the naked white torso of a mannequin. Then came Nixon’s voice: ‘So I pledge to you, we will have order in the United States.'” Nixon, though, was running as a challenger against Hubert Humphrey, who as the incumbent vice president could be targeted as one of the guys in charge as chaos, protest, and social disorder engulfed the United States.
Trump clearly wants to duck responsibility for the civil unrest that has occurred on his watch while positioning himself as the thin orange line between stability and societal collapse. It’s American Carnage, Part II. In this script, protesters are malicious marauders who are heading to your town. And Trump alone can protect you and your loved ones from the angry (black?) hordes. It’s a campaign of fear and loathing. It trades racist dog whistles for bullhorns. As millions of Americans are rising up to demand adherence to the nation’s professed values of justice and equality, Trump is fostering an atmosphere of darkness, despair, and doom. Be scared, my fellow Americans, be very scared, he says. Because then he has a better chance of winning your vote.
This is the message his campaign has begun unleashing in a highly coordinated fashion. “The radical Democrats went off the deep end this week, voicing their full-fledged support for defunding our law enforcement while bending the knee to rioters and looters,” Kimberly Guilfoyle, national chair of the Trump Victory Finance Committee, huffed on Wednesday. Bending the knee to rioters? The intent of that clever phrase is obvious; it equates the demonstrations against police violence to acquiescence to looting. They are all thugs: Colin Kaepernick, Nancy Pelosi, the protesters, and the criminals. “It is vital that we re-elect President Trump to keep Joe Biden and the socialist mob from destroying everything that makes America great,” Mercedes Schlapp, a top strategist for the Trump campaign, proclaimed this week. “Trump is standing up for law and order, while the radical Democrats have refused to condemn violence in our cities and are working to defund the law enforcement officers who have prevented chaos in our streets.”
The buzz words are glaring. Let’s push those buttons: Chaos, mob, law and order. That’s the plan. Trump can no longer politically exploit the economy. He cannot tout (convincingly) his inept response to the coronavirus pandemic that has claimed the lives of over 110,000 Americans. He can only cook up a fictitious threat, incite terror, stir panic—and posture as the strong man who can beat back an imaginary calamity. He is a scared president trying to whip up phantom threats he can then boast of defeating. This is how he is appealing for support. This will likely be a key theme in the campaign rallies he is starting next week, with a kick-off in Tulsa, Oklahoma (where 99 years ago, there was indeed a race riot…with white people destroying a black neighborhood and massacring scores of its residents).
Trump likes chaos. He doesn’t play by the rules. He is not encumbered by truth or by norms of decency. His pitch now is that he can save America from anarchy and disarray. This latest con of his is hardly surprising. Perhaps the more troubling matter is how far Trump is willing to go as president to create the discord that he believes he needs to hold on to power.


motherjones--2020-06-12--Trump’s Stone Pardon Would Be Outrageous. DOJ Will Release Evidence Showing Why.

The Justice Department said Friday that it plans to release by June 19 previously redacted portions of Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s April 2019 report that relate to longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone .
The deadline falls 11 days before Stone , the longtime dirty trickster who was convicted last year of making false statements to Congress , is set to begin a prison sentence that President Donald Trump has indicated he will erase via pardon .
The timing matters .
The portions of Mueller ’ s report related to Stone will likely indicate that the Trump campaign believed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the release of Democratic emails stolen by Russia .
This information emerged during Stone ’ s November trial , but inclusion in the public version of the Mueller report would enshrine it in our most official record of Russian meddling in 2016 .
The Trump campaign considered Stone an “ access point to WikiLeaks , ” former Trump campaign boss Steve Bannon testified during Stone ’ s trial .
Without redactions , the report will presumably show that Trump personally communicated with Stone about WikiLeaks ’ plans to release hacked emails and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about WikiLeaks .
Rick Gates , a former top campaign official , testified at the trial that he personally overheard Trump speaking to Stone by phone .
After the call , Trump “ indicated that more information would be coming ” out , Gates claimed .
Trump told Mueller in written answers that he did “ not recall discussing WikiLeaks with [ Stone ] , nor do I recall being aware of Mr. Stone having discussed WikiLeaks with individuals associated with my campaign.
” Given Trump ’ s extensive attention to WikiLeaks ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s hard to imagine the president forgot having talked to Stone about WikiLeaks .
He seems to have lied to Mueller about this .
The release of Mueller ’ s findings related to Stone , then , will highlight just how corrupt a pardon of Stone would be .
He was convicted of falsely telling the House Intelligence Committee that he did not communicate with the Trump campaign about WikiLeaks , among other false statements .
Those communications regarding WikiLeaks occurred at the same time Russian intelligence was using the organization to release @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to help Trump win the election .
Stone lied , federal prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky said during the trial , because “ the truth looked bad .
The truth looked bad for the Trump campaign and the truth looked bad for Donald Trump.
” In pardoning Stone , Trump would not merely be protecting a personal associate ; he would be covering up his own conduct in 2016 , including his efforts to benefit politically from Russia ’ s interference in the election .
Trump benefited from the timing of Stone ’ s arrest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toward the end of Mueller ’ s probe .
This meant that Stone ’ s trial came after the April 2019 release of the Mueller report .
As a result , information Mueller uncovered about Stone and WikiLeaks was redacted in the report due to potential “ harm to ongoing matter.
” By the time Stone ’ s trial happened , Trump and Attorney General William Barr had enjoyed substantial success in falsely spinning the report as having exonerated Trump .
Stone ’ s trial contained major revelations about Trump campaign efforts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came amid media intense focus on impeachment hearings related to Trump ’ s improper efforts to pressure Ukraine .
By then most Americans had made up their minds on Trump–Russia and moved on .
The Justice Department agreed to release information related to Stone only after a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by Buzzfeed reporter Jason Leopold and the nonprofit Electronic Privacy Information Center .
The suit noted that Stone ’ s conviction removed the cause DOJ had cited for redacting the Stone material in Mueller ’ s report .
This release will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s crimes helped to cover up Trump ’ s conduct .
That is unlikely to stop Trump from pardoning Stone .
It might even encourage the president to move faster .
But it ought to make clear that in pardoning Stone , Trump would be protecting not just his old political consigliere but himself .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The Justice Department said Friday that it plans to release by June 19 previously redacted portions of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s April 2019 report that relate to longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone. The deadline falls 11 days before Stone, the longtime dirty trickster who was convicted last year of making false statements to Congress, is set to begin a prison sentence that President Donald Trump has indicated he will erase via pardon.
The timing matters. The portions of Mueller’s report related to Stone will likely indicate that the Trump campaign believed it was collaborating through Stone with WikiLeaks on the release of Democratic emails stolen by Russia. This information emerged during Stone’s November trial, but inclusion in the public version of the Mueller report would enshrine it in our most official record of Russian meddling in 2016.
The Trump campaign considered Stone an “access point to WikiLeaks,” former Trump campaign boss Steve Bannon testified during Stone’s trial. Without redactions, the report will presumably show that Trump personally communicated with Stone about WikiLeaks’ plans to release hacked emails and also ordered aides to communicate with Stone about WikiLeaks. Rick Gates, a former top campaign official, testified at the trial that he personally overheard Trump speaking to Stone by phone. After the call, Trump “indicated that more information would be coming” out, Gates claimed.
Trump told Mueller in written answers that he did “not recall discussing WikiLeaks with [Stone], nor do I recall being aware of Mr. Stone having discussed WikiLeaks with individuals associated with my campaign.” Given Trump’s extensive attention to WikiLeaks’ releases of hacked emails, it’s hard to imagine the president forgot having talked to Stone about WikiLeaks. He seems to have lied to Mueller about this.
The release of Mueller’s findings related to Stone, then, will highlight just how corrupt a pardon of Stone would be. He was convicted of falsely telling the House Intelligence Committee that he did not communicate with the Trump campaign about WikiLeaks, among other false statements. Those communications regarding WikiLeaks occurred at the same time Russian intelligence was using the organization to release material stolen from Democrats in a bid to help Trump win the election.
Stone lied, federal prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky said during the trial, because “the truth looked bad. The truth looked bad for the Trump campaign and the truth looked bad for Donald Trump.” In pardoning Stone, Trump would not merely be protecting a personal associate; he would be covering up his own conduct in 2016, including his efforts to benefit politically from Russia’s interference in the election.
Trump benefited from the timing of Stone’s arrest, which came in January 2019, toward the end of Mueller’s probe. This meant that Stone’s trial came after the April 2019 release of the Mueller report. As a result, information Mueller uncovered about Stone and WikiLeaks was redacted in the report due to potential “harm to ongoing matter.” By the time Stone’s trial happened, Trump and Attorney General William Barr had enjoyed substantial success in falsely spinning the report as having exonerated Trump. Stone’s trial contained major revelations about Trump campaign efforts to coordinate with WikiLeaks. But this news came amid media intense focus on impeachment hearings related to Trump’s improper efforts to pressure Ukraine. By then most Americans had made up their minds on Trump–Russia and moved on.
The Justice Department agreed to release information related to Stone only after a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by Buzzfeed reporter Jason Leopold and the nonprofit Electronic Privacy Information Center. The suit noted that Stone’s conviction removed the cause DOJ had cited for redacting the Stone material in Mueller’s report. This release will highlight the extent to which Stone’s crimes helped to cover up Trump’s conduct. That is unlikely to stop Trump from pardoning Stone. It might even encourage the president to move faster. But it ought to make clear that in pardoning Stone, Trump would be protecting not just his old political consigliere but himself.


motherjones--2020-06-12--America’s Child Care System Is in Crisis. Joe Biden Will Soon Release a Plan to Fix It.

Joe Biden is planning to unveil a comprehensive child care proposal in the coming weeks—part of a broader program to resuscitate the economy that the former vice president previewed earlier this month .
The precise details of the new plan are still under wraps , but it will be a part of a “ caregiving workforce ” initiative intended to tackle home care for the elderly and disabled , paid family leave , and fair wages for caregivers .
The plan comes on the heels of a proposal from House and Senate Democratic leaders to create a $ 50 billion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , like many other small businesses , have struggled to survive the pandemic and the recession .
For a long time , child care had been a policy backwater among lawmakers in both parties .
But over the past few years , a growing consciousness around economic , racial , and gender justice has brought it to the fore .
And now—in the midst of a global health crisis and economic meltdown that has exacerbated inequality—Biden ’ s proposal could give child care policy a moment that advocates have long sought .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make child care similar to the position that health care and higher education hold , ” says Mary Kay Henry , the president of the Service Employees International Union .
Child care policy hasn ’ t gained much traction at the federal level since the early 1970s , a time when many women began to challenge traditional gender roles and enter the workplace in larger numbers .
In 1971 , both chambers of Congress passed a universal child care bill that would have created a network of federally funded care centers with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nixon had initially shown an openness to the plan , but got cold feet and vetoed the bill because of its “ family-weakening ” implications .
Nearly 50 years later , Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
used the 1971 legislation as the framework to develop her own child care plan .
In early 2019 , she proposed that the federal government would partner with local daycare facilities to offer care from birth until children start kindergarten .
No family would pay more than 7 percent of its income , and families @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poverty line would pay nothing at all .
Under her plan , 12 million children would get access to formal child care , more than double the number who currently receive it .
The timing , specificity , and ambition of Warren ’ s proposal set her apart from both her fellow 2020 contenders and pretty much every Democratic presidential candidate in history .
In 2016 , Hillary Clinton didn ’ t unveil her child care proposal—which would have capped a family ’ s expenses at 10 percent of household income—until she ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Even then , it wasn ’ t something voters responded to .
“ When Hillary talked about child care and even paid leave , I don ’ t think there was the public response to it that you ’ re used to on a campaign for high-priority issues , ” recalls Neera Tanden , the president of the Center for American Progress and a longtime Clinton adviser .
But what made Warren ’ s proposal truly unique was her framing of child care not just as a family problem , but as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ costs more than in-state tuition at public colleges in many states , and its lack of affordability often forces parents—usually mothers—to choose between entering the workforce and staying home .
Meanwhile , the median hourly wage for a child care worker is $ 10.72 , an annual salary that ’ s less than 40 percent of what elementary school teachers earn .
“ You can ’ t say something ’ s important and pay poverty wages , ” Randi Weingarten , the president of the American Federation of Teachers , which represents a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me .
“ We can ’ t keep pauperizing families and the child care providers.
” The coronavirus pandemic has worsened all of these problems , pushing an already vulnerable and inadequate system to its breaking point .
A survey from the National Association for the Education of Young Children found that by mid-April , half of all US child care providers had closed down , and an additional 17 percent were closed to everyone but the children of essential personnel .
In the absence of care , the burden of watching children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women .
Mothers with a full-time job and a partner are spending 71 hours per week on child care , elder care , and household chores—20 hours per week more than their male counterparts , according to a survey from Lean In , a women ’ s organization founded by Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg .
Women of color are spending an even greater amount of time on domestic work .
Most child care centers , unlike schools , are privately owned small businesses and nonprofits for whom shutting down has been financially devastating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loans Congress made available , few have actually received the help .
And as states and local economies reopen , pressure is mounting on child care providers to do the same—even as many struggle to purchase the necessary protective equipment and cleaning supplies to keep children and employees safe .
These risks will be distributed unequally : Most child care workers are women of color , and many live and work in communities that have been particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 .
The crisis has given momentum to calls for change .
“ As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this work , and that is why it has not been a priority , ” says Julie Kashen , the senior policy director of the National Domestic Workers Alliance .
“ What this moment is showing us is that the economy does not work without child care.
” Economic research backs up that argument .
A 2018 CAP study estimated that US gross domestic product would rise by $ 210.2 billion if the country adopted a universal child care plan with costs capped at 10 percent of families ’ incomes .
Labor unions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and racial justice activists have all lent their voices to the cause .
“ More organizations with political power have recognized how child care is an economic issue , a women ’ s issue , and an inequality issue , ” Tanden says .
“ That has made this a much more central concern.
” Until now , Biden had only proposed universal preschool for three- and four-year-olds , but the campaign has been thinking about a broader child care proposal since the former vice president entered the race , according to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Henry , and Weingarten , all of whom either advise or are in regular contact with the campaign , refused to comment or give specifics on the plans .
Weingarten , who serves on an education policy task force created by Biden and Bernie Sanders , says the group devoted a recent meeting to early childhood care and had “ a really good conversation , ” but she did not offer further details .
The Biden campaign declined to comment but confirmed that child care would be a piece of the candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of advocates and activists say they had heard Biden initially planned to roll out a universal child care proposal—one that approached the level of ambition put forth by Warren—in March , around the time he adopted other progressive proposals pushed by his primary opponents , including Warren ’ s bankruptcy reform plan and modest elements of Sanders ’ and Warren ’ s student debt cancellation plans .
But that was before the coronavirus crisis hit and turned the industry ’ s long-term problems into a present-day catastrophe .
The interceding time has given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ otherwise have been seen as a pie-in-the-sky liberal wish-list item .
In recent statements , he ’ s linked the urgent need for better child care infrastructure to both the immediate crises the country faces and the systemic inequality the current system is founded upon .
“ Think of the millions of people out there , particularly women who are home taking care of daughters , taking care of their elderly parents , people who are there taking care of the young and the elderly with special needs , ” Biden told attendees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ We can make sure that we have a civilian force that is able to take care of those people and get paid to do it.
” On Thursday , his campaign pledged that , under a Biden administration , federal funds would be allocated to help child care centers cover the cost of making their facilities safe for children , families , and workers during the pandemic .
A candidate ’ s platform is just a value statement , and should Biden assume the White House , the moonshots in his economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
But just as the times—and an army of activists—have pushed Democrats to embrace the issue , so too have Republicans .
Sens .
Kelly Loeffler ( R-Ga. ) and Joni Ernst ( R-Iowa ) , both of whom face tough reelection fights this fall , introduced their own $ 25 billion bailout of the child care industry last month .
Biden won ’ t find willing partners across the aisle for most of his priorities , but child care might be the exception to that rule .

Joe Biden is planning to unveil a comprehensive child care proposal in the coming weeks—part of a broader program to resuscitate the economy that the former vice president previewed earlier this month. The precise details of the new plan are still under wraps, but it will be a part of a “caregiving workforce” initiative intended to tackle home care for the elderly and disabled, paid family leave, and fair wages for caregivers. The plan comes on the heels of a proposal from House and Senate Democratic leaders to create a $50 billion bailout fund for child care providers who, like many other small businesses, have struggled to survive the pandemic and the recession.
For a long time, child care had been a policy backwater among lawmakers in both parties. But over the past few years, a growing consciousness around economic, racial, and gender justice has brought it to the fore. And now—in the midst of a global health crisis and economic meltdown that has exacerbated inequality—Biden’s proposal could give child care policy a moment that advocates have long sought.
“It’s been decades of fighting to make child care similar to the position that health care and higher education hold,” says Mary Kay Henry, the president of the Service Employees International Union.
“What this moment is showing us is that the economy does not work without child care.”
Child care policy hasn’t gained much traction at the federal level since the early 1970s, a time when many women began to challenge traditional gender roles and enter the workplace in larger numbers. In 1971, both chambers of Congress passed a universal child care bill that would have created a network of federally funded care centers with fees based on income. President Richard Nixon had initially shown an openness to the plan, but got cold feet and vetoed the bill because of its “family-weakening” implications.
Nearly 50 years later, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) used the 1971 legislation as the framework to develop her own child care plan. In early 2019, she proposed that the federal government would partner with local daycare facilities to offer care from birth until children start kindergarten. No family would pay more than 7 percent of its income, and families earning below 200 percent of the federal poverty line would pay nothing at all. Under her plan, 12 million children would get access to formal child care, more than double the number who currently receive it.
The timing, specificity, and ambition of Warren’s proposal set her apart from both her fellow 2020 contenders and pretty much every Democratic presidential candidate in history. In 2016, Hillary Clinton didn’t unveil her child care proposal—which would have capped a family’s expenses at 10 percent of household income—until she’d all but secured the Democratic nomination. Even then, it wasn’t something voters responded to. “When Hillary talked about child care and even paid leave, I don’t think there was the public response to it that you’re used to on a campaign for high-priority issues,” recalls Neera Tanden, the president of the Center for American Progress and a longtime Clinton adviser.
But what made Warren’s proposal truly unique was her framing of child care not just as a family problem, but as a broader economic concern. Child care costs more than in-state tuition at public colleges in many states, and its lack of affordability often forces parents—usually mothers—to choose between entering the workforce and staying home. Meanwhile, the median hourly wage for a child care worker is $10.72, an annual salary that’s less than 40 percent of what elementary school teachers earn. “You can’t say something’s important and pay poverty wages,” Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, which represents a number of child care workers, tells me. “We can’t keep pauperizing families and the child care providers.”
The coronavirus pandemic has worsened all of these problems, pushing an already vulnerable and inadequate system to its breaking point. A survey from the National Association for the Education of Young Children found that by mid-April, half of all US child care providers had closed down, and an additional 17 percent were closed to everyone but the children of essential personnel.
In the absence of care, the burden of watching children at home has primarily fallen back onto women. Mothers with a full-time job and a partner are spending 71 hours per week on child care, elder care, and household chores—20 hours per week more than their male counterparts, according to a survey from Lean In, a women’s organization founded by Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg. Women of color are spending an even greater amount of time on domestic work.
Most child care centers, unlike schools, are privately owned small businesses and nonprofits for whom shutting down has been financially devastating. While many applied for the emergency loans Congress made available, few have actually received the help. And as states and local economies reopen, pressure is mounting on child care providers to do the same—even as many struggle to purchase the necessary protective equipment and cleaning supplies to keep children and employees safe. These risks will be distributed unequally: Most child care workers are women of color, and many live and work in communities that have been particularly vulnerable to COVID-19.
The crisis has given momentum to calls for change. “As a society, we’ve devalued this work, and that is why it has not been a priority,” says Julie Kashen, the senior policy director of the National Domestic Workers Alliance. “What this moment is showing us is that the economy does not work without child care.”
Economic research backs up that argument. A 2018 CAP study estimated that US gross domestic product would rise by $210.2 billion if the country adopted a universal child care plan with costs capped at 10 percent of families’ incomes. Labor unions, women’s advocacy organizations, and racial justice activists have all lent their voices to the cause. “More organizations with political power have recognized how child care is an economic issue, a women’s issue, and an inequality issue,” Tanden says. “That has made this a much more central concern.”
Until now, Biden had only proposed universal preschool for three- and four-year-olds, but the campaign has been thinking about a broader child care proposal since the former vice president entered the race, according to a source familiar with its efforts. Tanden, Henry, and Weingarten, all of whom either advise or are in regular contact with the campaign, refused to comment or give specifics on the plans. Weingarten, who serves on an education policy task force created by Biden and Bernie Sanders, says the group devoted a recent meeting to early childhood care and had “a really good conversation,” but she did not offer further details. The Biden campaign declined to comment but confirmed that child care would be a piece of the candidate’s caregiving agenda.
A number of advocates and activists say they had heard Biden initially planned to roll out a universal child care proposal—one that approached the level of ambition put forth by Warren—in March, around the time he adopted other progressive proposals pushed by his primary opponents, including Warren’s bankruptcy reform plan and modest elements of Sanders’ and Warren’s student debt cancellation plans. But that was before the coronavirus crisis hit and turned the industry’s long-term problems into a present-day catastrophe.
The interceding time has given Biden a chance to reframe what might otherwise have been seen as a pie-in-the-sky liberal wish-list item. In recent statements, he’s linked the urgent need for better child care infrastructure to both the immediate crises the country faces and the systemic inequality the current system is founded upon. “Think of the millions of people out there, particularly women who are home taking care of daughters, taking care of their elderly parents, people who are there taking care of the young and the elderly with special needs,” Biden told attendees at a virtual fundraiser Tuesday night. “We can make sure that we have a civilian force that is able to take care of those people and get paid to do it.” On Thursday, his campaign pledged that, under a Biden administration, federal funds would be allocated to help child care centers cover the cost of making their facilities safe for children, families, and workers during the pandemic.
A candidate’s platform is just a value statement, and should Biden assume the White House, the moonshots in his economic plan might amount to little more than that. But just as the times—and an army of activists—have pushed Democrats to embrace the issue, so too have Republicans. Sens. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.) and Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), both of whom face tough reelection fights this fall, introduced their own $25 billion bailout of the child care industry last month. Biden won’t find willing partners across the aisle for most of his priorities, but child care might be the exception to that rule.


motherjones--2020-06-12--Activists Pushed for Years to Topple These Confederate Statues. This Week They Came Down in Minutes.

Late Wednesday night , a group of protestors in Richmond toppled the statue of former Confederate President Jefferson Davis that has towered over Monument Avenue for 113 years .
A few hours earlier , members of the American Indian Movement brought down a statue of Christopher Columbus outside the Minnesota state capitol in St. Paul .
And in Portsmouth , Virginia , demonstrators—equipped with ropes , bolt cutters , and sledgehammers—beheaded four statues that once formed a Confederate monument .
“ A marching band played in the streets , ” the Virginian-Pilot reported , “ and other protesters danced.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States and other countries in the wake of last month ’ s killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police , have led to renewed calls for the removal of white supremacist monuments .
A statue of a slave-trader in England was thrown into the River Avon .
A statue of King Leopold II , butcher of the Congo , came down in Belgium .
Defacing monuments to oppressive figures is a natural outgrowth of a push to grapple with structural racism and its symbols .
But what ’ s striking , watching a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is how activists have made a process that once seemed insurmountable look so easy .
Activists and their allies in government have been pushing for the removal of Confederate monuments for ages , but they ’ ve been stymied and delayed by crafty legislators , lawsuits , and lack of political will .
Now , it seems , they ’ ve found a way to bypass that resistance .
There was a national push to remove Confederate monuments in 2015 , after the white-supremacist massacre in Charleston , and in 2017 , after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself in response to an effort to remove a Confederate monument .
Baltimore ( which was never part of the Confederacy ) removed four monuments—three celebrating Confederates and one honoring Chief Justice Roger Taney , who authored the Dred Scott decision—in the middle of the night in August 2017 .
But most removal efforts unfolded more like what Mayor Mitch Landrieu experienced in New Orleans , when he sought to remove Confederate and Redemption-era monuments from the city .
The city ’ s efforts to take down the statues took two years .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Landrieu worked so hard to build a good-faith case that the resulting speech was turned into a book .
As monuments began to come down , some state governments , such as Texas , tried to change their laws to make it even harder to remove statues .
That effort failed , but a similar move in Alabama passed .
Local Confederate groups have invoked old contracts and laws that were already on the books to thwart private and municipal efforts to turn the page—Vanderbilt University only succeeded in renaming its Confederate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after its President E. Gordon Gee first proposed to do so .
It ’ s now “ Memorial Hall.
” When I was in Richmond in 2017 covering the gubernatorial election , there were activists standing vigil beneath the Robert E. Lee statue on Monument Avenue .
They were not protesting its existence ; they were opposing calls for its removal .
The city ’ s Democratic mayor , Levar Stoney , had formed a commission to look into removing or altering the monuments .
The Democratic nominee , Lt. Gov .
Ralph @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agreed with Stoney ; in response , Republican nominee Ed Gillespie ( who is from New Jersey ) had said they should stay up .
The Virginia Republican Party , which often seems to be participating in a performance art piece about its own shrinking relevance , charged that Northam had “ turned his back on his own family ’ s heritage.
” At the time , the momentum for monument removal felt like it was all happening so fast .
Just two years earlier , in 2015 , then-Gov .
Terry McAuliffe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Upstate New York , had called the Lee and Davis statues “ parts of our heritage ” and emphasized many Confederate soldiers were not motivated by slavery .
“ Leave the statues and those things alone , ” he said .
The monuments were still up this spring .
Stoney ’ s commission recommended scrapping the Davis statue in 2018 , and Northam signed a law in April giving municipalities more power to alter or remove monuments , but the legal battle continued apace—on Monday , a federal judge blocked the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another lawsuit could be resolved .
Meanwhile , in Portsmouth , the Pilot reported , protesters took matters into their own hands because they felt “ frustrated by the Portsmouth City Council ’ s decision to put off ” the removal of that city ’ s monument .
( There was a downside to going the less formal route—one Portsmouth protester was injured during the removal and hospitalized . )
A former councilman told the paper he had proposed getting rid of it at a meeting five years ago .
A few hours @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the council voted to delay any action on the monument for another month .
Protest movements , like pandemics , have a way of getting people to reimagine what ’ s possible in their lives .
It turns out you can pay people to stay home , or sell cocktails to go , or cover a medical test for anyone who needs one .
You can get Mitt Romney to start saying “ Black Lives Matter , ” and you can get your state government to repeal its law shielding police misconduct records @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stood in the way of such changes did not need to be there after all—or perhaps they were an illusion all this time .
You don ’ t have to wait forever to get rid of monuments to white supremacy .
It turns out all you need is a sledgehammer and some rope .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Late Wednesday night, a group of protestors in Richmond toppled the statue of former Confederate President Jefferson Davis that has towered over Monument Avenue for 113 years. A few hours earlier, members of the American Indian Movement brought down a statue of Christopher Columbus outside the Minnesota state capitol in St. Paul. And in Portsmouth, Virginia, demonstrators—equipped with ropes, bolt cutters, and sledgehammers—beheaded four statues that once formed a Confederate monument. “A marching band played in the streets,” the Virginian-Pilot reported, “and other protesters danced.”
The protests that have swept the United States and other countries in the wake of last month’s killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police, have led to renewed calls for the removal of white supremacist monuments. A statue of a slave-trader in England was thrown into the River Avon. A statue of King Leopold II, butcher of the Congo, came down in Belgium. Defacing monuments to oppressive figures is a natural outgrowth of a push to grapple with structural racism and its symbols. But what’s striking, watching a seemingly endless stream of statue-toppling videos, is how activists have made a process that once seemed insurmountable look so easy.
Protesters in Richmond have pulled down a statue of Jefferson Davis, the former president of the Confederacy pic.twitter.com/Myl0UfDSNI — philip lewis (@Phil_Lewis_) June 11, 2020
Activists and their allies in government have been pushing for the removal of Confederate monuments for ages, but they’ve been stymied and delayed by crafty legislators, lawsuits, and lack of political will. Now, it seems, they’ve found a way to bypass that resistance.
There was a national push to remove Confederate monuments in 2015, after the white-supremacist massacre in Charleston, and in 2017, after the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville—which was itself in response to an effort to remove a Confederate monument. Baltimore (which was never part of the Confederacy) removed four monuments—three celebrating Confederates and one honoring Chief Justice Roger Taney, who authored the Dred Scott decision—in the middle of the night in August 2017. But most removal efforts unfolded more like what Mayor Mitch Landrieu experienced in New Orleans, when he sought to remove Confederate and Redemption-era monuments from the city. The city’s efforts to take down the statues took two years. There were death threats and court battles. Landrieu worked so hard to build a good-faith case that the resulting speech was turned into a book.
As monuments began to come down, some state governments, such as Texas, tried to change their laws to make it even harder to remove statues. That effort failed, but a similar move in Alabama passed. Local Confederate groups have invoked old contracts and laws that were already on the books to thwart private and municipal efforts to turn the page—Vanderbilt University only succeeded in renaming its Confederate Memorial Hall in 2016, 14 years after its President E. Gordon Gee first proposed to do so. It’s now “Memorial Hall.”
When I was in Richmond in 2017 covering the gubernatorial election, there were activists standing vigil beneath the Robert E. Lee statue on Monument Avenue. They were not protesting its existence; they were opposing calls for its removal. The city’s Democratic mayor, Levar Stoney, had formed a commission to look into removing or altering the monuments. The Democratic nominee, Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam (who is now governor) agreed with Stoney; in response, Republican nominee Ed Gillespie (who is from New Jersey) had said they should stay up. The Virginia Republican Party, which often seems to be participating in a performance art piece about its own shrinking relevance, charged that Northam had “turned his back on his own family’s heritage.”
At the time, the momentum for monument removal felt like it was all happening so fast. Just two years earlier, in 2015, then-Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a former Democratic National Committee chairman from Upstate New York, had called the Lee and Davis statues “parts of our heritage” and emphasized many Confederate soldiers were not motivated by slavery. “Leave the statues and those things alone,” he said.
The monuments were still up this spring. Stoney’s commission recommended scrapping the Davis statue in 2018, and Northam signed a law in April giving municipalities more power to alter or remove monuments, but the legal battle continued apace—on Monday, a federal judge blocked the state from getting rid of Gen. Lee until another lawsuit could be resolved. Meanwhile, in Portsmouth, the Pilot reported, protesters took matters into their own hands because they felt “frustrated by the Portsmouth City Council’s decision to put off” the removal of that city’s monument. (There was a downside to going the less formal route—one Portsmouth protester was injured during the removal and hospitalized.) A former councilman told the paper he had proposed getting rid of it at a meeting five years ago. A few hours before the crowd assembled that night, the council voted to delay any action on the monument for another month.
Protest movements, like pandemics, have a way of getting people to reimagine what’s possible in their lives. It turns out you can pay people to stay home, or sell cocktails to go, or cover a medical test for anyone who needs one. You can get Mitt Romney to start saying “Black Lives Matter,” and you can get your state government to repeal its law shielding police misconduct records from the public. The obstacles that stood in the way of such changes did not need to be there after all—or perhaps they were an illusion all this time. You don’t have to wait forever to get rid of monuments to white supremacy. It turns out all you need is a sledgehammer and some rope.