motherjones--2020-06-26--A Key Witness Against Roger Stone Says William Barr Twisted His Words

Randy Credico says he hasn ’ t slept at home in more than two years .
The comedian and activist has been laying low , somewhere in New York , since proclaiming publicly in early 2018 that longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone lied in congressional testimony in October 2017 by claiming Credico was Stone ’ s intermediary to WikiLeaks during the 2016 presidential campaign .
Credico says he fears verbal attacks by Stone and his associates , along with the president ’ s denunciations of Stone ’ s prosecution could cause Trump fans to target him .
“ There are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in red hats toting guns , ” Credico says .
Credico has been saying stuff like that since the spring of 2018 .
His worries started when Stone sent him a slew of vitriolic messages that prosecutors later successfully argued amounted to an intimidation effort aimed at preventing Credico from talking about Stone to congressional investigators or the FBI .
“ Prepare to die cock sucker , ” Stone wrote in one .
In another , Stone said he would take Credico ’ s dog , Bianca , “ away from you.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a controversy over Attorney General William Barr ’ s politicization of the Justice Department .
Credico testified against Stone in a trial last fall that resulted in Stone ’ s conviction on five counts of making false statements to lawmakers , obstruction of Congress , and witness tampering .
Attention to Credico ’ s testimony increased in February , when prosecutors in the case recommended Stone receive seven to nine years in prison .
The prosecutors cited Stone ’ s emails to apply a guideline that imposes longer sentences for offenders who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news reports on the prosecutors ’ recommendation , Trump , in a 1:48 a.m. tweet on February 11 , called the proposed punishment “ horrible and very unfair.
” Later that day , at the behest of Barr , who claims he was not influenced by Trump ’ s tweet , Justice Department officials overrode the front-line prosecutors ’ original recommendation .
In a new memo that said Stone should receive a shorter sentence , these officials argued that Stone had not really threatened Credico , pointing to a letter Credico had sent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Stone .
“ I never in any way felt that Stone himself posed a direct physical threat to me or my dog , ” Credico wrote .
On February 20 , District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson sentenced Stone to just over three years in prison .
Stone , who is 67 , is now arguing for a delay in the start of his sentence due to the risk of the coronavirus .
On Wednesday , Aaron Zelinsky , a lead prosecutor in the Stone case , told the House Judiciary Committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an intervention based on Stone ’ s relationship with Trump .
Zelinsky said the prosecutors ’ jobs were threatened over the sentence .
“ We were pressured to say that Mr. Credico had no concerns and had no worries as a result of Mr. Stone ’ s conduct , ” he said .
Zelinsky said federal sentencing guidelines cite the threat of violence , not the likelihood of it being carried out , as a cause for tougher sentences .
And he noted that Credico had said in grand jury testimony that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against him .
That justified the recommendation for a longer sentence , the prosecutor testified .
I first reported on Stone ’ s “ Prepare to die ” email on May 25 , 2018 .
I asked Credico then how he interpreted Stone ’ s words .
“ That was a threat , ” Credico responded .
Credico tells me he hasn ’ t changed his tune since .
Credico even says that fear of violence was part of his motivation for writing to Judge Jackson to urge leniency for Stone .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be the guy who was was totally responsible for putting him in jail , ” Credico says , describing his motivation .
Credico has spent decades advocating against mandatory sentences in New York .
He actually met Stone through that work .
And he says his letter reflects his own view , dating to the imprisonment of his father when he was a child , that incarceration should be vastly reduced .
“ I find it deeply disturbing and cynical for Attorney General Barr to have mischaracterized my letter to Judge Jackson to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department on behalf of his client Donald Trump , ” Credico said in a statement issued after Wednesday ’ s hearing .
Barr ’ s campaign for leniency for Stone and other Trump allies contrasts with his push for Justice Department prosecutors to generally seek maximum sentences for criminals .
Credico writes : “ It is a slap in the face to every other defendant in this country that Roger Stone received special favors and politically-motivated lenient treatment when there are thousands upon thousands of defendants who are not rich , not powerful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump who receive no special treatment and no leniency whatsoever .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Randy Credico says he hasn’t slept at home in more than two years. The comedian and activist has been laying low, somewhere in New York, since proclaiming publicly in early 2018 that longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone lied in congressional testimony in October 2017 by claiming Credico was Stone’s intermediary to WikiLeaks during the 2016 presidential campaign. Credico says he fears verbal attacks by Stone and his associates, along with the president’s denunciations of Stone’s prosecution, could cause Trump fans to target him. “There are a lot of sleeper cells out there in red hats toting guns,” Credico says.
Credico has been saying stuff like that since the spring of 2018. His worries started when Stone sent him a slew of vitriolic messages that prosecutors later successfully argued amounted to an intimidation effort aimed at preventing Credico from talking about Stone to congressional investigators or the FBI. “Prepare to die cock sucker,” Stone wrote in one. In another, Stone said he would take Credico’s dog, Bianca, “away from you.”
Astonishingly, these idiotic emails now factor in a controversy over Attorney General William Barr’s politicization of the Justice Department. Credico testified against Stone in a trial last fall that resulted in Stone’s conviction on five counts of making false statements to lawmakers, obstruction of Congress, and witness tampering. Attention to Credico’s testimony increased in February, when prosecutors in the case recommended Stone receive seven to nine years in prison. The prosecutors cited Stone’s emails to apply a guideline that imposes longer sentences for offenders who threaten witnesses with violence.
Responding to news reports on the prosecutors’ recommendation, Trump, in a 1:48 a.m. tweet on February 11, called the proposed punishment “horrible and very unfair.” Later that day, at the behest of Barr, who claims he was not influenced by Trump’s tweet, Justice Department officials overrode the front-line prosecutors’ original recommendation. In a new memo that said Stone should receive a shorter sentence, these officials argued that Stone had not really threatened Credico, pointing to a letter Credico had sent the judge in the case seeking leniency for Stone. “I never in any way felt that Stone himself posed a direct physical threat to me or my dog,” Credico wrote.
On February 20, District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson sentenced Stone to just over three years in prison. Stone, who is 67, is now arguing for a delay in the start of his sentence due to the risk of the coronavirus.
On Wednesday, Aaron Zelinsky, a lead prosecutor in the Stone case, told the House Judiciary Committee that Barr’s intervention was politically-driven, an intervention based on Stone’s relationship with Trump. Zelinsky said the prosecutors’ jobs were threatened over the sentence. “We were pressured to say that Mr. Credico had no concerns and had no worries as a result of Mr. Stone’s conduct,” he said.
Zelinsky said federal sentencing guidelines cite the threat of violence, not the likelihood of it being carried out, as a cause for tougher sentences. And he noted that Credico had said in grand jury testimony that he was concerned Stone would incite violence against him. That justified the recommendation for a longer sentence, the prosecutor testified.
I first reported on Stone’s “Prepare to die” email on May 25, 2018. I asked Credico then how he interpreted Stone’s words. “That was a threat,” Credico responded.
Credico tells me he hasn’t changed his tune since. Credico even says that fear of violence was part of his motivation for writing to Judge Jackson to urge leniency for Stone. “I certainly didn’t want to be the guy who was was totally responsible for putting him in jail,” Credico says, describing his motivation. Credico has spent decades advocating against mandatory sentences in New York. He actually met Stone through that work. And he says his letter reflects his own view, dating to the imprisonment of his father when he was a child, that incarceration should be vastly reduced. “I find it deeply disturbing and cynical for Attorney General Barr to have mischaracterized my letter to Judge Jackson to justify his ominous purging of the Justice Department on behalf of his client Donald Trump,” Credico said in a statement issued after Wednesday’s hearing.
Barr’s campaign for leniency for Stone and other Trump allies contrasts with his push for Justice Department prosecutors to generally seek maximum sentences for criminals. Credico writes: “It is a slap in the face to every other defendant in this country that Roger Stone received special favors and politically-motivated lenient treatment when there are thousands upon thousands of defendants who are not rich, not powerful, not influential and not friends with Donald Trump who receive no special treatment and no leniency whatsoever.”


motherjones--2020-06-26--Tom Cotton’s Argument Against DC Statehood Is the Same One Racists Have Always Used

On Friday , the House of Representatives is set to pass a bill that would make Washington , DC , the 51st state .
The District would change its name to Washington , Douglass Commonwealth ; get two seats in the Senate and a voting member of the House ; and , presumably , finally change those license plates .
Support for statehood among Democrats has grown considerably since 1993 , when 100 party members voted against it in the House .
But the bill is still , at least until next year , a largely symbolic statement : It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Republican-controlled Senate .
Currently , DC ’ s 700,000 residents have no representation in Congress ( other than a single , non-voting delegate ) and are subject to the political whims of whoever controls the federal government .
Opponents of DC statehood have , quite often over the years , rolled out a set of by-the-book arguments to make the case for why the federal district ought to remain as it is .
They suggest a constitutional amendment is needed to change its status , for instance , or that the Founders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing .
But on Thursday , Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton cut through the euphemism and simply laid out the nature of his opposition directly .
Cotton hit some of the familiar notes , posing the constitutional question and warning that statehood would present a security risk because many federal agencies would be based outside the small district that would remain under federal jurisdiction .
( This does not seem to be a problem for the literal Pentagon , which is in Virginia . )
He brought out an oversized map to show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tiny federal district alongside it , would be oddly shaped .
The core of Cotton ’ s argument , though , was about the people who live there .
Although he conceded that the District has more residents than both Wyoming and Vermont , he argued that its economy and political leanings disqualified it from full representation .
Its citizens , he suggested , were incapable of governing themselves responsibly and , in any case , did not deserve a voice in Congress because they hold jobs he considered illegitimate .
Democrats were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as grotesque as those committed by Jacobin mobs roaming our streets , ” Cotton said .
It was a startlingly blunt assertion—that Washingtonians should be entitled to fewer rights because they are simply the wrong kind of people .
There ’ s a reason why opponents prefer to hide behind legal constructs .
But it ’ s an argument with a familiar history .
Washington was , until recently , majority Black , and it still has a higher percentage of Black residents than any state .
The contention that places with large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lack the proper values—to govern themselves and others has been used to block statehood and home rule repeatedly in the nation ’ s history .
Take New Mexico .
It became a United States territory in 1848 , after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the Mexican War .
New Mexico was floated for statehood in 1850 .
But it did not become a state until 1912 , even as more sparsely populated western states ( like Wyoming ) jumped the line .
Why the holdup ?
New Mexicans were just the wrong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how the University of New Mexico describes it : And so they did .
A similar dynamic played out with respect to Alaska and Hawaii following the Second World War .
Although the moral case for statehood seemed clear , opponents believed that residents of those territories simply weren ’ t as worthy of statehood , by virtue of who they were .
As Daniel Immerwahr writes in his 2019 book , How to Hide an Empire : To accept Hawaiian and Alaskan statehood , mainland politicians would have to reconcile themselves to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white control .
In 1898 the fear of nonwhite states had motivated the resistance to empire .
Decades later , in a country governed by Jim Crow , it was still present .
The former president of Columbia University and Nobel laureate Nicholas Murray Butler warned that admitting Hawai ’ i and Alaska to the union would “ mark the beginning of the end of the United States as we have known it.
’ Hawai ’ i , well-known for its mixing of Native , Asian , and European strains , seemed particularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those people to help govern the country , ” a Massachusetts newspaper put it baldly .
“ When future issues arise in the United States Senate , we do not want a situation where vital decisions may depend upon two half-breed senators.
” They were , like DC , geographically and demographically different than other states .
So Hawaii and Alaska became a referendum , of sorts , on what kind of people deserved full citizenship .
Immerwahr quotes the segregationist Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina .
There was an “ ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eastern ways .
‘ East is East , and West is West , and never the twain shill meet , ’ he admonished , quoting Kipling.
” This same dynamic has played out before over the fate of Washington , DC .
For decades , the fight to give DC the power to govern itself—home rule—was blocked by southern Democrats in Congress , who viewed the measure ( correctly ) as an attempt to grant civil rights to residents of a largely Black city whom they did not believe should have such rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the premise—when the city got its first sort of intermediate form of home rule , Katherine Graham , publisher of the Washington Post , begged President Lyndon Johnson to appoint a white mayor .
Johnson chose a black man , Walter Washington .
A South Carolina congressman , whose committee had just lost much of its power over the city , sent him watermelons as a welcome gift .
Cotton ’ s opposition to statehood echoes the critics of the time .
He is arguing not on some legal technicality , but on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he insists , do not deserve and are not capable of handling the full responsibilities of citizenship .
They do not deserve them because , as he explained , they do not have the right kind of culture .
Wyoming , a place with two escalators and fewer than 8,000 Black residents , is a “ well-rounded working-class state , ” because it has both cattle and coal , Cotton said .
But Washington , DC—a booming and diverse city with large education , government , military , service , and construction sectors—has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of , he claimed .
Its people should , in Cotton ’ s view , continue to be lesser citizens , because they have the wrong jobs .
Cotton argued that DC was civically immature .
Its residents could not handle the responsibilities statehood would demand of them .
“ Would you trust Mayor Bowser to keep Washington safe if she were given the powers of a governor ?
” he asked .
“ Would you trust Marion Barry ?
” Bowser , as Cotton noted , does not like President Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t—though it hardly seems relevant to a question of statehood .
She has been mayor of Washington , DC , for five years and is not a particularly radical figure ; there ’ s really not much of a reason for someone in Arkansas to feel too strongly about her .
The main thing she has in common with Marion Barry , besides the fact that they are both Democrats , is that they are Black .
Barry , a civil rights activist who was raised by sharecroppers in Mississippi , had a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrested while smoking crack in a hotel room .
It seems unlikely that he would become governor of the new state of Washington , because he is dead .
Set aside the specifics , though , and he was a familiar figure—think James Michael Curley or Buddy Cianci or Huey Long or any of a long list of scandal-plagued but popular white patronage bosses who handed out jobs and greased palms .
If a state ’ s existence were contingent on the soundness of its politicians , we would not have very many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his governor was convicted of mail fraud .
Marion Barry alone became shorthand , a two-word retort that meant , in a manner of speaking , “ See ?
” Much of Cotton ’ s argument is couched in the idea of the “ swamp ” —the eternal fiction that the problem with Washington is the people who live there and not ( as anyone who lives there will inform you ) the people who are periodically sent there by voters in states that actually do have congressional representation .
But he couldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and that scripted dig dispatched with the facade .
At the end of the day , this is an age-old story about citizenship and cities , about what kinds of things make you fully American and what kinds of things don ’ t .
It ’ s no more high-minded than when the president Cotton supports calls Baltimore a “ rodent-infested mess ” or asks why anyone would want to live in Oakland .
If you put aside his fancy map and historical trivia , Cotton is pointing at a place and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Really ?
Them ?
He is hardly the first .
He won ’ t be the last .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
On Friday, the House of Representatives is set to pass a bill that would make Washington, DC, the 51st state. The District would change its name to Washington, Douglass Commonwealth; get two seats in the Senate and a voting member of the House; and, presumably, finally change those license plates. Support for statehood among Democrats has grown considerably since 1993, when 100 party members voted against it in the House. But the bill is still, at least until next year, a largely symbolic statement: It is expected to be a non-starter in the Republican-controlled Senate.
Currently, DC’s 700,000 residents have no representation in Congress (other than a single, non-voting delegate) and are subject to the political whims of whoever controls the federal government. Opponents of DC statehood have, quite often over the years, rolled out a set of by-the-book arguments to make the case for why the federal district ought to remain as it is. They suggest a constitutional amendment is needed to change its status, for instance, or that the Founders wanted the city to be its own thing. But on Thursday, Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton cut through the euphemism and simply laid out the nature of his opposition directly.
Cotton hit some of the familiar notes, posing the constitutional question and warning that statehood would present a security risk because many federal agencies would be based outside the small district that would remain under federal jurisdiction. (This does not seem to be a problem for the literal Pentagon, which is in Virginia.) He brought out an oversized map to show that the new state, and the tiny federal district alongside it, would be oddly shaped.
The core of Cotton’s argument, though, was about the people who live there. Although he conceded that the District has more residents than both Wyoming and Vermont, he argued that its economy and political leanings disqualified it from full representation. Its citizens, he suggested, were incapable of governing themselves responsibly and, in any case, did not deserve a voice in Congress because they hold jobs he considered illegitimate. Democrats were “committing an act of historical vandalism as grotesque as those committed by Jacobin mobs roaming our streets,” Cotton said.
It was a startlingly blunt assertion—that Washingtonians should be entitled to fewer rights because they are simply the wrong kind of people. There’s a reason why opponents prefer to hide behind legal constructs. But it’s an argument with a familiar history. Washington was, until recently, majority Black, and it still has a higher percentage of Black residents than any state. The contention that places with large non-white populations would be too inept—or would lack the proper values—to govern themselves and others has been used to block statehood and home rule repeatedly in the nation’s history.
Take New Mexico. It became a United States territory in 1848, after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the Mexican War. New Mexico was floated for statehood in 1850. But it did not become a state until 1912, even as more sparsely populated western states (like Wyoming) jumped the line. Why the holdup? New Mexicans were just the wrong kind of people. Here’s how the University of New Mexico describes it:
Many historians have identified racism as a key factor in the delay. In 1848 when the Mexican North was ceded to the United States, New Mexico contained the highest Mexican population in the whole region. Because the population grew slowly in the state, it maintained a majority of Hispano and Native American residents into the twentieth century. The territorial government was designed to handle this multi-lingual and multi-cultural reality. The legal system, for example, provided Spanish interpreters and published all laws in both English and Spanish. Members of Congress and the American population at large worried that such a “foreign” people would not make good American citizens. Senator C.K. Davis of Minnesota suggested so in an 1892 letter. Many agreed that New Mexico would have to wait until the population of Protestant, English-speaking “Americans” grew higher.
And so they did. A similar dynamic played out with respect to Alaska and Hawaii following the Second World War. Although the moral case for statehood seemed clear, opponents believed that residents of those territories simply weren’t as worthy of statehood, by virtue of who they were. As Daniel Immerwahr writes in his 2019 book, How to Hide an Empire:
To accept Hawaiian and Alaskan statehood, mainland politicians would have to reconcile themselves to the prospect of states not firmly under white control. In 1898 the fear of nonwhite states had motivated the resistance to empire. Decades later, in a country governed by Jim Crow, it was still present. The former president of Columbia University and Nobel laureate Nicholas Murray Butler warned that admitting Hawai’i and Alaska to the union would “mark the beginning of the end of the United States as we have known it.’ Hawai’i, well-known for its mixing of Native, Asian, and European strains, seemed particularly threatening. “We do not want those people to help govern the country,” a Massachusetts newspaper put it baldly. “When future issues arise in the United States Senate, we do not want a situation where vital decisions may depend upon two half-breed senators.”
They were, like DC, geographically and demographically different than other states. So Hawaii and Alaska became a referendum, of sorts, on what kind of people deserved full citizenship. Immerwahr quotes the segregationist Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. There was an “‘impassible difference’ between Western civilization and Eastern ways. ‘East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shill meet,’ he admonished, quoting Kipling.”
This same dynamic has played out before over the fate of Washington, DC. For decades, the fight to give DC the power to govern itself—home rule—was blocked by southern Democrats in Congress, who viewed the measure (correctly) as an attempt to grant civil rights to residents of a largely Black city whom they did not believe should have such rights. Even some white home-rule supporters bought the premise—when the city got its first sort of intermediate form of home rule, Katherine Graham, publisher of the Washington Post, begged President Lyndon Johnson to appoint a white mayor. Johnson chose a black man, Walter Washington. A South Carolina congressman, whose committee had just lost much of its power over the city, sent him watermelons as a welcome gift.
Cotton’s opposition to statehood echoes the critics of the time. He is arguing not on some legal technicality, but on principle. The people of Washington, he insists, do not deserve and are not capable of handling the full responsibilities of citizenship. They do not deserve them because, as he explained, they do not have the right kind of culture. Wyoming, a place with two escalators and fewer than 8,000 Black residents, is a “well-rounded working-class state,” because it has both cattle and coal, Cotton said. But Washington, DC—a booming and diverse city with large education, government, military, service, and construction sectors—has no “vital industry” to speak of, he claimed. Its people should, in Cotton’s view, continue to be lesser citizens, because they have the wrong jobs. Cotton argued that DC was civically immature. Its residents could not handle the responsibilities statehood would demand of them. “Would you trust Mayor Bowser to keep Washington safe if she were given the powers of a governor?” he asked. “Would you trust Marion Barry?”
Sen. Tom Cotton on #DCstatehood: "Would you trust Mayor Bowser to keep Washington safe if she were given the powers of a governor? Would you trust Marion Barry?" pic.twitter.com/e2PDM5IySQ — The Hill (@thehill) June 25, 2020
Bowser, as Cotton noted, does not like President Donald Trump. Polls show most Americans don’t—though it hardly seems relevant to a question of statehood. She has been mayor of Washington, DC, for five years and is not a particularly radical figure; there’s really not much of a reason for someone in Arkansas to feel too strongly about her. The main thing she has in common with Marion Barry, besides the fact that they are both Democrats, is that they are Black. Barry, a civil rights activist who was raised by sharecroppers in Mississippi, had a long and chaotic career that included getting arrested while smoking crack in a hotel room. It seems unlikely that he would become governor of the new state of Washington, because he is dead. Set aside the specifics, though, and he was a familiar figure—think James Michael Curley or Buddy Cianci or Huey Long or any of a long list of scandal-plagued but popular white patronage bosses who handed out jobs and greased palms. If a state’s existence were contingent on the soundness of its politicians, we would not have very many states—when Tom Cotton was growing up, his governor was convicted of mail fraud. Marion Barry alone became shorthand, a two-word retort that meant, in a manner of speaking, “See?”
Much of Cotton’s argument is couched in the idea of the “swamp”—the eternal fiction that the problem with Washington is the people who live there and not (as anyone who lives there will inform you) the people who are periodically sent there by voters in states that actually do have congressional representation. But he couldn’t resist invoking Bowser and Barry, and that scripted dig dispatched with the facade. At the end of the day, this is an age-old story about citizenship and cities, about what kinds of things make you fully American and what kinds of things don’t. It’s no more high-minded than when the president Cotton supports calls Baltimore a “rodent-infested mess” or asks why anyone would want to live in Oakland. If you put aside his fancy map and historical trivia, Cotton is pointing at a place and a group of people and saying, Really? Them? He is hardly the first. He won’t be the last.


motherjones--2020-06-26--The Trump Administration Just Asked the Supreme Court to Strike Down Obamacare During a Pandemic

The Trump administration filed a brief Thursday encouraging the Supreme Court to strike down the entirety of the Affordable Care Act , threatening to leave 23 million Americans uninsured amid a pandemic that has killed more than 120,000 people in the United States .
The briefing , filed by Solicitor General Noel Francisco , reaffirms the government ’ s position that the lack of an individual mandate renders the legislation known as Obamacare unconstitutional .
Last year , a federal appeals court found the individual mandate—which requires uninsured Americans to pay a yearly penalty—unconstitutional , because it could no longer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set to zero by the GOP ’ s 2017 tax bill .
In March , the Supreme Court announced that it would hear the case , brought by Republican attorneys general , to determine whether the invalidation of the individual mandate would nullify the rest of the health care law .
The Supreme Court is likely to hear oral arguments in the case in the fall , and the case could weigh heavily in the minds of voters headed to the polls to vote for president in November .
In a statement released @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( D-Calif. ) called the Trump administration ’ s stance “ an act of unfathomable cruelty ” that threatens to strip coverage for preexisting conditions away from the 130 million Americans who rely on it .
Meanwhile , more than one million Americans have filed for unemployment each week for the past 14 weeks , leaving many without employer-based coverage , instead relying on the Affordable Care Act for insurance .
As Republican strategist Joel White told Yahoo News , “ Politically , it ’ s pretty dumb to be talking about how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ middle of a pandemic .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The Trump administration filed a brief Thursday encouraging the Supreme Court to strike down the entirety of the Affordable Care Act, threatening to leave 23 million Americans uninsured amid a pandemic that has killed more than 120,000 people in the United States.
The briefing, filed by Solicitor General Noel Francisco, reaffirms the government’s position that the lack of an individual mandate renders the legislation known as Obamacare unconstitutional. Last year, a federal appeals court found the individual mandate—which requires uninsured Americans to pay a yearly penalty—unconstitutional, because it could no longer be considered a tax after it was set to zero by the GOP’s 2017 tax bill. In March, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear the case, brought by Republican attorneys general, to determine whether the invalidation of the individual mandate would nullify the rest of the health care law.
The Supreme Court is likely to hear oral arguments in the case in the fall, and the case could weigh heavily in the minds of voters headed to the polls to vote for president in November.
In a statement released late Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called the Trump administration’s stance “an act of unfathomable cruelty” that threatens to strip coverage for preexisting conditions away from the 130 million Americans who rely on it. Meanwhile, more than one million Americans have filed for unemployment each week for the past 14 weeks, leaving many without employer-based coverage, instead relying on the Affordable Care Act for insurance. As Republican strategist Joel White told Yahoo News, “Politically, it’s pretty dumb to be talking about how we need to repeal Obamacare in the middle of a pandemic.”


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

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

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


motherjones--2020-06-27--Trump Rails Against Obamacare as Coronavirus Cases Surge

Months into a global pandemic that has claimed the lives of more than 127,000 Americans , President Donald Trump still refuses to take responsibility for his administration ’ s underwhelming response .
On Saturday , the president started off his weekend by railing against Obamacare—one of the few lifelines available to millions of people in this global health crisis .
“ Obamacare is a joke !
” the president tweeted .
“ I will ALWAYS PROTECT PEOPLE WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS , ALWAYS , ALWAYS , ALWAYS !
!
!
” Trump ’ s offered his latest Twitter missives just after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court , asking the court to strike down the entirety of the law , a move that could leave 23 million Americans without health insurance when they need it most .
If the Court rules in the Trump administration ’ s favor , millions of COVID-19 survivors could lose their health coverage because the virus itself would be considered a preexisting condition .
The Affordable Care Act , known as Obamacare , makes it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage due to preexisting conditions .
Trump has long claimed that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but his actions have always been to pursue the opposite .
And as the country ’ s response to the coronavirus cripples the economy , Obamacare has offered an avenue for the millions of newly unemployed to maintain health insurance coverage .
If the Supreme Court strikes down the law later this year , it could deprive those unemployed people of their health insurance too .
Meanwhile , coronavirus cases continue to surge in many parts of the country .
San Francisco Mayor London Breed just delayed that city ’ s second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in confirmed cases , while the governors of Texas and Florida have also reversed re-openings due to sudden surges .
The Supreme Court will likely hear oral arguments on this case in the fall , putting the coronavirus , Obamacare , and the presidential campaign on a direct collision course .

Months into a global pandemic that has claimed the lives of more than 127,000 Americans, President Donald Trump still refuses to take responsibility for his administration’s underwhelming response. On Saturday, the president started off his weekend by railing against Obamacare—one of the few lifelines available to millions of people in this global health crisis.
“Obamacare is a joke!” the president tweeted. “I will ALWAYS PROTECT PEOPLE WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS!!!”
….Obamacare is a joke! Deductible is far too high and the overall cost is ridiculous. My Administration has gone out of its way to manage OC much better than previous, but it is still no good. I will ALWAYS PROTECT PEOPLE WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS,ALWAYS!!! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 27, 2020
Trump’s offered his latest Twitter missives just after his administration filed a brief with the Supreme Court, asking the court to strike down the entirety of the law, a move that could leave 23 million Americans without health insurance when they need it most. If the Court rules in the Trump administration’s favor, millions of COVID-19 survivors could lose their health coverage because the virus itself would be considered a preexisting condition. The Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, makes it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage due to preexisting conditions. Trump has long claimed that he wants to protect people with preexisting conditions, but his actions have always been to pursue the opposite.
And as the country’s response to the coronavirus cripples the economy, Obamacare has offered an avenue for the millions of newly unemployed to maintain health insurance coverage. If the Supreme Court strikes down the law later this year, it could deprive those unemployed people of their health insurance too.
Meanwhile, coronavirus cases continue to surge in many parts of the country. San Francisco Mayor London Breed just delayed that city’s second phase of re-opening because of a spike in confirmed cases, while the governors of Texas and Florida have also reversed re-openings due to sudden surges.
The Supreme Court will likely hear oral arguments on this case in the fall, putting the coronavirus, Obamacare, and the presidential campaign on a direct collision course.


motherjones--2020-06-29--Here’s Why Many Utah Dems Registered as Republicans to Vote in Tuesday’s Primary

If Jon Huntsman Jr. wins the GOP primary on Tuesday to return to his old job as Utah governor , he may have a gay , Greek , ex-Mormon Democrat to thank for it .
Jim Dabakis served three years as the Utah Democratic Party chairman .
He was the sole openly gay member of the Utah legislature until the end of 2018 , when he retired from his state senate seat after six years and ran unsuccessfully to be mayor of Salt Lake .
An art dealer , he supports marijuana legalization and is known for press-friendly stunts like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On-Ramp ” to a state highway the GOP-run legislature wanted to name after President Donald Trump .
But last month , Dabakis did something unexpected : He registered to vote as a Republican .
The move was born of years of frustration with a state Republican establishment that has repeatedly “ spit in the face of Democrats , ” Dabakis told me in an interview in his backyard in Salt Lake City , while Taco , his Chihuahua , snoozed on his lap .
After watching Republicans systematically gerrymander Democrats out of any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decided something radical was in order .
“ I thought of burning down the Capitol , ” he said with a laugh .
Instead , he marshaled his 60,000 newsletter subscribers and 33,000 Facebook followers and urged them to also switch parties and vote in Tuesday ’ s GOP primary for Huntsman , the most moderate candidate in the race .
“ What have we got to lose ?
” he said , throwing up his hands .
Utah is among the reddest of red states .
Utah last elected a Democrat as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scott Matheson , whose son Jim Matheson was for many years the only Democratic member of the state ’ s congressional delegation .
In the last redistricting , Republicans ensured that liberal enclaves in Salt Lake City , Moab , and Park City were carved up and spliced into legislative districts where their Democratic votes were diluted by conservative and often rural voters .
The result has been a GOP supermajority in the state legislature , where Democrats have little power .
A 2018 analysis by the Salt Lake Tribune estimated that Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes for the state House that year but only a fifth of the seats thanks to Republican gerrymandering .
Today , 63 out of 75 state House members belong to the Republican Party .
Dabakis says the exclusion of Democrats from having any meaningful role in the government has been in stark relief recently as the novel coronavirus has swept through the state .
More than 40 percent of the cases in Utah have been among Latinos , who make up just 14 percent of the population .
But neither the state ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its economic response task force included a single Latino member—not even Sen. Luz Escamilla ( D ) , a Latina state legislator who had first-hand experience with the virus after she got sick with Covid-19 at the end of March .
( All of Utah ’ s Latino state legislators are Democrats . )
As in many other places with one-party rule , most of the action in Utah electoral races happens in the primary , where the GOP winner is a shoe-in for the general election .
This year will be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the governor ’ s race since Huntsman himself won back in 2004 .
The current governor , Gary Herbert , was Huntsman ’ s lieutenant governor and moved into the governor ’ s mansion when Huntsman left in 2009 to become Obama ’ s ambassador to China .
Herbert announced last year that he would be retiring , and the current field to replace him has been crowded , with four candidates currently vying for the GOP nomination .
Huntsman , who ran for president in 2012 and served as Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most moderate of the bunch .
The other contenders are Herbert ’ s heir apparent , current lieutenant governor Spencer Cox ; former Utah House speaker and Trump superfan Greg Hughes ; and Thomas Wright , a real estate broker and former chair of the Utah Republican Party .
Democrats have nominated University of Utah professor Chris Peterson , who hasn ’ t got a prayer in the general election in November in a state where registered Republicans have typically outnumbered Democrats 5 to 1 .
In a recent poll conducted by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was leading the GOP field with 34 percent of likely GOP voters saying they ’ d vote for him .
Huntsman was a close second with 30 percent .
But with the influx of new Republicans , it ’ s anyone ’ s guess what might happen .
Before launching his campaign to get Democrats to vote in the GOP primary , Dabakis did the math and figured that in the 2016 Utah GOP primary , 245,000 people cast a ballot .
In a four-person race , “ ten , twenty , thirty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he said .
Dabakis was as surprised as anyone to learn that by the time registration closed on June 19 , the Utah GOP had gained more than 100,000 new voters since the beginning of the year , 44,000 of them just in the past month .
Meanwhile the number of unaffiliated voters shrank , along with the number of registered Democrats .
Many of those who switched parties have left messages for Dabakis on his Facebook page indicating that while they had misgivings about joining a party they loathe , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I admit , I felt a little dirty , but I did it , ” writes one woman . )
“ These are people who have been completely excluded from the political process , ” he said .
Dabakis said when he first hatched his plan to switch parties , many of his fellow Democrats were livid .
But he said that Utah Democrats suffer from Stockholm syndrome—so acclimated to being disempowered that they are grateful for any crumbs of political victories that Republicans deign to throw at them .
As a result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to present to voters .
Because Democrats have so little power , the GOP has gotten more radical .
“ If you ’ re a Republican , you ’ re only hearing from the fringe , ” Dabakis says .
“ There ’ s no upside to being reasonable.
” “ If the entire Utah legislative Democratic caucus went to Wendover for the session , nothing would change , ” he says , referencing a Nevada gambling destination popular with Utahans .
“ We ’ ve had 40 fucking years of trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s time to look around and do something revolutionary.
” The effort hasn ’ t gone unnoticed by state Republican leaders , especially Greg Hughes , a real estate developer who is the most radically conservative of the gubernatorial candidates , and the one who seems to strike the most fear in the hearts of Democrats .
A former right-wing talk radio host , he supported Trump in 2016 before it was politically popular and was briefly considered for a Trump cabinet post .
He spent 16 years in the state legislature , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of ethics violations and conflicts of interest because he supported state development projects that would benefit his own real estate .
Hughes helped the administration shrink the Bears Ears National Monument and has been among those in the state legislature trying to compel the federal government to turn over management of public lands to the state so they could be opened up for coal , oil and gas extraction .
A major foe of expanding Medicaid in the state after the passage of the Affordable Care Act , Hughes has also opposed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the novel coronavirus , which is now surging in the state , with more than 14 straight days of increased positive cases .
He complained at a debate recently that Democrats ’ switching parties to vote in the closed GOP primary was “ brazen behavior ” targeted directly at him .
Already there ’ s talk of changing the rules so this can ’ t happen again .
State Rep. Casey Snider ( R ) who represents Cache County in Northern Utah , is planning to propose a bill in the 2021 legislative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party affiliation to remain in the party for six months .
A measure to ban people from switching parties six months before a primary is also under consideration .
“ My idea is , if you come , you ’ ve got to stay awhile , ” Snider told the Deseret News recently .
The measures , of course , are only targeted at the GOP .
Democrats in Utah have open primaries , where anyone can vote .
Dabakis isn ’ t too concerned about any such changes .
He said he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an “ Obama caucus ” in the GOP , to push the party in a more moderate direction on issues from health care to air pollution .
His party-switching project has had some other surprising ripple effects .
Down-ballot Republicans in tight races have been reaching out for the first time to ask him for endorsements .
He thinks that the Democrats voting in the GOP primary could have an impact on the state attorney general ’ s race as well as a couple of legislative races .
Recently a guy challenging a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him and said , “ 4,400 of your people had registered to vote in my district .
Send ‘ em a message and tell ‘ em I ’ m a good guy !
” Dabakis says that he thinks what he ’ s doing could be a model for other western states , where Republicans control everything .
“ We ’ ve become a tipping point in a lot of these Republican races , ” he says .
“ If it works , there can at least be an incentive for the new @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
If Jon Huntsman Jr. wins the GOP primary on Tuesday to return to his old job as Utah governor, he may have a gay, Greek, ex-Mormon Democrat to thank for it.
Jim Dabakis served three years as the Utah Democratic Party chair. He was the sole openly gay member of the Utah legislature until the end of 2018, when he retired from his state Senate seat after six years and ran unsuccessfully to be mayor of Salt Lake. An art dealer, he supports marijuana legalization and is known for press-friendly stunts like proposing to add the “Stormy Daniels On-Ramp” to a state highway the GOP-run legislature wanted to name after President Trump. But last month, Dabakis did something unexpected: He registered to vote as a Republican.
The move was born of years of frustration with a state Republican establishment that has repeatedly “spit in the face of Democrats,” Dabakis told me in an interview in his backyard in Salt Lake City, while Taco, his Chihuahua, snoozed on his lap. After watching Republicans systematically gerrymander Democrats out of any meaningful role in state governance, he decided something radical was in order. “I thought of burning down the Capitol,” he said with a laugh. Instead, he marshaled his 60,000 newsletter subscribers and 33,000 Facebook followers and urged them to also switch parties and vote in Tuesday’s GOP primary for Huntsman, the most moderate candidate in the race. “What have we got to lose?” he said, throwing up his hands.
Utah is among the reddest of red states. Utah last elected a Democrat as governor in 1980, when voters tapped Scott Matheson, whose son Jim Matheson was for many years the only Democratic member of the state’s congressional delegation. In the last redistricting, Republicans ensured that liberal enclaves in Salt Lake City, Moab, and Park City were carved up and spliced into legislative districts where their Democratic votes were diluted by conservative and often rural voters. The result has been a GOP supermajority in the state legislature, where Democrats have little power. A 2018 analysis by the Salt Lake Tribune estimated that Democrats had won a third of the total votes for the state House that year but only a fifth of the seats thanks to Republican gerrymandering. Today, 59 out of 75 state House members belong to the Republican Party.*
Dabakis says the exclusion of Democrats from having any meaningful role in the government has been in stark relief recently as the novel coronavirus has swept through the state. More than 40 percent of the cases in Utah have been among Latinos, who make up just 14 percent of the population. But neither the state’s first community coronavirus task force nor its economic response task force included a single Latino member—not even Sen. Luz Escamilla (D), a Latina state legislator who had first-hand experience with the virus after she got sick with Covid-19 at the end of March. (All of Utah’s Latino state legislators are Democrats.)
As in many other places with one-party rule, most of the action in Utah electoral races happens in the primary, where the GOP winner is a shoe-in for the general election. This year will be the first time a non-incumbent candidate will win the governor’s race since Huntsman himself won back in 2004. The current governor, Gary Herbert, was Huntsman’s lieutenant governor and moved into the governor’s mansion when Huntsman left in 2009 to become Obama’s ambassador to China. Herbert announced last year that he would be retiring, and the current field to replace him has been crowded, with four candidates currently vying for the GOP nomination.
Huntsman, who ran for president in 2012 and served as Trump’s ambassador to Russia, is by far the most moderate of the bunch. The other contenders are Herbert’s heir apparent, current lieutenant governor Spencer Cox; former Utah House speaker and Trump superfan Greg Hughes; and Thomas Wright, a real estate broker and former chair of the Utah Republican Party. Democrats have nominated University of Utah professor Chris Peterson, who hasn’t got a prayer in the general election in November in a state where registered Republicans outnumber registered Democrats by about 3 to 1.* In a recent poll conducted by Utah Policy and KUTV News, Cox was leading the GOP field with 34 percent of likely GOP voters saying they’d vote for him. Huntsman was a close second with 30 percent. But with the influx of new Republicans, it’s anyone’s guess what might happen.
Before launching his campaign to get Democrats to vote in the GOP primary, Dabakis did the math and figured that in the 2016 Utah GOP primary, 245,000 people cast a ballot. In a four-person race, “ten, twenty, thirty thousand votes could make a difference,” he said. Dabakis was as surprised as anyone to learn that by the time registration closed on June 19, the Utah GOP had gained more than 100,000 new voters since the beginning of the year, 44,000 of them just in the past month. Meanwhile the number of unaffiliated voters shrank, along with the number of registered Democrats. Many of those who switched parties have left messages for Dabakis on his Facebook page indicating that while they had misgivings about joining a party they loathe, they were heeding the call. (“I admit, I felt a little dirty, but I did it,” writes one woman.) “These are people who have been completely excluded from the political process,” he said.
“These are people who have been completely excluded from the political process.”
Dabakis said when he first hatched his plan to switch parties, many of his fellow Democrats were livid. But he said that Utah Democrats suffer from Stockholm syndrome—so acclimated to being disempowered that they are grateful for any crumbs of political victories that Republicans deign to throw at them. As a result, they have virtually no successful initiatives to present to voters. Because Democrats have so little power, the GOP has gotten more radical. “If you’re a Republican, you’re only hearing from the fringe,” Dabakis says. “There’s no upside to being reasonable.”
“If the entire Utah legislative Democratic caucus went to Wendover for the session, nothing would change,” he says, referencing a Nevada gambling destination popular with Utahans. “We’ve had 40 fucking years of trying to do the same thing. It’s time to look around and do something revolutionary.”
The effort hasn’t gone unnoticed by state Republican leaders, especially Greg Hughes, a real estate developer who is the most radically conservative of the gubernatorial candidates, and the one who seems to strike the most fear in the hearts of Democrats. A former right-wing talk radio host, he supported Trump in 2016 before it was politically popular and was briefly considered for a Trump cabinet post. He spent 16 years in the state legislature, where his tenure was plagued with allegations of ethics violations and conflicts of interest because he supported state development projects that would benefit his own real estate.
Hughes helped the administration shrink the Bears Ears National Monument and has been among those in the state legislature trying to compel the federal government to turn over management of public lands to the state so they could be opened up for coal, oil and gas extraction. A major foe of expanding Medicaid in the state after the passage of the Affordable Care Act, Hughes has also opposed the state’s shut-down orders to contain the novel coronavirus, which is now surging in the state, with more than 14 straight days of increased positive cases. He complained at a debate recently that Democrats’ switching parties to vote in the closed GOP primary was “brazen behavior” targeted directly at him.
Already there’s talk of changing the rules so this can’t happen again. State Rep. Casey Snider (R) who represents Cache County in Northern Utah, is planning to propose a bill in the 2021 legislative session to require people who change their party affiliation to remain in the party for six months. A measure to ban people from switching parties six months before a primary is also under consideration. “My idea is, if you come, you’ve got to stay awhile,” Snider told the Deseret News recently. The measures, of course, are only targeted at the GOP. Democrats in Utah have open primaries, where anyone can vote.
Dabakis isn’t too concerned about any such changes. He said he might just remain a Republican and form an “Obama caucus” in the GOP, to push the party in a more moderate direction on issues from health care to air pollution. His party-switching project has had some other surprising ripple effects. Down-ballot Republicans in tight races have been reaching out for the first time to ask him for endorsements. He thinks that the Democrats voting in the GOP primary could have an impact on the state attorney general’s race as well as a couple of legislative races. Recently a guy challenging a Republican incumbent in Salt Lake City called him and said, “4,400 of your people had registered to vote in my district. Send ‘em a message and tell ‘em I’m a good guy!”
Dabakis says that he thinks what he’s doing could be a model for other western states, where Republicans control everything. “We’ve become a tipping point in a lot of these Republican races,” he says. “If it works, there can at least be an incentive for the new governor to listen to us.”
Correction: The original version of this article misstated the number of Republicans in the Utah House and the ratio of registered Democrats to Republicans. While historically Republicans have outnumbered Democrats in Utah 5 to 1, since 2018, Democratic registration has soared and closed that margin.