motherjones--2020-05-07--The Coronavirus Made a Mess of Abortion Access. What the Supreme Court Decides Next Month Could Be W

The Coronavirus Made a Mess of Abortion Access. What the Supreme Court Decides Next Month Could Be Worse.

While we didn ’ t plan for this interview to happen during a pandemic—yes , I know , I feel like I could say that with just about anything right now—it was actually good timing .
Mary Ziegler , a Florida State University law professor , has spent her career studying the legal history of abortion , and just as her latest book , Abortion and the Law in America : Roe v. Wade to the Present , was coming out in late February , the country was beginning its descent into lockdown mode , and over the next few @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would again pop to the foreground , with several states brazenly trying to use the virus to impose outright bans of the procedure .
At the same time , abortion advocates were bracing themselves for a monumental moment : a ruling in June Medical Services v. Russo , the first abortion case to reach the Supreme Court since the makeup of the bench changed to a conservative majority , one with the dangerous power to kickstart the path toward reversing abortion rights across the United States .
As my former colleague Jessica Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ a stayed 2014 Louisiana law requiring doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic where they provide abortions… [ one ] almost identical to a Texas measure that the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in the 2016 case Whole Women ’ s Health v. Hellerstadt as placing an ‘ undue burden ’ on women seeking abortions by forcing many clinics to shut down without a justifiable health purpose.
” In her new book , which effectively functions as a legal roadmap for how we got to our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forces that have shaped the way we talk about abortion law , from the original Roe ruling to the rise of the religious right to Donald Trump ’ s election to the White House .
It ’ s a comprehensive analysis of all factors—legal and sociological—that have fueled the anti-abortion movement ’ s determination to end legal abortion .
Here , we discuss what can be learned from the recent battles over abortion during the pandemic , whether abortion rights could be saved under Democratic leadership , and how much John Roberts ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity .
Over the past couple months , we ’ ve seen an unceasing back and forth in the federal courts over state bans on abortion during the pandemic .
As states are beginning to open back up , the fight has died down for now , but is there anything in history for us to compare that battle to ?
I mean , no , but I think in terms of the abortion politics , there ’ s very much a through-line between the COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic—in terms of not just the ambitions of these states , which obviously have remained the same , but also the strategies that they ’ re using to get there .
Even though we ’ ve been talking about functionally banning abortion in these states , there ’ s virtually no discussion of abortion rights , or even about fetal rights .
Instead , almost all of the emphasis is put on these claims about what the situation on the ground is like in Oklahoma or Arkansas or Texas , and whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is something I study in the book : how we got to a place where both sides seem to be fighting about these questions about the reality on the ground , and the facts about abortion and abortion restrictions , rather than the rights that are at stake .
And the answer to that is that a lot of anti-abortion activists and legislators think that this strategy is a much more effective way to chip away at Roe and ultimately eliminate it , rather than something more direct , like , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life .
I was really struck by the part in the book about how initially the Hyde Amendment—which bans the use of federal funds for abortion care—was largely overlooked by abortion rights groups because they were counting on the courts to strike it down .
And then , of course , the courts didn ’ t .
Is there anything like this that you see in this moment , that you think isn ’ t getting enough attention , or the magnitude of which isn ’ t being quite understood ?
Well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which of course are still on the books in almost all states and in many of the states that did impose bans .
Whenever there ’ s a ban—whether it ’ s a proposed constitutional amendment or something like Alabama did last year or the COVID-19 bans—that ’ s what grabs our attention , and that ’ s what we focus on .
We lose sight of the fact that there are already restrictions like the Hyde Amendment that are in effect that no one is challenging or that have already been unsuccessfully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ access to abortion looks like and many of which may ultimately have more of an impact on what happens to Roe .
So I think it ’ s easy to get kind of distracted by bans because they are so much more dramatic , but the history would tell you that that can be misleading and can lead you to ignore things that are going to matter just as much .
Do you think there ’ s any chance of the Hyde Amendment being overturned ?
Not in court .
We have , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court , and even if a Democrat were to get elected in 2020 , it ’ s hard to see the court moving in a progressive direction on abortion .
Maybe they ’ ll hold the ground , but nothing more than that .
I think there ’ s some chance that you could see a legislative repeal of the Hyde Amendment , and that ’ s still not a sure thing .
There have been plenty of moments in history when Democrats have controlled the White House and both houses of Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Hyde Amendment .
But I think what ’ s changed is that there ’ s more of a consensus in the Democratic Party on the need for the Hyde Amendment to go .
That was pretty visible this year during the 2020 Democratic primary when even Joe Biden , who had been part of a bipartisan consensus in favor of the Hyde Amendment , eventually gave up on backing it .
I think that said as much about what the Democratic Party believes about abortion and the Hyde Amendment as it does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s kind of a consensus position , and also I think there will probably be at least some effort to do that if Democrats take Congress in 2020 .
I don ’ t know if it ’ ll be successful .
The Hyde Amendment has become almost a permanent feature of our landscape when it comes to abortion , so it ’ s not going to go easily .
But I think you ’ ll see a push in that direction .
What are some things you ’ re going to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court case ?
There are obviously the major questions that the court is considering that anyone is going to want to look out for—what they say about who can challenge laws in the first place , what they say about the fate of Whole Woman ’ s Health , obviously what they say about precedent , which they ’ ve been talking a lot about lately ( albeit not in the context of abortion ) .
We should also be attuned to the way they talk about the issues .
The court ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hurts women—I traced that argument in the book and where it came from and the why—but sometimes the way the court talks about abortion can tell you a lot about where they ’ re going as much as what they actually formally decide .
So it ’ ll be interesting to see if the justices—and especially some of the swing justices , like Roberts—seem to take seriously the argument that abortion hurts women .
For Roberts , I think the case is probably a lot about what you mean when you talk about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a precedent .
That draws on some of the historical questions in the book because Brett Kavanaugh , for example , recently has written that one of the things you should think about when deciding whether to overturn a precedent is whether it ’ s had bad societal effects .
To know the answer , he ’ d have to look at the history of what happened after Roe or Casey or Whole Woman ’ s Health .
I think the question of what we even mean by “ precedent ” is probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the heart of the case .
Do you agree with some of the analysis out there that Roberts ’ decision may come down to him considering his legacy ?
Yeah , I do .
And I think there ’ s also a question of optics with Roberts .
Not necessarily that Roberts would never overturn Roe because of fears about his legacy , but he might be more reluctant to overturn Roe in a way that seems overtly political or brazen .
I think a big part of that is how he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re talking about a case like Roe .
As Kavanaugh himself said during his testimony before Congress , that ’ s a pretty old precedent that ’ s had lots of hard looks from the Supreme Court .
So undoing a precedent like that is something that he wouldn ’ t take lightly if he is concerned about his reputation .
Do you think it ’ s more likely that instead of an opinion that will overturn Roe , this case could be the beginning of a series of cases that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do .
If you want to be really cynical , if you view the court as a political actor , there ’ s much less in the way of political fallout that would come from a decision like that .
On one end of the spectrum , if the court overturned Roe tomorrow and did it in a really open way , that would probably produce a lot of popular blowback .
By contrast , if the court did it gradually , that might produce less backlash , and if what the court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all , if you need to call somebody like me to even know what it means , that ’ s likely to produce less backlash too .
Lots of people will be functionally disenfranchised because they won ’ t understand what ’ s going on .
So it ’ s more likely , given some of these reputational concerns , that the court would want to either proceed gradually or just stay away from really clear decisions altogether .
Do you feel we get a little too caught up in the Roe ruling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for abortion rights ?
Yeah , and when we talk about Roe , we mean a lot of different things .
We almost never mean the 1973 Supreme Court decision .
We could mean abortion rights , equality for women , reproductive justice .
There are times when that ’ s fine , when Roe v. Wade is a rallying symbol , and that ’ s not a problem .
There are times when it ’ s really confusing , because when we ’ re talking about , for example , Roe v. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sort of already has been overturned .
So you ’ d be talking about abortion rights being eliminated , and it ’ s much more helpful then to think about stuff that ’ s happened after Roe , like Casey or Whole Woman ’ s Health .
Roe has this really amazing , unique symbolic power and that ’ s both very compelling but can also be very confusing for people who are trying to make sense of what ’ s going on .
Can you elaborate on what you mean by “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In 1992 , we were in a moment very much like this one where there was a Supreme Court that had more than enough people who were conservative on it to overturn Roe .
And the court declined to do so formally , but it did revise in pretty fundamental ways what abortion law looked like .
Roe had adopted the trimester framework , under which states could do almost nothing to restrict abortion until after fetal viability , which would be the time that a child could survive outside the womb .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ advance its interest in fetal life .
And Casey undid that and said instead that the state had an interest in protecting fetal life throughout pregnancy , and that restrictions would only be unconstitutional if they created a substantial obstacle for women seeking abortion .
No one really knew for certain what the undue burden tests meant then , and they still aren ’ t sure now , but one thing that was surely clear was that it was less protective of abortion rights than whatever came before .
The reason talking about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already have a framework that ’ s less protective than Roe , and because a lot of the action is about what the undue burden test means , both in terms of the effects of abortion on women and communities and also the effect of abortion restrictions on women .
Roe takes up so much space that we sometimes lose sight of the fact that we ’ re no longer asking the same questions that the court did then .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
While we didn’t plan for this interview to happen during a pandemic—yes, I know, I feel like I could say that with just about anything right now—it was actually good timing. Mary Ziegler, a Florida State University law professor, has spent her career studying the legal history of abortion, and just as her latest book, Abortion and the Law in America: Roe v. Wade to the Present, was coming out in late February, the country was beginning its descent into lockdown mode, and over the next few weeks, the fight over abortion access would again pop to the foreground, with several states brazenly trying to use the virus to impose outright bans of the procedure.
“Even though we’ve been talking about functionally banning abortion in these states, there’s virtually no discussion of abortion rights, or even about fetal rights. Instead, almost all of the emphasis is put on these claims about what the situation on the ground.”
At the same time, abortion advocates were bracing themselves for a monumental moment: a ruling in June Medical Services v. Russo, the first abortion case to reach the Supreme Court since the makeup of the bench changed to a conservative majority, one with the dangerous power to kickstart the path toward reversing abortion rights across the United States. As my former colleague Jessica Washington wrote in March, at issue is “a stayed 2014 Louisiana law requiring doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic where they provide abortions…[one] almost identical to a Texas measure that the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in the 2016 case Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstadt as placing an ‘undue burden’ on women seeking abortions by forcing many clinics to shut down without a justifiable health purpose.”
In her new book, which effectively functions as a legal roadmap for how we got to our current moment, Ziegler carefully examines the forces that have shaped the way we talk about abortion law, from the original Roe ruling to the rise of the religious right to Donald Trump’s election to the White House. It’s a comprehensive analysis of all factors—legal and sociological—that have fueled the anti-abortion movement’s determination to end legal abortion. Here, we discuss what can be learned from the recent battles over abortion during the pandemic, whether abortion rights could be saved under Democratic leadership, and how much John Roberts’ legacy is in play. This interview has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
Over the past couple months, we’ve seen an unceasing back and forth in the federal courts over state bans on abortion during the pandemic. As states are beginning to open back up, the fight has died down for now, but is there anything in history for us to compare that battle to?
I mean, no, but I think in terms of the abortion politics, there’s very much a through-line between the COVID-19 abortion bans and what was happening before the pandemic—in terms of not just the ambitions of these states, which obviously have remained the same, but also the strategies that they’re using to get there. Even though we’ve been talking about functionally banning abortion in these states, there’s virtually no discussion of abortion rights, or even about fetal rights. Instead, almost all of the emphasis is put on these claims about what the situation on the ground is like in Oklahoma or Arkansas or Texas, and whether abortions use up personal protective equipment. This is something I study in the book: how we got to a place where both sides seem to be fighting about these questions about the reality on the ground, and the facts about abortion and abortion restrictions, rather than the rights that are at stake. And the answer to that is that a lot of anti-abortion activists and legislators think that this strategy is a much more effective way to chip away at Roe and ultimately eliminate it, rather than something more direct, like, for example, focusing on a right to life.
I was really struck by the part in the book about how initially the Hyde Amendment—which bans the use of federal funds for abortion care—was largely overlooked by abortion rights groups because they were counting on the courts to strike it down. And then, of course, the courts didn’t. Is there anything like this that you see in this moment, that you think isn’t getting enough attention, or the magnitude of which isn’t being quite understood?
“I think it’s easy to get kind of distracted by bans because they are so much more dramatic, but the history would tell you that that can be misleading and can lead you to ignore things that are going to matter just as much.”
Well, the effect of ordinary abortion restrictions, which of course are still on the books in almost all states and in many of the states that did impose bans. Whenever there’s a ban—whether it’s a proposed constitutional amendment or something like Alabama did last year or the COVID-19 bans—that’s what grabs our attention, and that’s what we focus on. We lose sight of the fact that there are already restrictions like the Hyde Amendment that are in effect that no one is challenging or that have already been unsuccessfully challenged, which are really affecting what access to abortion looks like and many of which may ultimately have more of an impact on what happens to Roe. So I think it’s easy to get kind of distracted by bans because they are so much more dramatic, but the history would tell you that that can be misleading and can lead you to ignore things that are going to matter just as much.
Do you think there’s any chance of the Hyde Amendment being overturned?
Not in court. We have, everybody assumes, a fairly conservative Supreme Court, and even if a Democrat were to get elected in 2020, it’s hard to see the court moving in a progressive direction on abortion. Maybe they’ll hold the ground, but nothing more than that. I think there’s some chance that you could see a legislative repeal of the Hyde Amendment, and that’s still not a sure thing. There have been plenty of moments in history when Democrats have controlled the White House and both houses of Congress and have still chosen not to repeal the Hyde Amendment.
But I think what’s changed is that there’s more of a consensus in the Democratic Party on the need for the Hyde Amendment to go. That was pretty visible this year during the 2020 Democratic primary when even Joe Biden, who had been part of a bipartisan consensus in favor of the Hyde Amendment, eventually gave up on backing it. I think that said as much about what the Democratic Party believes about abortion and the Hyde Amendment as it does about Biden. I just think that’s kind of a consensus position, and also I think there will probably be at least some effort to do that if Democrats take Congress in 2020. I don’t know if it’ll be successful. The Hyde Amendment has become almost a permanent feature of our landscape when it comes to abortion, so it’s not going to go easily. But I think you’ll see a push in that direction.
What are some things you’re going to be looking out for in the upcoming Supreme Court case?
There are obviously the major questions that the court is considering that anyone is going to want to look out for—what they say about who can challenge laws in the first place, what they say about the fate of Whole Woman’s Health, obviously what they say about precedent, which they’ve been talking a lot about lately (albeit not in the context of abortion). We should also be attuned to the way they talk about the issues. The court’s dealing with this argument that abortion hurts women—I traced that argument in the book and where it came from and the why—but sometimes the way the court talks about abortion can tell you a lot about where they’re going as much as what they actually formally decide. So it’ll be interesting to see if the justices—and especially some of the swing justices, like Roberts—seem to take seriously the argument that abortion hurts women.
For Roberts, I think the case is probably a lot about what you mean when you talk about precedent—when you respect precedent, what constitutes a precedent. That draws on some of the historical questions in the book because Brett Kavanaugh, for example, recently has written that one of the things you should think about when deciding whether to overturn a precedent is whether it’s had bad societal effects. To know the answer, he’d have to look at the history of what happened after Roe or Casey or Whole Woman’s Health. I think the question of what we even mean by “precedent” is probably going to be one of the questions at the heart of the case.
“It’ll be interesting to see if the justices—and especially some of the swing justices, like Roberts—seem to take seriously the argument that abortion hurts women.”
Do you agree with some of the analysis out there that Roberts’ decision may come down to him considering his legacy?
Yeah, I do. And I think there’s also a question of optics with Roberts. Not necessarily that Roberts would never overturn Roe because of fears about his legacy, but he might be more reluctant to overturn Roe in a way that seems overtly political or brazen. I think a big part of that is how he deals with precedent, especially when you’re talking about a case like Roe. As Kavanaugh himself said during his testimony before Congress, that’s a pretty old precedent that’s had lots of hard looks from the Supreme Court. So undoing a precedent like that is something that he wouldn’t take lightly if he is concerned about his reputation.
Do you think it’s more likely that instead of an opinion that will overturn Roe, this case could be the beginning of a series of cases that will slowly chip away at Roe?
I do. If you want to be really cynical, if you view the court as a political actor, there’s much less in the way of political fallout that would come from a decision like that. On one end of the spectrum, if the court overturned Roe tomorrow and did it in a really open way, that would probably produce a lot of popular blowback. By contrast, if the court did it gradually, that might produce less backlash, and if what the court is doing is not even clear at all, if you need to call somebody like me to even know what it means, that’s likely to produce less backlash too. Lots of people will be functionally disenfranchised because they won’t understand what’s going on. So it’s more likely, given some of these reputational concerns, that the court would want to either proceed gradually or just stay away from really clear decisions altogether.
Do you feel we get a little too caught up in the Roe ruling and in using it as a shorthand for abortion rights?
Yeah, and when we talk about Roe, we mean a lot of different things. We almost never mean the 1973 Supreme Court decision. We could mean abortion rights, equality for women, reproductive justice. There are times when that’s fine, when Roe v. Wade is a rallying symbol, and that’s not a problem. There are times when it’s really confusing, because when we’re talking about, for example, Roe v. Wade being overturned, Roe v. Wade sort of already has been overturned. So you’d be talking about abortion rights being eliminated, and it’s much more helpful then to think about stuff that’s happened after Roe, like Casey or Whole Woman’s Health. Roe has this really amazing, unique symbolic power and that’s both very compelling but can also be very confusing for people who are trying to make sense of what’s going on.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by “Roe has already been overturned”?
“Lots of people will be functionally disenfranchised because they won’t understand what’s going on.”
In 1992, we were in a moment very much like this one where there was a Supreme Court that had more than enough people who were conservative on it to overturn Roe. And the court declined to do so formally, but it did revise in pretty fundamental ways what abortion law looked like. Roe had adopted the trimester framework, under which states could do almost nothing to restrict abortion until after fetal viability, which would be the time that a child could survive outside the womb. Only at that point could the state advance its interest in fetal life. And Casey undid that and said instead that the state had an interest in protecting fetal life throughout pregnancy, and that restrictions would only be unconstitutional if they created a substantial obstacle for women seeking abortion. No one really knew for certain what the undue burden tests meant then, and they still aren’t sure now, but one thing that was surely clear was that it was less protective of abortion rights than whatever came before.
The reason talking about overturning Roe is misleading is because we already have a framework that’s less protective than Roe, and because a lot of the action is about what the undue burden test means, both in terms of the effects of abortion on women and communities and also the effect of abortion restrictions on women. Roe takes up so much space that we sometimes lose sight of the fact that we’re no longer asking the same questions that the court did then.


motherjones--2020-05-07--On the Same Day Sen. Richard Burr Dumped Stock, So Did His Brother-in-Law. Then the Market Crashed.

This story was published originally by ProPublica , a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power .
Sign up for ProPublica ’ s Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox as soon as they are published .
Sen. Richard Burr was not the only member of his family to sell off a significant portion of his stock holdings in February , ahead of the market crash spurred by coronavirus fears .
On the same day Burr sold , his brother-in-law also dumped tens of thousands of dollars worth of shares .
The market fell by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month .
Burr ’ s brother-in-law , Gerald Fauth , who has a post on the National Mediation Board , sold between $ 97,000 and $ 280,000 worth of shares in six companies — including several that have been hit particularly hard in the market swoon and economic downturn .
A person who picked up Fauth ’ s phone on Wednesday hung up when asked if Fauth and Burr had discussed the sales in advance .
In 2017 , President Donald Trump appointed Fauth to the three-person board of the National Mediation Board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relations within the nation ’ s railroad and airline industries .
He was previously a lobbyist and president of his own transportation economic consulting firm , G.W .
Fauth & Associates .
Burr came under scrutiny after ProPublica reported that he sold off a significant percentage of his stocks shortly before the market tanked , unloading between $ 628,000 and $ 1.72 million of his holdings on Feb. 13 in 33 separate transactions .
As chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a member of the health committee , Burr had access to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information about threats to America ’ s security and public health concerns .
Before his sell-off , Burr had assured the public that the federal government was well-prepared to handle the virus .
In a Feb. 7 op-ed that he co-authored with another senator , he said “ the United States today is better prepared than ever before to face emerging public health threats , like the coronavirus.
” That month however , according to a recording obtained by NPR , Burr had given a VIP group at an exclusive social club a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impact of the the coronavirus , warning it could curtail business travel , cause schools to be closed and result in the military mobilizing to compensate for overwhelmed hospitals .
The timing of Burr ’ s stock sales drew widespread outrage , allegations of insider trading , calls for his resignation and an FBI investigation .
Burr defended his actions , saying he relied solely on public information , including CNBC reports , to inform his trades and did not rely on information he obtained as a senator .
Fauth avoided between $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ selling off when he did , considering how steeply the companies ’ shares fell in recent weeks , according to an analysis by Luke Brindle-Khym , a partner and general counsel of Manhattan-based investigative firm QRI .
Brindle-Khym obtained Fauth ’ s financial disclosure from the Office of Government Ethics and shared it with ProPublica .
Government forms only require that the value of stock trades be disclosed in ranges .
After the February sales , the total value of Fauth ’ s individual stock holdings appears to be between $ 680,000 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spokespeople did not immediately respond to requests for comment about whether the North Carolina Republican discussed the stock sales with his brother-in-law , or whether he shared any information he learned as a senator with Fauth or any other relatives .
A review of Fauth ’ s financial disclosure forms since 2017 show that he is not a frequent stock trader , but that he also had a major day of sales in August 2019 .
On Feb. 13 , Fauth or his spouse sold between $ 15,001 and $ 50,000 of Altria @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 50,001 and $ 100,000 of snack food maker Mondelez International ; and between $ 1,001 and $ 15,000 of home furnishings retailer Williams-Sonoma .
He also sold stakes in several oil companies , which have been hit particularly hard , including between $ 15,001 and $ 50,000 of Chevron ; between $ 1,001 and $ 15,000 of BP and between $ 15,001 and $ 50,000 of Royal Dutch Shell .
The finances of the Burrs and Fauths have intersected before .
Federal Election Commission records show that Burr ’ s leadership PAC , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 120,348 since 2002 to his sister-in-law , Mary Fauth , Gerald ’ s wife , who serves as treasurer .
The PAC has also paid $ 104,850 in rent and utilities over the same period to 116 S. Royal St. Partners , in which Gerald Fauth is a partner .

This story was published originally by ProPublica, a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for ProPublica’s Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox as soon as they are published.
Sen. Richard Burr was not the only member of his family to sell off a significant portion of his stock holdings in February, ahead of the market crash spurred by coronavirus fears. On the same day Burr sold, his brother-in-law also dumped tens of thousands of dollars worth of shares. The market fell by more than 30% in the subsequent month.
Burr’s brother-in-law, Gerald Fauth, who has a post on the National Mediation Board, sold between $97,000 and $280,000 worth of shares in six companies — including several that have been hit particularly hard in the market swoon and economic downturn.
A person who picked up Fauth’s phone on Wednesday hung up when asked if Fauth and Burr had discussed the sales in advance.
In 2017, President Donald Trump appointed Fauth to the three-person board of the National Mediation Board, a federal agency that facilitates labor-management relations within the nation’s railroad and airline industries. He was previously a lobbyist and president of his own transportation economic consulting firm, G.W. Fauth & Associates.
Burr came under scrutiny after ProPublica reported that he sold off a significant percentage of his stocks shortly before the market tanked, unloading between $628,000 and $1.72 million of his holdings on Feb. 13 in 33 separate transactions. As chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a member of the health committee, Burr had access to the government’s most highly classified information about threats to America’s security and public health concerns.
Before his sell-off, Burr had assured the public that the federal government was well-prepared to handle the virus. In a Feb. 7 op-ed that he co-authored with another senator, he said “the United States today is better prepared than ever before to face emerging public health threats, like the coronavirus.”
That month however, according to a recording obtained by NPR, Burr had given a VIP group at an exclusive social club a much more dire preview of the economic impact of the the coronavirus, warning it could curtail business travel, cause schools to be closed and result in the military mobilizing to compensate for overwhelmed hospitals.
The timing of Burr’s stock sales drew widespread outrage, allegations of insider trading, calls for his resignation and an FBI investigation.
Burr defended his actions, saying he relied solely on public information, including CNBC reports, to inform his trades and did not rely on information he obtained as a senator.
Fauth avoided between $37,000 and $118,000 in losses by selling off when he did, considering how steeply the companies’ shares fell in recent weeks, according to an analysis by Luke Brindle-Khym, a partner and general counsel of Manhattan-based investigative firm QRI. Brindle-Khym obtained Fauth’s financial disclosure from the Office of Government Ethics and shared it with ProPublica. Government forms only require that the value of stock trades be disclosed in ranges. After the February sales, the total value of Fauth’s individual stock holdings appears to be between $680,000 and $2 million.
Burr’s spokespeople did not immediately respond to requests for comment about whether the North Carolina Republican discussed the stock sales with his brother-in-law, or whether he shared any information he learned as a senator with Fauth or any other relatives.
A review of Fauth’s financial disclosure forms since 2017 show that he is not a frequent stock trader, but that he also had a major day of sales in August 2019.
On Feb. 13, Fauth or his spouse sold between $15,001 and $50,000 of Altria, the tobacco company; between $50,001 and $100,000 of snack food maker Mondelez International; and between $1,001 and $15,000 of home furnishings retailer Williams-Sonoma. He also sold stakes in several oil companies, which have been hit particularly hard, including between $15,001 and $50,000 of Chevron; between $1,001 and $15,000 of BP and between $15,001 and $50,000 of Royal Dutch Shell.
The finances of the Burrs and Fauths have intersected before. Federal Election Commission records show that Burr’s leadership PAC, Next Century Fund, has paid $120,348 since 2002 to his sister-in-law, Mary Fauth, Gerald’s wife, who serves as treasurer. The PAC has also paid $104,850 in rent and utilities over the same period to 116 S. Royal St. Partners, in which Gerald Fauth is a partner.
script type=”text/javascript” src=”http://pixel.propublica.org/pixel.js” async>


motherjones--2020-05-07--Exclusive: Stacey Abrams Says the Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery Was “Murder”

In exclusive interview with Mother Jones on Thursday afternoon , former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams was clear about how she sees the shooting of Ahmaud Arbery , an unarmed 25-year-old Black man : It ’ s “ murder , ” she said .
“ What we saw happen in that video , what I read about in those stories , is a violation of every notion of decency and justice .
It was murder , ” Abrams explained .
While the killing happened back in February , a Georgia prosecutor recommend a grand jury consider charges only earlier this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incident was made public .
“ That murder should be held to account and the murderer should as well , ” said Abrams .
“ The way we get the justice we deserve is by electing people who believe we deserve that justice.
” Abrams ’ forceful response to Arbery ’ s slaying was a small slice of a wide-ranging interview with Mother Jones senior reporter Ari Berman .
Abrams , who launched voting rights initiative Fair Fight after her 2018 loss to now-Gov .
Brian Kemp , also covered the census , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the dangerous attempt to suppress voters during the Wisconsin primary in April .
Abrams held fast to her stance that there ’ s no reason for elections in November to be disrupted by the pandemic .
“ We were able to vote during the Civil War , we were able to vote during the Spanish flu of 1918 , there is no excuse for not holding our elections in 2020 , ” said Abrams .
For the full conversation with Abrams , watch the video below :

In exclusive interview with Mother Jones on Thursday afternoon, former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams was clear about how she sees the shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, an unarmed 25-year-old Black man: It’s “murder,” she said.
“What we saw happen in that video, what I read about in those stories, is a violation of every notion of decency and justice. It was murder,” Abrams explained.
.@staceyabrams responds to the killing of Ahmaud Arbery: "It was murder." Ten weeks ago, Arbery was jogging in a neighborhood in Georgia before he was chased and shot by two armed white men. The two men still haven't been arrested. pic.twitter.com/UJHCsBd36k — Mother Jones (@MotherJones) May 7, 2020
While the killing happened back in February, a Georgia prosecutor recommend a grand jury consider charges only earlier this week, after a video of the incident was made public. “That murder should be held to account and the murderer should as well,” said Abrams. “The way we get the justice we deserve is by electing people who believe we deserve that justice.”
Abrams’ forceful response to Arbery’s slaying was a small slice of a wide-ranging interview with Mother Jones senior reporter Ari Berman. Abrams, who launched voting rights initiative Fair Fight after her 2018 loss to now-Gov. Brian Kemp, also covered the census, Kemp’s response to COVID-19, and the dangerous attempt to suppress voters during the Wisconsin primary in April. Abrams held fast to her stance that there’s no reason for elections in November to be disrupted by the pandemic. “We were able to vote during the Civil War, we were able to vote during the Spanish flu of 1918, there is no excuse for not holding our elections in 2020,” said Abrams.
For the full conversation with Abrams, watch the video below:


motherjones--2020-05-07--Trump’s DOJ to Drop Charges Against Michael Flynn, Who Pled Guilty Twice

The Justice Department has moved to drop its criminal case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn , who pled guilty in late 2017 to lying to the FBI .
The remarkable move follows sustained public pressure from President Donald Trump , who claimed Flynn was unfairly targeted for political purposes , and behind-the-scenes efforts at the Justice Department by Attorney General William Barr , who commissioned an outside review of the case and put pressure on Flynn ’ s prosecutors .
In a court filing Thursday , US Attorney for the District of Columbia Timothy Shea , who has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Flynn ’ s lies were not “ material ” to any investigation , a standard legally required for prosecution .
“ Because the Government does not have a substantial federal interest in penalizing a defendant for a crime that it is not satisfied occurred , and that it does not believe it can prove beyond a reasonable doubt , the Government now moves to dismiss the criminal information , ” Shea wrote .
The decision to drop the Flynn case , which must still be approved by US District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Barr exerting pressure within DOJ to undermine frontline prosecutors who have advanced cases embarrassing to the president .
In February , Barr forced prosecutors to lower a sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone , a longtime Trump adviser , just hours after Trump complained in an early morning tweet that Stone ’ s original sentence suggested by prosecutors was too harsh .
Following that intervention , prosecutors who brought the Stone case forward withdrew in protest .
In February , pressure from Barr also appears to have caused Flynn prosecutors to lower a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead prosecutor in Flynn ’ s case , Brandon Van Grack , a former member of Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’ s team , withdrew from the case Thursday , shortly before the Justice Department announced it was dropping charges .
Van Grack remains head of DOJ ’ s Foreign Agents Registration Act Unit , which regulates for foreign interests in the United States .
The Justice Department ’ s action Thursday drew quick denunciation of Barr by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff ( D-Calif. ) , who decried “ the worst @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history.
” In a statement , Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington , a liberal watchdog group , said Barr “ has consistently acted for the personal and political benefit of President Trump.
” The group said it is “ deeply skeptical that this is anything other than a further capturing of our criminal justice system for the benefit of the president .
The president doesn ’ t need to issue pardons to his cronies when his attorney general appears willing to terminate their cases before justice can be served.
” Flynn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as head of Defense Intelligence Agency under President Obama but was forced out of the post in 2014 amid complaints about his management and erratic behavior .
During the presidential campaign in 2016 , Flynn became an ardent Trump backer .
In November 2016 , Flynn was revealed to have secretly agreed to lobby for Turkey while advising Trump .
The newly elected president picked Flynn as his National Security Adviser anyway .
Flynn quickly faced additional problem when he was caught secretly conferring about US sanctions on Russia with the Kremlin ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the presidential transition period .
Questioned in January 2017 by the FBI about these conversations , Flynn denied discussing sanctions , a claim he later admitted was a lie .
Flynn resigned as National Security Adviser on February 13 , after just weeks on the job .
In November 2017 , Flynn pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI and agreed to cooperate with Mueller , becoming the first senior Trump aide to flip .
As part of his plea deal , Flynn admitted that he had lied to the FBI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he also had lied to agents about his efforts to influence foreign diplomats regarding a December 2016 UN resolution condemning Israeli settlement construction .
He also admitted that he had lied to the Justice Department in a Foreign Agents Registration Act filing by claiming he was not aware he was lobbying for Turkey .
In June 2019 , Flynn reversed course , replacing the attorney who negotiated his plea deal with Sidney Powell , a Fox News pundit and vociferous critic of the Mueller probe .
Powell had written secretly to Barr @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case , or short of that , requested “ the appointment of new government counsel with no connection to the Special Counsel team of attorneys or agents to conduct review of the entire Flynn case.
” Meanwhile , Powell filed a slew of motions alleging prosecutorial misconduct .
With her encouragement , Flynn began flirting with adherents of the bizarre Q-Anon conspiracy theory , even agreeing to speak a Q-Anon conference but withdrew after Mother Jones reported on his plans .
In December , Sullivan rejected Powell ’ s motions in a stinging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ irrelevant to Flynn ’ s case .
He even accused her of plagiarism in her filings .
Powell then shifted tactics .
Though she had previously told Sullivan she had no plans to reverse Flynn ’ s guilty plea , in January she began legal efforts to do just that .
In February , Barr appointed prosecutors in the office of Jeff Jensen , US Attorney in St. Louis , a Trump appointee , along with DOJ prosecutors in Washington , to review Flynn ’ s case .
This review resulted in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s backers touted as exculpatory .
Last week , prosecutors disclosed in court filings handwritten notes that Bill Priestap , then the FBI ’ s head of counterintelligence , had made before FBI agents interviewed Flynn at the White House in January 2016 .
Preistap wrote : “ What ’ s our goal ?
Truth/Admission or to get him to lie , so we can prosecute him or get him fired ?
” Experienced prosecutors said that the FBI ’ s tactics with Flynn were not unusual , but Trump and conservative media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that proved Flynn had been railroaded by the FBI .
The move to drop the Flynn case suggests that Justice Department leadership thought so too .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The Justice Department has moved to drop its criminal case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who pled guilty in late 2017 to lying to the FBI.
The remarkable move follows sustained public pressure from President Donald Trump, who claimed Flynn was unfairly targeted for political purposes, and behind-the-scenes efforts at the Justice Department by Attorney General William Barr, who commissioned an outside review of the case and put pressure on Flynn’s prosecutors.
In a court filing Thursday, US Attorney for the District of Columbia Timothy Shea, who has taken over the case, argued that Flynn’s lies were not “material” to any investigation, a standard legally required for prosecution. “Because the Government does not have a substantial federal interest in penalizing a defendant for a crime that it is not satisfied occurred, and that it does not believe it can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, the Government now moves to dismiss the criminal information,” Shea wrote.
The decision to drop the Flynn case, which must still be approved by US District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan, appears to be the latest instance of Barr exerting pressure within DOJ to undermine frontline prosecutors who have advanced cases embarrassing to the president. In February, Barr forced prosecutors to lower a sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone, a longtime Trump adviser, just hours after Trump complained in an early morning tweet that Stone’s original sentence suggested by prosecutors was too harsh. Following that intervention, prosecutors who brought the Stone case forward withdrew in protest.
In February, pressure from Barr also appears to have caused Flynn prosecutors to lower a sentencing recommendation in his case. The lead prosecutor in Flynn’s case, Brandon Van Grack, a former member of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team, withdrew from the case Thursday, shortly before the Justice Department announced it was dropping charges. Van Grack remains head of DOJ’s Foreign Agents Registration Act Unit, which regulates for foreign interests in the United States.
The Justice Department’s action Thursday drew quick denunciation of Barr by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who decried “the worst politicization of the Justice Department in its history.”
Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI about his illicit Russian contacts. His lies do not now become truths. This dismissal does not exonerate him. But it does incriminate Bill Barr. In the worst politicization of the Justice Department in its history. — Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) May 7, 2020
In a statement, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a liberal watchdog group, said Barr “has consistently acted for the personal and political benefit of President Trump.” The group said it is “deeply skeptical that this is anything other than a further capturing of our criminal justice system for the benefit of the president. The president doesn’t need to issue pardons to his cronies when his attorney general appears willing to terminate their cases before justice can be served.”
Flynn, an Army lieutenant general, served as head of Defense Intelligence Agency under President Obama but was forced out of the post in 2014 amid complaints about his management and erratic behavior. During the presidential campaign in 2016, Flynn became an ardent Trump backer. In November 2016, Flynn was revealed to have secretly agreed to lobby for Turkey while advising Trump. The newly elected president picked Flynn as his National Security Adviser anyway.
Flynn quickly faced additional problem when he was caught secretly conferring about US sanctions on Russia with the Kremlin’s ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, during the presidential transition period. Questioned in January 2017 by the FBI about these conversations, Flynn denied discussing sanctions, a claim he later admitted was a lie. Flynn resigned as National Security Adviser on February 13, after just weeks on the job.
In November 2017, Flynn pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI and agreed to cooperate with Mueller, becoming the first senior Trump aide to flip. As part of his plea deal, Flynn admitted that he had lied to the FBI about his conversations with Kislyak, and that he also had lied to agents about his efforts to influence foreign diplomats regarding a December 2016 UN resolution condemning Israeli settlement construction. He also admitted that he had lied to the Justice Department in a Foreign Agents Registration Act filing by claiming he was not aware he was lobbying for Turkey.
In June 2019, Flynn reversed course, replacing the attorney who negotiated his plea deal with Sidney Powell, a Fox News pundit and vociferous critic of the Mueller probe. Powell wrote secretly to Barr, asking that DOJ drop the Flynn case, or short of that, requested “the appointment of new government counsel with no connection to the Special Counsel team of attorneys or agents to conduct review of the entire Flynn case.”
Powell filed a slew of motions alleging prosecutorial misconduct. With her encouragement, Flynn began flirting with adherents of the bizarre Q-Anon conspiracy theory. He agreed to speak a Q-Anon conference but withdrew after Mother Jones reported on his plans. In December, Sullivan rejected Powell’s motions in a stinging ruling, even calling her arguments baseless and irrelevant to Flynn’s case. Sullivan accused Powell of plagiarism in her filings.
Powell then shifted tactics. Though she had previously told Sullivan she had no plans to reverse Flynn’s guilty plea, in January she began legal efforts to do just that.
In February, Barr appointed prosecutors in the office of Jeff Jensen, US Attorney in St. Louis, a Trump appointee, along with DOJ prosecutors in Washington, to review Flynn’s case. This review resulted in the government producing new material that Flynn’s backers touted as exculpatory. Last week, prosecutors disclosed in court filings handwritten notes that Bill Priestap, then the FBI’s head of counterintelligence, had made before FBI agents interviewed Flynn at the White House in January 2016. Preistap wrote: “What’s our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” Experienced prosecutors said that the FBI’s tactics with Flynn were not unusual, but Trump and conservative media pundits touted the disclosure as major news that proved Flynn had been railroaded by the FBI. The move to drop the Flynn case suggests that Justice Department leadership thought so too.
Read prosecutors’ motion withdrawing the Flynn case:


motherjones--2020-05-07--The One Line in the Supreme Court “Bridgegate” Decision That Sums Up Now

On Thursday , the Supreme Court threw out the convictions of key allies to former New Jersey Gov .
Chris @ @ @ @ @ known as “ Bridgegate.
” The unanimous decision was at once a jarring throwback—who can @ @ @ @ @ Trump—and instantly recognizable .
After all , two political aides emerging essentially unscathed despite overwhelming @ @ @ @ @ entirely appropriate , even expected , for this current moment .
One line in the @ @ @ @ @ much .
Here ’ s Justice Elena Kagan writing for the court : A similar @ @ @ @ @ to countless acts of malfeasance we ’ ve seen from the Trump administration , including @ @ @ @ @ ’ s impeachment .
( Recall the president ’ s lawyers claiming that abuse of @ @ @ @ @ an impeachable offense . )
Moreover , creating a traffic jam as a form of @ @ @ @ @ ’ s aides did in 2013 , is exactly the kind of petty criminal behavior @ @ @ @

“A VOICE OF REASON.” “A DAILY DOSE OF SANITY.”
“A daily dose of sanity.” “Like chatting with a friend who actually knows what they’re talking about.” That’s how readers describe our free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. See why: Sign up today to get reporting that helps you cut through the noise, plus deep dives on underreported topics.
“Like chatting with a friend who actually knows what they’re talking about.” That’s how readers describe our free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. See why: Sign up today to get reporting that helps you cut through the noise, plus deep dives on underreported topics.
Close Thank you for subscribing!
By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from Mother Jones and our partners.


motherjones--2020-05-08--How the NRA Is Using Coronavirus Fears to Drive Up Gun Sales

Just weeks into the nation ’ s coronavirus lockdown , the FBI reported a startling statistic : The month of March smashed the bureau ’ s all-time record for processing background checks for gun purchases .
Since there is no national database of weapon sales , the FBI ’ s National Instant Criminal Background Check System , or NICS , is considered to be the best available indicator of how many firearms are being sold .
According to the FBI , NICS recorded 3.7 million background checks in March , which was 12 percent higher than its previous record , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ words , since the pandemic began crippling the country , people have been buying guns at a staggering rate .
It ’ s tough to determine who , exactly , is buying guns and for what reasons .
Anecdotal reporting suggests that many of the sales are panic purchases by first-time gun owners .
Of course , it ’ s helped that President Donald Trump—after a lobbying blitz from gun rights groups—issued guidance that gun shops should be considered essential businesses and allowed to remain open , even as states were forcing other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effort to slow the spread of the virus .
Many state governors complied , and some even reversed previous orders to have gun stores closed , citing Trump ’ s guidance .
The National Rifle Association filed lawsuits against local jurisdictions that forced gun stores to shut down , including the states of New York and New Mexico and two counties in California .
For gun control advocacy organizations like Everytown for Gun Safety and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence , the spike in firearms sales is beyond alarming—and they worry that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence .
Despite the coronavirus lockdowns , some cities , such as Cincinnati , Philadelphia , and Chicago , have actually seen increases in shootings since the crisis began .
Meanwhile , a number of police departments and hotlines have reported spikes in domestic violence calls , as women have no choice but to quarantine with their abusers—many of whom own firearms .
Gun control advocates also worry that more people with firearms , combined with economic chaos and increased social isolation , could result in a rise in gun suicides and accidental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we are seeing—massive increase in domestic violence hotline and shelter groups calls , the unemployment numbers , the isolation , the increased alcohol use—all point to a rise in gun deaths , ” says Andrew Patrick , the director of political communications for the CSGV .
At the center of the controversy is the NRA .
Ever since the emergence of COVID-19 sent the world into a tailspin , the group has sought not just to fight to keep gun stores open and boost firearms sales , but also to stoke fear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ darkest hour .
On social media , in videos , and in blog posts , the nation ’ s oldest and most influential gun rights organization has repeatedly pushed out alarmist messaging suggesting that the pandemic will lead to a societal breakdown—and that the only way people can protect themselves and their families is by purchasing a gun .
One NRA video from March features Carletta Whiting , a disabled woman holding an AR-15-style weapon , explaining the importance of having a gun .
“ I know from history how quickly society breaks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says in the video , which is interspersed with footage of looting , “ and we ’ ve never faced anything like this before , and never is a Second Amendment more important than during public unrest.
” In another video , shared last month , country music legend Charlie Daniels unloads on pro-gun-control lawmakers : “ Left up to some politicians , all you ’ d have to defend your home with would be a stick , some rocks , and if you ’ re lucky a slingshot , because they want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” None of this is surprising to John Feinblatt , the president of Everytown .
He ’ s seen this playbook from the NRA before—in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and at times during the presidency of Barack Obama , who , the NRA repeatedly suggested , might confiscate Americans ’ guns .
But what ’ s happening now , Feinblatt worries , could have far more serious consequences .
Since the outset of the pandemic , the NRA has argued that the 2nd Amendment “ is a constant in times of crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ background check system for delaying people ’ s access to firearms , and suggested that one reason Americans are buying guns is because “ law enforcement [ is stretched thin due to sick or quarantined officers , and hundreds of inmates being released from jails and prisons.
” The group has pointed to “ fears that certain goods may not be restocked at local stores , that the supply chain can ’ t keep up with demand , ” and has argued that Democratic politicians are exploiting the pandemic to push gun control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two lines that they are going on : that the only way to stay safe during a pandemic is to buy a gun—despite the fact that you can ’ t shoot at a virus—and that…criminals are on the loose , food shortages will lead the looting , and COVID-19 responses are a sign of the apocalypse , ” Feinblatt says .
“ It ’ s a tragedy , because in a time when there ’ s already a risk of heightened domestic violence and suicide , this type of fearmongering is making matters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impossible to link recent examples of gun-related violence to the kind of messaging that Feinblatt describes .
But publicly reported details about several such incidents underscore his concerns .
At a bank in Alpharetta , Georgia , according to police , a man allegedly pointed a gun at two people wearing masks and gloves and yelled at them to back up because he feared contracting COVID-19 from them .
A man who allegedly fatally shot his 13-year-old cousin by accident told police that “ he was arming himself for protection amidst the COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Albuquerque Journal .
And on an island off the coast of Maine , a group of local vigilantes with guns allegedly tried to force out-of-towners renting a house into quarantine .
More recently , a security guard at a Family Dollar in Flint , Michigan , was shot and killed after he told a customer that she had to wear a mask , as required by a state executive order , according to law enforcement officials .
Feinblatt worries these incidents will put further stress on health systems that are already buckling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Corona-related incidents of gun violence and more gun violence is only going to do one thing , ” he says , “ which is , strap our…precious resources that are completely strained in hospitals.
” The NRA ’ s coronavirus messaging comes at a time when the group is basically on life support .
Like a great number of other non-profits , it ’ s been hit hard by the crisis ’ economic fallout .
Earlier this month , Politico reported that the NRA had laid off more than 60 employees since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hit , the group was in a deep financial hole .
Since its mammoth financial effort to help elect Trump , it has struggled , spending more money than it was raising as internal scandals and expensive legal battles drained its finances .
Feinblatt suspects the NRA is seizing on COVID-19 as an opportunity to right the ship .
“ They ’ re exploiting people ’ s fears during this pandemic , and they ’ re doing it in order to sell more guns and raise money , ” he says .
Asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the NRA took aim at Michael Bloomberg , the billionaire Everytown founder and erstwhile Democratic presidential candidate .
“ Everytown must be reeling after Mike Bloomberg ’ s pathetic showing in the presidential primary proved billions of dollars can ’ t buy elections , so they ’ re resorting to blatantly false narratives , ” a spokesperson for the gun rights group said .
“ Let ’ s correct the record : The NRA does not make money off gun sales .
We are a member organization operated on donations and dues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worked tirelessly during this pandemic to keep gun stores open so that law-abiding families can keep safe .
Yes , that has resulted in more gun owners and more self-defense voters across the country .
And , yes , most of them will likely remember that Biden , Beto and Bloomberg want to confiscate their guns and abolish their right to self-defense.
”  Meanwhile , as the coronavirus death toll continues to rise , thousands of people , often decked out in MAGA gear , have participated in protests against stay-at-home orders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Michigan , but have since spread across the country—have been the work of right-wing protesters who , like Trump , have looked to blame Democratic governors for the economic fallout caused by the pandemic .
Early polling suggests that the protests are unpopular with the general public , but they ’ ve proved to be a breeding ground for fringe conspiracy theories and misinformation .
Trump , for his part , has poured gasoline on the fire , tweeting out support for the demonstrators and encouraging them to “ LIBERATE ” their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawmakers met in Lansing to debate an extension of Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer ’ s ( D ) emergency orders , dozens of screaming , armed demonstrators entered the state Capitol building , demanding to be let into the legislative chambers .
In response , Trump praised the protesters on Twitter , calling them “ very good people ” and saying that Whitmer “ should give a little and put out the fire.
” The NRA—in both public messaging and in statements by members of its 76-person board of directors—has encouraged the demonstrations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endorsed Republican Dan Rodimer , a former professional wrestler now running for Congress in Nevada who led a march to the governor ’ s mansion , in protest of Gov .
Steve Sisolak ’ s ( D ) stay-at-home order .
In a video of the march , several protesters can be seen carrying firearms .
In an op-ed for the Daily Caller , NRA board member and former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr said the coronavirus national emergency endangers “ the Constitution and the Bill of Rights , ” writing that it “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures that would undercut one of our Founders ’ deepest fears—use of the military for domestic law enforcement purposes.
” In a different op-ed , for the conservative news site Townhall , Barr echoed NRA messaging about the importance of having a gun during the pandemic , writing , “ It is precisely in times of emergency , when the risk of looting and other criminal behavior increases , that the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment become most important.
” On Twitter and Facebook , other NRA board members have been more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Rock star and board member Ted Nugent said that protesters at an earlier anti-lockdown rally in Michigan were “ my people.
” Another board member , Allen West , a former member of Congress from Florida , tweeted , “ Doggone , open up our economy , get the American people back to work !
Treat us as adults and not infantile drones who can be herded to and fro as political pawns.
” After the latest Michigan protest , West tweeted that “ the most dangerous virus in America right now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tyranny.
” Willes Lee , another NRA board member , tweeted that “ lying media and corrupt Dems want America closed .
First they bitch that Trump isn ’ t a king to order states to open…then they whine that he needs to order Kemp to keep GA closed.
” Last week , Anthony Colandro , an NRA board member who has a history of hate speech , attended an anti-quarantine protest in New Jersey .
In a video posted on his Facebook page , which have since been removed , Colandro called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Prior to the rally , Colandro posted now-deleted videos encouraging people to attend .
In a video shot at the rally , Colandro said that COVID-19 “ is a media virus ” and added , “ We are being spoon-fed socialism every day and 8.5 million people are just bending over and taking it… Y ’ know what ?
I hope you all get an anal probe with a microchip in it because this is what we ’ ve become : sheep.
” The NRA spokesperson wouldn ’ t comment on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ board members , telling Mother Jones that “ board members don ’ t speak on behalf of the organization.
” If you or someone you care about may be at risk of suicide , call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline , a free 24/7 service that offers support , information , and local resources : 1-800-273-TALK ( 8255 ) .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Just weeks into the nation’s coronavirus lockdown, the FBI reported a startling statistic: The month of March smashed the bureau’s all-time record for processing background checks for gun purchases. Since there is no national database of weapon sales, the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, is considered to be the best available indicator of how many firearms are being sold. According to the FBI, NICS recorded 3.7 million background checks in March, which was 12 percent higher than its previous record, set in December 2015. In other words, since the pandemic began crippling the country, people have been buying guns at a staggering rate.
“We worked tirelessly during this pandemic to keep gun stores open.”
It’s tough to determine who, exactly, is buying guns and for what reasons. Anecdotal reporting suggests that many of the sales are panic purchases by first-time gun owners. Of course, it’s helped that President Donald Trump—after a lobbying blitz from gun rights groups—issued guidance that gun shops should be considered essential businesses and allowed to remain open, even as states were forcing other retailers to close their doors in an effort to slow the spread of the virus. Many state governors complied, and some even reversed previous orders to have gun stores closed, citing Trump’s guidance. The National Rifle Association filed lawsuits against local jurisdictions that forced gun stores to shut down, including the states of New York and New Mexico and two counties in California.
For gun control advocacy organizations like Everytown for Gun Safety and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, the spike in firearms sales is beyond alarming—and they worry that it could lead a surge in gun violence. Despite the coronavirus lockdowns, some cities, such as Cincinnati, Philadelphia, and Chicago, have actually seen increases in shootings since the crisis began. Meanwhile, a number of police departments and hotlines have reported spikes in domestic violence calls, as women have no choice but to quarantine with their abusers—many of whom own firearms. Gun control advocates also worry that more people with firearms, combined with economic chaos and increased social isolation, could result in a rise in gun suicides and accidental shootings. “All the anecdotal evidence that we are seeing—massive increase in domestic violence hotline and shelter groups calls, the unemployment numbers, the isolation, the increased alcohol use—all point to a rise in gun deaths,” says Andrew Patrick, the director of political communications for the CSGV.
At the center of the controversy is the NRA. Ever since the emergence of COVID-19 sent the world into a tailspin, the group has sought not just to fight to keep gun stores open and boost firearms sales, but also to stoke fear and suspicion during the country’s darkest hour. On social media, in videos, and in blog posts, the nation’s oldest and most influential gun rights organization has repeatedly pushed out alarmist messaging suggesting that the pandemic will lead to a societal breakdown—and that the only way people can protect themselves and their families is by purchasing a gun.
One NRA video from March features Carletta Whiting, a disabled woman holding an AR-15-style weapon, explaining the importance of having a gun. “I know from history how quickly society breaks down during a crisis,” she says in the video, which is interspersed with footage of looting, “and we’ve never faced anything like this before, and never is a Second Amendment more important than during public unrest.”
Americans are flocking to gun stores because they know the only reliable self-defense during a crisis is the #2A. Carletta Whiting, who’s disabled & vulnerable to #coronavirus, asks Dems trying to exploit the pandemic: Why do you want to leave people like me defenseless? pic.twitter.com/wDeEYHqzOU — NRA (@NRA) March 21, 2020
In another video, shared last month, country music legend Charlie Daniels unloads on pro-gun-control lawmakers: “Left up to some politicians, all you’d have to defend your home with would be a stick, some rocks, and if you’re lucky a slingshot, because they want your guns. They want them all.”
None of this is surprising to John Feinblatt, the president of Everytown. He’s seen this playbook from the NRA before—in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and at times during the presidency of Barack Obama, who, the NRA repeatedly suggested, might confiscate Americans’ guns. But what’s happening now, Feinblatt worries, could have far more serious consequences. Since the outset of the pandemic, the NRA has argued that the 2nd Amendment “is a constant in times of crisis,” blasted the FBI’s background check system for delaying people’s access to firearms, and suggested that one reason Americans are buying guns is because “law enforcement [is stretched thin due to sick or quarantined officers, and hundreds of inmates being released from jails and prisons.” The group has pointed to “fears that certain goods may not be restocked at local stores, that the supply chain can’t keep up with demand,” and has argued that Democratic politicians are exploiting the pandemic to push gun control efforts.
“They’ve got two lines that they are going on: that the only way to stay safe during a pandemic is to buy a gun—despite the fact that you can’t shoot at a virus—and that…criminals are on the loose, food shortages will lead the looting, and COVID-19 responses are a sign of the apocalypse,” Feinblatt says. “It’s a tragedy, because in a time when there’s already a risk of heightened domestic violence and suicide, this type of fearmongering is making matters all the worse.”
“They’re exploiting people’s fears during this pandemic.”
It’s impossible to link recent examples of gun-related violence to the kind of messaging that Feinblatt describes. But publicly reported details about several such incidents underscore his concerns. At a bank in Alpharetta, Georgia, according to police, a man allegedly pointed a gun at two people wearing masks and gloves and yelled at them to back up because he feared contracting COVID-19 from them. A man who allegedly fatally shot his 13-year-old cousin by accident told police that “he was arming himself for protection amidst the COVID-19 scare,” in the words of the Albuquerque Journal. And on an island off the coast of Maine, a group of local vigilantes with guns allegedly tried to force out-of-towners renting a house into quarantine. More recently, a security guard at a Family Dollar in Flint, Michigan, was shot and killed after he told a customer that she had to wear a mask, as required by a state executive order, according to law enforcement officials.
Feinblatt worries these incidents will put further stress on health systems that are already buckling under the pressure of COVID-19. “Corona-related incidents of gun violence and more gun violence is only going to do one thing,” he says, “which is, strap our…precious resources that are completely strained in hospitals.”
The NRA’s coronavirus messaging comes at a time when the group is basically on life support. Like a great number of other non-profits, it’s been hit hard by the crisis’ economic fallout. Earlier this month, Politico reported that the NRA had laid off more than 60 employees since the pandemic began. Even before the virus hit, the group was in a deep financial hole. Since its mammoth financial effort to help elect Trump, it has struggled, spending more money than it was raising as internal scandals and expensive legal battles drained its finances. Feinblatt suspects the NRA is seizing on COVID-19 as an opportunity to right the ship. “They’re exploiting people’s fears during this pandemic, and they’re doing it in order to sell more guns and raise money,” he says.
Asked to respond to Feinblatt’s criticism, the NRA took aim at Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire Everytown founder and erstwhile Democratic presidential candidate. “Everytown must be reeling after Mike Bloomberg’s pathetic showing in the presidential primary proved billions of dollars can’t buy elections, so they’re resorting to blatantly false narratives,” a spokesperson for the gun rights group said. “Let’s correct the record: The NRA does not make money off gun sales. We are a member organization operated on donations and dues from good people across America. We worked tirelessly during this pandemic to keep gun stores open so that law-abiding families can keep safe. Yes, that has resulted in more gun owners and more self-defense voters across the country. And, yes, most of them will likely remember that Biden, Beto and Bloomberg want to confiscate their guns and abolish their right to self-defense.”
Meanwhile, as the coronavirus death toll continues to rise, thousands of people, often decked out in MAGA gear, have participated in protests against stay-at-home orders. Many of the demonstrations—which first started in Michigan, but have since spread across the country—have been the work of right-wing protesters who, like Trump, have looked to blame Democratic governors for the economic fallout caused by the pandemic. Early polling suggests that the protests are unpopular with the general public, but they’ve proved to be a breeding ground for fringe conspiracy theories and misinformation. Trump, for his part, has poured gasoline on the fire, tweeting out support for the demonstrators and encouraging them to “LIBERATE” their states. Last week, as Michigan lawmakers met in Lansing to debate an extension of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s (D) emergency orders, dozens of screaming, armed demonstrators entered the state Capitol building, demanding to be let into the legislative chambers. In response, Trump praised the protesters on Twitter, calling them “very good people” and saying that Whitmer “should give a little and put out the fire.”
The NRA—in both public messaging and in statements by members of its 76-person board of directors—has encouraged the demonstrations. Earlier this week, the group endorsed Republican Dan Rodimer, a former professional wrestler now running for Congress in Nevada who led a march to the governor’s mansion, in protest of Gov. Steve Sisolak’s (D) stay-at-home order. In a video of the march, several protesters can be seen carrying firearms.
In an op-ed for the Daily Caller, NRA board member and former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr said the coronavirus national emergency endangers “the Constitution and the Bill of Rights,” writing that it “appears the federal government is readying additional measures that would undercut one of our Founders’ deepest fears—use of the military for domestic law enforcement purposes.” In a different op-ed, for the conservative news site Townhall, Barr echoed NRA messaging about the importance of having a gun during the pandemic, writing, “It is precisely in times of emergency, when the risk of looting and other criminal behavior increases, that the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment become most important.”
On Twitter and Facebook, other NRA board members have been more direct in pushing to reopen the country. Rock star and board member Ted Nugent said that protesters at an earlier anti-lockdown rally in Michigan were “my people.” Another board member, Allen West, a former member of Congress from Florida, tweeted, “Doggone, open up our economy, get the American people back to work! Treat us as adults and not infantile drones who can be herded to and fro as political pawns.” After the latest Michigan protest, West tweeted that “the most dangerous virus in America right now is not COVID-19…[it] is tyranny.” Willes Lee, another NRA board member, tweeted that “lying media and corrupt Dems want America closed. First they bitch that Trump isn’t a king to order states to open…then they whine that he needs to order Kemp to keep GA closed.”
Last week, Anthony Colandro, an NRA board member who has a history of hate speech, attended an anti-quarantine protest in New Jersey. In a video posted on his Facebook page, which have since been removed, Colandro called the pandemic “a bunch of bullshit.” Prior to the rally, Colandro posted now-deleted videos encouraging people to attend. In a video shot at the rally, Colandro said that COVID-19 “is a media virus” and added, “We are being spoon-fed socialism every day and 8.5 million people are just bending over and taking it… Y’know what? I hope you all get an anal probe with a microchip in it because this is what we’ve become: sheep.”
The NRA spokesperson wouldn’t comment on the statements made by Colandro or any other board members, telling Mother Jones that “board members don’t speak on behalf of the organization.”
If you or someone you care about may be at risk of suicide, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, a free 24/7 service that offers support, information, and local resources: 1-800-273-TALK (8255).