motherjones--2020-10-13--The Biggest Down-Ballot Fight of the Decade Is in Texas

Last summer , the Texas political universe was rocked by an audio tape , secretly recorded by a conservative activist named Michael Quinn Sullivan .
In a closed-door meeting with Sullivan at the state Capitol , the Republican speaker of the House , Dennis Bonnen , insulted Democratic colleagues in crude personal terms and offered the activist coveted press passes for the next session of the legislature if his organization , Empower Texans , would agree to back primary challenges against incumbent members of his party—a proposed quid pro quo that led to an investigation by the Texas Rangers .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ perhaps the most revealing exchanges had to do with the state ’ s political landscape .
“ With all due respect to Trump—who I love , by the way—he ’ s killing us in urban-suburban districts , ” Bonnen confided .
According to Bonnen , Trump was trailing by 15 points in one critical state House district the party had polled .
The incumbent state representative was barely staying afloat .
“ A Democrat house will produce a Democrat congressional map , ” Sullivan said later in the recording .
“ And then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ republic.
” “ End of the republic ” might be an overstatement , but the stakes are plenty high : If Bonnen ’ s numbers ( and more recent public polling ) are even close to accurate , Democrats have a real chance of winning a majority of seats in the state house of representatives for the first time since 2002—a breakthrough that would give the party not just the power to block conservative legislation in the nation ’ s largest red state , but a say in the redistricting process that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The fight for control of the Texas House of Representatives might be the most significant down-ballot election in America this fall .
Even with a tight presidential election , a US Senate race , and 10 targeted congressional seats , Texas Democratic party spokesperson Abhi Rahman calls flipping the state House “ our top strategic priority.
” The math is simple .
Democrats need to pick up nine seats to take control of the chamber .
That ’ s the exact number of currently Republican-held districts that Beto O ’ Rourke carried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They also need to defend the 12 seats they flipped that year—no easy task . )
Overall , Democrats are targeting nearly two dozen seats , most of them based in the diverse suburbs around Houston , Dallas , and Fort Worth , where the party has made huge gains over the last four years .
If you want to understand what breaking the redistricting monopoly in Texas would mean for state and national politics over the next decade , just consider what that monopoly has meant for the last two .
Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extremely partisan map , but it ’ s the biggest and , historically , the messiest .
In 2003 , just two years after new maps had gone into effect that gave Democrats a slight majority in the congressional delegation , then–House Majority Leader Tom DeLay , a Republican who would later be sentenced to three years in prison for a campaign money laundering scheme , pushed through an unprecedented , mid-decade round of redistricting that wrenched control of the congressional delegation from the Democrats .
( When Democratic state lawmakers fled to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislature , DeLay enlisted the Federal Aviation Administration to help find them . )
After Republicans took huge majorities in both chambers of the state legislature and the congressional delegation in the tea party wave of 2010 , Republican map-makers tried to make that high-water-mark permanent through an extreme partisan and racial gerrymander .
The party gained a two-to-one advantage in its congressional delegation , with only one nominal swing seat .
In perhaps the most egregious example of the lengths Republicans went to , Austin , a heavily Democratic city that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people , was split into six districts—five of which favored Republicans .
( Austin ’ s only solidly Democratic district extends all the way to San Antonio , in a clumsily drawn attempt to cluster together as many Latino Democratic voters as possible . )
The 2011 redistricting process set off a seven-year legal fight .
One federal judge ruled that the state GOP ’ s map-making process was “ discriminatory at its heart ” because of the way it reduced the voting power of Latino voters .
But the Supreme Court sided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that point , population growth and partisan shifts had in some ways caught up with these efforts—the gerrymandering was too aggressive , it turned out , kind of like building a flood wall at low tide .
A congressional map that was supposed to produce just one competitive race now has a dozen .
But it was a valuable tool for consolidating power while it lasted .
In the statehouse , Republicans have used their near-supermajority over the last decade to push through legislation dramatically curtailing abortion rights , suppressing voting rights , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undocumented immigrants .
The disparity was all the more notable given the demographics behind the state ’ s population growth .
Texas picked up four new congressional seats after the 2010 census because of its population boom in the preceding decade .
“ About 90 percent of the state ’ s population gain was non-white , ” says Michael Li , a senior counsel at New York University School of Law ’ s Brennan Center for Justice .
“ Yet they didn ’ t draw any minority opportunity seats.
” Over the last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The state is poised to add three more seats ( barring a major census undercount ) , due almost entirely to a growth in its population of people of color .
How much voting power residents of color will have for the next decade depends in large part on who wins power in November .
“ We know who are the drivers of the population growth , ” says Royce Brooks , the executive director of Annie ’ s List , an organization that trains and supports pro-choice women candidates in Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the targeted districts .
“ It ’ s communities of color , it ’ s young people .
And if we have a Democratic state house , those seats would be drawn in a way that reflects the drivers of that growth .
If we continue to have a right-wing Republican state house , then they won ’ t. ” According to Li , the clearest impact Democrats can have on the process is with the federal maps .
If the Republican state senate and Democratic state house can ’ t agree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court will draw them up .
That would likely produce a far more equitable outcome than what Tom DeLay or the 2011 process produced .
( To get a bit speculative , a map that truly reflected Democrats ’ support statewide would net the party about five more seats and Republicans five fewer seats than they currently hold—a 10-vote swing in the partisan makeup of Congress . )
The process for state legislative maps is a bit different because if the legislature is deadlocked , the process goes to a five-member board , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican officeholders .
But control of the lower chamber would allow Democrats to pass their own redistricting plans , which could be used to support a legal challenge to a discriminatory map .
All of this sounds a little inside baseball .
But the anti-Trump resistance movement that has helped power progressive victories over the last few years has shown a penchant for such fights .
Indivisible , the national grassroots organization , evolved from a Google Doc offering insider tips on how to pressure your member of Congress .
Activists have embraced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and studied up on the rules of Senate procedure .
But redistricting is not just a focus at the grassroots level .
The Texas House Democratic Campaign Committee brought in $ 3.6 million over the last three months—a massive haul for the down-ballot organization .
And in a state where Democrats have traditionally been starved of outside support , the fight for the chamber has drawn national attention .
The super-PAC Forward Majority announced in September it was spending $ 6.2 million to flip the Texas house .
Not long after , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ General Eric Holder ’ s National Democratic Redistricting Committee , said it would spend $ 1.1 million to help 11 Democratic challengers .
Swing-district candidates I spoke to are leaning into the redistrict fight—it ’ s been a source of money and volunteers , and , in addition to staple issues like education funding and Medicaid expansion , part of the pitch to voters .
“ We ’ ve had volunteers from across the country making calls for us , ” says Lorenzo Sanchez , a 34-year-old real estate agent who is trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suburbs and who supports the creation of an independent redistricting commission to handle the process in the future .
“ We have postcards coming in .
Even before we won the runoff , we had already received donations from every single state in the country—for a Texas house race !
” Jeff Leach , Sanchez ’ s opponent , offers a glimpse of the inflection point at which the Texas Republican Party has found itself .
Leach was a founding member of the arch-conservative Texas Freedom Caucus , which has been described by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far-right frat house where nuance and compassion go to die.
” He opposed Medicaid expansion and sponsored a bill that would have criminalized all abortions .
After winning his 2018 race by just three points , he quit the group and apologized for his abortion legislation , telling the Dallas Morning News that his own bill would have subjected women who get an abortion to the death penalty .
“ I did not understand the criminal implications on the woman , ” he said .
Oops ?
Leach ’ s seat would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago .
But Collin County , where Sanchez is running , is emblematic of the changing political tides in Texas .
As recently as 2014 , Abbott carried the county by 33 points .
Trump won it by 17 points in 2016 .
Ted Cruz beat O ’ Rourke there by just six points in 2018 .
This year , polls show it ’ s a toss-up .
Sanchez saw the changes firsthand that cycle as a volunteer with the Resistance group Swing Left and later for both O ’ Rourke and now-Rep. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican congressional seat in 2018 .
“ We know how dangerous it has been for decades here in Texas , of not being a player in the room , not even being able to see when they ’ re getting drawn and how they ’ re being drawn , ” Sanchez says of previous redistricting efforts .
“ And we just get presented with the maps and have to accept them .
The situation if we take back the Texas House has national implications .
The reason why people are so fired up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know we can really change the course of our national politics starting in our very own backyard this election cycle.
” In the Houston suburbs , it ’ s the same story , albeit with a far different Republican incumbent .
Unlike Leach , Rep. Sarah Davis has cultivated a reputation as a moderate during her decade in the state house .
She opposed a bathroom bill that targeted transgender students .
She was the first member of her caucus to back same-sex marriage .
She once fought back a primary challenge—supported by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she is the only Republican in the state legislature who supports abortion rights—a stance that once again this year netted her the endorsement of Planned Parenthood .
Voters have rewarded Davis for these stands .
Two years ago , as O ’ Rourke routed Cruz in her suburban district by 21 points , Davis was reelected by six .
This year , though , the stakes are a bit different .
Critics there have dubbed her “ the Susan Collins of Texas , ” a nod to the Maine senator whose occasional deviance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the eyes of voters , been overshadowed by her support for a Republican Senate majority .
When Democrats were shut out of power , Davis was seen by some as an ally on the inside .
But she and her fellow incumbents aren ’ t just running against the familiar political headwinds this year ; they ’ re running against the future .
“ I always say , ‘ I understand where you ’ re coming from , but do you like Sarah Davis enough to give Gov .
Greg Abbott the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
’ ’ ” says her Democratic opponent , Ann Johnson , of her conversations with liberal-leaning voters who have supported the incumbent in the past .
“ And I don ’ t find anybody that says yes .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Last summer, the Texas political universe was rocked by an audio tape, secretly recorded by a conservative activist named Michael Quinn Sullivan. In a closed-door meeting with Sullivan at the state Capitol, the Republican speaker of the House, Dennis Bonnen, insulted Democratic colleagues in crude personal terms and offered the activist coveted press passes for the next session of the legislature if his organization, Empower Texans, would agree to back primary challenges against incumbent members of his party—a proposed quid pro quo that led to an investigation by the Texas Rangers. For those unconcerned with legislative chicanery, perhaps the most revealing exchanges had to do with the state’s political landscape.
“With all due respect to Trump—who I love, by the way—he’s killing us in urban-suburban districts,” Bonnen confided. According to Bonnen, Trump was trailing by 15 points in one critical state House district the party had polled. The incumbent state representative was barely staying afloat. “A Democrat house will produce a Democrat congressional map,” Sullivan said later in the recording. “And then that will be the end of the republic.”
“End of the republic” might be an overstatement, but the stakes are plenty high: If Bonnen’s numbers (and more recent public polling) are even close to accurate, Democrats have a real chance of winning a majority of seats in the state house of representatives for the first time since 2002—a breakthrough that would give the party not just the power to block conservative legislation in the nation’s largest red state, but a say in the redistricting process that will shape Texas politics for years to come. The fight for control of the Texas House of Representatives might be the most significant down-ballot election in America this fall.
“The situation if we take back the Texas House has national implications… We can really change the course of our national politics starting in our very own backyard this election cycle.”
Even with a tight presidential election, a US Senate race, and 10 targeted congressional seats, Texas Democratic party spokesperson Abhi Rahman calls flipping the state House “our top strategic priority.”
The math is simple. Democrats need to pick up nine seats to take control of the chamber. That’s the exact number of currently Republican-held districts that Beto O’Rourke carried during his 2018 Senate bid. (They also need to defend the 12 seats they flipped that year—no easy task.) Overall, Democrats are targeting nearly two dozen seats, most of them based in the diverse suburbs around Houston, Dallas, and Fort Worth, where the party has made huge gains over the last four years.
If you want to understand what breaking the redistricting monopoly in Texas would mean for state and national politics over the next decade, just consider what that monopoly has meant for the last two. Texas is not the only state with an extremely partisan map, but it’s the biggest and, historically, the messiest. In 2003, just two years after new maps had gone into effect that gave Democrats a slight majority in the congressional delegation, then–House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Republican who would later be sentenced to three years in prison for a campaign money laundering scheme, pushed through an unprecedented, mid-decade round of redistricting that wrenched control of the congressional delegation from the Democrats. (When Democratic state lawmakers fled to Oklahoma to prevent a quorum in the legislature, DeLay enlisted the Federal Aviation Administration to help find them.)
After Republicans took huge majorities in both chambers of the state legislature and the congressional delegation in the tea party wave of 2010, Republican map-makers tried to make that high-water-mark permanent through an extreme partisan and racial gerrymander. The party gained a two-to-one advantage in its congressional delegation, with only one nominal swing seat. In perhaps the most egregious example of the lengths Republicans went to, Austin, a heavily Democratic city that’s now home to nearly a million people, was split into six districts—five of which favored Republicans. (Austin’s only solidly Democratic district extends all the way to San Antonio, in a clumsily drawn attempt to cluster together as many Latino Democratic voters as possible.) The 2011 redistricting process set off a seven-year legal fight. One federal judge ruled that the state GOP’s map-making process was “discriminatory at its heart” because of the way it reduced the voting power of Latino voters. But the Supreme Court sided with the state in 2018.
By that point, population growth and partisan shifts had in some ways caught up with these efforts—the gerrymandering was too aggressive, it turned out, kind of like building a flood wall at low tide. A congressional map that was supposed to produce just one competitive race now has a dozen. But it was a valuable tool for consolidating power while it lasted. In the statehouse, Republicans have used their near-supermajority over the last decade to push through legislation dramatically curtailing abortion rights, suppressing voting rights, and punishing cities that offer sanctuary to undocumented immigrants.
The disparity was all the more notable given the demographics behind the state’s population growth. Texas picked up four new congressional seats after the 2010 census because of its population boom in the preceding decade. “About 90 percent of the state’s population gain was non-white,” says Michael Li, a senior counsel at New York University School of Law’s Brennan Center for Justice. “Yet they didn’t draw any minority opportunity seats.”
Over the last decade, those demographic trends have continued. The state is poised to add three more seats (barring a major census undercount), due almost entirely to a growth in its population of people of color. How much voting power residents of color will have for the next decade depends in large part on who wins power in November.
“We know who are the drivers of the population growth,” says Royce Brooks, the executive director of Annie’s List, an organization that trains and supports pro-choice women candidates in Texas and that has backed candidates in 14 of the targeted districts. “It’s communities of color, it’s young people. And if we have a Democratic state house, those seats would be drawn in a way that reflects the drivers of that growth. If we continue to have a right-wing Republican state house, then they won’t.”
According to Li, the clearest impact Democrats can have on the process is with the federal maps. If the Republican state senate and Democratic state house can’t agree on new congressional lines, then a court will draw them up. That would likely produce a far more equitable outcome than what Tom DeLay or the 2011 process produced. (To get a bit speculative, a map that truly reflected Democrats’ support statewide would net the party about five more seats and Republicans five fewer seats than they currently hold—a 10-vote swing in the partisan makeup of Congress.) The process for state legislative maps is a bit different because if the legislature is deadlocked, the process goes to a five-member board, which would be comprised mostly of current Republican officeholders. But control of the lower chamber would allow Democrats to pass their own redistricting plans, which could be used to support a legal challenge to a discriminatory map.
All of this sounds a little inside baseball. But the anti-Trump resistance movement that has helped power progressive victories over the last few years has shown a penchant for such fights. Indivisible, the national grassroots organization, evolved from a Google Doc offering insider tips on how to pressure your member of Congress. Activists have embraced causes like abolishing the filibuster and court-packing and studied up on the rules of Senate procedure. But redistricting is not just a focus at the grassroots level. The Texas House Democratic Campaign Committee brought in $3.6 million over the last three months—a massive haul for the down-ballot organization. And in a state where Democrats have traditionally been starved of outside support, the fight for the chamber has drawn national attention. The super-PAC Forward Majority announced in September it was spending $6.2 million to flip the Texas house. Not long after, a coalition of organizations, including former Attorney General Eric Holder’s National Democratic Redistricting Committee, said it would spend $1.1 million to help 11 Democratic challengers.
Swing-district candidates I spoke to are leaning into the redistrict fight—it’s been a source of money and volunteers, and, in addition to staple issues like education funding and Medicaid expansion, part of the pitch to voters.
“We’ve had volunteers from across the country making calls for us,” says Lorenzo Sanchez, a 34-year-old real estate agent who is trying to flip a seat in the Dallas suburbs and who supports the creation of an independent redistricting commission to handle the process in the future. “We have postcards coming in. Even before we won the runoff, we had already received donations from every single state in the country—for a Texas house race!”
Jeff Leach, Sanchez’s opponent, offers a glimpse of the inflection point at which the Texas Republican Party has found itself. Leach was a founding member of the arch-conservative Texas Freedom Caucus, which has been described by Texas Monthly as “a kind of far-right frat house where nuance and compassion go to die.” He opposed Medicaid expansion and sponsored a bill that would have criminalized all abortions. After winning his 2018 race by just three points, he quit the group and apologized for his abortion legislation, telling the Dallas Morning News that his own bill would have subjected women who get an abortion to the death penalty. “I did not understand the criminal implications on the woman,” he said. Oops?
Leach’s seat would have been considered safe just a few years ago. But Collin County, where Sanchez is running, is emblematic of the changing political tides in Texas. As recently as 2014, Abbott carried the county by 33 points. Trump won it by 17 points in 2016. Ted Cruz beat O’Rourke there by just six points in 2018. This year, polls show it’s a toss-up. Sanchez saw the changes firsthand that cycle as a volunteer with the Resistance group Swing Left and later for both O’Rourke and now-Rep. Colin Allred, who won a formerly Republican congressional seat in 2018.
“We know how dangerous it has been for decades here in Texas, of not being a player in the room, not even being able to see when they’re getting drawn and how they’re being drawn,” Sanchez says of previous redistricting efforts. “And we just get presented with the maps and have to accept them. The situation if we take back the Texas House has national implications. The reason why people are so fired up here in Collin County is because we know we can really change the course of our national politics starting in our very own backyard this election cycle.”
In the Houston suburbs, it’s the same story, albeit with a far different Republican incumbent. Unlike Leach, Rep. Sarah Davis has cultivated a reputation as a moderate during her decade in the state house. She opposed a bathroom bill that targeted transgender students. She was the first member of her caucus to back same-sex marriage. She once fought back a primary challenge—supported by the Republican governor—from an anti-vaxxer. And she is the only Republican in the state legislature who supports abortion rights—a stance that once again this year netted her the endorsement of Planned Parenthood.
Voters have rewarded Davis for these stands. Two years ago, as O’Rourke routed Cruz in her suburban district by 21 points, Davis was reelected by six. This year, though, the stakes are a bit different. Critics there have dubbed her “the Susan Collins of Texas,” a nod to the Maine senator whose occasional deviance from the party line has, in the eyes of voters, been overshadowed by her support for a Republican Senate majority. When Democrats were shut out of power, Davis was seen by some as an ally on the inside. But she and her fellow incumbents aren’t just running against the familiar political headwinds this year; they’re running against the future.
“I always say, ‘I understand where you’re coming from, but do you like Sarah Davis enough to give Gov. Greg Abbott the House and control over Texas for a decade?’’” says her Democratic opponent, Ann Johnson, of her conversations with liberal-leaning voters who have supported the incumbent in the past.
“And I don’t find anybody that says yes.”


motherjones--2020-10-13--Watch Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse School Amy Coney Barrett on Dark Money

The confirmation hearings this week for Amy Coney Barrett , President Donald Trump ’ s nominee to the Supreme Court , is largely a piece of political theater , whose outcome is already a given .
“ This is probably not about persuading each other unless something really dramatic happens , ” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham ( R-S.C. ) conceded in his opening statement Monday .
“ All Republicans will vote yes , and all Democrats will vote no.
” And Barrett will be confirmed to her lifetime appointment .
With no way to block the confirmation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focus not so much on the nominee in front of them but on issues relevant to the process .
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse ( D-R.I. ) took his full 30 minutes to provide a Schoolhouse Rock !
-style tutorial on the dark money forces at work behind Barrett ’ s nomination—a process he called “ The Scheme.
” Citing the Washington Post , Whitehouse described a $ 250 million dark money operation designed to capture the courts and push cases to friendly judges in the hopes of favorable rulings .
“ Two hundred and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money to spend if you ’ re not getting anything for it , ” he said .
“ So that raises the question : What are they getting for it ?
” To answer that question , Whitehouse provided charts and bullet points that would make Glenn Beck proud .
One of his posters laid out the Republican Party ’ s own words explaining precisely what they want from judicial nominees : “ A Republican president will appoint judges … who will reverse the long line of activist decisions—including Roe , Obergefell , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the landmark abortion , same-sex marriage and health care cases .
“ That is their stated objective and plan , ” Whitehouse said .
“ Why not take them at their word ?
” The Republicans , Whitehouse noted , seem to be getting their money ’ s worth .
Their judicial nominees have voted in at least 80 cases where “ there is an identifiable Republican donor interest ” and ruled in their favor , to the detriment of workers ’ rights , women ’ s rights , voting rights , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a former US Attorney , sounded like someone delivering a closing argument in the courtroom .
He blamed the Supreme Court ’ s 2010 decision in Citizens United , which allowed unlimited money to flow into political campaigns , for the current situation .
Whitehouse drew arrows with sharpies and explained in remarkably clear terms how anonymous money has fueled conservative legal advocacy groups like the Federalist Society and the Judicial Crisis Network that have spent millions cultivating and promoting conservative , ideological candidates like Barrett for the federal bench .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the ads that anonymous money had paid for in support of Barrett ’ s nomination that explicitly suggested she ’ d overturn the 1973 abortion rights decision Roe v Wade .
At the heart of Whitehouse ’ s chart was Donors Trust , a shadowy foundation the senator described as an “ identity scrubbing ” operation that allows rich donors to hide their contributions to influence judicial nominations and weaken federal regulations .
Donors Trust has funnelled millions of dollars over the years into groups working for a conservative takeover of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the money came from .
In 2013 , Mother Jones called Donors Trust the “ dark money ATM of the conservative movement : Founded in 1999 , Donors Trust ( and an affiliated group , Donors Capital Fund ) has raised north of $ 500 million and doled out $ 400 million to more than 1,000 conservative and libertarian groups , according to Whitney Ball , the group ’ s CEO .
Donors Trust allows wealthy contributors who want to donate millions to the most important causes on the right to do so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those underwriting conservative and libertarian organizations .
Wisconsin ’ s 2011 assault on collective bargaining rights ?
Donors Trust helped fund that .
ALEC , the conservative bill mill ?
Donors Trust supports it .
The climate deniers at the Heartland Institute ?
They get Donors Trust money , too .
Donors Trust is not the source of the money it hands out .
Some 200 right-of-center funders who ’ ve given at least $ 10,000 fill the group ’ s coffers .
Charities bankrolled by Charles and David Koch , the DeVoses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative benefactors , have given to Donors Trust .
And other recipients of Donors Trust money include the Heritage Foundation , Grover Norquist ’ s Americans for Tax Reform , the NRA ’ s Freedom Action Foundation , the Cato Institute , the American Enterprise Institute , the Federalist Society , and the Americans for Prosperity Foundation , chaired ( PDF ) by none other than David Koch .
Whitehouse asked no questions of Barrett , who appeared somewhat bewildered by the mindboggling and complicated network of interests and money described in Whitehouse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court nominees before her , she has declined to express an opinion about Citizens United , political dark money , or really , much of anything , during the first two days of the hearings .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The confirmation hearing this week for Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, is largely a piece of political theater, whose outcome is already a given. “This is probably not about persuading each other unless something really dramatic happens,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) conceded in his opening statement Monday. “All Republicans will vote yes, and all Democrats will vote no.” And Barrett will be confirmed to her lifetime appointment.
With no way to block the confirmation, Democrats instead have used the time to focus not so much on the nominee in front of them but on issues relevant to the process. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) took his full 30 minutes to provide a Schoolhouse Rock!–style tutorial on the dark money forces at work behind Barrett’s nomination—a process he called “The Scheme.” Citing the Washington Post, Whitehouse described a $250 million dark money operation designed to capture the courts and push cases to friendly judges in the hopes of favorable rulings. “Two hundred and fifty million dollars is a lot of money to spend if you’re not getting anything for it,” he said. “So that raises the question: What are they getting for it?”
To answer that question, Whitehouse provided charts and bullet points that would make Glenn Beck proud. One of his posters laid out the Republican Party’s own words explaining precisely what they want from judicial nominees: “A Republican president will appoint judges … who will reverse the long line of activist decisions—including Roe, Obergefell, & the Obamacare cases,” referring to the landmark abortion, same-sex marriage and health care cases. “That is their stated objective and plan,” Whitehouse said. “Why not take them at their word?”
The Republicans, Whitehouse noted, seem to be getting their money’s worth. Their judicial nominees have voted in at least 80 cases where “there is an identifiable Republican donor interest” and ruled in their favor, to the detriment of workers’ rights, women’s rights, voting rights, and the environment. Whitehouse, who is a former US Attorney, sounded like someone delivering a closing argument in the courtroom. He blamed the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United, which allowed unlimited money to flow into political campaigns, for the current situation.
Whitehouse drew arrows with sharpies and explained in remarkably clear terms how anonymous money has fueled conservative legal advocacy groups like the Federalist Society and the Judicial Crisis Network that have spent millions cultivating and promoting conservative, ideological candidates like Barrett for the federal bench. He even held up a copy of one of the ads that anonymous money had paid for in support of Barrett’s nomination that explicitly suggested she’d overturn the 1973 abortion rights decision Roe v. Wade.
At the heart of Whitehouse’s chart was Donors Trust, a shadowy foundation the senator described as an “identity scrubbing” operation that allows rich donors to hide their contributions to influence judicial nominations and weaken federal regulations. Donors Trust has funnelled millions of dollars over the years into groups working for a conservative takeover of the federal courts, without ever disclosing where the money came from.
In 2013, Mother Jones called Donors Trust the “dark money ATM of the conservative movement:
Founded in 1999, Donors Trust (and an affiliated group, Donors Capital Fund) has raised north of $500 million and doled out $400 million to more than 1,000 conservative and libertarian groups, according to Whitney Ball, the group’s CEO. Donors Trust allows wealthy contributors who want to donate millions to the most important causes on the right to do so anonymously, essentially scrubbing the identity of those underwriting conservative and libertarian organizations. Wisconsin’s 2011 assault on collective bargaining rights? Donors Trust helped fund that. ALEC, the conservative bill mill? Donors Trust supports it. The climate deniers at the Heartland Institute? They get Donors Trust money, too. Donors Trust is not the source of the money it hands out. Some 200 right-of-center funders who’ve given at least $10,000 fill the group’s coffers. Charities bankrolled by Charles and David Koch, the DeVoses, and the Bradleys, among other conservative benefactors, have given to Donors Trust. And other recipients of Donors Trust money include the Heritage Foundation, Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform, the NRA’s Freedom Action Foundation, the Cato Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the Federalist Society, and the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, chaired (PDF) by none other than David Koch.
Whitehouse asked no questions of Barrett, who appeared somewhat bewildered by the mind-boggling and complicated network of interests and money described in Whitehouse’s charts. As with many Supreme Court nominees before her, she has declined to express an opinion about Citizens United, political dark money, or really, much of anything, during the first two days of the hearings.
Watch the tutorial here:


motherjones--2020-10-13--Think Cross Burnings Targeting Black Families Are Hate Crimes? This GOP Senate Hopeful Disagreed.

Before launching his 2020 campaign to become a Minnesota senator , Jason Lewis spent more than two decades as a conservative broadcaster .
While in 2016 he parlayed his media perch into a single term as GOP congressman for the state ’ s second district , covering suburban tracts south of Minneapolis , his true career has been as a “ conservative bomb-thrower ” rousing and exciting a radio audience .
His less-noticed television work centers on his time as the right leaning co-host on a Crossfire-style talk show that aired in the mid- ‘ 90s and early ‘ 00s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ episode from 1999 , Lewis casts doubt on the need for hate crime statutes in dismissive tones , at one point describing the hypothetical burning of a cross in a Black couple ’ s lawn as “ trespassing.
” During the April 1999 episode of the Sunday morning show , Face to Face , Lewis—who is challenging incumbent Democrat Sen. Tina Smith this November—railed against legislation introduced in the state senate that would expand Minnesota ’ s existing hate crime statue .
At the time of taping , only a few offenses , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the state as hate crimes .
The bill would have widened the pool to include more than a dozen other crimes , including trespassing or interference with religious observance .
Richard Cohen , a Democratic state senator who introduced the measure , appeared on the show to promote it .
Lewis ’ s opposition was forceful .
“ You ’ re balkanizing America here , Dick , ” he said .
Victims of crimes not motivated by hate , Lewis reasoned , would be relegated to second class citizens with less protections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ un-American.
” In his recent campaign , Lewis has positioned himself as a staunch Trump ally and Minnesota GOP notable .
In April , he pushed for Minnesota ’ s reopening , declaring on Twitter that the state was “ being held hostage.
” But two decades ago , Lewis ’ meaningful connection to the public came through his weekly Face to Face appearances and as a regular host on local radio .
To kick off the 1999 episode on hate crimes , he asked them through the camera , “ Do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
If you do , you ’ re one up on me , because I don ’ t. ” It ’ s likely most viewers were abundantly clear on the definition .
Months earlier , on October 7 , 1998 , the unconscious body of a University of Wyoming student named Matthew Shepard had been found tied to a fence post on the prairie , nearly mistaken for a scarecrow by the mountain biker who came upon him .
Shepard , who was gay , had been tortured and left for dead after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He lived another week before dying in the hospital .
The brutal incident forced a national reassessment of public attitudes toward the gay community , and prompted wide consideration of expanded hate crimes legislation .
The next year , Minnesota state senator Richard Cohen introduced his law .
As he introduced Cohen onto the show , Lewis referenced Shepard death , before slipping in a dismissive joke .
“ Ever since the tragic death of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming , the gay student who was killed brutally , talk of hate crime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have extra penalties for those crimes that are motivated by hate ?
As opposed to love perhaps ?
” After Cohen explained the details of his bill to the audience , he listed the categories of identity used for defining hate crime victims : race , color , religion , sex , sexual orientation , disability , national origin .
Lewis became more bellicose .
“ So gender ’ s in there , right ?
” he asked , attempting to set up a gotcha moment .
“ So rape could become a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how to respond , Cohen said , “ Well , I guess I would disagree…rape is not one of the crimes we specify.
” At one point businessman Vance Opperman , the liberal co-host , asked Lewis if burning a cross in a Black family ’ s lawn shouldn ’ t be considered a hate crime , as Cohen ’ s bill would clarify .
Lewis responded , “ That ’ s trespassing !
” Even on Face to Face , Lewis was known to push the envelope in other instances .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1999 episode , Lewis deplored a recent court ruling that allowed the families of students suffering from sexual assault to sue schools for improperly protecting them .
“ This is such a boon to lawyers everywhere , they can sue school districts for not preventing Billy from teasing Susie , ” Lewis said on the episode .
In spring of 2012 , while hosting a program on Genesis Communications Radio Network—also home to rightwing firebrand Alex Jones—Lewis ’ s interview style prompted his guest , former Senator Arlen Specter ( R-Pa. ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by saying “ You are absolutely insulting…This is no way for anybody to run an interview.
” Lewis also dabbled in social media start ups , founding a members-only platform called Galt.io in 2013 that would later be be embroiled in controversy for hosting a pro-Hitler documentary on its message boards , according Buzzfeed News .
In an email response to questions about Lewis ’ current stance on hate crimes , campaign spokeswoman Courtney Snell told Mother Jones , “ [ N ] eedless to say Congressman Lewis condemns hate and hate crimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police because of their profession and supports making that a hate crime as well.
” In the end , Cohen ’ s bill wouldn ’ t survive the legislative session , and never reached a final floor vote .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Before launching his 2020 campaign to become a Minnesota senator, Jason Lewis spent more than two decades as a conservative broadcaster. While in 2016 he parlayed his media perch into a single term as GOP congressman for the state’s second district, covering suburban tracts south of Minneapolis, his true career has been as a “conservative bomb-thrower” rousing and exciting a radio audience. His less-noticed television work centers on his time as the right leaning co-host on a Crossfire-style talk show that aired in the mid-‘90s and early ‘00s. In recently surfaced footage of an episode from 1999, Lewis casts doubt on the need for hate crime statutes in dismissive tones, at one point describing the hypothetical burning of a cross in a Black couple’s lawn as “trespassing.”
“Do you know what a hate crime is? If you do, you’re one up on me, because I don’t.”
During the April 1999 episode of the Sunday morning show, Face to Face, Lewis—who is challenging incumbent Democrat Sen. Tina Smith this November—railed against legislation introduced in the state senate that would expand Minnesota’s existing hate crime statue. At the time of taping, only a few offenses, like assault, were eligible for prosecution in the state as hate crimes. The bill would have widened the pool to include more than a dozen other crimes, including trespassing or interference with religious observance. Richard Cohen, a Democratic state senator who introduced the measure, appeared on the show to promote it.
Lewis’s opposition was forceful. “You’re balkanizing America here, Dick,” he said. Victims of crimes not motivated by hate, Lewis reasoned, would be relegated to second class citizens with less protections than hate crime victims, calling it “un-American.”
In his recent campaign, Lewis has positioned himself as a staunch Trump ally and Minnesota GOP notable. In April, he pushed for Minnesota’s reopening, declaring on Twitter that the state was “being held hostage.” But two decades ago, Lewis’ meaningful connection to the public came through his weekly Face to Face appearances and as a regular host on local radio. To kick off the 1999 episode on hate crimes, he asked them through the camera, “Do you know what a hate crime is? If you do, you’re one up on me, because I don’t.”
It’s likely most viewers were abundantly clear on the definition. Months earlier, on October 7, 1998, the unconscious body of a University of Wyoming student named Matthew Shepard had been found tied to a fence post on the prairie, nearly mistaken for a scarecrow by the mountain biker who came upon him. Shepard, who was gay, had been tortured and left for dead after being last seen leaving a nearby bar. He lived another week before dying in the hospital. The brutal incident forced a national reassessment of public attitudes toward the gay community, and prompted wide consideration of expanded hate crimes legislation. The next year, Minnesota state senator Richard Cohen introduced his law. As he introduced Cohen onto the show, Lewis referenced Shepard death, before slipping in a dismissive joke. “Ever since the tragic death of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming, the gay student who was killed brutally, talk of hate crime is in the air. Should we have extra penalties for those crimes that are motivated by hate? As opposed to love perhaps?”
After Cohen explained the details of his bill to the audience, he listed the categories of identity used for defining hate crime victims: race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability, national origin. Lewis became more bellicose. “So gender’s in there, right?” he asked, attempting to set up a gotcha moment. “So rape could become a hate crime?” Seemingly uncertain on how to respond, Cohen said, “Well, I guess I would disagree…rape is not one of the crimes we specify.” At one point businessman Vance Opperman, the liberal co-host, asked Lewis if burning a cross in a Black family’s lawn shouldn’t be considered a hate crime, as Cohen’s bill would clarify. Lewis responded, “That’s trespassing!”
“You are absolutely insulting…This is no way for anybody to run an interview.”
Even on Face to Face, Lewis was known to push the envelope in other instances. As CNN reported last month, in another 1999 episode, Lewis deplored a recent court ruling that allowed the families of students suffering from sexual assault to sue schools for improperly protecting them. “This is such a boon to lawyers everywhere, they can sue school districts for not preventing Billy from teasing Susie,” Lewis said on the episode. In spring of 2012, while hosting a program on Genesis Communications Radio Network—also home to rightwing firebrand Alex Jones—Lewis’s interview style prompted his guest, former Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), to hang up, ending his interview by saying “You are absolutely insulting…This is no way for anybody to run an interview.” Lewis also dabbled in social media start ups, founding a members-only platform called Galt.io in 2013 that would later be be embroiled in controversy for hosting a pro-Hitler documentary on its message boards, according Buzzfeed News.
In an email response to questions about Lewis’ current stance on hate crimes, campaign spokeswoman Christine Snell told Mother Jones, “[N]eedless to say Congressman Lewis condemns hate and hate crimes in all their forms, including attacking police because of their profession and supports making that a hate crime as well.”
In the end, Cohen’s bill wouldn’t survive the legislative session, and never reached a final floor vote.


motherjones--2020-10-13--Lindsey Graham Opens Barrett’s Confirmation Hearing by Attacking Obamacare

As the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett entered its second day on Tuesday morning , Senate Judiciary Chair Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-S.C. ) decided to dedicate his opening statements to a takedown of the Affordable Care Act and his tough reelection fight against Jaime Harrison , his Democratic challenger .
“ Obamacare has been a disaster for the state of South Carolina , ” Graham said .
He argued that premiums have risen among those who receive their health care through the federal exchanges and blamed the closure of rural hospitals in South Carolina on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a description of his own health care plan , which would involve bloc grants to states .
“ We want South Carolina Care , not Obamacare , ” Graham snarled .
The Affordable Care Act , it turns out , has not quite been the “ disaster ” Graham suggests .
The uninsured rate has dropped in South Carolina since Obamacare ’ s rollout , according to census data .
Before coverage was available for purchase in the federal health insurance marketplace in 2013 , 15.8 percent of South Carolinians were uninsured .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 10 percent , though it has since crept back up to 12.7 percent as President Trump has whittled away at the law .
Over 190,000 people in the state buy insurance through the ACA ’ s exchange , and 93 percent of them receive federal subsidies to offset costs thanks to the law .
As of 2018 , 30 percent of the state ’ s adults have preexisting conditions that would preclude them from insurance coverage if Obamacare is wiped out by the Supreme Court , which is set to hear a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Election Day , with Barrett potentially casting the ninth vote .
The drop in the uninsured rate following the ACA ’ s implementation has repeated itself across many states—especially those that also opted to expand eligibility for Medicaid coverage , which South Carolina has not .
There are many reasons that the rural hospitals Graham spoke about are struggling , but studies have shown that they close at higher rates in states that rejected Medicaid expansion .
Harrison , who ’ s now neck-and-neck with Graham in recent polls , has centered much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ improving upon the Affordable Care Act .
“ With the ACA ’ s day in court just weeks away , it ’ s no wonder that Sen. Graham is rushing to fill this vacancy , ” Harrison said in a statement following Graham ’ s remarks .
“ He has tried and failed to repeal [ the ] Affordable Care Act the Senate , so is now trying to push repeal through the courts .
Graham couched his remarks as a response to his Democratic colleagues , who uniformly devoted their opening statements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans ’ health care .
They argued that Barrett , if confirmed , would overturn the Affordable Care Act and abortion rights , another issue expected to again find its way before the Supreme Court soon .
Graham called his colleagues ’ tactics a “ political fight , ” one that “ has nothing to do with this hearing.
” But as he did , he twice took the unusual step of mentioning his tough reelection battle from the dais .
“ That ’ s the political debate , ” he said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign in South Carolina , and my fate will be left up to the people of South Carolina.
” Though Graham had been expected to cruise to reelection , election watchers have recently called the race a “ toss-up , ” and Harrison has been breaking fundraising records .
The most appropriate venue for such remarks might have been on a debate stage with Harrison .
But Graham , who had been milling maskless around his GOP Senate colleagues who had tested positive for COVID , refused to get tested , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back-to-back individual interviews with local television journalists .
This story has been updated to include Harrison ’ s statement .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
As the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett entered its second day on Tuesday morning, Senate Judiciary Chair Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) decided to dedicate his opening statements to a takedown of the Affordable Care Act and his tough reelection fight against Jaime Harrison, his Democratic challenger.
“Obamacare has been a disaster for the state of South Carolina,” Graham said. He argued that premiums have risen among those who receive their health care through the federal exchanges and blamed the closure of rural hospitals in South Carolina on the program. He then launched into a description of his own health care plan, which would involve bloc grants to states. “We want South Carolina Care, not Obamacare,” Graham snarled.
The Affordable Care Act, it turns out, has not quite been the “disaster” Graham suggests. The uninsured rate has dropped in South Carolina since Obamacare’s rollout, according to census data. Before coverage was available for purchase in the federal health insurance marketplace in 2013, 15.8 percent of South Carolinians were uninsured. By 2016, that rate had fallen to 10 percent, though it has since crept back up to 12.7 percent as President Trump has whittled away at the law. Over 190,000 people in the state buy insurance through the ACA’s exchange, and 93 percent of them receive federal subsidies to offset costs thanks to the law. As of 2018, 30 percent of the state’s adults have preexisting conditions that would preclude them from insurance coverage if Obamacare is wiped out by the Supreme Court, which is set to hear a case on the subject one week after Election Day, with Barrett potentially casting the ninth vote.
The drop in the uninsured rate following the ACA’s implementation has repeated itself across many states—especially those that also opted to expand eligibility for Medicaid coverage, which South Carolina has not. There are many reasons that the rural hospitals Graham spoke about are struggling, but studies have shown that they close at higher rates in states that rejected Medicaid expansion.
Harrison, who’s now neck-and-neck with Graham in recent polls, has centered much of his campaign on protecting and modestly improving upon the Affordable Care Act. “With the ACA’s day in court just weeks away, it’s no wonder that Sen. Graham is rushing to fill this vacancy,” Harrison said in a statement following Graham’s remarks. “He has tried and failed to repeal [the] Affordable Care Act the Senate, so is now trying to push repeal through the courts.
Graham couched his remarks as a response to his Democratic colleagues, who uniformly devoted their opening statements to portraying Barrett as a threat to Americans’ health care. They argued that Barrett, if confirmed, would overturn the Affordable Care Act and abortion rights, another issue expected to again find its way before the Supreme Court soon. Graham called his colleagues’ tactics a “political fight,” one that “has nothing to do with this hearing.”
But as he did, he twice took the unusual step of mentioning his tough reelection battle from the dais. “That’s the political debate,” he said. “We’re involved in a campaign in South Carolina, and my fate will be left up to the people of South Carolina.” Though Graham had been expected to cruise to reelection, election watchers have recently called the race a “toss-up,” and Harrison has been breaking fundraising records.
The most appropriate venue for such remarks might have been on a debate stage with Harrison. But Graham, who had been milling maskless around his GOP Senate colleagues who had tested positive for COVID, refused to get tested, and the debate was subsequently canceled and replaced with back-to-back individual interviews with local television journalists.
This story has been updated to include Harrison’s statement.


motherjones--2020-10-13--Amy Coney Barrett Keeps Insisting She Has “No Agenda” When It Comes to Abortion Law

In a back-and-forth during Senate confirmation hearings today , Sen. Dianne Feinstein ( D-Calif. ) pressed Amy Coney Barrett , President Donald Trump ’ s nominee to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court , about her views on abortion .
Barrett insisted that she ’ s entering the confirmation process with “ no agenda ” but to serve her country and the law .
With the passing of the liberal standard-bearer Justice Ginsburg , Barrett ’ s nomination has heightened fears that the right to an abortion could be jeopardized .
There are special concern concerning the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1973 , which first established the legal right to abortion , and Planned Parenthood v. Casey from 1992 , which went one step further to say no law can place “ undue burden ” on that right .
The precise meaning of “ undue burden ” continues to be argued about in the courts .
“ I think in an area where precedent has been pressed and litigated , as is true of Casey , it would actually be wrong and a violation of the cannons for me to [ grade precedent ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ So if I express a view on a precedent one way or another , whether I say I love it or I hate it , it signals to litigants that I might tilt one way or another in a pending case.
” And yet , in many ways , her views on abortion law are already known .
Back in 2006 , Barrett and her husband , both ardent Catholics , signed a two-page newspaper ad that ran in The South Bend Tribune , which described the Roe v. Wade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judicial power ” and called for “ an end to the barbaric legacy ” established therein .
As recently as last Friday , a second “ right to life ” ad , which is not dated but refers to the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade , urging people “ to renew our call for the unborn to be protected in law ” appeared in a supplemental filing disclosed by the Senate Judiciary Committee .
The ad was signed by University of Notre Dame faculty and staff , including Barrett .
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ name was included as a member of the university ’ s “ Faculty for Life ” group , which sponsored the advertisement .
But that isn ’ t all .
In 2013 , she gave two talks—a lecture and a seminar—at Notre Dame hosted by anti-abortion student groups , according to CNN .
Her lecture , entitled , “ The Supreme Court ’ s Abortion Jurisprudence , ” was advertised in a faculty newsletter as examining , “ Roe v. Wade and the cases that followed it , concluding with a look at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the lower courts.
” The precise content of the talks are not known .
Still , given all her previous work , the presence of “ an agenda ” may be difficult to ignore .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
In a back-and-forth during Senate confirmation hearings today, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) pressed Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s nominee to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, about her views on abortion. Barrett insisted that she’s entering the confirmation process with “no agenda” but to serve her country and the law.
With the passing of the liberal standard-bearer Justice Ginsburg, Barrett’s nomination has heightened fears that the right to an abortion could be jeopardized. There are special concern concerning the landmark decisions of Roe v. Wade in 1973, which first established the legal right to abortion, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey from 1992, which went one step further to say no law can place “undue burden” on that right. The precise meaning of “undue burden” continues to be argued about in the courts.
“I think in an area where precedent has been pressed and litigated, as is true of Casey, it would actually be wrong and a violation of the cannons for me to [grade precedent] as a sitting judge,” she said. “So if I express a view on a precedent one way or another, whether I say I love it or I hate it, it signals to litigants that I might tilt one way or another in a pending case.”
And yet, in many ways, her views on abortion law are already known.
Back in 2006, Barrett and her husband, both ardent Catholics, signed a two-page newspaper ad that ran in The South Bend Tribune, which described the Roe v. Wade decision as “an exercise of raw judicial power” and called for “an end to the barbaric legacy” established therein. As recently as last Friday, a second “right to life” ad, which is not dated but refers to the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, urging people “to renew our call for the unborn to be protected in law” appeared in a supplemental filing disclosed by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The ad was signed by University of Notre Dame faculty and staff, including Barrett. According to the Associated Press, Barrett said her name was included as a member of the university’s “Faculty for Life” group, which sponsored the advertisement.
But that isn’t all. In 2013, she gave two talks—a lecture and a seminar—at Notre Dame hosted by anti-abortion student groups, according to CNN. Her lecture, entitled, “The Supreme Court’s Abortion Jurisprudence,” was advertised in a faculty newsletter as examining, “Roe v. Wade and the cases that followed it, concluding with a look at the cases that are currently being litigated in the lower courts.” The precise content of the talks are not known. Still, given all her previous work, the presence of “an agenda” may be difficult to ignore.


motherjones--2020-10-14--Amy Coney Barrett Has Spent Her Entire Life in a Conservative Bubble. That’s a Problem.

Amy Coney Barrett , by now , should be familiar with the ongoing crisis in American health care .
Or at least with its most aggrieved faces : In three days of hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee on her nomination to the Supreme Court , Barrett has listened as Democrats have compiled nearly magazine-length profiles of Americans who stand to lose their health insurance should Barrett vote to overturn the Affordable Care Act in a case currently pending before the court .
The stories are heartbreaking , ranging from an Illinois family with three kids born with cystic fibrosis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ congenital heart defect .
Just how did this coordinated display move the 48-year-old Barrett ?
That was how Sen. Cory Booker ( D-N.J. ) focused his line of inquiry on Tuesday .
“ As an act of empathy , can you understand the fears that are exhibited by the people we put up ?
” he asked .
“ All I ’ m asking is , can you empathize with that ?
Can you understand that ?
” Booker took some social media heat for the question .
As George Washington University law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question has some history in Supreme Court confirmation fights , at least when it comes to female nominees .
In 2009 , when President Barack Obama nominated Justice Sonia Sotomayor as the first Latina to sit on the Supreme Court , he described the things he looked for in a justice .
Unlike President Trump , who has specifically said he is choosing judges to overturn abortion decisions and invalidate the Affordable Care Act , Obama said he looked for a rigorous intellect and a nominee ’ s recognition of the limits of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things alone were insufficient , he noted .
Quoting Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes , Obama said : “ The life of the law has not been logic , it has been experience ; experience being tested by obstacles and barriers , by hardship and misfortune ; experience insisting , persisting , and ultimately overcoming those barriers .
It is experience that can give a person a common touch and a sense of compassion , an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live.
” He believed that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hardest cases was empathy , or “ what ’ s in the judge ’ s heart.
” Republicans pounced on what they called Obama ’ s “ empathy test ” for judicial nominees , suggesting that Sotomayor wouldn ’ t follow the law and would instead follow her “ wise Latina ” heart in making decisions .
Sotomayor herself rejected the empathy test during her confirmation hearing .
“ It ’ s not the heart that compels conclusions in cases , it ’ s the law , ” she testified .
Democrats even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to prove how mean she was in cases where she ’ d ruled against sympathetic litigants .
Even so , Sotomayor ’ s expansive compassion shone through as she told her personal story .
“ I saw children exploited and abused .
I felt the suffering of victims ’ families torn apart by a loved one ’ s needless death , ” she said , describing her time as an assistant district attorney in New York .
“ And I learned the tough job law enforcement has protecting the public safety.
” Empathy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justices get quizzed on .
Women are held to a different standard , required as they are to show that they ’ re both tough and smart enough to be judges , but also sufficiently empathetic and compassionate while , perhaps , lacking in obvious ambition .
It ’ s hard to say how well Barrett has navigated all of these impossibly conflicting demands so far .
But her answers to questioning from the Senate Judiciary Committee suggest she will fit right in with the conservative men currently on the Supreme Court .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett does not have a compelling personal story indicative of the sort of struggles that might help her understand how the world works or ordinary people live .
Her upbringing with a big , middle-class Catholic family ; years spent in a private , all-girls Catholic school in New Orleans ; and an adult life almost entirely located in the ivory tower haven ’ t provided a range of life experience beyond the confines of her leafy South Bend , Indiana , neighborhood .
During the hearings , she seemed at times to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human beings experiencing the consequences of her decisions .
And her delivery before the Senate Judiciary Committee has hinged on robotic ( which may be a relief after the hysterics of Justice Brett Kavanaugh two years ago ) .
Her testimony inadvertently reinforced the fact that she ’ s spent her entire adult life in a conservative bubble , not a place known for its forgiving human spirit .
That bubble hurt her during Tuesday ’ s hearing when she was trying to impress upon the Senate Judiciary Committee that she had “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , particularly on issues affecting the LGBT community , despite her many years of teaching in a legal fellowship program run by an anti-LGBT group .
“ I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference , ” Barrett told a shocked Sen. Mazie Hirono ( D-Hawaii ) , who promptly dressed her down for using the outdated term .
“ Sexual preference , ” Hirono explained , is “ used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t mean and would never mean to use a term that would cause any offense in the LGBTQ community , ” she said .
But the language was telling : What Gen-X university professor in this day and age still talks like that ?
During three days of hearings , when Barrett moved outside the narrow range of discussion of originalism , textualism , or her late mentor , Justice Antonin Scalia , she has stuck almost exclusively to the familiar and safe confines of her own family .
She has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lessons , but she has rarely displayed evidence that her viewpoint extends much beyond her immunity pod .
In response to questioning from Booker about the Obamacare patients , she said , “ I can certainly empathize with people who are struggling .
I can empathize with people who lack health care.
” As proof , she referenced a trip to bring her now 17-year-old daughter home from an orphanage in Haiti , where she was struck by the fact that the Haitians lacked basic things like antibiotics .
“ It just made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ access to health care , ” Barrett said .
“ So I can certainly empathize with all of that.
” She described at one point crying with her Haitian-American daughter after watching the video of the police killing of George Floyd .
“ As you might imagine , given that I have two Black children , that was very , very personal for my family , ” she told Sen. Dick Durbin ( D-Ill. ) “ My children to this point in their lives had the benefit of growing up in a cocoon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or violence.
” Asked what she thought the police killing said about the country , Barrett responded , “ I think it is an entirely uncontroversial and obvious statement , given as we talked about the George Floyd video , that racism persists in our country.
” But she refused to elaborate .
“ Giving broader statements or making broader diagnoses about the problem of racism is kind of beyond what I ’ m capable of doing as a judge , ” she demurred .
During the hearings , Barrett rarely indicated that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by her originalist brain to a broader expanse of the United States in all its diversity .
On Wednesday , Hirono asked her about her dissent in a June case in the 7th Circuit , where she indicated that she would have upheld President Trump ’ s “ public charge ” rule .
That rule would deny permanent resident status to immigrants who access public benefits such as food stamps that they ’ re legally entitled to .
The 7th Circuit rejected Trump ’ s rule , and Barrett ’ s interpretation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether Barrett ever considered what would happen to people if the court had adopted her position , noting that the rule already had dissuaded even US citizens from applying for public benefits they were legally entitled to out of fear of deportation .
“ Everyone seem to agree this rule is having a chilling effect nationwide among families with access to health care , nutrition , food , housing , benefits Congress meant to make available , ” Hirono said .
Barrett claimed to have done “ laborious studies ” in the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aren ’ t the only senators who have given Barrett a chance to show a spark of compassion for the people whose lives she could be impacting through her decisions .
A friendly , Sen. Ben Sasse ( R-Neb . )
, asked , “ If you are confirmed , 30 or 40 years from now , and hang up your robes and sit on the front porch in South Bend or wherever , probably with a gaggle of grandkids around you , how will you judge whether or not you had a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
” In her answer , Barrett never mentioned the people whose lives would have been changed by her elevation to the high court .
For her , the people who mattered were the ones from whom she had less than six degrees of separation .
“ I would judge whether I had a successful career by whether I had always acted with integrity , whether I had always followed the rule of law and resisted the temptation to twist the law in the direction that I wanted to go , ” she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my colleagues kindly and with congeniality , and whether I had helped and mentored and had good relationships with my clerks , or any assistants and staff that I had , because both the law and people are important .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Amy Coney Barrett, by now, should be familiar with the ongoing crisis in American health care. Or at least with its most aggrieved faces: In three days of hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee on her nomination to the Supreme Court, Barrett has listened as Democrats have compiled nearly magazine-length profiles of Americans who stand to lose their health insurance should Barrett vote to overturn the Affordable Care Act in a case currently pending before the court.
The stories are heartbreaking, ranging from an Illinois family with three kids born with cystic fibrosis to an 11-year-old California girl with a congenital heart defect.
Just how did this coordinated display move the 48-year-old Barrett? That was how Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) focused his line of inquiry on Tuesday. “As an act of empathy, can you understand the fears that are exhibited by the people we put up?” he asked. “All I’m asking is, can you empathize with that? Can you understand that?”
Booker took some social media heat for the question. As George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley tweeted:
Sen. Booker is pushing Barrett on whether she can empathize. He is asking for her to express empathy. As Sen. Hirono would say, "what the heck?" — Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) October 13, 2020
The empathy question has some history in Supreme Court confirmation fights, at least when it comes to female nominees. In 2009, when President Barack Obama nominated Justice Sonia Sotomayor as the first Latina to sit on the Supreme Court, he described the things he looked for in a justice. Unlike President Trump, who has specifically said he is choosing judges to overturn abortion decisions and invalidate the Affordable Care Act, Obama said he looked for a rigorous intellect and a nominee’s recognition of the limits of the judicial role. But those two things alone were insufficient, he noted.
Quoting Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Obama said: “The life of the law has not been logic, it has been experience; experience being tested by obstacles and barriers, by hardship and misfortune; experience insisting, persisting, and ultimately overcoming those barriers. It is experience that can give a person a common touch and a sense of compassion, an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live.” He believed that the “critical ingredient” in deciding the hardest cases was empathy, or “what’s in the judge’s heart.”
Barrett does not have a compelling personal story indicative of the sort of experience that would help her understand how the world works or ordinary people live.
Republicans pounced on what they called Obama’s “empathy test” for judicial nominees, suggesting that Sotomayor wouldn’t follow the law and would instead follow her “wise Latina” heart in making decisions. Sotomayor herself rejected the empathy test during her confirmation hearing. “It’s not the heart that compels conclusions in cases, it’s the law,” she testified. Democrats even spent some time during the hearing trying to prove how mean she was in cases where she’d ruled against sympathetic litigants.
Even so, Sotomayor’s expansive compassion shone through as she told her personal story. “I saw children exploited and abused. I felt the suffering of victims’ families torn apart by a loved one’s needless death,” she said, describing her time as an assistant district attorney in New York. “And I learned the tough job law enforcement has protecting the public safety.”
Empathy is not something a lot of male justices get quizzed on. Women are held to a different standard, required as they are to show that they’re both tough and smart enough to be judges, but also sufficiently empathetic and compassionate while, perhaps, lacking in obvious ambition. It’s hard to say how well Barrett has navigated all of these impossibly conflicting demands so far. But her answers to questioning from the Senate Judiciary Committee suggest she will fit right in with the conservative men currently on the Supreme Court.
Aside from her oft-cited seven children, Barrett does not have a compelling personal story indicative of the sort of struggles that might help her understand how the world works or ordinary people live. Her upbringing with a big, middle-class Catholic family; years spent in a private, all-girls Catholic school in New Orleans; and an adult life almost entirely located in the ivory tower haven’t provided a range of life experience beyond the confines of her leafy South Bend, Indiana, neighborhood. During the hearings, she seemed at times to strain to acknowledge that there are real human beings experiencing the consequences of her decisions. And her delivery before the Senate Judiciary Committee has hinged on robotic (which may be a relief after the hysterics of Justice Brett Kavanaugh two years ago).
Her testimony inadvertently reinforced the fact that she’s spent her entire adult life in a conservative bubble, not a place known for its forgiving human spirit. That bubble hurt her during Tuesday’s hearing when she was trying to impress upon the Senate Judiciary Committee that she had “no agenda” coming to the court, particularly on issues affecting the LGBT community, despite her many years of teaching in a legal fellowship program run by an anti-LGBT group.
“I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.”
“I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference,” Barrett told a shocked Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), who promptly dressed her down for using the outdated term. “Sexual preference,” Hirono explained, is “used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice.” Barrett apologized. “I certainly didn’t mean and would never mean to use a term that would cause any offense in the LGBTQ community,” she said. But the language was telling: What Gen-X university professor in this day and age still talks like that?
During three days of hearings, when Barrett moved outside the narrow range of discussion of originalism, textualism, or her late mentor, Justice Antonin Scalia, she has stuck almost exclusively to the familiar and safe confines of her own family. She has talked about her children’s piano lessons, but she has rarely displayed evidence that her viewpoint extends much beyond her immunity pod.
In response to questioning from Booker about the Obamacare patients, she said, “I can certainly empathize with people who are struggling. I can empathize with people who lack health care.” As proof, she referenced a trip to bring her now 17-year-old daughter home from an orphanage in Haiti, where she was struck by the fact that the Haitians lacked basic things like antibiotics. “It just made me appreciate the fact that we had access to health care,” Barrett said. “So I can certainly empathize with all of that.”
She described at one point crying with her Haitian-American daughter after watching the video of the police killing of George Floyd. “As you might imagine, given that I have two Black children, that was very, very personal for my family,” she told Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) “My children to this point in their lives had the benefit of growing up in a cocoon where they have not yet experienced hatred or violence.”
Asked what she thought the police killing said about the country, Barrett responded, “I think it is an entirely uncontroversial and obvious statement, given as we talked about the George Floyd video, that racism persists in our country.” But she refused to elaborate. “Giving broader statements or making broader diagnoses about the problem of racism is kind of beyond what I’m capable of doing as a judge,” she demurred.
During the hearings, Barrett rarely indicated that her gaze extends past the text analyzed by her originalist brain to a broader expanse of the United States in all its diversity. On Wednesday, Hirono asked her about her dissent in a June case in the 7th Circuit, where she indicated that she would have upheld President Trump’s “public charge” rule. That rule would deny permanent resident status to immigrants who access public benefits such as food stamps that they’re legally entitled to.
The 7th Circuit rejected Trump’s rule, and Barrett’s interpretation of it, but Hirono wanted to know whether Barrett ever considered what would happen to people if the court had adopted her position, noting that the rule already had dissuaded even US citizens from applying for public benefits they were legally entitled to out of fear of deportation. “Everyone seem to agree this rule is having a chilling effect nationwide among families with access to health care, nutrition, food, housing, benefits Congress meant to make available,” Hirono said. Barrett claimed to have done “laborious studies” in the case and stood by her dissent.
Democrats aren’t the only senators who have given Barrett a chance to show a spark of compassion for the people whose lives she could be impacting through her decisions. A friendly, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), asked, “If you are confirmed, 30 or 40 years from now, and hang up your robes and sit on the front porch in South Bend or wherever, probably with a gaggle of grandkids around you, how will you judge whether or not you had a successful career as a judge and justice?”
In her answer, Barrett never mentioned the people whose lives would have been changed by her elevation to the high court. For her, the people who mattered were the ones from whom she had less than six degrees of separation. “I would judge whether I had a successful career by whether I had always acted with integrity, whether I had always followed the rule of law and resisted the temptation to twist the law in the direction that I wanted to go,” she said. “Whether I had treated my colleagues kindly and with congeniality, and whether I had helped and mentored and had good relationships with my clerks, or any assistants and staff that I had, because both the law and people are important.”


motherjones--2020-10-14--Rudy Giuliani Interrupted His Effort to Smear Joe Biden With An Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theory About

Rudy Giuliani Interrupted His Effort to Smear Joe Biden With An Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theory About George Soros

Rudy Giuliani said Wednesday that George Soros , the billionaire financier and philanthropist , who is Jewish , is the cause of a federal investigation into Giuliani ’ s activity involving Ukraine , a baseless allegation that deploys an anti-Semitic troupe of a wealthy Jew secretly controlling world events .
The former New York mayor appeared Wednesday morning on a radio show and podcast hosted by Steve Bannon , who is himself facing federal fraud charges , to promote a dubious New York Post story that Biden ’ s son Hunter had tried to arrange a meeting between his father @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company paying Hunter .
But Giuliani first complained about the damage his reputation has suffered due to his attempt to solicit dirt on the Bidens from Ukraine , an effort that also contributed to the impeachment of his client , Donald Trump , last year .
“ They tried to destroy me , ” the Giuliani said , without specifying who he meant .
“ They tried to take away my livelihood .
They harassed me .
They said terrible lies about me.
” Giuliani then noted that prosecutors in the Southern District @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he led in the 1980s , last year launched “ some kind of investigation into me that I can ’ t even figure out , as if I am some kind of criminal.
” “ I think that is the work of George Soros , ” Giuliani said .
“ I think a lot of this is.
” Giuliani did not respond to a text message asking him to explain his claim .
A Southern District spokesman declined to comment .
Patrick Gaspard , president of the Open Society Foundations , a nonprofit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boost democracy and civil society around the world , denounced Giuliani ’ s comment in a statement to Mother Jones on Wednesday .
“ If I were under investigation by the office I once led , I would be desperate to distract attention from the many potential criminal abuses the SNDY is looking at , ” Gaspard said .
“ Rudy is seeing ghosts here at Halloween .
George Soros has nothing to do with Rudy ’ s legal woes and it ’ s time for responsible figures in the conservative movement to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wherever they may appear.
” Soros is a financial backer of Democrats in the United States .
But his international giving is more broadly aimed at promoting democratic institutions and human rights .
Through the Open Society Foundations , Soros , who grew up in Hungary , has supported anti-corruption efforts in Central and Eastern Europe .
That includes providing 17 percent of annual funding for AntAC , a Ukrainian anti-corruption organization .
By exaggerating that fact , and by citing largely debunked reporting by former Hill columnist John Solomon , Giuliani and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Soros worked to oppose Trump ’ s interest in Ukraine , as my colleague Dan Spinelli explained last year .
The same supposed evidence formed the basis for an especially unhinged rant on Fox News last year in which Joe diGenova , a lawyer who supported Giuliani ’ s efforts in Ukraine , claimed that Soros controls a “ very large ” part of the State Department .
This claim resulted in Fox News banning diGenova and his wife , Victoria Toensing , an action diGenova later said shows the station is “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In alleging that Soros is now calling shots in the Justice Department as well , Giuliani expanded the conspiracy theory .
You can find Giuliani ’ s claim about Soros at around the 9:45 mark here :

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Rudy Giuliani said Wednesday that George Soros, the billionaire financier and philanthropist, who is Jewish, is the cause of a federal investigation into Giuliani’s activity involving Ukraine, a baseless allegation that deploys an anti-Semitic troupe of a wealthy Jew secretly controlling world events.
The former New York mayor appeared Wednesday morning on a radio show and podcast hosted by Steve Bannon, who is himself facing federal fraud charges, to promote a dubious New York Post story that Biden’s son Hunter had tried to arrange a meeting between his father and a board member of a Ukrainian company paying Hunter. But Giuliani first complained about the damage his reputation has suffered due to his attempt to solicit dirt on the Bidens from Ukraine, an effort that also contributed to the impeachment of his client, Donald Trump, last year.
“They tried to destroy me,” the Giuliani said, without specifying who he meant. “They tried to take away my livelihood. They harassed me. They said terrible lies about me.” Giuliani then noted that prosecutors in the Southern District of New York, a DOJ office he led in the 1980s, last year launched “some kind of investigation into me that I can’t even figure out, as if I am some kind of criminal.”
“I think that is the work of George Soros,” Giuliani said. “I think a lot of this is.”
Giuliani did not respond to a text message asking him to explain his claim. A Southern District spokesman declined to comment.
Patrick Gaspard, president of the Open Society Foundations, a nonprofit funded by Soros that dispenses grants to boost democracy and civil society around the world, denounced Giuliani’s comment in a statement to Mother Jones on Wednesday.
“If I were under investigation by the office I once led, I would be desperate to distract attention from the many potential criminal abuses the SNDY is looking at,” Gaspard said. “Rudy is seeing ghosts here at Halloween. George Soros has nothing to do with Rudy’s legal woes and it’s time for responsible figures in the conservative movement to denounce these baseless and anti-Semitic theories, wherever they may appear.”
Soros is a financial backer of Democrats in the United States. But his international giving is more broadly aimed at promoting democratic institutions and human rights. Through the Open Society Foundations, Soros, who grew up in Hungary, has supported anti-corruption efforts in Central and Eastern Europe. That includes providing 17 percent of annual funding for AntAC, a Ukrainian anti-corruption organization. By exaggerating that fact, and by citing largely debunked reporting by former Hill columnist John Solomon, Giuliani and his allies have concocted the claim that Soros worked to oppose Trump’s interest in Ukraine, as my colleague Dan Spinelli explained last year.
The same supposed evidence formed the basis for an especially unhinged rant on Fox News last year in which Joe diGenova, a lawyer who supported Giuliani’s efforts in Ukraine, claimed that Soros controls a “very large” part of the State Department. This claim resulted in Fox News banning diGenova and his wife, Victoria Toensing, an action diGenova later said shows the station is “compromised when it comes to Soros.”
Invoking #Soros as controlling the State Dept, FBI, and Ukraine is trafficking in some of the worst anti-Semitic tropes. @FoxNews won’t have Chris Farrell on for making similar remarks, and they should hold the same standard for @JoeDiGenova. https://t.co/IbCQCdXZfL — Jonathan Greenblatt (@JGreenblattADL) November 14, 2019
In alleging that Soros is now calling shots in the Justice Department as well, Giuliani expanded the conspiracy theory.
You can find Giuliani’s claim about Soros at around the 9:45 mark here:


motherjones--2020-10-14--Facebook Had the Chance to Stop Biden Ukraine Misinformation Before But Opted Not To

On Wednesday , Facebook spokesperson Andy Stone tweeted that the company would be “ reducing [ the ] distribution ” of a set of New York Post stories purporting to unearth new details about Hunter Biden ’ s work for a Ukrainian company .
The stories focused on Hunter Biden ’ s membership on the board of Burisma , a natural gas company , and suggest that his father , Joe Biden , worked in his time as vice president to get Viktor Shokin , a prosecutor who had targeted the firm , fired because of his son ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misleading framings , contorted contexts , and odd details that have caused most reporters to treat the New York Post stories with suspicion .
The reporting is based on unconfirmed details originating from files purportedly found on a laptop taken into a Delaware computer repair shop but never picked up .
Thomas Rid , a political science professor who specializes in information technology amid conflicts , has suggested the laptop and its contents could be part of an intentional disinformation campaign .
While it is possible that the laptop or the emails on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not reported on where the laptop came from , nor has it verified other details contained in the emails it says were found on the computer ’ s hard drive .
The stories are framed in misleading ways .
One has a headline claiming Joe Biden met with a Burisma executive , while the story merely quotes an email discussing an “ opportunity ” to meet .
( Biden ’ s camp says no meeting took place . )
The story misrepresents the relevant timeline of events and elides key details .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fired , he did so in conjunction with independent international pressure—Shokin was seen as soft on corruption by the broader diplomatic community .
And by the time that coalition won Shokin ’ s ouster , his investigation of Burisma had been dormant for years .
The notion that Biden sought the prosecutor ’ s firing to protect the company is contradicted by all available evidence but remains central to the narrative that prominent conservatives , including President Trump , have spun over the last several years about the Bidens ’ supposed corruption in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media did more to sustain that story than John Solomon , who pushed it in a series of pieces written for The Hill ; after an internal review , the publication concluded they “ failed to identify important details.
” While Facebook didn ’ t specify exactly why it chose to take the unusual step of reducing the spread of the Post stories pending further verification by one of its fact-checking partners , its likely it was because of the stories ’ shortcomings .
What ’ s odd about Facebook ’ s quick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do this before .
After Solomon published his stories last year , Trump started buying ads in October of 2019 related to supposed Biden corruption in Ukraine , including flat out falsehoods about how “ Joe Biden PROMISED Ukraine $ 1 BILLION DOLLARS if they fired the prosecutor investigating his son ’ s company.
” At the time a Facebook spokesperson said the ads did not violate their company ’ s advertising policy because politicians were exempt from its disinformation policy .
It ’ s not clear what prompted Facebook ’ s quick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significantly up in the polls and only three weeks until the end of voting , it ’ s possible that Facebook is preparing for a Biden win after years of working to enable Trump ’ s misinformation efforts .
There ’ s also reason to doubt the effectiveness of Facebook ’ s actions on Wednesday .
Despite their promise to reduce distribution of the stories , metrics from Crowdtangle , a social media analytics site owned by Facebook , show that the stories has been shared more than 100,000 times on the platform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with over 47 million collective followers .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
On Wednesday, Facebook spokesperson Andy Stone tweeted that the company would be “reducing [the] distribution” of a set of New York Post stories purporting to unearth new details about Hunter Biden’s work for a Ukrainian company.
There’s reason to doubt the effectiveness of Facebook’s actions.
The stories focused on Hunter Biden’s membership on the board of Burisma, a natural gas company, and suggest that his father, Joe Biden, worked in his time as vice president to get Viktor Shokin, a prosecutor who had targeted the firm, fired because of his son’s role.
There are a number of misleading framings, contorted contexts, and odd details that have caused most reporters to treat the New York Post stories with suspicion.
The reporting is based on unconfirmed details originating from files purportedly found on a laptop taken into a Delaware computer repair shop but never picked up. Thomas Rid, a political science professor who specializes in information technology amid conflicts, has suggested the laptop and its contents could be part of an intentional disinformation campaign. While it is possible that the laptop or the emails on it are real, the Post has not reported on where the laptop came from, nor has it verified other details contained in the emails it says were found on the computer’s hard drive.
The stories are framed in misleading ways. One has a headline claiming Joe Biden met with a Burisma executive, while the story merely quotes an email discussing an “opportunity” to meet. (Biden’s camp says no meeting took place.) The story misrepresents the relevant timeline of events and elides key details.
Hunter Biden introduced his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than a year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company, according to emails obtained by The Post.
While Biden did push for Shokin to be fired, he did so in conjunction with independent international pressure—Shokin was seen as soft on corruption by the broader diplomatic community. And by the time that coalition won Shokin’s ouster, his investigation of Burisma had been dormant for years.
The notion that Biden sought the prosecutor’s firing to protect the company is contradicted by all available evidence but remains central to the narrative that prominent conservatives, including President Trump, have spun over the last several years about the Bidens’ supposed corruption in Ukraine. Perhaps no one working in media did more to sustain that story than John Solomon, who pushed it in a series of pieces written for The Hill; after an internal review, the publication concluded they “failed to identify important details.”
While Facebook didn’t specify exactly why it chose to take the unusual step of reducing the spread of the Post stories pending further verification by one of its fact-checking partners, its likely it was because of the stories’ shortcomings.
What’s odd about Facebook’s quick decision is that had a chance to do this before. After Solomon published his stories last year, Trump started buying ads in October of 2019 related to supposed Biden corruption in Ukraine, including flat out falsehoods about how “Joe Biden PROMISED Ukraine $1 BILLION DOLLARS if they fired the prosecutor investigating his son’s company.”
At the time a Facebook spokesperson said the ads did not violate their company’s advertising policy because politicians were exempt from its disinformation policy. It’s not clear what prompted Facebook’s quick action today, but, with Biden significantly up in the polls and only three weeks until the end of voting, it’s possible that Facebook is preparing for a Biden win after years of working to enable Trump’s misinformation efforts.
There’s also reason to doubt the effectiveness of Facebook’s actions on Wednesday. Despite their promise to reduce distribution of the stories, metrics from Crowdtangle, a social media analytics site owned by Facebook, show that the stories has been shared more than 100,000 times on the platform as of Wednesday afternoon, by accounts with over 47 million collective followers.