motherjones--2020-10-14--A White Working Mom With Black Children Is a Godsend for the GOP

This week , the Senate Judiciary Committee is holding confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett , President Donald Trump ’ s pick to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who died last month .
Judge Barrett is being presented to the American public for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court as the pinnacle of white womanhood .
A woman with seven kids , two of whom are Black , and still manages to hold down a job is being exalted for her superhuman accomplishments .
For Trump and the Republican Party , who are never too far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or sexism , a white working mother with Black children is a godsend , a status that protects her from criticism like a force field .
But despite the endless stream of praise and adulation from conservatives , being a privileged white woman with Black kids hasn ’ t made Barrett immune to racism—it ’ s made her completely blind to it .
Part of the problem is the limited understanding of what racism , sexism , and feminism really means .
After being co-opted by corporations looking to cash-in on all those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stripped down to simply mean “ if a woman does it , it is good.
” And too many people still believe that as long as they ’ re not an active member of the Ku Klux Klan , they couldn ’ t possibly be racist .
The low threshold means that Barrett can use her Black children to deflect any criticism about her approach to racial justice issues , and the very fact that she ’ s a working mother indicates she embodies a triumph of feminism .
Despite spending decades pushing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like undoing housing discrimination protections , and policies that relentlessly undermine women ’ s reproductive rights , the GOP ’ s presentation of this nicely-dressed version of racism and sexism allows them to sleep well at night , secure in a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court .
In turn , when any liberal or Democrat asks questions about race or gender , conservatives ’ pearls are never far from being clutched .
How dare you ?
She has Black kids !
It ’ s the new iteration of , “ I have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ logic , a man can ’ t be sexist if he has daughters .
( How many times have we heard that one ? )
It ’ s an incredibly naive understanding of racism .
To really appreciate her approach , consider Judge Barrett ’ s opinion on a racial discrimination case .
In 2019 , Terry Smith , a Black man in Illinois was fired from his job as a public transportation worker .
He later sued alleging racial discrimination , and part of his complaint accused his white supervisor , Lloyd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nigger.
” Barrett sat on a panel of three Seventh Circuit judges that ruled to uphold the firing .
“ The n-word is an egregious racial epithet , ” Barrett wrote .
“ That said , Smith can ’ t win simply by proving that the word was uttered .
He must also demonstrate that Colbert ’ s use of this word altered the conditions of his employment and created a hostile or abusive working environment.
” Here she is arguing that simply being called a “ nigger ” by one ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abusive working environment .
She then says that while Smith testified that he ’ d suffered psychological distress , it was for reasons unrelated to his race .
After all , his track record had been “ poor “ .
Putting aside all the mechanisms of the justice system that make these kinds of cases notoriously difficult to win , this ruling also shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how racism functions in the workplace—and it ’ s downright frightening for someone who is raising Black children .
Not once , apparently , did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perhaps Smith had a “ poor track record ” because his supervisor was racist .
Her troubling views on race , however , can be explained away by the presence of her Black children .
As Senators endlessly praise her , Barrett has emerged as a near-martyr , for her courage and generosity in having a brood of children , some of them rescued from a poor , godforsaken “ shithole ” like Haiti .
( Lest we forget how the president who nominated her described her children ’ s place of origin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ value on the extended family .
My parents are from Haiti , and it ’ s fairly common for Haitian children who lose their parents for whatever reason to be raised by aunts and uncles and other relatives .
For several years as a child , I lived with a cousin and would sometimes refer to her as a sister .
In fact , “ extended family ” has such an expansive definition that even people who are not blood relations are often considered as cousins .
Many transracial adoptees have spoken about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white parents who simply had no idea how to talk about race .
“ I have constantly felt uncomfortable in my own skin , ” Kendra Rosati , a woman adopted from South Korea told NPR ’ s Code Switch in 2018 .
“ And when I was young , at night , I would pray to God that I would wake up looking just like my sisters .
My parents were definitely not ready or equipped to raise a child of color .
They didn ’ t know how or want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preparation of lack thereof for talking about race with her children is clearly not the point .
What is the point , however , is that she can use her status as white mother with Black kids to her advantage , the warped and superficial definitions of what constitutes racism , sexism , and feminism shielding her from probing questions , much less criticism , about her approach to some of the biggest questions about social policy in this country .
For Senators questioning Barrett , her white motherhood appeared to be kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a possible COVID hot bed with the nominee being rushed through three weeks before the election , couldn ’ t help themselves .
Sen. Dianne Feinstein ’ s ( D-Calif. ) first question to Barrett was about her children , and she continued to comment on them throughout the hearing .
Just imagine if that adoration was extended to other mothers of Black children .
They are instead routinely shamed for having multiple children , accused of being welfare queens , and the sheer number of multiple children calls into question their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all .
Black mothers are discriminated against when giving birth , leading to dismal maternal health care and a disproportionate maternal mortality rate .
Black mothers face jail time for firing warning shots at their abusers , for leaving their children in a car because they had no childcare when they went to a job interview , and for using a different address to get their children into a decent school district .
Black mothers routinely watch their children being killed by police and then harshly judged by the court of public opinion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The list of injustices feels so endless that it can be suffocating at times .
Ask any Black person why they can ’ t breathe .
In perhaps in one of the most telling moments , Barrett revealed that she doesn ’ t even understand the weight of racism that rests on the shoulders of Black people .
When answering a question about George Floyd , Barrett said she cried with her 17-year-old Black daughter when he was killed , as they grieved for him .
But then she added an observation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Blackness has helped her truly understand racism .
“ My children to this point in their lives have had the benefit of growing up in a cocoon , ” she said , “ where they have not yet experienced hatred or violence.
” And I thought they lived in the United States .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee is holding confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s pick to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who died last month. Judge Barrett is being presented to the American public for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court as the pinnacle of white womanhood. A woman with seven kids, two of whom are Black, and still manages to hold down a job is being exalted for her superhuman accomplishments.
For Trump and the Republican Party, who are never too far away from being legitimately accused of racism or sexism, a white working mother with Black children is a godsend, a status that protects her from criticism like a force field. But despite the endless stream of praise and adulation from conservatives, being a privileged white woman with Black kids hasn’t made Barrett immune to racism—it’s made her completely blind to it.
Part of the problem is the limited understanding of what racism, sexism, and feminism really means. After being co-opted by corporations looking to cash-in on all those empowered feelings, feminism often has been stripped down to simply mean “if a woman does it, it is good.” And too many people still believe that as long as they’re not an active member of the Ku Klux Klan, they couldn’t possibly be racist.
The low threshold means that Barrett can use her Black children to deflect any criticism about her approach to racial justice issues, and the very fact that she’s a working mother indicates she embodies a triumph of feminism. Despite spending decades pushing for policies that actively harm Black people like undoing housing discrimination protections, and policies that relentlessly undermine women’s reproductive rights, the GOP’s presentation of this nicely-dressed version of racism and sexism allows them to sleep well at night, secure in a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. In turn, when any liberal or Democrat asks questions about race or gender, conservatives’ pearls are never far from being clutched. How dare you? She has Black kids! It’s the new iteration of, “I have a Black friend.” By the same logic, a man can’t be sexist if he has daughters. (How many times have we heard that one?)
If there were any doubt that Democrats were grasping at straws, Cory Booker asked a mother who adopted two Black children whether she is a white supremacist sympathizer.#ConfirmACB — Ronna McDaniel (@GOPChairwoman) October 13, 2020
It’s an incredibly naive understanding of racism. To really appreciate her approach, consider Judge Barrett’s opinion on a racial discrimination case. In 2019, Terry Smith, a Black man in Illinois was fired from his job as a public transportation worker. He later sued alleging racial discrimination, and part of his complaint accused his white supervisor, Lloyd Colbert, of calling him a “nigger.” Barrett sat on a panel of three Seventh Circuit judges that ruled to uphold the firing. “The n-word is an egregious racial epithet,” Barrett wrote. “That said, Smith can’t win simply by proving that the word was uttered. He must also demonstrate that Colbert’s use of this word altered the conditions of his employment and created a hostile or abusive working environment.” Here she is arguing that simply being called a “nigger” by one’s boss does not create a hostile or abusive working environment. She then says that while Smith testified that he’d suffered psychological distress, it was for reasons unrelated to his race. After all, his track record had been “poor“.
Putting aside all the mechanisms of the justice system that make these kinds of cases notoriously difficult to win, this ruling also shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how racism functions in the workplace—and it’s downright frightening for someone who is raising Black children. Not once, apparently, did it cross Barrett’s mind that perhaps Smith had a “poor track record” because his supervisor was racist.
Her troubling views on race, however, can be explained away by the presence of her Black children. As Senators endlessly praise her, Barrett has emerged as a near-martyr, for her courage and generosity in having a brood of children, some of them rescued from a poor, godforsaken “shithole” like Haiti. (Lest we forget how the president who nominated her described her children’s place of origin.)
Haitian culture places an enormous value on the extended family. My parents are from Haiti, and it’s fairly common for Haitian children who lose their parents for whatever reason to be raised by aunts and uncles and other relatives. For several years as a child, I lived with a cousin and would sometimes refer to her as a sister. In fact, “extended family” has such an expansive definition that even people who are not blood relations are often considered as cousins.
“My parents were definitely not ready or equipped to raise a child of color. They didn’t know how to or want to talk about race.”
Many transracial adoptees have spoken about the damage done to them by well-intentioned white parents who simply had no idea how to talk about race. “I have constantly felt uncomfortable in my own skin,” Kendra Rosati, a woman adopted from South Korea told NPR’s Code Switch in 2018. “And when I was young, at night, I would pray to God that I would wake up looking just like my sisters. My parents were definitely not ready or equipped to raise a child of color. They didn’t know how or want to talk about race.”
Barrett’s preparation of lack thereof for talking about race with her children is clearly not the point. What is the point, however, is that she can use her status as white mother with Black kids to her advantage, the warped and superficial definitions of what constitutes racism, sexism, and feminism shielding her from probing questions, much less criticism, about her approach to some of the biggest questions about social policy in this country. For Senators questioning Barrett, her white motherhood appeared to be kind of intoxicating. Even Democrats, sitting in a possible COVID hot bed with the nominee being rushed through three weeks before the election, couldn’t help themselves. Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) first question to Barrett was about her children, and she continued to comment on them throughout the hearing.
Just imagine if that adoration was extended to other mothers of Black children. They are instead routinely shamed for having multiple children, accused of being welfare queens, and the sheer number of multiple children calls into question their ability to take care of them at all. Black mothers are discriminated against when giving birth, leading to dismal maternal health care and a disproportionate maternal mortality rate. Black mothers face jail time for firing warning shots at their abusers, for leaving their children in a car because they had no childcare when they went to a job interview, and for using a different address to get their children into a decent school district. Black mothers routinely watch their children being killed by police and then harshly judged by the court of public opinion for the crime of dying while Black.
The list of injustices feels so endless that it can be suffocating at times. Ask any Black person why they can’t breathe.
In perhaps in one of the most telling moments, Barrett revealed that she doesn’t even understand the weight of racism that rests on the shoulders of Black people. When answering a question about George Floyd, Barrett said she cried with her 17-year-old Black daughter when he was killed, as they grieved for him. But then she added an observation that demonstrates just how little her proximity to Blackness has helped her truly understand racism. “My children to this point in their lives have had the benefit of growing up in a cocoon,” she said, “where they have not yet experienced hatred or violence.” And I thought they lived in the United States.


motherjones--2020-10-14--Giuliani and the New York Post Are Pushing Russian Disinformation. It’s a Big Test for the Media.

A newly discovered laptop , the FBI , a trove of emails , October , a presidential election—it sounds familiar .
Especially when you add in a Russian disinformation campaign .
On Wednesday , the New York Post released what it hailed as a bombshell : an unidentified computer repair store owner in Delaware had come to possess a laptop that contained Hunter Biden emails ( and purportedly a sex tape ) , the hard drive and computer was seized by the FBI , the store owner at some point passed a copy of the hard drive to Rudy Giuliani @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Hunter , who served on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma , may have in 2015 introduced a Burisma official to his dad , Vice President Joe Biden .
The story depicts this as a big scandal , and Guiliani tweeted , “ Much more to come.
” But the key point of the article was predicated on false information that Giuliani has been spreading for a long time—and that appears to be linked to a Russian disinformation operation that the Post neglected to note in its article .
That is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an unproven smear , is in sync with Moscow ’ s ongoing effort to influence the 2020 election to help President Donald Trump retain power .
( The FBI and other parts of the US intelligence community have stated that Vladimir Putin is once again attacking the US political system to boost Trump . )
And this story presents a challenge to the American media : how to report on an orchestrated campaign to affect the election that relies on disinformation , salacious and sensational material , and the revival of allegations that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faith animating the Post story is demonstrated by its open embrace—in the first sentence—of a demonstrably false narrative and by its failure to report Giuliani ’ s association with a Russian intelligence agent who the Department of Treasury has accused of interfering in the 2020 election .
The article begins : “ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Post.
” The claim that Biden forced the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor to protect Burisma has been the centerpiece of Giuliani ’ s long-running , Fox-hyped effort ( on behalf of his client Donald Trump ) to dig up dirt on Biden in the former Soviet republic .
Biden in 2016 did push for the firing of this prosecutor , Viktor Shokin , but there is no indication this was done to assist Burisma .
In fact , there is a boatload of evidence that Shokin was canned because of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigation of Burisma at the time of his dismissal .
( The absence of such a probe was even cited at the time as one sign of Shokin ’ s malfeasance ) And as has been widely documented , Biden ’ s demand that Shokin be dumped was part of an international effort to pressure Ukraine ’ s government to clean itself up in order to receive financial assistance .
( Several Republican senators also called for Shokin ’ s removal . )
Yet Trump and others have falsely claimed that Biden nefariously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misdeeds .
The Post repeating this baseless accusation is an act of propaganda—and the foundation for the article .
The email the tabloid touts as big news suggests that in 2015 Hunter introduced a Burisma board member to his dad .
The newspaper implies that this was somehow connected to Biden urging Shokin ’ s dismissal the following year .
If there was nothing untoward about Biden pressing the Ukrainian government to replace Shokin , there certainly isn ’ t anything necessarily scandalous about Biden having met with the board member .
Moreover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says , “ thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father ” —discloses nothing about any conversation the board member might have had with the vice president .
It ’ s not even confirmed that this meeting occurred .
( The Biden campaign issued a statement saying it had reviewed Joe Biden ’ s schedule and no such meeting “ ever took place.
” ) The Post provides no information connecting this email exchange and the Shokin case .
But Rupert Murdoch ’ s paper is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ukrainian scandal that Giuliani has been trying to gin up for over a year .
( This crusade included trying to raise $ 10 million to make a documentary that would be released before the election . )
And don ’ t forget that it was Giuliani and Trump ’ s search for Ukrainian dirt that led to Trump ’ s impeachment .
Russian intelligence , too , has been trying to disseminate disinformation related to Ukraine to tar Biden .
That was a finding of the recent Republican-endorsed Senate Intelligence Committee report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Russian operation has overlapped with Giuliani ’ s endeavor .
But the Post left this inconvenient fact out of its story .
Last month , the US Treasury Department imposed financial sanctions on a Ukrainian parliamentarian named Andriy Derkach—the son of a former KGB official—and called him “ an active Russian agent for over a decade ” and declared he was one of a group of “ Russia-linked election interference actors.
” The Treasury said he has maintained “ close connections with the Russian Intelligence Services ” and “ has directly or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or otherwise been complicit in foreign interference in an attempt to undermine the upcoming 2020 US presidential election.
” Trump ’ s own Treasury secretary , Steve Mnuchin , declared , “ Derkach and other Russian agents employ manipulation and deceit to attempt to influence elections in the United States and elsewhere around the world.
” Previously , the Office of the Director of National Intelligence told Congress that Derkach is “ spreading claims about corruption ” as part of the Kremlin ’ s effort to undermine Biden ’ s campaign .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ so .
Giuliani has a starring role in the Post ‘ s story .
The Delaware computer repair store owner gave a copy of the laptop ’ s hard drive to Giuliani ( sometime after last December ) , and this past weekend Giuliani shared a copy with the Post .
( In late September , former Trump adviser and recently indicted Steve Bannon informed the newspaper of the existence of the hard drive . )
As part of his smear-Biden campaign , Giuliani late last year traveled to Ukraine and met with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushing the fake Shokin story .
This summer , Giuliani told the Washington Post that he remained in contact with Derkach after his trip , calling the Ukrainian “ very helpful.
” He said that he and Derkach have spoken about Ukraine many times , according to the Post .
Meanwhile , starting in May , Derkach staged press conferences in Kiev and played secretly recorded tapes of Biden speaking by phone with former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko .
Derkach claimed the recordings backed up Trump ’ s and Giuliani ’ s allegations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no wrongdoing .
This appeared to be a disinformation stunt , and Ukrainians critical of Russia speculated that the tapes originated with Russian intelligence .
None of this is in the Post ’ s story .
In the penultimate paragraph , the paper quotes a lawyer for Hunter Biden accusing Giuliani of “ openly relying on actors tied to Russian intelligence.
” But Giuliani ’ s connection to Derkach is not mentioned in the article .
Nor does Derkach ’ s name appear anywhere in the piece .
The Murdoch outlet ignores the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an information warfare operation against the 2020 election to harm Biden and that this plot has included Derkach ’ s efforts to taint Biden .
Leaving out the documented link between Giuliani and a Russian agent involved in a disinformation scheme is gross journalistic malpractice .
It ’ s no surprise that the Murdochites would engage in such Trumpy reporting .
The article was co-written by Emma-Jo Morris , a former segment producer at Fox News for host Sean Hannity and a former communications staffer for the Conservative Political Action Conference .
An @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tried to exploit his father ’ s visit to Ukraine , but a memo written by Hunter that the story cites shows Hunter telling his business partner that “ what [ Biden ] will say and do is out of our hands ” and that they should “ temper expectations ” about the visit—which undercuts the claim that Biden used his office to help or protect his son .
In that memo , Hunter also states that his Ukrainian associates “ need to know in no uncertain terms that we will not and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makers ” —in other words , he won ’ t use his influence with dad .
The Post ‘ s story does not report that .
The Post , Fox , and the Trump campaign will try to turn this disinformation and whatever else might be on that laptop into an October Surprise .
The big question is how the rest of the media will contend with this , especially if Giuliani or others keep leaking other material ( which may or may not be legitimate ) from this computer .
Will reporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 and focus obsessively on these leads without examining the source or investigating the operation that put them into play ?
Will they wittingly or not assist an obvious ploy to generate headlines that suggest there is a new scandal about old ( and already disproven ) allegations ?
Will they fall for it ?
On Wednesday morning , New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman tweeted out the Post story and its headline referring to a “ smoking-gun email.
” Subsequently , she posted tweets taking a more skeptical view of the story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the White House correspondent for the Los Angeles Times , quickly pointed out , “ The story does not say that allegations of Ukrainian corruption have been pushed by Russia to undermine Joe Biden , according to U.S. intelligence officials .
Nor does it mention that Rudy Giuliani has worked with a Ukrainian lawmaker identified as a Russian agent.
” Facebook executive Andy Stone noted that the social media giant would limit the Post article ’ s distribution on its platform .
Will the rest of the media handle this story responsibly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disinformation expert at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies , tweeted out a thread urging caution .
“ This here is highly suspicious behavior , ” he observed .
“ Especially when viewed in the context of a political campaign .
Creative , anonymous , credibility-generating , somewhat plausible .
Exactly how a professional would surface disinformation and potentially forgeries.
” He noted that “ the revealed emails are shared as image files , not in a file format that would contain header information and metadata .
That makes it harder to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rid issued a warning : “ To journalists considering writing about this toxic story : don ’ t—unless you can independently verify more details .
And even if you can verify something , acknowledge the possibility of disinformation up-front , especially against the backdrop of 2016 .
Not doing so is bad practice.
” In 2016 , Russia attacked an American election and accomplished its mission of electing Trump—in part because much of the media throughout October of that year focused on the Hillary Clinton-related emails hacked-and-leaked by Putin ’ s secret operation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assault itself .
In 2020 , Moscow , according to the Trump administration ’ s top intelligence officials , is at it again .
So allegations or stories that might be linked to or created by Russia ’ s ongoing covert operation ought to be vetted carefully before being reported or amplified .
Journalists should resist becoming handmaids for Putin ’ s latest war on the United States .
Especially now that the New York Post has provided all reporters a wonderful tutorial on how to be a useful idiot for Russia .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
A newly discovered laptop, the FBI, a trove of emails, October, a presidential election—it sounds familiar. Especially when you add in a Russian disinformation campaign. On Wednesday, the New York Post released what it hailed as a bombshell: an unidentified computer repair store owner in Delaware had come to possess a laptop that contained Hunter Biden emails (and purportedly a sex tape), the hard drive and computer was seized by the FBI, the store owner at some point passed a copy of the hard drive to Rudy Giuliani, and one of the emails suggested that Hunter, who served on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma, may have in 2015 introduced a Burisma official to his dad, Vice President Joe Biden. The story depicts this as a big scandal, and Guiliani tweeted, “Much more to come.”
But the key point of the article was predicated on false information that Giuliani has been spreading for a long time—and that appears to be linked to a Russian disinformation operation that the Post neglected to note in its article. That is, the Post piece, based on an unproven smear, is in sync with Moscow’s ongoing effort to influence the 2020 election to help President Donald Trump retain power. (The FBI and other parts of the US intelligence community have stated that Vladimir Putin is once again attacking the US political system to boost Trump.) And this story presents a challenge to the American media: how to report on an orchestrated campaign to affect the election that relies on disinformation, salacious and sensational material, and the revival of allegations that have already been debunked.
The bad faith animating the Post story is demonstrated by its open embrace—in the first sentence—of a demonstrably false narrative and by its failure to report Giuliani’s association with a Russian intelligence agent who the Department of Treasury has accused of interfering in the 2020 election.
The article begins: “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.” The claim that Biden forced the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor to protect Burisma has been the centerpiece of Giuliani’s long-running, Fox-hyped effort (on behalf of his client Donald Trump) to dig up dirt on Biden in the former Soviet republic.
Biden in 2016 did push for the firing of this prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, but there is no indication this was done to assist Burisma. In fact, there is a boatload of evidence that Shokin was canned because of his own corruption. There was no active investigation of Burisma at the time of his dismissal. (The absence of such a probe was even cited at the time as one sign of Shokin’s malfeasance) And as has been widely documented, Biden’s demand that Shokin be dumped was part of an international effort to pressure Ukraine’s government to clean itself up in order to receive financial assistance. (Several Republican senators also called for Shokin’s removal.) Yet Trump and others have falsely claimed that Biden nefariously bounced Shokin to cover up supposed Burisma misdeeds.
The Post repeating this baseless accusation is an act of propaganda—and the foundation for the article. The email the tabloid touts as big news suggests that in 2015 Hunter introduced a Burisma board member to his dad. The newspaper implies that this was somehow connected to Biden urging Shokin’s dismissal the following year. If there was nothing untoward about Biden pressing the Ukrainian government to replace Shokin, there certainly isn’t anything necessarily scandalous about Biden having met with the board member. Moreover, the 2015 email to Hunter—which simply says, “thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father”—discloses nothing about any conversation the board member might have had with the vice president. It’s not even confirmed that this meeting occurred. (The Biden campaign issued a statement saying it had reviewed Joe Biden’s schedule and no such meeting “ever took place.”)
The Post provides no information connecting this email exchange and the Shokin case. But Rupert Murdoch’s paper is using this one email to revive the Ukrainian scandal that Giuliani has been trying to gin up for over a year. (This crusade included trying to raise $10 million to make a documentary that would be released before the election.) And don’t forget that it was Giuliani and Trump’s search for Ukrainian dirt that led to Trump’s impeachment.
Russian intelligence, too, has been trying to disseminate disinformation related to Ukraine to tar Biden. That was a finding of the recent Republican-endorsed Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian intervention in US elections. The Russian operation has overlapped with Giuliani’s endeavor. But the Post left this inconvenient fact out of its story.
Last month, the US Treasury Department imposed financial sanctions on a Ukrainian parliamentarian named Andriy Derkach—the son of a former KGB official—and called him “an active Russian agent for over a decade” and declared he was one of a group of “Russia-linked election interference actors.” The Treasury said he has maintained “close connections with the Russian Intelligence Services” and “has directly or indirectly engaged in, sponsored, concealed, or otherwise been complicit in foreign interference in an attempt to undermine the upcoming 2020 US presidential election.” Trump’s own Treasury secretary, Steve Mnuchin, declared, “Derkach and other Russian agents employ manipulation and deceit to attempt to influence elections in the United States and elsewhere around the world.” Previously, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence told Congress that Derkach is “spreading claims about corruption” as part of the Kremlin’s effort to undermine Biden’s campaign. And he worked with Guliani to do so.
Giuliani has a starring role in the Post‘s story. The Delaware computer repair store owner gave a copy of the laptop’s hard drive to Giuliani (sometime after last December), and this past weekend Giuliani shared a copy with the Post. (In late September, former Trump adviser and recently indicted Steve Bannon informed the newspaper of the existence of the hard drive.) As part of his smear-Biden campaign, Giuliani late last year traveled to Ukraine and met with Derkach and other Ukrainians who have been pushing the fake Shokin story.
This summer, Giuliani told the Washington Post that he remained in contact with Derkach after his trip, calling the Ukrainian “very helpful.” He said that he and Derkach have spoken about Ukraine many times, according to the Post. Meanwhile, starting in May, Derkach staged press conferences in Kiev and played secretly recorded tapes of Biden speaking by phone with former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. Derkach claimed the recordings backed up Trump’s and Giuliani’s allegations about Biden. Yet the tapes revealed no wrongdoing. This appeared to be a disinformation stunt, and Ukrainians critical of Russia speculated that the tapes originated with Russian intelligence.
None of this is in the Post’s story. In the penultimate paragraph, the paper quotes a lawyer for Hunter Biden accusing Giuliani of “openly relying on actors tied to Russian intelligence.” But Giuliani’s connection to Derkach is not mentioned in the article. Nor does Derkach’s name appear anywhere in the piece. The Murdoch outlet ignores the elemental—and crucial—information that Russia has been mounting an information warfare operation against the 2020 election to harm Biden and that this plot has included Derkach’s efforts to taint Biden. Leaving out the documented link between Giuliani and a Russian agent involved in a disinformation scheme is gross journalistic malpractice.
It’s no surprise that the Murdochites would engage in such Trumpy reporting. The article was co-written by Emma-Jo Morris, a former segment producer at Fox News for host Sean Hannity and a former communications staffer for the Conservative Political Action Conference. An accompanying Post article asserts that Hunter Biden tried to exploit his father’s visit to Ukraine, but a memo written by Hunter that the story cites shows Hunter telling his business partner that “what [Biden] will say and do is out of our hands” and that they should “temper expectations” about the visit—which undercuts the claim that Biden used his office to help or protect his son. In that memo, Hunter also states that his Ukrainian associates “need to know in no uncertain terms that we will not and cannot intervene directly with domestic policy makers”—in other words, he won’t use his influence with dad. The Post‘s story does not report that.
The Post, Fox, and the Trump campaign will try to turn this disinformation and whatever else might be on that laptop into an October Surprise. The big question is how the rest of the media will contend with this, especially if Giuliani or others keep leaking other material (which may or may not be legitimate) from this computer. Will reporters at other outlets repeat the mistakes of 2016 and focus obsessively on these leads without examining the source or investigating the operation that put them into play? Will they wittingly or not assist an obvious ploy to generate headlines that suggest there is a new scandal about old (and already disproven) allegations? Will they fall for it?
On Wednesday morning, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman tweeted out the Post story and its headline referring to a “smoking-gun email.” Subsequently, she posted tweets taking a more skeptical view of the story. To his credit, Chris Megerian, the White House correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, quickly pointed out, “The story does not say that allegations of Ukrainian corruption have been pushed by Russia to undermine Joe Biden, according to U.S. intelligence officials. Nor does it mention that Rudy Giuliani has worked with a Ukrainian lawmaker identified as a Russian agent.” Facebook executive Andy Stone noted that the social media giant would limit the Post article’s distribution on its platform.
While I will intentionally not link to the New York Post, I want be clear that this story is eligible to be fact checked by Facebook's third-party fact checking partners. In the meantime, we are reducing its distribution on our platform. — Andy Stone (@andymstone) October 14, 2020
Will the rest of the media handle this story responsibly? Thomas Rid, a cyber and disinformation expert at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, tweeted out a thread urging caution. “This here is highly suspicious behavior,” he observed. “Especially when viewed in the context of a political campaign. Creative, anonymous, credibility-generating, somewhat plausible. Exactly how a professional would surface disinformation and potentially forgeries.” He noted that “the revealed emails are shared as image files, not in a file format that would contain header information and metadata. That makes it harder to analyze and verify the files.” And Rid issued a warning: “To journalists considering writing about this toxic story: don’t—unless you can independently verify more details. And even if you can verify something, acknowledge the possibility of disinformation up-front, especially against the backdrop of 2016. Not doing so is bad practice.”
In 2016, Russia attacked an American election and accomplished its mission of electing Trump—in part because much of the media throughout October of that year focused on the Hillary Clinton-related emails hacked-and-leaked by Putin’s secret operation without paying much attention to the Kremlin assault itself. In 2020, Moscow, according to the Trump administration’s top intelligence officials, is at it again. So allegations or stories that might be linked to or created by Russia’s ongoing covert operation ought to be vetted carefully before being reported or amplified. Journalists should resist becoming handmaids for Putin’s latest war on the United States. Especially now that the New York Post has provided all reporters a wonderful tutorial on how to be a useful idiot for Russia.


motherjones--2020-10-14--Why Is Facebook Giving Pro-Vaccine Groups Such a Hard Time?

Yesterday , Facebook announced that it would no longer run anti-vaccine ads , part of a new policy to stop the spread of health misinformation amidst the pandemic and the country ’ s divisive political landscape .
The public health community hailed this as a partial success—they say the platform still hasn ’ t addressed the problem of rampant misinformation in its anti-vaccine groups .
But there ’ s another problem : Pro-vaccine groups still have to jump through extra bureaucratic hurdles to run their ads .
What ’ s more , one of the oldest and most prominent immunization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t seem to get the platform to fix a simple problem on its page that enables comments and discussion .
“ We really promote discourse on our page , and we think people should ask questions about vaccines , ” says Amy Pisani , executive director of Vaccinate Your Family .
“ Now seems like a terrible time to shut down that discourse.
” Back in May , Pisani , who has worked on public health issues affecting children since 1996 , noticed something peculiar : No one seemed to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Suddenly , the group ’ s 200,000 followers—who have engaged in interesting discussions and networking in the comments ever since the group established its Facebook presence a decade ago—were oddly silent .
Pisani was skeptical .
It didn ’ t seem likely that every single person in the group had all of a suddenly clammed up .
After a few tests , she determined that Facebook had abruptly changed the group ’ s settings so that no one could comment .
Figuring it was a simple mistake that could be easily reversed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked what had happened .
She was surprised when Facebook groups coordinators responded that they didn ’ t know , but that they would work to make sure it would be resolved swiftly .
Now , six months later , after Pisani ’ s team contacted Facebook every week to resolve the problem , the comments are still turned off .
“ They just tell me they ’ re working on it , ” she says .
When I contacted Facebook to ask about the problem , a spokesperson told me she would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to me—even after I followed up several times .
Meanwhile , anti-vaccine groups ’ comments seem to be entirely open .
I checked about a dozen of the groups that I follow , and all of them in the last few days had posted comments—many of which promoted wild conspiracy theories about vaccines , such as accusing Bill Gates of inserting microchips into shots to track Americans .
Other pro-vaccine groups don ’ t seem to be having the same problem with comments .
But the glitch still has major implications .
Founded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considered an important hub of information .
I ’ ve been reporting on vaccine hesitancy for years , and epidemiologists and infectious diseases specialists have referred me to Vaccinate Your Family dozens of times .
The comments provide an opportunity for members of the public to share information , ask questions , and organize vaccine advocacy efforts in their communities .
The comments problem isn ’ t the only hurdle Vaccinate Your Family has encountered with Facebook .
Last year , when the group launched a campaign based on scientific evidence about how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ads .
When Pisani asked why , Facebook informed her that her ads were subject to guidelines for ads that were “ about social issues , elections or politics ” rather than public health—which created an entirely different set of requirements for those who posted them .
Pisani had to submit her personal information—her drivers ’ license and her home address—in order to run the ads , which then still would be subject to extra scrutiny .
Unlike the comments problem , this policy applies to all pro-vaccine groups , not just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who advertise personal health products—say , for example , essential oils and vitamins—don ’ t have to jump through all those hoops .
“ It just doesn ’ t seem fair to penalize groups that are providing a public health service , ” Pisani says .
Indeed , with these rules , Facebook seems to be taking the position that posts from Vaccinate Your Family are opinions about a controversial topic , rather than science-based public health information .
Evidence overwhelmingly supports routine vaccination .
Without this important tool , public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the era when communicable diseases like measles and whooping cough killed people .
Pisani is still waiting for answers from Facebook on why Vaccinate Your Family ’ s comments were turned off .
In the meantime , she worries that people who find her group will not be able to ask questions or connect with others .
It ’ s a bad time to limit information about vaccines : Since the beginning of the pandemic , rates of routine childhood vaccination have declined precipitously .
Meanwhile , anti-vaccine groups on Facebook have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideas to new communities .
Amidst the unprecedented undermining of trust in public health science in the leadup to the release of vaccines for COVID-19 , reliable information about vaccines has never been more important , says Pisani .
“ We spend our lives fighting disinformation .
”

Yesterday, Facebook announced that it would no longer run anti-vaccine ads, part of a new policy to stop the spread of health misinformation amidst the pandemic and the country’s divisive political landscape. The public health community hailed this as a partial success—they say the platform still hasn’t addressed the problem of rampant misinformation in its anti-vaccine groups.
But there’s another problem: Pro-vaccine groups still have to jump through extra bureaucratic hurdles to run their ads. What’s more, one of the oldest and most prominent immunization advocacy groups, Vaccinate Your Family, can’t seem to get the platform to fix a simple problem on its page that enables comments and discussion.
Six months later, Vaccinate Your Family’s Facebook comments are still turned off. “They just tell me they’re working on it,” says the executive director.
“We really promote discourse on our page, and we think people should ask questions about vaccines,” says Amy Pisani, executive director of Vaccinate Your Family. “Now seems like a terrible time to shut down that discourse.”
Back in May, Pisani, who has worked on public health issues affecting children since 1996, noticed something peculiar: No one seemed to be commenting on the groups’ Facebook page. Suddenly, the group’s 200,000 followers—who have engaged in interesting discussions and networking in the comments ever since the group established its Facebook presence a decade ago—were oddly silent. Pisani was skeptical. It didn’t seem likely that every single person in the group had all of a suddenly clammed up. After a few tests, she determined that Facebook had abruptly changed the group’s settings so that no one could comment.
Figuring it was a simple mistake that could be easily reversed, Pisani reached out to Facebook and asked what had happened. She was surprised when Facebook groups coordinators responded that they didn’t know, but that they would work to make sure it would be resolved swiftly. Now, six months later, after Pisani’s team contacted Facebook every week to resolve the problem, the comments are still turned off. “They just tell me they’re working on it,” she says. When I contacted Facebook to ask about the problem, a spokesperson told me she would look into it but never got back to me—even after I followed up several times.
Meanwhile, anti-vaccine groups’ comments seem to be entirely open. I checked about a dozen of the groups that I follow, and all of them in the last few days had posted comments—many of which promoted wild conspiracy theories about vaccines, such as accusing Bill Gates of inserting microchips into shots to track Americans.
Other pro-vaccine groups don’t seem to be having the same problem with comments. But the glitch still has major implications. Founded in 1991, Vaccinate Your Family is considered an important hub of information. I’ve been reporting on vaccine hesitancy for years, and epidemiologists and infectious diseases specialists have referred me to Vaccinate Your Family dozens of times. The comments provide an opportunity for members of the public to share information, ask questions, and organize vaccine advocacy efforts in their communities.
The comments problem isn’t the only hurdle Vaccinate Your Family has encountered with Facebook. Last year, when the group launched a campaign based on scientific evidence about how vaccines prevent deadly diseases, Facebook rejected the ads. When Pisani asked why, Facebook informed her that her ads were subject to guidelines for ads that were “about social issues, elections or politics” rather than public health—which created an entirely different set of requirements for those who posted them. Pisani had to submit her personal information—her drivers’ license and her home address—in order to run the ads, which then still would be subject to extra scrutiny. Unlike the comments problem, this policy applies to all pro-vaccine groups, not just Vaccinate Your Family. And yet, people who advertise personal health products—say, for example, essential oils and vitamins—don’t have to jump through all those hoops. “It just doesn’t seem fair to penalize groups that are providing a public health service,” Pisani says.
Indeed, with these rules, Facebook seems to be taking the position that posts from Vaccinate Your Family are opinions about a controversial topic, rather than science-based public health information. Evidence overwhelmingly supports routine vaccination. Without this important tool, public health experts warn, we could quickly return to the era when communicable diseases like measles and whooping cough killed people.
Pisani is still waiting for answers from Facebook on why Vaccinate Your Family’s comments were turned off. In the meantime, she worries that people who find her group will not be able to ask questions or connect with others. It’s a bad time to limit information about vaccines: Since the beginning of the pandemic, rates of routine childhood vaccination have declined precipitously. Meanwhile, anti-vaccine groups on Facebook have combined with anti-mask activists, spreading their ideas to new communities.
Amidst the unprecedented undermining of trust in public health science in the leadup to the release of vaccines for COVID-19, reliable information about vaccines has never been more important, says Pisani. “We spend our lives fighting disinformation.”


motherjones--2020-10-14--Trump, Guns, and 2020: How One Hunting Family Is Debating Gun Control and Voting

This week ’ s presidential debate may be canceled , but debates are still roiling around kitchen tables , on social media , and in family iMessage groups .
It ’ s 2020 and opportunities for a fight are everywhere : Maybe you ’ re having a hard time convincing your parents to take masks seriously ; or you and that cousin who is deep into conspiracy theories spread on YouTube are battling on Facebook about the election ; or your partner or spouse is being a bit nutty about quarantine restrictions—too rigid or too relaxed .
As it turns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happen with the people you love the most , about the things you care the most about .
Today , Mother Jones is publishing One Shot One Kill , a documentary film that follows a father and two of his sons as they embark on a deer hunting trip in rural Tennessee , a deeply held family tradition that connects the Neal family to the beauty of the land , the tradition of hunting , and what it means to be both a hunter and gun owner in the United States in 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ men—66-year-old patriarch John , and sons Fisher , 36 , and Tyler , 33—turns to the Second Amendment , the trip becomes an opportunity for Peabody-nominated filmmaker Nancy Schwartzman to train her lens on how one of America ’ s most fraught cultural battles , gun control , plays out in a single family .
Watch the film above .
“ In almost all situations , hunting with the semi-automatic is not necessary , ” Tyler Neal says in the film , as the family huddles and chats around a fire in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NYC-based outdoor guide and professional actor , ponders the accessibility of ArmaLite Rifles ( ARs ) : “ I don ’ t think we need to ban them but we should at least make it more rigorous of a process to get one.
” In recent years , mass shootings with high-powered weapons have ignited the March for Our Lives movement , while prominent deaths of Black Americans at the hands of police or vigilantes have sparked a national reckoning over racial violence , and the role of lethal force , including guns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been part of the gun control conversation in America , but how have these recent events shaped the political decisions of those who see unfettered access to guns as essential to their sport , even as they also recognize its deadly costs ?
But for John , a lawyer , his son ’ s argument could be the first step onto a slippery slope .
“ I ’ m not convinced that we ’ ve ever agreed on anything !
” John says .
“ The Constitution doesn ’ t say , ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bear arms if you ’ ve taken the safety class.
” ‘ Even so , Tyler replies , “ I feel like we could all agree on universal background checks , ” which is calls a minor inconvenience to serve a “ noble cause.
” By capturing this intimate , cross-generational conversation , One Shot One Kill , produced by Chicken & Egg Pictures , portrays some of the nuance that can get lost in the national debate , as the men discuss which restrictions they support , and which bring them into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environmental stewards , and with each other .
Publishing Schwartzman ’ s documentary also provided an opportunity for the Mother Jones Podcast team to go deeper in learning how some of the biggest issues of 2020 are playing out in just one conservative-leaning family .
Host Jamilah King invited John , Fisher , and Tyler , an IT Financing Specialist based in Nashville , to discuss their roles in the film , but the conversation soon developed into so much more , touching on the 2020 presidential election , the personal costs of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tribe , the fight for the Supreme Court , the future of the National Rifle Association , and how to fight the scourge of vigilantism—all packed into a lively , civil , and quite personal discussion about gun control .
We didn ’ t want you to miss this chance to eavesdrop on a conversation that ’ s taking place inside a gun-loving family .
“ I think the majority of the voters feel overwhelmed , and they feel that they ’ re going to be personally attacked or they ’ re going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they ever express how they really feel about the election , ” John Neal confides at one point in the podcast—leaving open the possibility , without ever confirming it , that his support may now have shifted away from the Republican party he has supported his whole life .
“ You ’ re not going to get an answer , ” he tells Jamilah , “ so don ’ t keep trying .
I mean , this is why the founding fathers created a secret ballot !
” Listen to that conversation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Mother Jones Podcast : Subscribe using Apple Podcasts , Spotify , Stitcher , or your favorite podcast app .
You can also check out our previous short documentary film in this series looking at guns in America , also produced by Chicken & Egg Pictures , called I Am Not Going to Change 400 Years in Four , directed by Angela Tucker and Kristi Jacobson .
It ’ s a profile of Satana Deberry , the progressive district attorney of Durham County , North Carolina .
Her election made history .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ it means to run a law enforcement system that locks up people who look like her .
About the director of One Shot One Kill : Nancy Schwartzman is a Peabody-nominated filmmaker who uses storytelling and technology to create safer communities for women and girls .
Her debut feature , Roll Red Roll ,  premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival and screened at over 40 film festivals worldwide , garnering seven best documentary awards .
It was a New York Times Critics Pick , with 100 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ streaming in 190 countries on Netflix .
She is currently directing an investigative documentary with the Center for Investigative Reporting , developing non-fiction series with XTR and Blumhouse , and publishing a book with Hachette .

This week’s presidential debate may be canceled, but debates are still roiling around kitchen tables, on social media, and in family iMessage groups. It’s 2020 and opportunities for a fight are everywhere: Maybe you’re having a hard time convincing your parents to take masks seriously; or you and that cousin who is deep into conspiracy theories spread on YouTube are battling on Facebook about the election; or your partner or spouse is being a bit nutty about quarantine restrictions—too rigid or too relaxed.
As it turns out, often the most meaningful disagreements happen with the people you love the most, about the things you care the most about. Today, Mother Jones is publishing One Shot One Kill, a documentary film that follows a father and two of his sons as they embark on a deer hunting trip in rural Tennessee, a deeply held family tradition that connects the Neal family to the beauty of the land, the tradition of hunting, and what it means to be both a hunter and gun owner in the United States in 2020. When a mid-hunt conversation between the men—66-year-old patriarch John, and sons Fisher, 36, and Tyler, 33—turns to the Second Amendment, the trip becomes an opportunity for Peabody-nominated filmmaker Nancy Schwartzman to train her lens on how one of America’s most fraught cultural battles, gun control, plays out in a single family. Watch the film above.
“In almost all situations, hunting with the semi-automatic is not necessary,” Tyler Neal says in the film, as the family huddles and chats around a fire in their camo hunting gear. Fisher, an NYC-based outdoor guide and professional actor, ponders the accessibility of ArmaLite Rifles (ARs): “I don’t think we need to ban them but we should at least make it more rigorous of a process to get one.”
In recent years, mass shootings with high-powered weapons have ignited the March for Our Lives movement, while prominent deaths of Black Americans at the hands of police or vigilantes have sparked a national reckoning over racial violence, and the role of lethal force, including guns, in policing. Hunting has always been part of the gun control conversation in America, but how have these recent events shaped the political decisions of those who see unfettered access to guns as essential to their sport, even as they also recognize its deadly costs?
But for John, a lawyer, his son’s argument could be the first step onto a slippery slope. “I’m not convinced that we’ve ever agreed on anything!” John says. “The Constitution doesn’t say, ‘You have the right to keep and bear arms if you’ve taken the safety class.”‘
Even so, Tyler replies, “I feel like we could all agree on universal background checks,” which is calls a minor inconvenience to serve a “noble cause.”
By capturing this intimate, cross-generational conversation, One Shot One Kill, produced by Chicken & Egg Pictures, portrays some of the nuance that can get lost in the national debate, as the men discuss which restrictions they support, and which bring them into conflict with their identities as sportsmen, environmental stewards, and with each other.
Publishing Schwartzman’s documentary also provided an opportunity for the Mother Jones Podcast team to go deeper in learning how some of the biggest issues of 2020 are playing out in just one conservative-leaning family. Host Jamilah King invited John, Fisher, and Tyler, an IT Financing Specialist based in Nashville, to discuss their roles in the film, but the conversation soon developed into so much more, touching on the 2020 presidential election, the personal costs of partisanship if you break away from the tribe, the fight for the Supreme Court, the future of the National Rifle Association, and how to fight the scourge of vigilantism—all packed into a lively, civil, and quite personal discussion about gun control. We didn’t want you to miss this chance to eavesdrop on a conversation that’s taking place inside a gun-loving family.
“I think the majority of the voters feel overwhelmed, and they feel that they’re going to be personally attacked or they’re going to lose three fourths of their friends if they ever express how they really feel about the election,” John Neal confides at one point in the podcast—leaving open the possibility, without ever confirming it, that his support may now have shifted away from the Republican party he has supported his whole life. “You’re not going to get an answer,” he tells Jamilah, “so don’t keep trying. I mean, this is why the founding fathers created a secret ballot!”
Listen to that conversation here:
Listen to the latest episode of the Mother Jones Podcast: Subscribe using Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.
You can also check out our previous short documentary film in this series looking at guns in America, also produced by Chicken & Egg Pictures, called I Am Not Going to Change 400 Years in Four, directed by Angela Tucker and Kristi Jacobson. It’s a profile of Satana Deberry, the progressive district attorney of Durham County, North Carolina. Her election made history. Now she’s grappling with what it means to run a law enforcement system that locks up people who look like her.
About the director of One Shot One Kill:
Nancy Schwartzman is a Peabody-nominated filmmaker who uses storytelling and technology to create safer communities for women and girls. Her debut feature, Roll Red Roll, premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival and screened at over 40 film festivals worldwide, garnering seven best documentary awards. It was a New York Times Critics Pick, with 100 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes, it played POV, BBC and is streaming in 190 countries on Netflix. She is currently directing an investigative documentary with the Center for Investigative Reporting, developing non-fiction series with XTR and Blumhouse, and publishing a book with Hachette.


motherjones--2020-10-15--Conservatives Say They Want to “Protect” Women. Amy Coney Barrett Is their Perfect Messenger.

For conservatives eager to eliminate the right to abortion in this country , there is truly no one better suited to potentially trip the kill switch than Amy Coney Barrett , President Donald Trump ’ s nominee to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s vacant Supreme Court seat .
Barrett checks all the boxes—she ’ s an upper-middle-class , conventionally attractive white woman .
She ’ s well educated , intelligent , accomplished , unquestionably poised .
She ’ s a woman of faith , mother to seven children—two of whom are Black , adopted from Haiti—and she is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who Has It All , a mascot of suburban privilege .
So , naturally , we are expected to conclude that as a woman who has found success in her career and her domestic life , she has only the best interests of other women and their health care in mind .
The Right has long adored lifting up women like Barrett , as if to say , “ See ?
We love women , we couldn ’ t possibly be anti-woman !
” Then , when any female candidate meets resistance from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yell “ hypocrisy !
” Just look at Sen. Marsha Blackburn ( R-Tenn. ) bemoaning this very thing during Tuesday ’ s confirmation hearing : “ I will tell you , quite frankly , they do not believe that all women deserve to have the opportunity to have a seat at the table.
” There ’ s something darkly poetic about putting forth a mother of seven as the justice who could deliver the end of the constitutional right to an abortion .
After all , the other message encoded in Barrett ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beliefs is that women don ’ t really need abortion care in order to gain economic equality and to have an independent , fulfilling life .
It ’ s an attempt to cut through the historical baseline of the abortion rights argument that women must have control over their reproductive lives to enjoy the full span of their constitutional rights .
“ There ’ s a kind of pro-life feminism that presupposes that women all want to have it all , ” says Mary Ziegler , a professor at the Florida State University @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Abortion and the Law in America : Roe v. Wade to the Present .
“ There ’ s this sense that motherhood is natural , and women who are not mothers are depriving themselves.
” Barrett is the latest in a long line of similar ( almost exclusively white ) women in the anti-abortion movement to take her place in the public sphere .
It ’ s easy to imagine her fitting in easily alongside Marjorie Dannenfelser , who helms the Susan B. Anthony List , or Catherine Glenn Foster , at Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , VP of Institute for Family , Community , and Opportunity at the Heritage Foundation .
Blackburn , too , was clearly trying to ally herself with Barrett during the hearings , with her Oh-I ’ ve-been-there remarks .
All upper middle class , well educated , successful white women who have heralded the fulfillment of motherhood and devoted themselves to protecting women through their anti-abortion work .
( To be clear , I do not mock them ; I understand why they do what they do , and I have respect for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up conservative and evangelical , I used to hold the same ones . )
It is their whiteness and their manners and their top-flight educations that lend them the credibility they need to call themselves feminists , bolstering their arguments that restricting abortion is a women ’ s rights issue because it protects women from a traumatic , unsafe procedure .
For the past three decades , there has been a definitive shift within the “ pro-life ” movement to associate women who are anti-abortion as warrior feminists , set to protect mothers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dangers of abortion .
The change was brought about as the movement struggled with an image of being “ anti-woman ” —for example , as Ziegler cites in Abortion and the Law in America , a Gallup study was done in 1990 at the behest of Americans United for Life to gauge public attitudes about abortion .
Then-president of AUL , Guy Condon , summarized the findings like this : Americans felt that pro-lifers were “ against women , against the democratic process…and even against one another.
” The following year , Ziegler @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ personalize [ d ] the unborn ” and “ personalize [ d ] women as victims.
” That approach has become more popular over time and still exists today within anti-abortion circles and at crisis pregnancy centers .
In fact , more and more big anti-abortion organizations have pivoted to putting a pro-woman , feminist face on an anti-abortion agenda .
Women have actually begun to lead the anti-abortion groups , like Susan B. Anthony List and Students for Life .
At anti-abortion conferences , female leadership has been known to poke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activism—think sidewalk preachers and gruesome imagery—instead relying on classic feminist imagery to illustrate their message .
( My favorite example is of a fetus in a Rosie the Riveter outfit that says , “ Keep your philosophy off my biology.
” ) More recently , this framework has bled into conservatism more broadly , leading ( again , mostly white ) conservative women like Meghan McCain to decry mainstream feminists ’ exclusion of so-called “ pro-life feminists.
” This is all part of Barrett ’ s appeal , especially for her sisters in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in such ideals in any of her legal writing , it is clear within her personal beliefs ; Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) , chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee , called her “ unabashedly pro-life.
” She was a member of a Notre Dame ’ s University Faculty for Life organization that promoted a network crisis pregnancy centers in South Bend , Indiana , and she signed a letter in support of “ overturning Roe , ” the famous Supreme Court ruling that granted women ’ s right to an abortion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was composed by St. Joseph ’ s Right to Life , an anti-abortion group that touts its mission to “ save children , women , and men from the devastating effects of abortion and euthanasia.
” It also features outreach to “ post-abortive ” women who have regrets about their abortions .
Of course , it ’ s not certain that Barrett will overturn Roe ; it ’ s more likely that she will aid in chipping away at access in the US by giving legal credence to abortion restrictions that purport to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has also been adopted in the context of abortion clinic regulations that aim to drain clinics of resources , forcing them to pay for unnecessary equipment and medication and to adhere to ridiculous standards .
These sorts of pills are much easier to swallow with the sugary , flimsy interpretation of “ you-go-girl ” feminism .
As my colleague Nathalie Baptiste put it , “ Part of the problem is the limited understanding of what racism , sexism , and feminism really means .
After being co-opted by corporations looking to cash-in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often has been stripped down to simply mean ‘ if a woman does it , it is good . '
” As for Barrett herself , she is primed to receive the same sort of marketing treatment that anti-abortion groups began to adopt decades ago—a pro-woman justice who is strong and smart and will smile as she helps narrow women ’ s rights to bodily autonomy .
“ You see [ Republicans ] in Congress trying to make her into a conservative feminist icon , and I think that will probably happen , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s a central part of her appeal .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
For conservatives eager to eliminate the right to abortion in this country, there is truly no one better suited to potentially trip the kill switch than Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s nominee to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s vacant Supreme Court seat.
There’s something darkly poetic about putting forth a mother of seven as the justice who could deliver the end of the constitutional right to an abortion.
Barrett checks all the boxes—she’s an upper-middle-class, conventionally attractive white woman. She’s well educated, intelligent, accomplished, unquestionably poised. She’s a woman of faith, mother to seven children—two of whom are Black, adopted from Haiti—and she is a living, breathing example of a woman who Has It All, a mascot of suburban privilege. So, naturally, we are expected to conclude that as a woman who has found success in her career and her domestic life, she has only the best interests of other women and their health care in mind.
The Right has long adored lifting up women like Barrett, as if to say, “See? We love women, we couldn’t possibly be anti-woman!” Then, when any female candidate meets resistance from the Left, they can point and yell “hypocrisy!” Just look at Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) bemoaning this very thing during Tuesday’s confirmation hearing: “I will tell you, quite frankly, they do not believe that all women deserve to have the opportunity to have a seat at the table.”
There’s something darkly poetic about putting forth a mother of seven as the justice who could deliver the end of the constitutional right to an abortion. After all, the other message encoded in Barrett’s nomination and in her staunch anti-abortion beliefs is that women don’t really need abortion care in order to gain economic equality and to have an independent, fulfilling life. It’s an attempt to cut through the historical baseline of the abortion rights argument that women must have control over their reproductive lives to enjoy the full span of their constitutional rights. “There’s a kind of pro-life feminism that presupposes that women all want to have it all,” says Mary Ziegler, a professor at the Florida State University College of Law and the author of Abortion and the Law in America: Roe v. Wade to the Present. “There’s this sense that motherhood is natural, and women who are not mothers are depriving themselves.”
Barrett is the latest in a long line of similar (almost exclusively white) women in the anti-abortion movement to take her place in the public sphere. It’s easy to imagine her fitting in easily alongside Marjorie Dannenfelser, who helms the Susan B. Anthony List, or Catherine Glenn Foster, at Americans United for Life, or Charmaine Yoest, VP of Institute for Family, Community, and Opportunity at the Heritage Foundation. Blackburn, too, was clearly trying to ally herself with Barrett during the hearings, with her Oh-I’ve-been-there remarks. All upper middle class, well educated, successful white women who have heralded the fulfillment of motherhood and devoted themselves to protecting women through their anti-abortion work. (To be clear, I do not mock them; I understand why they do what they do, and I have respect for their convictions, in part because growing up conservative and evangelical, I used to hold the same ones.)
The other message encoded in Barrett’s nomination is that women don’t really need abortion care in order to gain economic equality and to have an independent, fulfilling life.
It is their whiteness and their manners and their top-flight educations that lend them the credibility they need to call themselves feminists, bolstering their arguments that restricting abortion is a women’s rights issue because it protects women from a traumatic, unsafe procedure. For the past three decades, there has been a definitive shift within the “pro-life” movement to associate women who are anti-abortion as warrior feminists, set to protect mothers and the unborn from the evils and dangers of abortion. The change was brought about as the movement struggled with an image of being “anti-woman”—for example, as Ziegler cites in Abortion and the Law in America, a Gallup study was done in 1990 at the behest of Americans United for Life to gauge public attitudes about abortion. Then-president of AUL, Guy Condon, summarized the findings like this: Americans felt that pro-lifers were “against women, against the democratic process…and even against one another.” The following year, Ziegler explains, Condon recommended organization-wide arguments that “personalize[d] the unborn” and “personalize[d] women as victims.” That approach has become more popular over time and still exists today within anti-abortion circles and at crisis pregnancy centers.
In fact, more and more big anti-abortion organizations have pivoted to putting a pro-woman, feminist face on an anti-abortion agenda. Women have actually begun to lead the anti-abortion groups, like Susan B. Anthony List and Students for Life. At anti-abortion conferences, female leadership has been known to poke fun at an outdated approach to anti-abortion activism—think sidewalk preachers and gruesome imagery—instead relying on classic feminist imagery to illustrate their message. (My favorite example is of a fetus in a Rosie the Riveter outfit that says, “Keep your philosophy off my biology.”) More recently, this framework has bled into conservatism more broadly, leading (again, mostly white) conservative women like Meghan McCain to decry mainstream feminists’ exclusion of so-called “pro-life feminists.”
This is all part of Barrett’s appeal, especially for her sisters in arms. While she has not engaged in such ideals in any of her legal writing, it is clear within her personal beliefs; Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called her “unabashedly pro-life.” She was a member of a Notre Dame’s University Faculty for Life organization that promoted a network crisis pregnancy centers in South Bend, Indiana, and she signed a letter in support of “overturning Roe,” the famous Supreme Court ruling that granted women’s right to an abortion in the United States. The letter was composed by St. Joseph’s Right to Life, an anti-abortion group that touts its mission to “save children, women, and men from the devastating effects of abortion and euthanasia.” It also features outreach to “post-abortive” women who have regrets about their abortions.
Of course, it’s not certain that Barrett will overturn Roe; it’s more likely that she will aid in chipping away at access in the US by giving legal credence to abortion restrictions that purport to “protect women,” an idea that has also been adopted in the context of abortion clinic regulations that aim to drain clinics of resources, forcing them to pay for unnecessary equipment and medication and to adhere to ridiculous standards.
“There’s a kind of pro-life feminism that presupposes that women all want to have it all. There’s this sense that motherhood is natural, and women who are not mothers are depriving themselves.”
These sorts of pills are much easier to swallow with the sugary, flimsy interpretation of “you-go-girl” feminism. As my colleague Nathalie Baptiste put it, “Part of the problem is the limited understanding of what racism, sexism, and feminism really means. After being co-opted by corporations looking to cash-in on all those empowered feelings, feminism often has been stripped down to simply mean ‘if a woman does it, it is good.'”
As for Barrett herself, she is primed to receive the same sort of marketing treatment that anti-abortion groups began to adopt decades ago—a pro-woman justice who is strong and smart and will smile as she helps narrow women’s rights to bodily autonomy. “You see [Republicans] in Congress trying to make her into a conservative feminist icon, and I think that will probably happen,” Ziegler says. “I think that’s a central part of her appeal.”


motherjones--2020-10-16--Biden Explains How He Would Have Handled the Pandemic

While President Trump began his town hall on NBC by dodging basic questions about when he was tested for the coronavirus before the last debate and railing against wearing masks , Joe Biden opened his parallel town hall by blasting the president for his handling of the pandemic and outlining how he would have handled it .
“ He didn ’ t talk about what needed to be done because he kept worrying , in my view , about the stock market , ” Biden said .
“ He worried if he talked about how bad this could be , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then , in fact , the market would go down .
And his barometer of success of the economy is the market.
” Biden said that if he ’ d been president this year , he would have followed the playbook that was originally laid out by the Obama administration in 2016 and quietly thrown out by the Trump administration prior to the pandemic .
He added that his first move would have been to send American scientists to China to learn everything they could about the virus , and he would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people to wear masks in the early days .
“ He missed enormous opportunities and kept saying things that weren ’ t true , ” Biden said of Trump .
If Biden ’ s elected , he ’ ll inherit a mess of a public health crisis .
As scientists race toward developing a vaccine , there ’ s been skepticism about how safe it will be to take something that ’ s been rushed to develop under possible political influence .
When asked if he would mandate a vaccine , Biden said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the nature of the vaccine when it comes out , ” and emphasized that he ’ ll need to work closely with governors and mayors to enforce whatever decisions his administration comes to .
Trump , meanwhile , has promised that a coronavirus vaccine would be available by the end of the year , despite scientific uncertainty .
At the vice presidential debate last week , Kamala Harris said she would not take a vaccine if it were to come out by the end of the year .
Asked the same question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take a vaccine if it were to become available by the end of the year .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
While President Trump began his town hall on NBC by dodging basic questions about when he was tested for the coronavirus before the last debate and railing against wearing masks, Joe Biden opened his parallel town hall by blasting the president for his handling of the pandemic and outlining how he would have handled it. “He didn’t talk about what needed to be done because he kept worrying, in my view, about the stock market,” Biden said. “He worried if he talked about how bad this could be, unless we took these precautionary actions, then, in fact, the market would go down. And his barometer of success of the economy is the market.”
Biden said that if he’d been president this year, he would have followed the playbook that was originally laid out by the Obama administration in 2016 and quietly thrown out by the Trump administration prior to the pandemic. He added that his first move would have been to send American scientists to China to learn everything they could about the virus, and he would have put more of an emphasis on pushing people to wear masks in the early days. “He missed enormous opportunities and kept saying things that weren’t true,” Biden said of Trump.
If Biden’s elected, he’ll inherit a mess of a public health crisis. As scientists race toward developing a vaccine, there’s been skepticism about how safe it will be to take something that’s been rushed to develop under possible political influence. When asked if he would mandate a vaccine, Biden said that “it depends on the state, the nature of the vaccine when it comes out,” and emphasized that he’ll need to work closely with governors and mayors to enforce whatever decisions his administration comes to.
Trump, meanwhile, has promised that a coronavirus vaccine would be available by the end of the year, despite scientific uncertainty. At the vice presidential debate last week, Kamala Harris said she would not take a vaccine if it were to come out by the end of the year. Asked the same question on Thursday, Biden said he would take a vaccine if it were to become available by the end of the year.


motherjones--2020-10-16--Trump Repeatedly Refuses to Disavow QAnon: “They Are Very Much Against Pedophilia”

About 10 minutes into President Trump ’ s town hall Thursday night in Miami , NBC News ’ Savannah Guthrie asked him a fairly straightforward question about QAnon , the right-wing conspiracy which , as my colleague Ali Breland has explained , “ postulates that President Donald Trump is on the verge of arresting a throng of liberal elites for facilitating and participating in a sprawling child sex ring.
” Trump has retweeted QAnon supporters in the past , praised a high-profile QAnon believer in her campaign for Congress , and just this week shared a Q-adjacent conspiracy that Osama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SEALs had killed a body double instead .
( Read that last clause again . )
When asked about QAnon in the past , Trump has demurred , saying , “ I ’ ve heard these are people that love our country ” but “ I don ’ t know really anything about it other than they do supposedly like me.
” One can imagine a world where a very busy president who doesn ’ t spend a lot of time online might , at one point , not have known about QAnon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was ever the case with the most online president in American history .
It is harder still to accept after he was asked about it and then spent several months amplifying it .
At this point , the feigned ignorance is a statement , and Guthrie , by drilling down on it , forced Trump into a painful and deeply revealing exchange .
“ Let me ask you about QAnon , ” she said .
“ It is this theory that Democrats are a satanic pedophile ring and that you are the savior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state once and for all that that is just complete not true and disavow QAnon in its entirety ?
” “ I know nothing about QAnon , ” Trump said .
“ I know very little—you told me but what you tell me doesn ’ t necessarily make it fact , ” Trump continued .
“ I hate to say that .
I know nothing about it .
I do know they are very much against pedophilia , they fight it very hard .
But I know nothing about it .
If you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ They believe it is a satanic cult run by the Deep State , ” Guthrie said .
Trump , talking over Guthrie , tried to change the subject to Antifa .
But the NBC anchor brought him back to the subject : “ Why not just say it ’ s crazy and not true.
” “ I just don ’ t know about QAnon , ” Trump said .
“ No , I don ’ t know , ” Trump said .
But he went on : “ [ L ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I do hear about it , is they are very strongly against pedophilia .
And I agree with that .
I mean I do agree with that !
” “ Okay , but there ’ s not a satanic pedophile cult , ” Guthrie said .
“ I have no idea , ” Trump said .
“ You don ’ t know that ?
” Guthrie asked , one last time .
Trump is so afraid to denounce an unhinged conspiracy ( which has been linked to several acts of violence ) that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is a Satanic pedophilia cult running wild in his own government .
Such a development , if true , would at least put the problems at the post office in perspective .
It is of course not true , and in his fumbling on Thursday , Trump once more laid bare that the only thing he has less control of than his supporters is his campaign messaging .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
About 10 minutes into President Trump’s town hall Thursday night in Miami, NBC News’ Savannah Guthrie asked him a fairly straightforward question about QAnon, the right-wing conspiracy which, as my colleague Ali Breland has explained, “postulates that President Donald Trump is on the verge of arresting a throng of liberal elites for facilitating and participating in a sprawling child sex ring.”
Trump has retweeted QAnon supporters in the past, praised a high-profile QAnon believer in her campaign for Congress, and just this week shared a Q-adjacent conspiracy that Osama bin Laden is still alive and Navy SEALs had killed a body double instead. (Read that last clause again.) When asked about QAnon in the past, Trump has demurred, saying, “I’ve heard these are people that love our country” but “I don’t know really anything about it other than they do supposedly like me.”
One can imagine a world where a very busy president who doesn’t spend a lot of time online might, at one point, not have known about QAnon. It is harder to accept that was ever the case with the most online president in American history. It is harder still to accept after he was asked about it and then spent several months amplifying it. At this point, the feigned ignorance is a statement, and Guthrie, by drilling down on it, forced Trump into a painful and deeply revealing exchange.
“Let me ask you about QAnon,” she said. “It is this theory that Democrats are a satanic pedophile ring and that you are the savior of that. Now can you just state once and for all that that is just complete not true and disavow QAnon in its entirety?”
“I know nothing about QAnon,” Trump said.
“I just told you,” Guthrie said.
“I know very little—you told me but what you tell me doesn’t necessarily make it fact,” Trump continued. “I hate to say that. I know nothing about it. I do know they are very much against pedophilia, they fight it very hard. But I know nothing about it. If you’d like me to study this—”
“They believe it is a satanic cult run by the Deep State,” Guthrie said.
Trump, talking over Guthrie, tried to change the subject to Antifa. But the NBC anchor brought him back to the subject: “Why not just say it’s crazy and not true.”
“I just don’t know about QAnon,” Trump said.
“You do know,” Guthrie said.
“No, I don’t know,” Trump said. But he went on: “[L]et me just tell you, what I do hear about it, is they are very strongly against pedophilia. And I agree with that. I mean I do agree with that!”
“Okay, but there’s not a satanic pedophile cult,” Guthrie said.
“I have no idea,” Trump said.
“You don’t know that?” Guthrie asked, one last time.
“No, I don’t know that,” Trump said.
Trump is so afraid to denounce an unhinged conspiracy (which has been linked to several acts of violence) that he has left open the possibility that there is a Satanic pedophilia cult running wild in his own government. Such a development, if true, would at least put the problems at the post office in perspective. It is of course not true, and in his fumbling on Thursday, Trump once more laid bare that the only thing he has less control of than his supporters is his campaign messaging.