motherjones--2020-11-27--Here Are the Various Ways Donald Trump Could Be Prosecuted

Hillary Clinton , Barack Obama , Joe Biden , James Comey , Christopher Steele , John Bolton , a Time journalist , flag burners—this is just a partial list of the people Donald Trump has wanted to see imprisoned during his ignominious presidency .
Yet the moment he steps out of the White House , shedding the sheath of immunity that enshrines all presidents , it is Trump who should be most concerned about a legal reckoning .
His list of alleged offenses , committed both during and before his presidency , includes tax and bank fraud , obstruction of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more .
Legal experts have even debated whether Trump could face criminal charges connected to his woeful response to the coronavirus pandemic .
In its 244-year history , the United States has never prosecuted a president ( that is , outside the specialized judicial theater of impeachment ) .
Not that some didn ’ t deserve it .
The reticence is understandable .
Locking up a former commander in chief would be politically divisive and potentially set a dangerous precedent .
Would holding him accountable restore faith in the justice system or further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose antics and incompetence contributed to the deaths of tens of thousands , who attacked the very foundation of the democratic institutions that made the United States a beacon , and who pushed the nation to the threshold of autocracy , the American people might be willing , even eager , to take the risk .
Trump has offered state and federal prosecutors a buffet of options for criminal and civil charges .
On the federal level , one of the most plausible crimes Trump could be charged with is obstruction of justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia investigation , special counsel Robert Mueller all but laid out the case , chronicling Trump ’ s assorted efforts to stymie the probe .
The report also includes evidence suggesting that Trump may have perjured himself in written responses to questions from Mueller ’ s team , though this claim is more difficult to prove .
Mueller stopped short of concluding that Trump had committed a crime , but mostly because , as a sitting president , he was arguably immune from prosecution .
But that protection no longer applies once he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former US attorney in Michigan who led the corruption case against Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick , argues an obstruction conviction would be easy to obtain and is the most likely route for federal prosecutors .
( McQuade spoke to Mother Jones before joining Biden ’ s transition team ; she stressed that she was not speaking on the new administration ’ s behalf . )
But the body of evidence is only one consideration when it comes to placing Trump , or any former president , on trial .
“ The second question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ Would a prosecution advance a substantial federal interest ?
’ ” she says .
“ When a president is involved , that ’ s a much harder question .
I ’ m sure there is some sentiment that the country should move on , but perhaps some sentiment that we should not let a president get away with crimes with impunity just because they ’ re the president.
” Renato Mariotti , a former federal prosecutor in Chicago who specialized in busting white-collar criminals , is less sure about convicting Trump of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t a bounty of evidence .
“ How would the fact that it ’ s Donald Trump impact a jury ?
” he wonders .
Nevertheless , he thinks an obstruction prosecution is warranted if only for the message it sends .
“ To me the best argument for taking action is a future deterrence argument , ” he says .
“ Trump is somebody who was focused on defeating the lawful functions of the Justice Department , so taking action sends a signal that presidents should not do that again.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ against Trump must be as free of politics as possible , not just to convince a judge or jury to convict but also to restore confidence in the Justice Department and avoid weakening democracy in the process .
One way to buffer the case from political calculations would be for the new attorney general to appoint a special counsel who could pursue the investigation independently .
“ I think we ’ ve learned a lesson , hopefully , from , let ’ s say , the mistakes of James Comey and his handling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says , recalling the FBI ’ s infamous investigation into Hillary Clinton ’ s email server before the 2016 election .
“ The best way to do it is to have an insulation from political appointees , and to essentially not have press conferences or anything like that—just make decisions about whether or not there ’ s anything worthy of prosecution and do it with as little fanfare as possible.
” Eager to turn the page on the Trump era , Biden , for his part , has expressed reservations about a federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ described such an effort as “ probably not very…good for democracy , ” though he ’ s also said he would not “ interfere with the Justice Department ’ s judgment.
” Kamala Harris took a different position on the campaign trail , saying the DOJ “ would have no choice ” but to pursue obstruction-of-justice charges against Trump .
According to the New York Times and other news outlets , Trump is keenly aware of the legal jeopardy he confronts as a private citizen and , as a result , was particularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , the possibility that he might be charged with a crime has been on Trump ’ s mind for much of his presidency .
After the 2017 appointment of Mueller to oversee the Russia investigation , Trump declared in a tweet that he had the right to pardon himself .
Some legal experts have speculated he might attempt such a gambit prior to leaving office .
However , says Philip Bobbitt , a professor at Columbia University who specializes in constitutional law , presidential pardon power is not unlimited .
He raises @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scenario , similar to what occurred in 1974 when Richard Nixon resigned and was promptly pardoned by Gerald Ford .
In the waning days or hours of his presidency , Bobbitt speculates , Trump could invoke the 25th Amendment and briefly surrender presidential authority to allow Mike Pence to pardon him .
Alternatively , Trump could resign on the final day of his term , leaving Pence to momentarily assume the presidency and absolve his former boss of all federal crimes .
But a federal pardon will not help Trump at the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where he and his company , the Trump Organization , may face the most legal peril .
Two investigations targeting his company are underway in New York .
Since 2019 , New York Attorney General Letitia James has been probing the Trump Organization for bank , tax , and insurance fraud .
One of the matters she is scrutinizing is whether Trump paid taxes on $ 50 million in forgiven debt related to his Chicago hotel and tower project .
This aspect of her inquiry appears based in part on my reporting in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claims to hold a loan connected to a venture that may not exist .
This potentially contrived liability may in fact be a scheme to dodge taxes on a debt , deeply discounted by a lender , that Trump paid off in 2012 .
( A loan is not taxable ; forgiven debt is considered income . )
James ’ case is civil , but it could nevertheless lead to steep fines , back taxes , and penalties .
Moreover , her inquiry could provide fodder for criminal investigators , such as those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cy Vance .
In 2019 , following revelations that Trump had engineered a payoff of former adult film star Stormy Daniels to keep their alleged affair quiet during the 2016 election , Vance impaneled a grand jury to examine potential financial misconduct by Trump and his company .
Since then , Vance has sought a variety of records from Trump ’ s accounting firm .
Trump has battled the DA ’ s subpoena all the way to the Supreme Court , arguing that he was unfairly targeted .
The court , however , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigation to go forward .
Court filings suggest Vance ’ s probe now goes well beyond the hush-money payment and may overlap with some of the issues James is investigating .
Legal experts say that state-led cases may offer the best opportunity to hold Trump accountable while avoiding the polarizing debate that a federal prosecution could ignite .
The investigations in New York also focus on matters that predate Trump ’ s presidency , unlike obstruction charges related to the Mueller probe .
In both New York cases , Trump and his lawyers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that had little success in court but that substantially slowed the investigations .
But soon Trump will no longer be able to use his office to stave off probes by claiming they are either politically driven or too time-consuming for a sitting president .
That may be just the start of his legal concerns .
Media reports , and in particular the series of explosive New York Times articles based on copies of Trump ’ s tax records , may have left other breadcrumbs for investigators to follow in pursuit of Trump , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There ’ s also the possibility of yet-unrevealed investigations by state or local authorities , still lurking in sealed court filings .
And we ’ re just talking about the United States .
In Scotland , where Trump has invested more than $ 200 million in his golf courses , lawmakers are pushing for their government to request an Unexplained Wealth Order to peer into Trump ’ s finances .
This type of court order—invoked in the past against suspected money launderers—authorizes investigators to probe politically prominent individuals whose public spending does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about their finances .
Throughout his life , as he ’ s faced off against angry creditors or jilted business partners , Trump has honed a tried-and-true legal tactic of “ punching back ” at his antagonists—launching furious counterattacks that mired the other side in court filings and legal bills .
Yet this strategy , as effective as it was when Trump was a private businessman , is unlikely to slow down prosecutors .
“ I think that when you are a private entity there are other equities you have to think about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” McQuade says .
“ You have to think about your reputational risk , if he ’ s going to slam you in the press , and there ’ s a worry there ’ s going to be negative impact on your bottom line.
” To a prosecutor , a defendant who blusters and threatens isn ’ t much of a deterrent .
“ Getting criticized is part of the job , ” she says .
Attempts to hold Trump accountable in office were almost entirely unsuccessful .
His loss in November was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The next—which seems all but inevitable—may come in a courtroom .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, James Comey, Christopher Steele, John Bolton, a Time journalist, flag burners—this is just a partial list of the people Donald Trump has wanted to see imprisoned during his ignominious presidency. Yet the moment he steps out of the White House, shedding the sheath of immunity that enshrines all presidents, it is Trump who should be most concerned about a legal reckoning. His list of alleged offenses, committed both during and before his presidency, includes tax and bank fraud, obstruction of justice, bribery, defamation, and more. Legal experts have even debated whether Trump could face criminal charges connected to his woeful response to the coronavirus pandemic.
In its 244-year history, the United States has never prosecuted a president (that is, outside the specialized judicial theater of impeachment). Not that some didn’t deserve it. The reticence is understandable. Locking up a former commander in chief would be politically divisive and potentially set a dangerous precedent. Would holding him accountable restore faith in the justice system or further erode it? But for Trump, whose antics and incompetence contributed to the deaths of tens of thousands, who attacked the very foundation of the democratic institutions that made the United States a beacon, and who pushed the nation to the threshold of autocracy, the American people might be willing, even eager, to take the risk.
Trump has offered state and federal prosecutors a buffet of options for criminal and civil charges. On the federal level, one of the most plausible crimes Trump could be charged with is obstruction of justice. In his two-part report on his Russia investigation, special counsel Robert Mueller all but laid out the case, chronicling Trump’s assorted efforts to stymie the probe. The report also includes evidence suggesting that Trump may have perjured himself in written responses to questions from Mueller’s team, though this claim is more difficult to prove. Mueller stopped short of concluding that Trump had committed a crime, but mostly because, as a sitting president, he was arguably immune from prosecution. But that protection no longer applies once he leaves office.
Barbara McQuade, a former US attorney in Michigan who led the corruption case against Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, argues an obstruction conviction would be easy to obtain and is the most likely route for federal prosecutors. (McQuade spoke to Mother Jones before joining Biden’s transition team; she stressed that she was not speaking on the new administration’s behalf.) But the body of evidence is only one consideration when it comes to placing Trump, or any former president, on trial. “The second question a federal prosecutor must ask is, ‘Would a prosecution advance a substantial federal interest?’” she says. “When a president is involved, that’s a much harder question. I’m sure there is some sentiment that the country should move on, but perhaps some sentiment that we should not let a president get away with crimes with impunity just because they’re the president.”
Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor in Chicago who specialized in busting white-collar criminals, is less sure about convicting Trump of obstruction or other crimes—and not because there isn’t a bounty of evidence. “How would the fact that it’s Donald Trump impact a jury?” he wonders. Nevertheless, he thinks an obstruction prosecution is warranted if only for the message it sends. “To me the best argument for taking action is a future deterrence argument,” he says. “Trump is somebody who was focused on defeating the lawful functions of the Justice Department, so taking action sends a signal that presidents should not do that again.”
Both prosecutors warn that any case against Trump must be as free of politics as possible, not just to convince a judge or jury to convict but also to restore confidence in the Justice Department and avoid weakening democracy in the process. One way to buffer the case from political calculations would be for the new attorney general to appoint a special counsel who could pursue the investigation independently. “I think we’ve learned a lesson, hopefully, from, let’s say, the mistakes of James Comey and his handling of the Clinton matter,” Mariotti says, recalling the FBI’s infamous investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server before the 2016 election. “The best way to do it is to have an insulation from political appointees, and to essentially not have press conferences or anything like that—just make decisions about whether or not there’s anything worthy of prosecution and do it with as little fanfare as possible.”
Eager to turn the page on the Trump era, Biden, for his part, has expressed reservations about a federal prosecution targeting his predecessor. He has described such an effort as “probably not very…good for democracy,” though he’s also said he would not “interfere with the Justice Department’s judgment.” Kamala Harris took a different position on the campaign trail, saying the DOJ “would have no choice” but to pursue obstruction-of-justice charges against Trump.
According to the New York Times and other news outlets, Trump is keenly aware of the legal jeopardy he confronts as a private citizen and, as a result, was particularly fearful of losing the election. In fact, the possibility that he might be charged with a crime has been on Trump’s mind for much of his presidency. After the 2017 appointment of Mueller to oversee the Russia investigation, Trump declared in a tweet that he had the right to pardon himself. Some legal experts have speculated he might attempt such a gambit prior to leaving office.
However, says Philip Bobbitt, a professor at Columbia University who specializes in constitutional law, presidential pardon power is not unlimited. He raises what he says is a more likely scenario, similar to what occurred in 1974 when Richard Nixon resigned and was promptly pardoned by Gerald Ford. In the waning days or hours of his presidency, Bobbitt speculates, Trump could invoke the 25th Amendment and briefly surrender presidential authority to allow Mike Pence to pardon him. Alternatively, Trump could resign on the final day of his term, leaving Pence to momentarily assume the presidency and absolve his former boss of all federal crimes.
But a federal pardon will not help Trump at the state level, and it’s there where he and his company, the Trump Organization, may face the most legal peril. Two investigations targeting his company are underway in New York. Since 2019, New York Attorney General Letitia James has been probing the Trump Organization for bank, tax, and insurance fraud. One of the matters she is scrutinizing is whether Trump paid taxes on $50 million in forgiven debt related to his Chicago hotel and tower project. This aspect of her inquiry appears based in part on my reporting in Mother Jones, which revealed that Trump claims to hold a loan connected to a venture that may not exist. This potentially contrived liability may in fact be a scheme to dodge taxes on a debt, deeply discounted by a lender, that Trump paid off in 2012. (A loan is not taxable; forgiven debt is considered income.)
James’ case is civil, but it could nevertheless lead to steep fines, back taxes, and penalties. Moreover, her inquiry could provide fodder for criminal investigators, such as those in the office of Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance. In 2019, following revelations that Trump had engineered a payoff of former adult film star Stormy Daniels to keep their alleged affair quiet during the 2016 election, Vance impaneled a grand jury to examine potential financial misconduct by Trump and his company. Since then, Vance has sought a variety of records from Trump’s accounting firm. Trump has battled the DA’s subpoena all the way to the Supreme Court, arguing that he was unfairly targeted. The court, however, cleared the way for Vance’s investigation to go forward. Court filings suggest Vance’s probe now goes well beyond the hush-money payment and may overlap with some of the issues James is investigating. Legal experts say that state-led cases may offer the best opportunity to hold Trump accountable while avoiding the polarizing debate that a federal prosecution could ignite. The investigations in New York also focus on matters that predate Trump’s presidency, unlike obstruction charges related to the Mueller probe.
In both New York cases, Trump and his lawyers have used delay tactics, deploying arguments that had little success in court but that substantially slowed the investigations. But soon Trump will no longer be able to use his office to stave off probes by claiming they are either politically driven or too time-consuming for a sitting president.
That may be just the start of his legal concerns. Media reports, and in particular the series of explosive New York Times articles based on copies of Trump’s tax records, may have left other breadcrumbs for investigators to follow in pursuit of Trump, his close associates, and his children. There’s also the possibility of yet-unrevealed investigations by state or local authorities, still lurking in sealed court filings.
And we’re just talking about the United States. In Scotland, where Trump has invested more than $200 million in his golf courses, lawmakers are pushing for their government to request an Unexplained Wealth Order to peer into Trump’s finances. This type of court order—invoked in the past against suspected money launderers—authorizes investigators to probe politically prominent individuals whose public spending does not match what’s publicly known about their finances.
Throughout his life, as he’s faced off against angry creditors or jilted business partners, Trump has honed a tried-and-true legal tactic of “punching back” at his antagonists—launching furious counterattacks that mired the other side in court filings and legal bills. Yet this strategy, as effective as it was when Trump was a private businessman, is unlikely to slow down prosecutors. “I think that when you are a private entity there are other equities you have to think about besides the outcome of the case,” McQuade says. “You have to think about your reputational risk, if he’s going to slam you in the press, and there’s a worry there’s going to be negative impact on your bottom line.” To a prosecutor, a defendant who blusters and threatens isn’t much of a deterrent. “Getting criticized is part of the job,” she says.
Attempts to hold Trump accountable in office were almost entirely unsuccessful. His loss in November was the first true check on his conduct. The next—which seems all but inevitable—may come in a courtroom.


motherjones--2020-11-28--Polls Show Mike Pence Will Never Be President as Long as the Trumps Are Around

When Mike Pence held his nose and agreed to become the running mate of a man he found deeply offensive , he clearly hoped the decision would one day result in his own election to the presidency .
But new polls out this week indicate that Pence ’ s hopes of ever ascending to the Oval Office are slim to none , especially now that President Donald Trump is talking about running again in 2024 .
A Newsmax/McLaughlin poll of Republicans and independents who vote in Republican primaries found that a whopping 68 percent would pick Trump in the 2024 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other candidates including Pence and Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-Texas ) .
Among Republican voters alone , 53 percent told pollsters they ’ d pick Trump in the primary , with Pence trailing at just 9 percent .
And if Trump doesn ’ t run , Pence may be duking it out with Trump ’ s oldest son , Don Jr. , who tied with Pence for the lead at 20 percent .
“ In a crowded field of 14 possible candidates for the 2024 Republican primary , no one comes close to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told Newsmax .
The Newsmax poll echoes findings from a Morning Consult poll for Politico released earlier this week that found Trump was the preferred 2024 candidate of 53 percent of Republican and Republican-leaning voters polled , with Pence trailing at a distant 12 percent and Don Jr. coming in with 8 percent .
While Pence was previously a congressman from Indiana and later the state ’ s governor , Don Jr. has never run for office , though he ’ s been talking about it for a while now , after declaring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is boring.
” He just has to find a state that will have him .
His liberal home state of New York is not about to elect him governor , nor will New York City voters make him mayor—a prospect even his father has scoffed at when he suggested the possibility .
“ I have friends in flyover country , ” he told Fox News host Sean Hannity last year , suggesting that his best political prospects lay in a red state somewhere .
But so far , the Trump scion hasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a red state like Kansas or Mississippi .
Skipping right over lower offices to run for president as a New York exile would certainly solve his residency problem without forcing him to relocate to one of those decidedly less glamorous locales .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
When Mike Pence held his nose and agreed to become the running mate of a man he found deeply offensive, he clearly hoped the decision would one day result in his own election to the presidency. But new polls out this week indicate that Pence’s hopes of ever ascending to the Oval Office are slim to none, especially now that President Donald Trump is talking about running again in 2024.
A Newsmax/McLaughlin poll of Republicans and independents who vote in Republican primaries found that a whopping 68 percent would pick Trump in the 2024 primary out of a field of 13 other candidates including Pence and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). Among Republican voters alone, 53 percent told pollsters they’d pick Trump in the primary, with Pence trailing at just 9 percent. And if Trump doesn’t run, Pence may be duking it out with Trump’s oldest son, Don Jr., who tied with Pence for the lead at 20 percent. “In a crowded field of 14 possible candidates for the 2024 Republican primary, no one comes close to President Trump,” pollster John McLaughlin told Newsmax.
The Newsmax poll echoes findings from a Morning Consult poll for Politico released earlier this week that found Trump was the preferred 2024 candidate of 53 percent of Republican and Republican-leaning voters polled, with Pence trailing at a distant 12 percent and Don Jr. coming in with 8 percent.
While Pence was previously a congressman from Indiana and later the state’s governor, Don Jr. has never run for office, though he’s been talking about it for a while now, after declaring that “going back to doing deals is boring.” He just has to find a state that will have him. His liberal home state of New York is not about to elect him governor, nor will New York City voters make him mayor—a prospect even his father has scoffed at when he suggested the possibility. “I have friends in flyover country,” he told Fox News host Sean Hannity last year, suggesting that his best political prospects lay in a red state somewhere. But so far, the Trump scion hasn’t shown much interest in actually living in a red state like Kansas or Mississippi. Skipping right over lower offices to run for president as a New York exile would certainly solve his residency problem without forcing him to relocate to one of those decidedly less glamorous locales.


motherjones--2020-11-28--Trump Campaign Spends Millions—to Confirm Biden Won Wisconsin

The presidential election may be over , but the Trump campaign is fundraising like it ’ s 2019 .
Over the past 24 hours , 13 different email appeals from the campaign have flooded my inbox .
In the weeks since the election , they ’ ve arrived almost like clockwork every two hours .
Sometimes they offer a mystery gift .
Other times , they criticize me for my lack of loyalty to the campaign , like this one from Eric Trump : The appeals are frantic , desperate calls to help fund the campaign ’ s legal efforts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ radical left , the FAKE NEWS media , and BIG TECH.
” Of course , most of the money raised through such appeals will go to helping Trump retire campaign debt , of which he had more than $ 1 million as of October 14 .
But even if some of it really does go to Trump ’ s doomed efforts to overturn the election through litigation and recounts , potential donors might want to think twice about how the campaign is spending its resources before sending any money .
The most recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 3 million of its donor money to the Wisconsin Elections Commission for recounts in two counties in the state , Milwaukee and Dane , where President-elect Joe Biden won handily .
Trump had argued ( baselessly ) that the election was rife with fraud , and his campaign is trying to disqualify nearly 240,000 ballots cast in those two counties .
The Dane County recount should wrap up on Sunday , but the outcome isn ’ t looking great for Trump .
On Friday , officials announced that the recount in Milwaukee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The presidential election may be over, but the Trump campaign is fundraising like it’s 2019. Over the past 24 hours, 13 different email appeals from the campaign have flooded my inbox. In the weeks since the election, they’ve arrived almost like clockwork every two hours. Sometimes they offer a mystery gift. Other times, they criticize me for my lack of loyalty to the campaign, like this one from Eric Trump:
The appeals are frantic, desperate calls to help fund the campaign’s legal efforts to “defend the election from the radical left, the FAKE NEWS media, and BIG TECH.” Of course, most of the money raised through such appeals will go to helping Trump retire campaign debt, of which he had more than $1 million as of October 14. But even if some of it really does go to Trump’s doomed efforts to overturn the election through litigation and recounts, potential donors might want to think twice about how the campaign is spending its resources before sending any money.
The most recent case in point: The campaign paid $3 million of its donor money to the Wisconsin Elections Commission for recounts in two counties in the state, Milwaukee and Dane, where President-elect Joe Biden won handily. Trump had argued (baselessly) that the election was rife with fraud, and his campaign is trying to disqualify nearly 240,000 ballots cast in those two counties. The Dane County recount should wrap up on Sunday, but the outcome isn’t looking great for Trump. On Friday, officials announced that the recount in Milwaukee had netted an additional 132 votes—for Biden.


motherjones--2020-11-28--The RNC Chair Is Having Trouble Convincing Republicans to Vote in Georgia Senate Races

The chair of the Republican National Committee was in Georgia today trying to rally support for Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue , the GOP candidates in the state ’ s January 5 Senate runoff election .
If today ’ s event is any indication , the effort isn ’ t going too well , thanks in large part to the Trump campaign ’ s efforts to delegitimize the election in a state he lost to President-elect Joe Biden by about 12,000 votes .
At a meet-and-greet at the Cobb County Republican Party headquarters in Marietta , attendees peppered party chair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and pointless recounts going on in Wisconsin .
One person demanded to know why the RNC wasn ’ t investigating accusations about voting machines that supposedly changed votes or counted votes that weren ’ t there .
When McDaniel said that “ the evidence wasn ’ t there ” for voting irregularities , the crowd got surly , according to CNN correspondent Ryan Nobles , shouting things like “ Kemp is a crook !
” Brian Kemp is the Republican governor of Georgia and big-time Trump supporter .
“ Why should we vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s already decided ?
” one person demanded to know .
McDaniel had a hard time persuading the crowd that in fact the election had not been decided .
She asked the attendees to move on from the alleged voter fraud issues and focus on the Senate races .
“ We ’ ve got ta focus on January 5 right now , ” McDaniel said , according to CNN correspondent DJ Judd .
“ We can focus on those other things later.
” The Georgia meet-and-greet is just the latest sign of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convincing its own voters that the election in the state is legitimate and that they should vote for the two Republican Senate candidates .
McDaniel is up against people like prominent attorney L. Lin Wood , who has filed a lawsuit to try to overturn the presidential elections results in Georgia .
On November 21 , he told his 649,000 Twitter followers that Republican voters should withhold their votes for Loeffler and Perdue until they ’ ve shown more loyalty to Trump by taking stronger action against alleged voter fraud in the state @

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The chair of the Republican National Committee was in Georgia today trying to rally support for Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue, the GOP candidates in the state’s January 5 Senate runoff election. If today’s event is any indication, the effort isn’t going too well, thanks in large part to the Trump campaign’s efforts to delegitimize the election in a state he lost to President-elect Joe Biden by about 12,000 votes.
At a meet-and-greet at the Cobb County Republican Party headquarters in Marietta, attendees peppered party chair Ronna McDaniel with questions about election fraud and pointless recounts going on in Wisconsin. One person demanded to know why the RNC wasn’t investigating accusations about voting machines that supposedly changed votes or counted votes that weren’t there. When McDaniel said that “the evidence wasn’t there” for voting irregularities, the crowd got surly, according to CNN correspondent Ryan Nobles, shouting things like “Kemp is a crook!” Brian Kemp is the Republican governor of Georgia and big-time Trump supporter.
“Why should we vote in this election when we know it’s already decided?” one person demanded to know. McDaniel had a hard time persuading the crowd that in fact the election had not been decided. She asked the attendees to move on from the alleged voter fraud issues and focus on the Senate races. “We’ve gotta focus on January 5 right now,” McDaniel said, according to CNN correspondent DJ Judd. “We can focus on those other things later.”
Here is video from one of the exchanges. A supporter asks why the RNC is not looking into the allegations with the voting machines. McDaniel stated flatly there is no evidence of that. Then someone asks why they should vote in this election when it’s “already decided”. pic.twitter.com/gzDXB7OfEK — Ryan Nobles (@ryanobles) November 28, 2020
The Georgia meet-and-greet is just the latest sign of how much trouble the GOP is having convincing its own voters that the election in the state is legitimate and that they should vote for the two Republican Senate candidates. McDaniel is up against people like prominent attorney L. Lin Wood, who has filed a lawsuit to try to overturn the presidential elections results in Georgia. On November 21, he told his 649,000 Twitter followers that Republican voters should withhold their votes for Loeffler and Perdue until they’ve shown more loyalty to Trump by taking stronger action against alleged voter fraud in the state.


motherjones--2020-11-29--Wisconsin Recount Confirms Biden’s Victory Over Trump, Again

The completion of a partial recount on Sunday in the second of Wisconsin ’ s two largest counties reconfirmed President-elect Joe Biden ’ s victory in the key swing state against Donald Trump .
The recounts over the holiday weekend in Milwaukee and Dane counties of more than 800,000 ballots in fact widened Biden ’ s victory by 87 votes , after he took the state by more than 20,000 votes .
As the Washington Post reported , the effort cost Trump more than just any remaining shred of dignity he might have concerning the election : “ Under Wisconsin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bill for the partial recount—meaning his campaign paid $ 3 million only to see Biden ’ s lead expand.
” Trying still to win somehow by reversing the election results may no longer be the point , of course .
Trump threatened to sue in Wisconsin in the days ahead for “ fraud , ” despite no evidence to support such a claim .
The move will likely meet with swift failure , as it just did in Pennsylvania .
Instead , Trump ’ s goal may be to further damage Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system and undermine Joe Biden ’ s incoming presidential administration as illegitimate .
That ’ s an effort that Trump and his GOP allies have so far been quite successful with .

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


motherjones--2020-11-30--How Democrats Lost a Once-in-a-Decade Chance to Remake the Political Map

Heading into the November election , Texas Democrats sounded more bullish than they had in decades , and it wasn ’ t because of Joe Biden .
A burgeoning partisan realignment in the state ’ s sprawling suburbs over the last four years had brought them to the brink of flipping the state House of Representatives .
Such a breakthrough would halt 18 years of unchecked conservative control over the nation ’ s largest red state and give their party a seat at the table when new legislative maps are drawn after the census—a process that has crushed their spirits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the last two decades .
Candidates leaned into this message , framing the election as not just about the next two years , but about the next 10 .
“ The only check you have on the Republican power in Texas is to take a chamber , especially at the moment of redistricting , ” Ann Johnson , a Democrat running for a statehouse seat in suburban Houston , told me a few weeks before the election .
“ If you want to give them the pen for another decade , they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” All Democrats had to do was flip nine of the nearly two dozen seats they were contesting .
Instead , they picked up just one—Johnson ’ s district , which Democrat Beto O ’ Rourke had carried by 21 points during his Senate race two years earlier , and where the incumbent was a pro-choice Republican who had long been endorsed by Planned Parenthood .
The party ’ s target list was ambitious and its fundraising numbers were jaw-dropping , but the result for Texas Democrats was the same as nearly every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At least they have company .
In closely watched and expensive races across the country , Democrats came up short in their bid to take over Republican-held legislative chambers—even in states where Biden did well .
They had their eyes on legislatures in Pennsylvania , Minnesota , Michigan , and North Carolina .
Iowa was in play .
So , with some luck , were statehouses in Florida and Georgia .
But Democrats failed to flip a single legislative chamber and even lost both houses in blue New Hampshire .
Viewing such races @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy but to consolidating power ahead of redistricting , the super-PAC Forward Majority and the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee ( DLCC ) , the national party ’ s organization for statehouses , committed a combined $ 82 million to the effort .
Eric Holder ’ s National Democratic Redistricting Committee pumped in millions more .
But Republicans nabbed close to 80 seats nationwide .
The results , gloated one Republican operative , were “ absolutely embarrassing.
” Even as they celebrated President Donald Trump ’ s defeat , some Democrats felt as if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Ten years ago a well-timed red wave handed Republicans control of the redistricting process in key battleground states .
Aided by a flood of last-minute spending , they flipped 22 state legislative chambers , gained nearly 700 seats , and used that power to inflate their strength in Washington , DC , and in state capitals for the next decade .
With scientific precision , conservative lawyers crunched and manipulated data to construct a durable Republican wall that made it nearly impossible for Democrats to take back power even when they won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Those maps , and the legislative majorities they protected , cemented minority rule and turned competitive states into conservative policy labs where progressive ideas—Medicaid expansion , climate action , voting rights—went to die .
Democrats still held the White House—but that was where their influence ended .
Christina Polizzi , a spokesperson for the DLCC , rejects such comparisons .
“ This is not another 2010 , ” she told me .
“ We forced Republicans to go on defense on maps that they drew .
And at the end of the day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quo.
” While Democrats failed to flip any legislatures , Polizzi argued , they consolidated many of their recent gains , maintaining control of the legislature in Nevada and protecting some vulnerable incumbents elected in 2018—no easy feat with Trump juicing record-setting Republican turnout .
And it ’ s true that in some parts of the country , Democrats will face a less-hostile landscape than the one they encountered a decade ago .
Some of the most brazen examples of gerrymandering after the 2010 census were in Great Lakes states that Obama won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down the ticket that year gave Republicans control of the process .
The result : In 2012 , Obama won Michigan , Wisconsin , Ohio , and Pennsylvania , while Democrats won only 17 out of a possible 56 congressional seats in those states .
Now , Democrats control governors ’ mansions in three of those states heading into redistricting ; Michigan established a bipartisan redistricting commission ; and Ohio approved constitutional amendments to make that state ’ s process fairer .
“ They won ’ t be able to draw a 12–4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says the NDRC ’ s Patrick Rodenbush , referring to Ohio ’ s current Republican-dominated delegation .
While they may tread water in the Midwest , Democrats could be totally swamped in the Sun Belt , where Republicans have a chance to replicate their efforts of a decade ago with even more at stake and fewer restraints .
“ I would say that the South is this decade ’ s redistricting hot spot , ” says Michael Li , a senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice .
Texas , North Carolina @ @ @ @ @ @ @ add House seats after the census , and each has a long track record of gerrymandering along partisan or racial lines .
So does Georgia , another state where Democrats were stymied down ballot this year .
As Li notes , this will be the first 10-year cycle in which Republican mapmakers won ’ t be bound by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act , which required certain states to obtain “ pre-clearance ” from the Department of Justice to ensure they didn ’ t discriminate .
The Supreme Court struck down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enabling a shoot-first , ask-questions-later approach to gerrymandering , and Republicans quickly took advantage .
Georgia , for instance , redrew its maps mid-decade , protecting two white incumbents in the Atlanta suburbs .
Now , as Democrats have made up even more ground in the state , Republicans ’ control over the process could allow them to triage their recent losses by , for example , forcing two recently elected Democratic congresswomen to fight for the same seat .
In North Carolina , where the Democratic governor has no role in redistricting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting power were finally struck down by a state court in 2019 , and only then after the daughter of the now-dead Republican operative who designed them revealed the existence of his racist planning documents—a scenario that ’ s unlikely to repeat itself .
Texas remains the grand prize for Republicans .
Because an independent commission draws California ’ s maps , Texas represents the biggest gerrymandering haul , and historically , it ’ s been one in which Democrats are most brazenly shafted .
Under the current congressional map , fast-growing liberal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress , only two of whom actually live in the city—and only one of whom is a Democrat .
A map that gave Democrats a number of districts proportionate to their vote share in recent national elections would net them about five more House seats than they hold now .
That ’ s the kind of margin that can make or break a majority .
Republicans , meanwhile , have used the process to cement white voting power and dilute the political clout of voters of color ; as Li points out , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gains over the last two decades have come from Latino and Asian American residents , but the state has added no new House districts that reflect those trends .
And that brings us to the other wild card about this redistricting cycle , which stands to hurt Democrats in several ways : the census .
Because the process was delayed by the pandemic , states might not receive their data until next summer .
A governor could , without federal pre-clearance , schedule the process so that a constitutionally dubious map drops just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run in the new districts .
The state could then stave off legal challenges by arguing that it was too late to change the maps .
Then there ’ s the census data itself , which Trump ’ s Commerce Department manipulated in an attempt to undercount people of color .
The administration sought to add a citizenship question , which would have both discouraged participation in some communities and opened the door for Republicans to draw districts based on citizenship rather than total population .
The question was removed—thanks to that same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was hampered by the pandemic , and the Trump administration abruptly stopped the count in mid-October , feeding concerns of an undercount .
Already , there are signs Republicans will attempt to use those results to tighten their grip even further .
In Missouri , voters narrowly passed a ballot amendment that could lead the state to exclude noncitizens from its population count when drawing new districts , paving the way for similar actions in other states .
The problem of representation in state legislatures goes beyond the nuts and bolts of gerrymandering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one : Democrats believe the way to grow power is to wield it—to provide popular accomplishments that will substantively improve voters ’ lives and build an enduring coalition of support .
Medicare and the New Deal in the past .
The Green New Deal and Medicare for All , perhaps , in the future .
But right now , they ’ re stuck in a loop : To acquire more power , they need seats , and to acquire more seats , they need power .
In the years since the tea party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a rallying cry on the left .
During his run for Democratic National Committee chair in 2017 , Keith Ellison often rattled off the number of down-ballot seats Democrats lost in the Obama years in his speeches .
So did Pete Buttigieg before his run for president .
Unless the party reverses those numbers , “ it ’ s not going to matter who the president is , ” Buttigieg told voters .
It might not be 2010 all over again .
But that ’ s because 2010 never really ended .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Heading into the November election, Texas Democrats sounded more bullish than they had in decades, and it wasn’t because of Joe Biden. A burgeoning partisan realignment in the state’s sprawling suburbs over the last four years had brought them to the brink of flipping the state House of Representatives. Such a breakthrough would halt 18 years of unchecked conservative control over the nation’s largest red state and give their party a seat at the table when new legislative maps are drawn after the census—a process that has crushed their spirits and disempowered their base for most of the last two decades. Candidates leaned into this message, framing the election as not just about the next two years, but about the next 10.
“The only check you have on the Republican power in Texas is to take a chamber, especially at the moment of redistricting,” Ann Johnson, a Democrat running for a statehouse seat in suburban Houston, told me a few weeks before the election. “If you want to give them the pen for another decade, they’ll carve them up just the same.”
All Democrats had to do was flip nine of the nearly two dozen seats they were contesting. Instead, they picked up just one—Johnson’s district, which Democrat Beto O’Rourke had carried by 21 points during his Senate race two years earlier, and where the incumbent was a pro-choice Republican who had long been endorsed by Planned Parenthood. The party’s target list was ambitious and its fundraising numbers were jaw-dropping, but the result for Texas Democrats was the same as nearly every other election this millennium: disappointment.
At least they have company.
In closely watched and expensive races across the country, Democrats came up short in their bid to take over Republican-held legislative chambers—even in states where Biden did well. They had their eyes on legislatures in Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Michigan, and North Carolina. Iowa was in play. So, with some luck, were statehouses in Florida and Georgia. But Democrats failed to flip a single legislative chamber and even lost both houses in blue New Hampshire. Viewing such races as critical not just to enacting progressive policy but to consolidating power ahead of redistricting, the super-PAC Forward Majority and the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC), the national party’s organization for statehouses, committed a combined $82 million to the effort. Eric Holder’s National Democratic Redistricting Committee pumped in millions more. But Republicans nabbed close to 80 seats nationwide. The results, gloated one Republican operative, were “absolutely embarrassing.”
Even as they celebrated President Donald Trump’s defeat, some Democrats felt as if they were going back to the future. Ten years ago a well-timed red wave handed Republicans control of the redistricting process in key battleground states. Aided by a flood of last-minute spending, they flipped 22 state legislative chambers, gained nearly 700 seats, and used that power to inflate their strength in Washington, DC, and in state capitals for the next decade. With scientific precision, conservative lawyers crunched and manipulated data to construct a durable Republican wall that made it nearly impossible for Democrats to take back power even when they won more votes statewide by considerable margins. Those maps, and the legislative majorities they protected, cemented minority rule and turned competitive states into conservative policy labs where progressive ideas—Medicaid expansion, climate action, voting rights—went to die. Democrats still held the White House—but that was where their influence ended.
Christina Polizzi, a spokesperson for the DLCC, rejects such comparisons. “This is not another 2010,” she told me. “We forced Republicans to go on defense on maps that they drew. And at the end of the day, they really just maintained their status quo.” While Democrats failed to flip any legislatures, Polizzi argued, they consolidated many of their recent gains, maintaining control of the legislature in Nevada and protecting some vulnerable incumbents elected in 2018—no easy feat with Trump juicing record-setting Republican turnout.
And it’s true that in some parts of the country, Democrats will face a less-hostile landscape than the one they encountered a decade ago. Some of the most brazen examples of gerrymandering after the 2010 census were in Great Lakes states that Obama won twice but where huge losses up and down the ticket that year gave Republicans control of the process. The result: In 2012, Obama won Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, while Democrats won only 17 out of a possible 56 congressional seats in those states.
Now, Democrats control governors’ mansions in three of those states heading into redistricting; Michigan established a bipartisan redistricting commission; and Ohio approved constitutional amendments to make that state’s process fairer. “They won’t be able to draw a 12–4 map on the congressional level,” says the NDRC’s Patrick Rodenbush, referring to Ohio’s current Republican-dominated delegation.
While they may tread water in the Midwest, Democrats could be totally swamped in the Sun Belt, where Republicans have a chance to replicate their efforts of a decade ago with even more at stake and fewer restraints. “I would say that the South is this decade’s redistricting hot spot,” says Michael Li, a senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice. Texas, North Carolina, and Florida are all likely to add House seats after the census, and each has a long track record of gerrymandering along partisan or racial lines. So does Georgia, another state where Democrats were stymied down ballot this year.
As Li notes, this will be the first 10-year cycle in which Republican mapmakers won’t be bound by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which required certain states to obtain “pre-clearance” from the Department of Justice to ensure they didn’t discriminate. The Supreme Court struck down part of the act in 2013, enabling a shoot-first, ask-questions-later approach to gerrymandering, and Republicans quickly took advantage. Georgia, for instance, redrew its maps mid-decade, protecting two white incumbents in the Atlanta suburbs. Now, as Democrats have made up even more ground in the state, Republicans’ control over the process could allow them to triage their recent losses by, for example, forcing two recently elected Democratic congresswomen to fight for the same seat. In North Carolina, where the Democratic governor has no role in redistricting, Republican maps that aggressively diminished Black voting power were finally struck down by a state court in 2019, and only then after the daughter of the now-dead Republican operative who designed them revealed the existence of his racist planning documents—a scenario that’s unlikely to repeat itself.
Texas remains the grand prize for Republicans. Because an independent commission draws California’s maps, Texas represents the biggest gerrymandering haul, and historically, it’s been one in which Democrats are most brazenly shafted. Under the current congressional map, fast-growing liberal Austin is represented by six members of Congress, only two of whom actually live in the city—and only one of whom is a Democrat. A map that gave Democrats a number of districts proportionate to their vote share in recent national elections would net them about five more House seats than they hold now. That’s the kind of margin that can make or break a majority.
Republicans, meanwhile, have used the process to cement white voting power and dilute the political clout of voters of color; as Li points out, much of the state’s population gains over the last two decades have come from Latino and Asian American residents, but the state has added no new House districts that reflect those trends.
And that brings us to the other wild card about this redistricting cycle, which stands to hurt Democrats in several ways: the census. Because the process was delayed by the pandemic, states might not receive their data until next summer. A governor could, without federal pre-clearance, schedule the process so that a constitutionally dubious map drops just before the filing deadline for candidates to run in the new districts. The state could then stave off legal challenges by arguing that it was too late to change the maps.
Then there’s the census data itself, which Trump’s Commerce Department manipulated in an attempt to undercount people of color. The administration sought to add a citizenship question, which would have both discouraged participation in some communities and opened the door for Republicans to draw districts based on citizenship rather than total population. The question was removed—thanks to that same batch of North Carolina files—but the census was hampered by the pandemic, and the Trump administration abruptly stopped the count in mid-October, feeding concerns of an undercount. Already, there are signs Republicans will attempt to use those results to tighten their grip even further. In Missouri, voters narrowly passed a ballot amendment that could lead the state to exclude noncitizens from its population count when drawing new districts, paving the way for similar actions in other states.
The problem of representation in state legislatures goes beyond the nuts and bolts of gerrymandering. It’s a more existential one: Democrats believe the way to grow power is to wield it—to provide popular accomplishments that will substantively improve voters’ lives and build an enduring coalition of support. Medicare and the New Deal in the past. The Green New Deal and Medicare for All, perhaps, in the future. But right now, they’re stuck in a loop: To acquire more power, they need seats, and to acquire more seats, they need power.
In the years since the tea party wave, the 2010 election has become a rallying cry on the left. During his run for Democratic National Committee chair in 2017, Keith Ellison often rattled off the number of down-ballot seats Democrats lost in the Obama years in his speeches. So did Pete Buttigieg before his run for president. Unless the party reverses those numbers, “it’s not going to matter who the president is,” Buttigieg told voters.
It might not be 2010 all over again. But that’s because 2010 never really ended.


motherjones--2020-12-01--Trump Lost. But Racism Will Probably Win Again.

When the major media outlets finally called the presidential election for Joe Biden , huge numbers of people around the country took to the streets to celebrate .
But as they popped champagne , danced alongside their neighbors , and cried tears of joy , the question of what would come next loomed ominously .
The election may have been a referendum on a second Trump term , but with more than 70 million votes in his favor , it was clearly not a referendum on Trumpism , or on the deep injustices that animated his rise to power and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , now that he has been defeated , let ’ s take one last look ( promise ! )
at Trump ’ s history of racism .
In the 1970s , the Department of Justice sued him for refusing to rent to Black people .
After a white woman was raped in New York City ’ s Central Park in 1989 , he called for the five Black and Brown teenagers who were wrongfully accused to be executed—and kept railing against them even after DNA evidence proved their innocence .
And then came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ birth certificate .
Trump ’ s presidential run began with his description of Mexican immigrants as rapists and criminals , a foreshadowing of a presidency in which anyone perceived as different or disagreeing with him would be subjected to taunting tweets , at best , and cruel policies , at worst .
Trump and his sycophants banned Muslims from entering the country , separated children from their parents at the border , and blocked refugees from settling here .
But we know all this .
The danger in treating Trump like some kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the night who caught democracy off guard , is that we end up falsely believing that just one simple act like , say , voting for his opponent , can restore decency to a nation .
But last summer ’ s racial reckoning , in which millions of people finally began to understand what Black people have known all along , proved that even well-intentioned liberals had no idea how serious the problem of deeply entrenched white supremacy is .
Trump would not have been so successful in his campaign of racism and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filled with many opportunities to exploit those feelings .
Consider how Trump and his enablers responded to his defeat .
Rather than acknowledging the loss and engaging in a peaceful transition , they filed frivolous lawsuits alleging that votes in Philadelphia , Detroit , and Atlanta were “ illegal.
” ( His loyal attorney and consigliere Rudolph Giuliani tweeted : “ The only thing that would have surprised me is if Philly didn ’ t cheat on a big scale in the 2020 election .
It would have been the first time they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ) Not coincidentally , these epicenters of Black voters helped secure Biden ’ s election .
The message was clear : Black people who voted for Biden are illegitimate .
These outlandish claims did not succeed in overturning the election results , but they normalized yet another authoritarian maneuver and provided Republicans with a playbook for future races .
This tactic did not come out of the blue : For decades the GOP has been spinning tales about voter fraud and has attempted to disenfranchise Black and Brown communities with voter ID @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s cries of rigged votes and his demands for pointless recounts were one last grift with disturbing consequences for marginalized people .
They were also a fitting end to his chaotic and racist presidency .
When assessing how a demagogue rises to power , history ’ s turning points are edifying .
The Emancipation Proclamation , the Civil Rights Act , and the election of the first Black president were each met with backlash—or whitelash .
Jim Crow laws , lynchings , and the Southern strategy led to the modern-day GOP and , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American autocrat was always going to rise to power via racism .
According to political scientists Nicholas Davis and Steven Miller , “ the one constant thread woven throughout American democracy is that white Americans ’ track record regarding matters of racial and democratic equality is poor.
” Democracy is undermined when intolerant white people realize it ’ s a system designed to extend basic rights to everyone .
If we are to prevent the rise of an even more cunning authoritarian leader , we must somehow resolve the vulnerabilities and immorality in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Because even though Trump ’ s worst onslaughts came against marginalized groups , the policies that are born of racism don ’ t spare white people .
Consider the coronavirus .
People—disproportionately people of color—who had no choice but to go to their front-line jobs became cannon fodder for the virus .
And as COVID first exploded in cities where Black and Brown people live , the white people who rejected science in favor of “ freedom ” convinced themselves that mask-wearing was part of a conspiracy , or at least not their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through white communities—not to mention the White House .
There are signs that a Biden presidency may be the beginning of racial reconciliation .
His administration will set up a task force to study COVID-19 racial disparities , a recognition that people of color getting sicker is not an aberration but a feature of our unequal society .
But first there must be some consensus about what racial reconciliation means .
Even well-meaning people have found it difficult to accept that there is a sickness that goes much deeper than Trump .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who won ’ t defend armed white people who kill protesters , and will not see the presidency as a vehicle to enrich himself and his family members .
But , at least for this Black woman , after 400 years of white supremacist ideology devaluing our lives , that is not enough .
Biden must commit to having racial impacts factored into all his policies .
While the GOP has offered nothing but grievance politics and managed to convince its base to endure misery so long as people of color are more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prove that what ’ s good for Black people—health care , housing , ending the pandemic , fighting climate change—is good for us all .
But this will not happen unless white Americans ( or enough of them ) also commit to that process of self-examination .
No sooner did election results start to appear than the commentary began , bemoaning the notion that various groups of Black and Brown people didn ’ t show up at the polls in the numbers that had been projected .
It ’ s time for white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump became president because a majority of white people voted for him in 2016 .
Biden did not win in a landslide for the same reason .
Instead of shallow narratives about how Brown and Black voters didn ’ t do what was expected of them , the scrutiny needs to be turned around : How many people in your community voted for him ?
An honest assessment of who we actually are as a country can ’ t happen until the white vote , and whiteness more broadly , is examined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chose Trump .
Tens of millions took stock of the catastrophic handling of the coronavirus pandemic , the widespread economic suffering that Trump and the Republicans have done little to reverse , and the terrifying increase of white supremacist violence , and decided : This is the America we want .
And that ’ s a problem that will endure long after Trump is gone .

When the major media outlets finally called the presidential election for Joe Biden, huge numbers of people around the country took to the streets to celebrate. But as they popped champagne, danced alongside their neighbors, and cried tears of joy, the question of what would come next loomed ominously. The election may have been a referendum on a second Trump term, but with more than 70 million votes in his favor, it was clearly not a referendum on Trumpism, or on the deep injustices that animated his rise to power and captivated large swaths of Americans.
Still, now that he has been defeated, let’s take one last look (promise!) at Trump’s history of racism. In the 1970s, the Department of Justice sued him for refusing to rent to Black people. After a white woman was raped in New York City’s Central Park in 1989, he called for the five Black and Brown teenagers who were wrongfully accused to be executed—and kept railing against them even after DNA evidence proved their innocence. And then came his obsession with Barack Obama’s birth certificate. Trump’s presidential run began with his description of Mexican immigrants as rapists and criminals, a foreshadowing of a presidency in which anyone perceived as different or disagreeing with him would be subjected to taunting tweets, at best, and cruel policies, at worst. Trump and his sycophants banned Muslims from entering the country, separated children from their parents at the border, and blocked refugees from settling here. But we know all this.
The danger in treating Trump like some kind of aberration, like a stranger in the night who caught democracy off guard, is that we end up falsely believing that just one simple act like, say, voting for his opponent, can restore decency to a nation. But last summer’s racial reckoning, in which millions of people finally began to understand what Black people have known all along, proved that even well-intentioned liberals had no idea how serious the problem of deeply entrenched white supremacy is. Trump would not have been so successful in his campaign of racism and hate if this country weren’t filled with many opportunities to exploit those feelings.
Trump would not have been so successful in his campaign of racism and hate if this country weren’t filled with many opportunities to exploit those feelings.
Consider how Trump and his enablers responded to his defeat. Rather than acknowledging the loss and engaging in a peaceful transition, they filed frivolous lawsuits alleging that votes in Philadelphia, Detroit, and Atlanta were “illegal.” (His loyal attorney and consigliere Rudolph Giuliani tweeted: “The only thing that would have surprised me is if Philly didn’t cheat on a big scale in the 2020 election. It would have been the first time they missed such an opportunity in 60 years.”) Not coincidentally, these epicenters of Black voters helped secure Biden’s election. The message was clear: Black people who voted for Biden are illegitimate. These outlandish claims did not succeed in overturning the election results, but they normalized yet another authoritarian maneuver and provided Republicans with a playbook for future races. This tactic did not come out of the blue: For decades the GOP has been spinning tales about voter fraud and has attempted to disenfranchise Black and Brown communities with voter ID requirements and other laws. Trump’s cries of rigged votes and his demands for pointless recounts were one last grift with disturbing consequences for marginalized people. They were also a fitting end to his chaotic and racist presidency.
When assessing how a demagogue rises to power, history’s turning points are edifying. The Emancipation Proclamation, the Civil Rights Act, and the election of the first Black president were each met with backlash—or whitelash. Jim Crow laws, lynchings, and the Southern strategy led to the modern-day GOP and, of course, to Trump. An American autocrat was always going to rise to power via racism. According to political scientists Nicholas Davis and Steven Miller, “the one constant thread woven throughout American democracy is that white Americans’ track record regarding matters of racial and democratic equality is poor.” Democracy is undermined when intolerant white people realize it’s a system designed to extend basic rights to everyone.
If we are to prevent the rise of an even more cunning authoritarian leader, we must somehow resolve the vulnerabilities and immorality in our system that Trump expertly manipulated. Because even though Trump’s worst onslaughts came against marginalized groups, the policies that are born of racism don’t spare white people. Consider the coronavirus. People—disproportionately people of color—who had no choice but to go to their front-line jobs became cannon fodder for the virus. And as COVID first exploded in cities where Black and Brown people live, the white people who rejected science in favor of “freedom” convinced themselves that mask-wearing was part of a conspiracy, or at least not their responsibility. Inevitably the virus then stormed through white communities—not to mention the White House.
There are signs that a Biden presidency may be the beginning of racial reconciliation. His administration will set up a task force to study COVID-19 racial disparities, a recognition that people of color getting sicker is not an aberration but a feature of our unequal society. But first there must be some consensus about what racial reconciliation means. Even well-meaning people have found it difficult to accept that there is a sickness that goes much deeper than Trump.
It will be good to have a president who won’t defend armed white people who kill protesters, and will not see the presidency as a vehicle to enrich himself and his family members. But, at least for this Black woman, after 400 years of white supremacist ideology devaluing our lives, that is not enough. Biden must commit to having racial impacts factored into all his policies. While the GOP has offered nothing but grievance politics and managed to convince its base to endure misery so long as people of color are more miserable, Biden’s presidency can prove that what’s good for Black people—health care, housing, ending the pandemic, fighting climate change—is good for us all.
But this will not happen unless white Americans (or enough of them) also commit to that process of self-examination. No sooner did election results start to appear than the commentary began, bemoaning the notion that various groups of Black and Brown people didn’t show up at the polls in the numbers that had been projected. It’s time for white Americans to turn their electoral critique inward. Trump became president because a majority of white people voted for him in 2016. Biden did not win in a landslide for the same reason. Instead of shallow narratives about how Brown and Black voters didn’t do what was expected of them, the scrutiny needs to be turned around: How many people in your community voted for him?
An honest assessment of who we actually are as a country can’t happen until the white vote, and whiteness more broadly, is examined. Nearly half of all voters still chose Trump. Tens of millions took stock of the catastrophic handling of the coronavirus pandemic, the widespread economic suffering that Trump and the Republicans have done little to reverse, and the terrifying increase of white supremacist violence, and decided: This is the America we want. And that’s a problem that will endure long after Trump is gone.


motherjones--2020-12-01--While Kelly Loeffler Opposed New COVID Aid, Her Husband’s Firm Sought to Profit Off the Pandemic

In October , Atlanta magazine asked Sen. Kelly Loeffler ( R-Ga. ) , while she was running for reelection , what should be done for Georgians who , due to the COVID-19 pandemic , couldn ’ t pay rent and who might face eviction .
Loeffler didn ’ t answer the question .
And this month , she and the rest of the Republican Senate caucus left Washington without dealing with the looming eviction crisis , the expected rise in mortgage foreclosures , and the need for economic relief , as the spread of the coronavirus intensified .
Yet while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months to address these pressing matters , the Fortune 500 company run by her husband—in which she holds between $ 5 million and $ 25 million in stock—has sought to profit off the pandemic ’ s impact on the housing market and the mortgage industry .
Loeffler ’ s husband , Jeffrey Sprecher , is CEO of Intercontinental Exchange , which owns a variety of financial exchanges , including the New York Stock Exchange , and other financial businesses .
The company is valued at close to $ 60 billion .
Loeffler , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vacant Senate seat in late 2019 and who now is in a run-off contest against Democrat Raphael Warnock , worked at Intercontinental Exchange for 16 years and left the firm at the end of 2018 .
She was a crucial part of its corporate team , according to a company press release that announced her departure : “ Loeffler has played a role at every stage of ICE ’ s growth since joining the company in 2002 .
From its roots as a startup to becoming a Fortune 500 company , Loeffler , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Management Committee , has led all aspects of ICE ’ s investor relations , communications , marketing strategy , brand , digital platforms and sustainability efforts , among many other contributions.
” She entered the Senate with an estimated fortune of $ 800 million , making her the richest member of Congress .
ICE is best known for its ownership of various exchanges , including futures exchanges in the United States , Canada , and Europe .
But it also has a business that handles the processing of mortgages .
This is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And in recent years , ICE has pushed to digitalize the mortgage industry .
This summer , pursuing dominance in the online mortgage business , Sprecher engineered an $ 11 billion purchase of Ellie Mae , a leading provider of software for originating mortgages .
Sprecher and ICE were taking advantage of the moment .
As Fortune magazine observed , ICE was benefitting from two aspects of the pandemic : lockdowns prevented customers from heading to banks and law offices , and low interest rates brought about by the economic calamity caused a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ All at once , COVID hits , and we see everyone from lenders to lawyers to title insurers flocking to go to our digital platforms , ” Sprecher told Fortune .
“ In part , it was that sea change that gave us the confidence to buy Ellie Mae.
” When ICE ’ s acquisition of Ellie Mae was announced in early August , Sprecher on a conference call told analysts that Ellie Mae ’ s revenue has grown rapidly partly because the pandemic had accelerated the adoption of its digital tools @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a quarterly earnings call , Benjamin Jackson , the president of ICE , identified ICE ’ s mortgage services business as one of “ the real near-term revenue growth opportunities that are right in front of us that we ’ re already capturing…especially with COVID.
” At a conference in September , Jackson pointed out that ICE ’ s corporate leaders thought the firm ’ s effort to digitalize the mortgage process would be a “ 10-year journey ” but that the “ unfortunate backdrop of COVID ” accelerated the process and “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ahead with the gargantuan Ellie Mae deal .
In October , Jackson observed that due to the pandemic , “ you ’ re seeing people purchasing new homes to get more space , to get a pool , transitioning out of cities into suburbs ” and that “ just affirms our view that we had going into this [ Ellie Mae ] transaction what the opportunity is with this business.
” Evaluating Sprecher ’ s purchase of Ellie Mae , Forbes observed that “ low mortgage rates and geographic shifts created by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of pent up activity for Ellie to service.
” While her husband was taking advantage of the pandemic ’ s effect on the housing market to advance ICE ’ s grand plan to gain control of the digital mortgage service sector , Loeffler has done little to address the housing and economic crises triggered by the coronavirus .
In the spring , she unveiled a proposal “ to restart our economy safely.
” It was a hodgepodge of mostly conservative ideas , such as eliminating payroll taxes for the rest of 2020 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reform measures related to the first wave of pandemic relief already passed .
One section did note , “ Families are having difficulty affording their mortgage or rent.
” But Loeffler ’ s plan included no provisions regarding mortgage or rent relief or eviction moratoria .
The issues page of her re-election campaign website contains no reference to the pandemic , the economic hardships caused by COVID-19 , or the eviction and mortgage crises .
The out-of-date “ Jobs and the Economy ” section proclaims , “ Thanks to bold conservative leadership on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unemployment rate in Georgia—and throughout the country—is at historic lows… As a businesswoman and political outsider , Kelly is working in Washington to advance pro-growth policies that keep our state and country moving in the right direction .
She is proud to champion President Trump ’ s economic agenda to Keep America Great !
” In July , Loeffler noted her opposition to extending assistance to Americans hit hard by the coronavirus recession : “ I am not seeing a big need to extend the federal unemployment insurance.
” More recently , Loeffler @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has not said much ( or anything ) about the looming eviction and foreclosure crises .
In September , the Centers for Disease Control imposed a moratorium on residential evictions for people making less than $ 99,000 a year ( or $ 198,000 for a couple ) .
It ends on December 31 .
Other economic assistance benefits from the CARES Act that was passed in March also expire at the end of the month , including certain unemployment benefits that could affect millions of people and their ability to pay rent or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provisions in the CARES Act are scheduled to end in March 2021 .
All this and more—including the accelerating spread of COVID-19—are likely to lead to a spike in mortgage foreclosures and evictions .
But the new “ wave of foreclosures , ” Millionacres , a Motley Fool service , pointed out , will likely lead to a real estate buying spree .
That could be good news for Sprecher and ICE , given the company ’ s acquisition of Ellie Mae .
And ICE will continue to benefit , if the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it has been .
Loeffler and Sprecher ’ s financial actions have generated controversy on another front .
In January , after she attended a private Senate briefing on the coronavirus threat , she and her husband made a series of stock sales .
This included buying stock in firms that develop teleworking software .
They subsequently sold off $ 18.7 million shares in ICE and also dumped shares in retail outlets .
Once news of these trades emerged , Loeffler denied exploiting confidential information she had obtained as a senator .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no evidence ” she had violated the law or Senate rules .
By the way , Loeffler sits on the Senate Agriculture Committee , which oversees the Commodity Futures Trading Commission , which regulates ICE .
( Sen. David Perdue , a Republican campaigning alongside Loeffler in Georgia ’ s other run-off election on January 5 , was also snared in a stock-selling scandal .
At least one case of his personal wheeling-and-dealing was investigated by the feds , but no charges were filed . )
The Loeffler campaign did not respond to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in ICE , the Ellie Mae deal , and the company ’ s effort to capitalize on the pandemic .
In August , Forbes reported that Loeffler , thanks to her stock deals , had become “ a poster child for Washington swampiness.
” Yet her ongoing relationship to ICE perhaps illustrates a deeper issue .
With her husband at the helm and with a large chuck of ICE shares within her personal portfolio , Loeffler stands to gain if the company succeeds in exploiting pandemic conditions to expand its hold on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ afforded ICE and her husband a huge opportunity , and they took an $ 11 billion leap with the Ellie Mae deal .
So far , Loeffler has been far stingier when it comes to Georgians and other Americans for whom the pandemic means nothing but loss and misfortune .

In October, Atlanta magazine asked Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.), while she was running for reelection, what should be done for Georgians who, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, couldn’t pay rent and who might face eviction. Loeffler didn’t answer the question. And this month, she and the rest of the Republican Senate caucus left Washington without dealing with the looming eviction crisis, the expected rise in mortgage foreclosures, and the need for economic relief, as the spread of the coronavirus intensified. Yet while Loeffler has taken no steps in recent months to address these pressing matters, the Fortune 500 company run by her husband—in which she holds between $5 million and $25 million in stock—has sought to profit off the pandemic’s impact on the housing market and the mortgage industry.
Loeffler’s husband, Jeffrey Sprecher, is CEO of Intercontinental Exchange, which owns a variety of financial exchanges, including the New York Stock Exchange, and other financial businesses. The company is valued at close to $60 billion. Loeffler, who was appointed to to fill a vacant Senate seat in late 2019 and who now is in a run-off contest against Democrat Raphael Warnock, worked at Intercontinental Exchange for 16 years and left the firm at the end of 2018. She was a crucial part of its corporate team, according to a company press release that announced her departure: “Loeffler has played a role at every stage of ICE’s growth since joining the company in 2002. From its roots as a startup to becoming a Fortune 500 company, Loeffler, a member of ICE’s Executive Management Committee, has led all aspects of ICE’s investor relations, communications, marketing strategy, brand, digital platforms and sustainability efforts, among many other contributions.” She entered the Senate with an estimated fortune of $800 million, making her the richest member of Congress.
ICE is best known for its ownership of various exchanges, including futures exchanges in the United States, Canada, and Europe. But it also has a business that handles the processing of mortgages. This is the fastest growing part of the firm. And in recent years, ICE has pushed to digitalize the mortgage industry. This summer, pursuing dominance in the online mortgage business, Sprecher engineered an $11 billion purchase of Ellie Mae, a leading provider of software for originating mortgages.
Sprecher and ICE were taking advantage of the moment. As Fortune magazine observed, ICE was benefitting from two aspects of the pandemic: lockdowns prevented customers from heading to banks and law offices, and low interest rates brought about by the economic calamity caused a dramatic spike in refinancing of mortgages. “All at once, COVID hits, and we see everyone from lenders to lawyers to title insurers flocking to go to our digital platforms,” Sprecher told Fortune. “In part, it was that sea change that gave us the confidence to buy Ellie Mae.”
When ICE’s acquisition of Ellie Mae was announced in early August, Sprecher on a conference call told analysts that Ellie Mae’s revenue has grown rapidly partly because the pandemic had accelerated the adoption of its digital tools. A few days earlier, on a quarterly earnings call, Benjamin Jackson, the president of ICE, identified ICE’s mortgage services business as one of “the real near-term revenue growth opportunities that are right in front of us that we’re already capturing…especially with COVID.”
At a conference in September, Jackson pointed out that ICE’s corporate leaders thought the firm’s effort to digitalize the mortgage process would be a “10-year journey” but that the “unfortunate backdrop of COVID” accelerated the process and “gave us the conviction” to go ahead with the gargantuan Ellie Mae deal. In October, Jackson observed that due to the pandemic, “you’re seeing people purchasing new homes to get more space, to get a pool, transitioning out of cities into suburbs” and that “just affirms our view that we had going into this [Ellie Mae] transaction what the opportunity is with this business.” Evaluating Sprecher’s purchase of Ellie Mae, Forbes observed that “low mortgage rates and geographic shifts created by the pandemic may give the housing market years of pent up activity for Ellie to service.”
While her husband was taking advantage of the pandemic’s effect on the housing market to advance ICE’s grand plan to gain control of the digital mortgage service sector, Loeffler has done little to address the housing and economic crises triggered by the coronavirus. In the spring, she unveiled a proposal “to restart our economy safely.” It was a hodgepodge of mostly conservative ideas, such as eliminating payroll taxes for the rest of 2020 and cutting regulations for new businesses, and reform measures related to the first wave of pandemic relief already passed. One section did note, “Families are having difficulty affording their mortgage or rent.” But Loeffler’s plan included no provisions regarding mortgage or rent relief or eviction moratoria.
The issues page of her re-election campaign website contains no reference to the pandemic, the economic hardships caused by COVID-19, or the eviction and mortgage crises. The out-of-date “Jobs and the Economy” section proclaims, “Thanks to bold conservative leadership on the state and federal level, our unemployment rate in Georgia—and throughout the country—is at historic lows… As a businesswoman and political outsider, Kelly is working in Washington to advance pro-growth policies that keep our state and country moving in the right direction. She is proud to champion President Trump’s economic agenda to Keep America Great!”
In July, Loeffler noted her opposition to extending assistance to Americans hit hard by the coronavirus recession: “I am not seeing a big need to extend the federal unemployment insurance.”
More recently, Loeffler, like her fellow Senate Republicans, has not said much (or anything) about the looming eviction and foreclosure crises. In September, the Centers for Disease Control imposed a moratorium on residential evictions for people making less than $99,000 a year (or $198,000 for a couple). It ends on December 31. Other economic assistance benefits from the CARES Act that was passed in March also expire at the end of the month, including certain unemployment benefits that could affect millions of people and their ability to pay rent or mortgage bills. Also, mortgage forbearance provisions in the CARES Act are scheduled to end in March 2021. All this and more—including the accelerating spread of COVID-19—are likely to lead to a spike in mortgage foreclosures and evictions. But the new “wave of foreclosures,” Millionacres, a Motley Fool service, pointed out, will likely lead to a real estate buying spree. That could be good news for Sprecher and ICE, given the company’s acquisition of Ellie Mae. And ICE will continue to benefit, if the pandemic real estate market remains as strong as it has been.
Loeffler and Sprecher’s financial actions have generated controversy on another front. In January, after she attended a private Senate briefing on the coronavirus threat, she and her husband made a series of stock sales. This included buying stock in firms that develop teleworking software. They subsequently sold off $18.7 million shares in ICE and also dumped shares in retail outlets. Once news of these trades emerged, Loeffler denied exploiting confidential information she had obtained as a senator. The Senate Ethics Committee stated it found “no evidence” she had violated the law or Senate rules. By the way, Loeffler sits on the Senate Agriculture Committee, which oversees the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates ICE. (Sen. David Perdue, a Republican campaigning alongside Loeffler in Georgia’s other run-off election on January 5, was also snared in a stock-selling scandal. At least one case of his personal wheeling-and-dealing was investigated by the feds, but no charges were filed.)
The Loeffler campaign did not respond to a request for comment about her investment in ICE, the Ellie Mae deal, and the company’s effort to capitalize on the pandemic.
In August, Forbes reported that Loeffler, thanks to her stock deals, had become “a poster child for Washington swampiness.” Yet her ongoing relationship to ICE perhaps illustrates a deeper issue. With her husband at the helm and with a large chuck of ICE shares within her personal portfolio, Loeffler stands to gain if the company succeeds in exploiting pandemic conditions to expand its hold on the digital mortgage business. The coronavirus crisis afforded ICE and her husband a huge opportunity, and they took an $11 billion leap with the Ellie Mae deal. So far, Loeffler has been far stingier when it comes to Georgians and other Americans for whom the pandemic means nothing but loss and misfortune.