motherjones--2020-08-14--“We Know How to Lead.” Rep. Barbara Lee on Kamala Harris and the Unifying Power of Black Women

Rep. Barbara Lee is a big fan of fellow Californian Sen. Kamala Harris .
Last year , Lee was the first high-profile politician to endorse Kamala Harris ’ bid for the Democratic presidential nomination .
After Joe Biden clinched the top spot in the Democratic primaries , the former vice president ’ s eventual choice of running mate was obvious , at least for Lee .
“ Kamala should be president , ” she said last week in a livestream conversation with Mother Jones Podcast host Jamilah King , just days before Harris got the nod—but Veep was the next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to lead , ” Lee said of Black women in the Democratic party , and beyond .
“ We know how to help regain the soul of America .
And we have our unique history in this country to be able to lead out of the White House as president and vice president.
” When Joe Biden became the presumptive Democratic nominee for president this spring , he vowed to choose a woman to be his number two .
Multiple candidates at the top of his short list were women of color .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s powered the Democratic Party for decades—its “ backbone , ” Lee said .
“ Enough is enough .
We ’ re here to stay .
So just shut up.
” Listen to the latest episode of the Mother Jones Podcast : Subscribe using Apple Podcasts , Spotify , Stitcher , or your favorite podcast app .
This wide-ranging interview also touches on Rep. Lee ’ s deep history in the fight for justice .
She has insisted on a seat at the table at the highest echelons of political power for years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black women in Congress for nearly three decades .
She worked on Shirley Chisholm ’ s campaign during Chisholm ’ s historic bid for the White House in 1972—a campaign after which Kamala Harris modeled her own .
Now Lee is at work on Capitol Hill trying to get Republicans to deliver much-needed economic relief in a wrecked economy .
“ We have 50,000 people who died from COVID who did not have to die , ” she said .
“ This is a matter of life and death.
” You can also @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Rep. Barbara Lee is a big fan of fellow Californian Sen. Kamala Harris. Last year, Lee was the first high-profile politician to endorse Kamala Harris’ bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. After Joe Biden clinched the top spot in the Democratic primaries, the former vice president’s eventual choice of running mate was obvious, at least for Lee. “Kamala should be president,” she said last week in a livestream conversation with Mother Jones Podcast host Jamilah King, just days before Harris got the nod—but Veep was the next best thing.
“We know how to lead,” Lee said of Black women in the Democratic party, and beyond. “We know how to help regain the soul of America. And we have our unique history in this country to be able to lead out of the White House as president and vice president.”
When Joe Biden became the presumptive Democratic nominee for president this spring, he vowed to choose a woman to be his number two. Multiple candidates at the top of his short list were women of color. Black women are a demographic that’s powered the Democratic Party for decades—its “backbone,” Lee said. “Enough is enough. We’re here to stay. So just shut up.”
Listen to the latest episode of the Mother Jones Podcast: Subscribe using Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.
This wide-ranging interview also touches on Rep. Lee’s deep history in the fight for justice. She has insisted on a seat at the table at the highest echelons of political power for years, serving as one of the few Black women in Congress for nearly three decades. She worked on Shirley Chisholm’s campaign during Chisholm’s historic bid for the White House in 1972—a campaign after which Kamala Harris modeled her own. Now Lee is at work on Capitol Hill trying to get Republicans to deliver much-needed economic relief in a wrecked economy.
“We have 50,000 people who died from COVID who did not have to die,” she said. “This is a matter of life and death.”
You can also watch the full conversation, below:


motherjones--2020-08-14--The DHS Secretary and His Deputy Got Their Jobs Unlawfully, a Government Watchdog Finds

Chad Wolf , the acting homeland security secretary , and Ken Cuccinelli , his acting deputy , were not appointed to their jobs lawfully , a government watchdog has found .
In a decision released Friday , the Government Accountability Office , a congressional oversight body , determined that Wolf and Cuccinelli were appointed as a result of an “ invalid order of succession.
” The GAO ’ s decision does not have the force of law , but will likely help those who are suing to block policies Wolf has put in place .
Wolf , a favorite of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on immigrants launched by his predecessor and recently used DHS law enforcement agents to target protesters in Portland .
The GAO found that Wolf ’ s predecessor , Kevin McAleenan , should not have become acting DHS secretary under the order of succession at the time .
As a result , he did not have the authority to further amend the order of succession to put Wolf and Cuccinelli at the head of DHS .
The GAO did not review the legality of Wolf and Cuccinelli ’ s actions at the head of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it referred the matter to the DHS Office of Inspector General .
The inspector general ’ s office is headed by a Donald Trump appointee who touted a PhD from a diploma mill .
He ’ s known for his loyalty to the current administration .
But the GAO finding could potentially give ammunition to a Democratic administration or Congress next year to invalidate policies put in place by DHS under Trump .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Chad Wolf, the acting homeland security secretary, and Ken Cuccinelli, his acting deputy, were not appointed to their jobs lawfully, a government watchdog has found.
In a decision released Friday, the Government Accountability Office, a congressional oversight body, determined that Wolf and Cuccinelli were appointed as a result of an “invalid order of succession.”
The GAO’s decision does not have the force of law, but will likely help those who are suing to block policies Wolf has put in place. Wolf, a favorite of President Trump, has continued the attacks on immigrants launched by his predecessor and recently used DHS law enforcement agents to target protesters in Portland.
The GAO found that Wolf’s predecessor, Kevin McAleenan, should not have become acting DHS secretary under the order of succession at the time. As a result, he did not have the authority to further amend the order of succession to put Wolf and Cuccinelli at the head of DHS.
The GAO did not review the legality of Wolf and Cuccinelli’s actions at the head of the Department of Homeland Security. Instead, it referred the matter to the DHS Office of Inspector General.
The inspector general’s office is headed by a Donald Trump appointee who touted a PhD from a diploma mill. He’s known for his loyalty to the current administration. But the GAO finding could potentially give ammunition to a Democratic administration or Congress next year to invalidate policies put in place by DHS under Trump.


motherjones--2020-08-14--Michigan’s Postal Workers Say the Fix Is In

While President Donald Trump forthrightly acknowledged only yesterday that weakening the Post Office will help him obstruct mail balloting this fall , postal workers in the key swing state of Michigan say his mission has been clear for weeks .
Delayed mail , a consequence of battles over funding for the United States Postal Service and of the agency ’ s staffing shortages , affects many aspects of American life—the delivery of millions of prescriptions , paychecks , bills .
But recent funding cuts , overtime reductions , and other changes imposed by Louis DeJoy , the man Trump recently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , have left postal workers warning about new multi-day delays—and that a deliberate effort to slow down the mail and interfere with the election is underway .
“ I think it ’ s absolutely true , ” said Steve Wood , a mail clerk who works at the Michigan Metroplex , a massive mail sorting center near Detroit .
He says he was convinced in recent weeks as he and his colleagues saw the removal of almost a quarter of the facility ’ s mail sorting machines , a lack of substitute employees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 pandemic , and a general lack of urgency to locate and send along ballots that have piled up in bins .
“ For years , every time there ’ s an election , we spend an enormous amount of time searching through [ mail containers ] to make sure that we get every ballot , ” he says .
While Michigan has held two major elections since April , he says “ it doesn ’ t appear that this year that they were real worried about that.
” Roscoe Woods , president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Detroit-metro area , said he didn ’ t initially think the policy changes were about the election .
But after what he ’ s seen and heard from his members , he says he ’ s now “ a firm believer that it ’ s a fundamental effort to undermine people ’ s confidence in this agency and make it harder to vote by mail…There ’ s no other explanation.
” Michael Mize , the president of the Michigan Postal Workers Union and of its Flint area local , thinks the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a vote-suppression effort , but finds the possibility too disturbing .
“ I don ’ t want to say it , to be very honest , because I don ’ t want that to happen or be any truth behind it , ” he said , adding that even the appearance of delays affecting ballots would be enough to give people “ reason to challenge whether or not things were handled appropriately.
” Reports about the slowing of mail delivery and its potential to disenfranchise voters are surfacing across the country .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michigan , a perennial battleground state where Trump topped Hillary Clinton by roughly 10,000 votes in 2016—just barely more than a tenth of a percentage of the 4.5 million votes cast .
DeJoy , a Trump mega donor who made millions in private shipping and whose continued financial entanglements with the industry have raised concerns about conflicts of interest , was appointed by the president as postmaster general on June 15 .
He has defended his recent policy changes and decisions , including the reducing workers ’ overtime and haggling over rates charged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being justified by bottom line concerns , citing the USPS ’ s longstanding funding and staffing issues .
On August 7 DeJoy , in his first remarks to the Postal Service Board of Governors , said the notion that he would “ ever make decisions concerning the Postal Service at the direction of the President…is wholly off-base.
” Contrary to Trump ’ s claims that the postal service “ can ’ t handle ” mail ballots in the fall , DeJoy insisted the agency “ has ample capacity to deliver all election mail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he ’ s working to privatize the postal service—a longstanding goal of conservatives , and a step deeply opposed by the USPS ’ s unionized workforce .
DeJoy ’ s actions have caught the attention of Congress , where Democrats see his changes as part of an obvious and open plan by Trump to hamstring mail voting and suppress votes .
On Wednesday , Rep. Carolyn Maloney ( D-N.Y. ) , chairwoman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform , introduced a bill that would block the postal service from implementing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is over .
The same day , every Democratic senator signed a letter to DeJoy demanding he answer questions about about increased postage charges for mail ballots and hand over his correspondence with local election officials on the issue .
The actions follow an earlier request from Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
and several other congressional Democrats that the US Postal Service ’ s inspector general investigate whether DeJoy ’ s actions have slowed down the mail .
The IG ’ s office declined to comment on “ any ongoing work.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrat , has launched his own investigation .
As the ranking member on the Senate ’ s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee , Peters has been gathering information from postal workers and others across Michigan , alongside reports from colleagues on both sides of the aisle about postal service issues in their states .
Peters ’ office has set up a website to collect complaints from Michiganders about what they ’ re seeing .
So far more than 6,000 people have sent messages about mail delivery problems , including one person who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them from taking medications on time .
While Peters says his office is used to fielding complaints about the mail , a “ surge ” of complaints started up around mid-July .
“ Something is definitely up over the last few weeks , ” Peters says .
Peters , speaking on Tuesday , said he is still gathering information and he hasn ’ t yet reached a conclusion about whether these policies are aimed at disrupting the election .
But he said he ’ s troubled by what he ’ s learned about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ procedures that limit the time automated mail sorters run , and modifications to the operations of inter-facility mail trucks .
Peters says he ’ s also concerned by conflicting answers he ’ s received from DeJoy ’ s office about the changes .
In July , the senator asked about published reports of decreased overtime and delivery standards across the nation .
The postal service responded in writing , insisting the policies were local and the media reports were incorrect .
A few weeks later , after DeJoy had a testy meeting with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , the USPS confirmed that the policies were , in fact , real , and they were national .
Peters said the USPS hasn ’ t provided any data indicating the new policies are worthwhile , and refuses to indicate if DeJoy will reverse course if it ’ s clear that the policies are leading to delayed mail .
Postal workers across the country have told Peters they already are .
“ Did you actually research whether or not these policies would lead to greater efficiency ?
” Peters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s asked DeJoy ’ s office .
“ And if not , why ?
That ’ s really disturbing that we ’ re in the middle of a pandemic and you ’ re making major changes in policies without knowing what the impact would be.
” While the COVID-19 pandemic is expected to lead to record-high rates of postal balloting across the country , Michigan was on track for a major expansion before the virus appeared .
In 2018 , the state ’ s voters approved a change to election law allowing anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s primary earlier this month saw roughly 65 percent of the 2.5 million ballots cast by mail .
But this month ’ s election showed that Michigan post offices , straining under existing burdens and DeJoy ’ s new mandates , can ’ t always deliver properly mailed ballots quickly enough to be counted .
In Sterling Heights , a large suburb north of Detroit , 165 mail ballots postmarked on July 30 arrived six days after the August 4 election .
Though a local race was decided by just 87 votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under a Michigan law requiring they arrive at local election offices or be in drop boxes by 8 pm on Election Day .
Melanie Ryska , Sterling Heights ’ city clerk , told Crain ’ s Detroit Business that a few late ballots are normal for such an election , but the number they received this month “ is very unusual , ” even after that the city advised voters to use drop-boxes in order to “ avoid the mail altogether just in case something like this happened.
” While Tracy Wimmer , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jocelyn Benson , says the state has been collaborating with the post office and working “ to ensure that election mailings are prioritized.
” Benson has confirmed that more than 6,000 ballots cast in August ’ s primary were rejected for falling afoul of the same arrival deadline law , which she ’ s called to be changed before it can cause “ the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands ” of the roughly 2.4 million Michigan voters already set to receive mail ballots for November .
The more mail is subject to delays @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greater the risk postal voters will see properly mailed votes go uncounted due to similar laws .
The Washington Post has reported that Michigan USPS facilities have seen their ability to process mail reduced by 700,000 pieces per hour .
One recent morning Wood said he and others at working at the Metroplex counted 400 all-purpose containers holding undelivered mail due to short staffing and other recent changes .
“ That ’ s never—even during Christmas , when the postal service deals with 1.2 billion Christmas cards—we never had 400 containers of mail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says .
The coronavirus , which has killed several postal workers in Michigan , has brought “ never-ending ” turmoil , Wood says , which has only been exacerbated by changes cutting overtime , temporary employees , and access to mail sorting machines .
“ DeJoy comes on the scene and it ’ s just feeding the chaos , ” Woods says .
“ To do this in the middle of a pandemic when we ’ re short ?
” Other postal workers in Michigan confirm they feel targeted by the administration and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the head of the Michigan Postal Workers Union , Trump ’ s comments disparaging “ mail-in voting [ like it ] would create more fraudulent votes ” are part of an “ attack to discredit us with the American people.
” As far as DeJoy ’ s policy changes , he considers that “ an attack from within , ” and “ a deliberate slowdown of the mail ” that he views “ as a crime.
” Mize says offices with workers he represents have mandated mail that used to be machine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and have changed when it happens in a way that workers say is leading to cascading , multiple day delays .
“ The fact that we would have somebody come in and internally , purposely slow that down and make us look bad to the American public , it makes me sick to my stomach , ” Mize says .
Woods , the Detroit-area worker and union official , seemed to get more upset about the situation the more he talked .
“ The idea that you would destroy a centuries-old institution that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to rig an election or make it harder for people to vote , to me , is just , it ’ s criminal man .
It ’ s criminal that you would deny people their medications , you would deny kids their birthday cards .
Millions of Americans use the mail.
” “ You ’ re watching voter suppression on a full-blown national level , ” he said .
“ It ’ s so disheartening to me .
I ’ m a veteran and I love this country .
And it happened so @ @ @

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
While President Donald Trump forthrightly acknowledged only yesterday that weakening the Post Office will help him obstruct mail balloting this fall, postal workers in the key swing state of Michigan say his mission has been clear for weeks.
“It’s a fundamental effort to undermine people’s confidence in this agency and make it harder to vote by mail…There’s no other explanation.”
Delayed mail, a consequence of battles over funding for the United States Postal Service and of the agency’s staffing shortages, affects many aspects of American life—the delivery of millions of prescriptions, paychecks, bills. But recent funding cuts, overtime reductions, and other changes imposed by Louis DeJoy, the person Trump recently appointed as head of the Postal Service, have left postal workers warning about new multi-day delays—and that a deliberate effort to slow down the mail and interfere with the election is underway.
“I think it’s absolutely true,” said Steve Wood, a mail clerk who works at the Michigan Metroplex, a massive mail sorting center near Detroit. He says he was convinced in recent weeks as he and his colleagues saw the removal of almost a quarter of the facility’s mail sorting machines, a lack of substitute employees to replace workers missing due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and a general lack of urgency to locate and send along ballots that have piled up in bins.
“For years, every time there’s an election, we spend an enormous amount of time searching through [mail containers] to make sure that we get every ballot,” he says. While Michigan has held two major elections since April, he says “it doesn’t appear that this year that they were real worried about that.”
Roscoe Woods, president of American Postal Workers Union Local 480-481 in the Detroit-metro area, said he didn’t initially think the policy changes were about the election. But after what he’s seen and heard from his members, he says he’s now “a firm believer that it’s a fundamental effort to undermine people’s confidence in this agency and make it harder to vote by mail…There’s no other explanation.”
Michael Mize, the president of the Michigan Postal Workers Union and of its Flint area local, thinks the changes “absolutely” could be part of a vote-suppression effort, but finds the possibility too disturbing. “I don’t want to say it, to be very honest, because I don’t want that to happen or be any truth behind it,” he said, adding that even the appearance of delays affecting ballots would be enough to give people “reason to challenge whether or not things were handled appropriately.”
Reports about the slowing of mail delivery and its potential to disenfranchise voters are surfacing across the country. But the issue is particularly acute in Michigan, a perennial battleground state where Trump topped Hillary Clinton by roughly 10,000 votes in 2016—just barely more than a tenth of a percentage of the 4.5 million votes cast.
DeJoy, a Trump mega donor who made millions in private shipping and whose continued financial entanglements with the industry have raised concerns about conflicts of interest, was appointed by the president as postmaster general on June 15. He has defended his recent policy changes and decisions, including the reducing workers’ overtime and haggling over rates charged to governments to mail ballots, as being justified by bottom line concerns, citing the USPS’s longstanding funding and staffing issues.
On August 7 DeJoy, in his first remarks to the Postal Service Board of Governors, said the notion that he would “ever make decisions concerning the Postal Service at the direction of the President…is wholly off-base.” Contrary to Trump’s claims that the Postal Service “can’t handle” mail ballots in the fall, DeJoy insisted the agency “has ample capacity to deliver all election mail securely and on-time.” He also denied that he’s working to privatize the Postal Service—a longstanding goal of conservatives, and a step deeply opposed by the USPS’s unionized workforce.
“Something is definitely up,” warns Michigan Senator Gary Peters.
DeJoy’s actions have caught the attention of Congress, where Democrats see his changes as part of an obvious and open plan by Trump to hamstring mail voting and suppress votes. On Wednesday, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), chairwoman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, introduced a bill that would block the Postal Service from implementing any further operational changes until the pandemic is over. The same day, every Democratic senator signed a letter to DeJoy demanding he answer questions about about increased postage charges for mail ballots and hand over his correspondence with local election officials on the issue. The actions follow an earlier request from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and several other congressional Democrats that the US Postal Service’s inspector general investigate whether DeJoy’s actions have slowed down the mail. The IG’s office declined to comment on “any ongoing work.”
Michigan Sen. Gary Peters, a Democrat, has launched his own investigation. As the ranking member on the Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Peters has been gathering information from postal workers and others across Michigan, alongside reports from colleagues on both sides of the aisle about Postal Service issues in their states.
Peters’ office has set up a website to collect complaints from Michiganders about what they’re seeing. So far more than 6,000 people have sent messages about mail delivery problems, including one person who told the senator that delays had kept them from taking medications on time. While Peters says his office is used to fielding complaints about the mail, a “surge” of complaints started up around mid-July. “Something is definitely up over the last few weeks,” Peters says.
Peters, speaking on Tuesday, said he is still gathering information and he hasn’t yet reached a conclusion about whether these policies are aimed at disrupting the election. But he said he’s troubled by what he’s learned about policy changes that cut overtime, new procedures that limit the time automated mail sorters run, and modifications to the operations of inter-facility mail trucks.
Peters says he’s also concerned by conflicting answers he’s received from DeJoy’s office about the changes. In July, the senator asked about published reports of decreased overtime and delivery standards across the nation. The Postal Service responded in writing, insisting the policies were local and the media reports were incorrect. A few weeks later, after DeJoy had a testy meeting with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the USPS confirmed that the policies were, in fact, real, and they were national. Peters said the USPS hasn’t provided any data indicating the new policies are worthwhile, and refuses to indicate if DeJoy will reverse course if it’s clear that the policies are leading to delayed mail. Postal workers across the country have told Peters they already are.
“Did you actually research whether or not these policies would lead to greater efficiency?” Peters said, recalling a question he’s asked DeJoy’s office. “And if not, why? That’s really disturbing that we’re in the middle of a pandemic and you’re making major changes in policies without knowing what the impact would be.”
While the COVID-19 pandemic is expected to lead to record-high rates of postal balloting across the country, Michigan was on track for a major expansion before the virus appeared. In 2018, the state’s voters approved a change to election law allowing anyone to vote by mail. The state’s primary earlier this month saw roughly 65 percent of the 2.5 million ballots cast by mail.
“It’s criminal that you would deny people their medications, you would deny kids their birthday cards.”
But this month’s election showed that Michigan post offices, straining under existing burdens and DeJoy’s new mandates, can’t always deliver properly mailed ballots quickly enough to be counted. In Sterling Heights, a large suburb north of Detroit, 165 mail ballots postmarked on July 30 arrived six days after the August 4 election. Though a local race was decided by just 87 votes, the ballots could not be counted under a Michigan law requiring they arrive at local election offices or be in drop boxes by 8 pm on Election Day.
Melanie Ryska, Sterling Heights’ city clerk, told Crain’s Detroit Business that a few late ballots are normal for such an election, but the number they received this month “is very unusual,” even after the city advised voters to use drop-boxes in order to “avoid the mail altogether just in case something like this happened.”
Tracy Wimmer, a spokesperson for Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, says the state has been collaborating with the post office and working “to ensure that election mailings are prioritized.” Benson has confirmed that more than 6,000 ballots cast in August’s primary were rejected for falling afoul of the same arrival deadline law, which she’s called to be changed before it can cause “the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands” of the roughly 2.4 million Michigan voters already set to receive mail ballots for November.
The more mail is subject to delays, in Michigan and elsewhere, the greater the risk postal voters will see properly mailed votes go uncounted due to similar laws. The Washington Post has reported that Michigan USPS facilities have seen their ability to process mail reduced by 700,000 pieces per hour. One recent morning Wood said he and others at working at the Metroplex counted 400 all-purpose containers holding undelivered mail due to short staffing and other recent changes.
“That’s never—even during Christmas, when the Postal Service deals with 1.2 billion Christmas cards—we never had 400 containers of mail on the workroom floor,” he says. The coronavirus, which has killed several postal workers in Michigan, has brought “never-ending” turmoil, Wood says, which has only been exacerbated by changes cutting overtime, temporary employees, and access to mail sorting machines.
“DeJoy comes on the scene and it’s just feeding the chaos,” Woods says. “To do this in the middle of a pandemic when we’re short?”
Other postal workers in Michigan confirm they feel targeted by the administration and the new USPS leadership. To Mize, the head of the Michigan Postal Workers Union, Trump’s comments disparaging “mail-in voting [like it] would create more fraudulent votes” are part of an “attack to discredit us with the American people.” As far as DeJoy’s policy changes, he considers that “an attack from within,” and “a deliberate slowdown of the mail” that he views “as a crime.”
Mize says offices with workers he represents have mandated mail that used to be machine sorted now be sorted by hand, and have changed when it happens in a way that workers say is leading to cascading, multiple day delays. “The fact that we would have somebody come in and internally, purposely slow that down and make us look bad to the American public, it makes me sick to my stomach,” Mize says.
Woods, the Detroit-area worker and union official, seemed to get more upset about the situation the more he talked. “The idea that you would destroy a centuries-old institution that continuously has approval ratings in the 90s to rig an election or make it harder for people to vote, to me, is just, it’s criminal man. It’s criminal that you would deny people their medications, you would deny kids their birthday cards. Millions of Americans use the mail.”
“You’re watching voter suppression on a full-blown national level,” he said. “It’s so disheartening to me. I’m a veteran and I love this country. And it happened so fast.”


motherjones--2020-08-15--Report: Bipartisan Group of Senators Wanted DOJ to Investigate Stephen Bannon

As the president ’ s battles over mail voting , the US Postal Service , and COVID-19 funding dominate headlines , a significant piece of news touching on alleged criminal activity by several close Trump associates and family members flew largely under the radar .
On Friday night the Los Angeles Times reported that the Senate Intelligence Committee sent a bipartisan criminal referral to the US Department of Justice last summer asking for investigations into Stephen Bannon , a former Trump confidant and strategist ; Erik Prince , the head of a mercenary security company and the brother of Secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clovis , Trump ’ s 2016 campaign co-chairman .
According to the Times , each of those three Trump associates may have lied during congressional testimony , and both Republicans and Democrats on the committee wanted DOJ to investigate whether criminal charges would be warranted .
The letter also raised concerns about testimony provided by Donald Trump Jr. , Hope Hicks , Jared Kushner , and Paul Manafort .
While the letter didn ’ t directly accusing them of lying to Congress to the same degree as Bannon , Prince , and Clovis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questioned if testimony provided by these Trump associates conflicted with information provided to former special counsel Robert Mueller by Rick Gates , Trump ’ s former deputy campaign chairman .
The testimony concerned what Trump ’ s son , Hicks , Kushner , and Manafort knew about a meeting at Trump Tower with a Russian lawyer who ’ d promised to provide dirt on Hillary Clinton ahead of the 2016 campaign .
The Times notes that “ criminal referrals from Capitol Hill have been somewhat common since Trump took office in 2017 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” because it was sent by the bipartisan leaders of one of Congress ’ most stable and non-partisan committees which was conducting its own thorough review of Russian interference in the 2016 election .
It ’ s unclear what happened with the referral after it was sent to a federal prosecutor with the Department of Justice .
But a DOJ spokesperson declined to comment to the Times ( and did not return an email from Mother Jones on Saturday ) , and given the lack of public action taken since the letter was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s reason to think Trump ’ s DOJ didn ’ t want to look too closely at pursuing criminal cases against his close associates .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
As the president’s battles over mail voting, the US Postal Service, and COVID-19 funding dominate headlines, a significant piece of news touching on alleged criminal activity by several close Trump associates and family members flew largely under the radar.
On Friday night the Los Angeles Times reported that the Senate Intelligence Committee sent a bipartisan criminal referral to the US Department of Justice last summer asking for investigations into Stephen Bannon, a former Trump confidant and strategist; Erik Prince, the head of a mercenary security company and the brother of Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos; and Sam Clovis, Trump’s 2016 campaign co-chairman. According to the Times, each of those three Trump associates may have lied during congressional testimony, and both Republicans and Democrats on the committee wanted DOJ to investigate whether criminal charges would be warranted.
The letter also raised concerns about testimony provided by Donald Trump Jr., Hope Hicks, Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort. While the letter didn’t directly accusing them of lying to Congress to the same degree as Bannon, Prince, and Clovis, according to the Times the committee questioned if testimony provided by these Trump associates conflicted with information provided to former special counsel Robert Mueller by Rick Gates, Trump’s former deputy campaign chairman. The testimony concerned what Trump’s son, Hicks, Kushner, and Manafort knew about a meeting at Trump Tower with a Russian lawyer who’d promised to provide dirt on Hillary Clinton ahead of the 2016 campaign.
The Times notes that “criminal referrals from Capitol Hill have been somewhat common since Trump took office in 2017,” but this referral was “rare” because it was sent by the bipartisan leaders of one of Congress’ most stable and non-partisan committees which was conducting its own thorough review of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
It’s unclear what happened with the referral after it was sent to a federal prosecutor with the Department of Justice. But a DOJ spokesperson declined to comment to the Times (and did not return an email from Mother Jones on Saturday), and given the lack of public action taken since the letter was sent in July 2019, there’s reason to think Trump’s DOJ didn’t want to look too closely at pursuing criminal cases against his close associates.


motherjones--2020-08-17--We Need More Indigenous Doctors, Stat. This Physician Has a Plan.

As the world grapples with the devastation of the coronavirus , one thing is clear : The United States simply wasn ’ t prepared .
Despite repeated warnings from infectious disease experts over the years , we lacked essential beds , equipment , and medication ; public health advice was confusing ; and our leadership offered no clear direction while sidelining credible health professionals and institutions .
Infectious disease experts agree that it ’ s only a matter of time before the next pandemic hits , and that one could be even more deadly .
So how do we fix @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In this Mother Jones series , we ’ re asking experts from a wide range of disciplines one question : What are the most important steps we can take to make sure we ’ re better prepared next time around ?
A member of the Oglala Lakota tribe from the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota , Dr. Donald Warne had an early interest in medical work—he comes from a long line of traditional healers .
Today , Warne oversees the Master of Public Health degree program and a specialized PhD in Indigenous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He ’ s also the director of Indians into Medicine , a program that creates much-needed pathways for Indigenous students to enter careers in health .
Like other communities of color , Native Americans have been hit hard by COVID-19 , with seven different tribes currently seeing case rates between 2,200 and 12,850 per 100,000—higher than the rates of any US state .
Risk factors include tendencies toward intergenerational homes and high rates of preexisting conditions like diabetes and lung disease , but Dr. Warne also notes that Native communities have long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On developing the Indian Health Service : American Indians and Alaskan Natives are the only population in the US that ’ s actually born with a legal right to health services .
That ’ s based on hundreds of treaties signed between tribal nations and the federal government , which included language like “ promise of all proper care and protection ” in exchange for land and natural resources .
The treaties are contracts , and the federal government has never lived up to its treaty obligations—so they are in breach of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not “ free health care.
” It ’ s the largest prepaid health plan in history , because of everything we gave up for basic social services like housing , education and health care .
That ’ s why there ’ s a Bureau of Indian Affairs , that ’ s why there ’ s an Indian Health Service .
That ’ s really the starting point .
When you look at public health infrastructure , you need to have a good workforce ; you need to have good information systems ; and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buildings .
We don ’ t have any of that , in terms of adequate levels , because it ’ s been under-resourced relative to other communities .
Our ability to investigate outbreaks and conduct surveillance in a public health crisis is really diminished because of policy decisions from Congress , to never fully fund IHS .
In public health , we try to prevent disease and in medicine , we treat disease .
Because of the longstanding , intergenerational underfunding , all the resources get used up for medical care , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disease prevention programs in Indian Country .
We don ’ t have healthy food programs .
And then on the other end of the spectrum , when it comes to higher levels of care , when people are very sick from COVID-19 , quite often they need Intensive Care Unit admission , they also need ventilators .
But we typically don ’ t have those services on reservations either .
It ’ s going to require a generation of good policy to make up for generations of bad policy , but among the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ IHS .
We ’ re not asking for anything unusual , all we ’ re asking for is the federal government to live up to its treaty obligations .
The United States is one of the first nations to point the finger at human rights abuses around the globe , but those countries can easily put the finger back at us for the way it ’ s treated its Indigenous people .
On preparing Indian Country for a future pandemic : Most of the [ disease response ] infrastructure needs to be built @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t exist .
One starting point would be with the Tribal Epidemiology Centers—there ’ s basically one for each of the 12 areas of the Indian Health Service .
They ’ re funded mainly through IHS , but they have other sources of funding , including the CDC .
Their various levels of capacities are dependent on resources , but we do have this network of centers that could assist tribes with building communications and information systems , and with smaller tribes , perhaps pool resources .
They can work to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data collection and analysis , and even do community health needs assessments and determine where needs are within each individual community .
That ’ s one piece of infrastructure that ’ s , again , terribly inadequately resourced , but at least the network exists .
One thing that COVID-19 has done is shine a bright light on these inadequacies .
Some basic things that we take for granted if we live in a city or suburb , are just not available in tribal communities : connectivity and communication systems , cell phone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ services are not always available , particularly in the more impoverished communities .
It ’ s impossible to quarantine people when you don ’ t have adequate housing .
On the need for culturally competent care : A public health program that is effective in the white population of Boston is not necessarily going to be effective for American Indians [ on the ] Pine Ridge [ Indian Reservation ] .
That ’ s why much of the work I do now is on workforce development—teaching a curriculum that incorporates the culturally relevant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well as traditions and ceremonies , because those are not just important components of who we are as Indigenous people , but also important components of a public health system .
We can not just assume that one size fits all .
For example , the CDC will tell us that we have to have tobacco-free workplaces and tobacco-free policies .
But in the Northern Plains , we have a longstanding relationship with tobacco—not cigarettes , but a blend of herbs that are medicinal and healing .
When we have culturally inept approaches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re actually alienating an entire segment of community and culturally based strength through prayer and ceremony .
When you tell Indians they have to be tobacco-free , you ’ re telling us we have to be prayer-free .
The CDC has taken our input and made significant improvements—again , that ’ s not an issue if you live in Atlanta or Boston , but it ’ s a huge issue if you live in the Northern Plains .
On why it ’ s important to build up the Native health workforce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data regarding health education and health professional programs , people tend to work with communities that they ’ re familiar with .
It ’ s much more likely that someone from a reservation will go back to work there than to expect someone who ’ s not from the reservation to go work in that community .
So we have to build our own .
We have to have pathways programs , from grade school all the way through medical school , and that ’ s part of what we do at [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We have a Summer Institute—it ’ s going on virtually right now , because of the pandemic—but usually we have 50 middle and high school kids from American Indian communities all over the country come to spend six weeks with us at UND .
They have courses in biology , chemistry , physics , math , communications and health , and we do fun things and cultural things on nights and weekends .
We nurture and develop a lot of our future health professionals in those pathways programs .
The challenge again—it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s so terribly underfunded that we can ’ t support all the kids who want to participate .
To me , that ’ s just a travesty .
This year we had well over 100 applications for 48 spots .
And we shouldn ’ t be turning any kid away , but that ’ s the circumstances that we ’ re in .
So even the workforce development is hindered by Congress not adequately funding Indian Health Service .
On the relationship between tribes and other public health authorities : In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ area office has a very good relationship with the tribes , and in other areas it ’ s a strange or even adversarial relationship , with the IHS programs and administrators not viewed as advocates .
In some places it ’ s working incredibly well , in some places it ’ s dysfunctional .
That does have a huge impact on quality of communication and access to resources .
When you look at tribes and states , one of the most adversarial relationships is in South Dakota , where I ’ m from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just the latest in a long line of political leaders who don ’ t respect tribal sovereignty , and she certainly doesn ’ t respect public health principles .
[ Gov .
Noem has tried to stop the Pine Ridge and Cheyenne River Reservations from maintaining COVID-19 checkpoints on their borders . ]
It ’ s not that the borders are closed—it ’ s a health check : If someone has a fever they do contact tracing ; if someone is from a hotspot , they ’ re not allowed in .
Cheyenne @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve now tested about 2000 people , there ’ s only six positives because of what they ’ re doing to control the population .
It ’ s one of the lowest positive rates in the nation .
Thank God , because they ’ re at incredibly high risk for for catastrophic outcomes .
If they have an outbreak of COVID-19 on Cheyenne River , it would basically be a mirror image of what ’ s happening in Navajo [ Nation ] .
It is absolutely a tribal sovereignty issue .
Of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was diagnosed because of the checkpoint , and then they went to quarantine .
Two of their family members were diagnosed .
But without the checkpoint , that one case could have become 200 .
When Governor Noem is saying that you just need to open up the borders , without any health checkpoints , that ’ s disregard for human life .
People will die .
People have died in tribal communities because of the quick spread of the disease .
[ We have ] inadequate housing , poverty , and inadequate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ factors like diabetes , heart disease , and lung disease .
So if the tribe is exercising its sovereignty to have a health check , the government has no business to get in the way of that .
I think it ’ s just criminal what she ’ s done .
It ’ s good public health and she ’ s trying to get in the way of it .

As the world grapples with the devastation of the coronavirus, one thing is clear: The United States simply wasn’t prepared. Despite repeated warnings from infectious disease experts over the years, we lacked essential beds, equipment, and medication; public health advice was confusing; and our leadership offered no clear direction while sidelining credible health professionals and institutions. Infectious disease experts agree that it’s only a matter of time before the next pandemic hits, and that one could be even more deadly. So how do we fix what COVID-19 has shown was broken? In this Mother Jones series, we’re asking experts from a wide range of disciplines one question: What are the most important steps we can take to make sure we’re better prepared next time around?
A member of the Oglala Lakota tribe from the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, Dr. Donald Warne had an early interest in medical work—he comes from a long line of traditional healers. Today, Warne oversees the Master of Public Health degree program and a specialized PhD in Indigenous Health at the University of North Dakota. He’s also the director of Indians into Medicine, a program that creates much-needed pathways for Indigenous students to enter careers in health. Like other communities of color, Native Americans have been hit hard by COVID-19, with seven different tribes currently seeing case rates between 2,200 and 12,850 per 100,000—higher than the rates of any US state. Risk factors include tendencies toward intergenerational homes and high rates of preexisting conditions like diabetes and lung disease, but Dr. Warne also notes that Native communities have long grappled with lack of basic health infrastructure.
On developing the Indian Health Service: American Indians and Alaskan Natives are the only population in the US that’s actually born with a legal right to health services. That’s based on hundreds of treaties signed between tribal nations and the federal government, which included language like “promise of all proper care and protection” in exchange for land and natural resources. The treaties are contracts, and the federal government has never lived up to its treaty obligations—so they are in breach of contract. The Indian Health Service is not “free health care.” It’s the largest prepaid health plan in history, because of everything we gave up for basic social services like housing, education and health care. That’s why there’s a Bureau of Indian Affairs, that’s why there’s an Indian Health Service. That’s really the starting point.
Cell phone access, high speed internet access—those basic services are not always available, particularly in the more impoverished tribal communities.
When you look at public health infrastructure, you need to have a good workforce; you need to have good information systems; and you need to have good equipment and buildings. We don’t have any of that, in terms of adequate levels, because it’s been under-resourced relative to other communities. Our ability to investigate outbreaks and conduct surveillance in a public health crisis is really diminished because of policy decisions from Congress, to never fully fund IHS.
In public health, we try to prevent disease and in medicine, we treat disease. Because of the longstanding, intergenerational underfunding, all the resources get used up for medical care, with very little left for health promotion and disease prevention programs in Indian Country. We don’t have healthy food programs. And then on the other end of the spectrum, when it comes to higher levels of care, when people are very sick from COVID-19, quite often they need Intensive Care Unit admission, they also need ventilators. But we typically don’t have those services on reservations either.
It’s going to require a generation of good policy to make up for generations of bad policy, but among the most important things is to fully fund IHS. We’re not asking for anything unusual, all we’re asking for is the federal government to live up to its treaty obligations. The United States is one of the first nations to point the finger at human rights abuses around the globe, but those countries can easily put the finger back at us for the way it’s treated its Indigenous people.
On preparing Indian Country for a future pandemic: Most of the [disease response] infrastructure needs to be built from the ground up. It doesn’t exist. One starting point would be with the Tribal Epidemiology Centers—there’s basically one for each of the 12 areas of the Indian Health Service. They’re funded mainly through IHS, but they have other sources of funding, including the CDC. Their various levels of capacities are dependent on resources, but we do have this network of centers that could assist tribes with building communications and information systems, and with smaller tribes, perhaps pool resources. They can work to do regional public health programming, and surveillance data collection and analysis, and even do community health needs assessments and determine where needs are within each individual community. That’s one piece of infrastructure that’s, again, terribly inadequately resourced, but at least the network exists.
One thing that COVID-19 has done is shine a bright light on these inadequacies. Some basic things that we take for granted if we live in a city or suburb, are just not available in tribal communities: connectivity and communication systems, cell phone access, high speed internet access—those basic services are not always available, particularly in the more impoverished communities. It’s impossible to quarantine people when you don’t have adequate housing.
On the need for culturally competent care: A public health program that is effective in the white population of Boston is not necessarily going to be effective for American Indians [on the] Pine Ridge [Indian Reservation]. That’s why much of the work I do now is on workforce development—teaching a curriculum that incorporates the culturally relevant values, beliefs and behaviors, as well as traditions and ceremonies, because those are not just important components of who we are as Indigenous people, but also important components of a public health system. We cannot just assume that one size fits all.
The CDC will tell us that we have to have tobacco-free workplaces and tobacco-free policies. But in the Northern Plains, we have a longstanding relationship with tobacco.
For example, the CDC will tell us that we have to have tobacco-free workplaces and tobacco-free policies. But in the Northern Plains, we have a longstanding relationship with tobacco—not cigarettes, but a blend of herbs that are medicinal and healing. When we have culturally inept approaches saying everything has to be tobacco-free, we’re actually alienating an entire segment of community and culturally based strength through prayer and ceremony. When you tell Indians they have to be tobacco-free, you’re telling us we have to be prayer-free. The CDC has taken our input and made significant improvements—again, that’s not an issue if you live in Atlanta or Boston, but it’s a huge issue if you live in the Northern Plains.
On why it’s important to build up the Native health workforce: If you look at all the data regarding health education and health professional programs, people tend to work with communities that they’re familiar with. It’s much more likely that someone from a reservation will go back to work there than to expect someone who’s not from the reservation to go work in that community. So we have to build our own. We have to have pathways programs, from grade school all the way through medical school, and that’s part of what we do at [the University of North Dakota]. We have a Summer Institute—it’s going on virtually right now, because of the pandemic—but usually we have 50 middle and high school kids from American Indian communities all over the country come to spend six weeks with us at UND. They have courses in biology, chemistry, physics, math, communications and health, and we do fun things and cultural things on nights and weekends. We nurture and develop a lot of our future health professionals in those pathways programs.
The challenge again—it’s funded mainly through IHS, and it’s so terribly underfunded that we can’t support all the kids who want to participate. To me, that’s just a travesty. This year we had well over 100 applications for 48 spots. And we shouldn’t be turning any kid away, but that’s the circumstances that we’re in. So even the workforce development is hindered by Congress not adequately funding Indian Health Service.
On the relationship between tribes and other public health authorities: In some areas of the IHS, the area office has a very good relationship with the tribes, and in other areas it’s a strange or even adversarial relationship, with the IHS programs and administrators not viewed as advocates. In some places it’s working incredibly well, in some places it’s dysfunctional. That does have a huge impact on quality of communication and access to resources.
If a tribe is exercising its sovereignty to have a health check, the government has no business to get in the way of that.
When you look at tribes and states, one of the most adversarial relationships is in South Dakota, where I’m from. [Governor] Kristi Noem is just the latest in a long line of political leaders who don’t respect tribal sovereignty, and she certainly doesn’t respect public health principles. [Gov. Noem has tried to stop the Pine Ridge and Cheyenne River Reservations from maintaining COVID-19 checkpoints on their borders.]
It’s not that the borders are closed—it’s a health check: If someone has a fever they do contact tracing; if someone is from a hotspot, they’re not allowed in. Cheyenne River, for example, they’ve now tested about 2000 people, there’s only six positives because of what they’re doing to control the population. It’s one of the lowest positive rates in the nation. Thank God, because they’re at incredibly high risk for for catastrophic outcomes. If they have an outbreak of COVID-19 on Cheyenne River, it would basically be a mirror image of what’s happening in Navajo [Nation]. It is absolutely a tribal sovereignty issue.
Of the six they diagnosed, one of them was diagnosed because of the checkpoint, and then they went to quarantine. Two of their family members were diagnosed. But without the checkpoint, that one case could have become 200.
When Governor Noem is saying that you just need to open up the borders, without any health checkpoints, that’s disregard for human life. People will die. People have died in tribal communities because of the quick spread of the disease. [We have] inadequate housing, poverty, and inadequate nutrition, and all of those risk factors like diabetes, heart disease, and lung disease. So if the tribe is exercising its sovereignty to have a health check, the government has no business to get in the way of that. I think it’s just criminal what she’s done. It’s good public health and she’s trying to get in the way of it.


motherjones--2020-08-17--Trump-Appointed Judges Are Already Handing Huge Wins to the NRA

The future looked bright for the NRA at the end of 2016 .
Donald Trump had just been elected president—thanks , at least in part , to the $ 31 million that the gun rights group spent on the race—and rolling back a slew of firearms restrictions was a top priority for the GOP .
“ We have the next eight years alongside President Trump to undo the Obama transformation of America and set our country back on its rightful , righteous course of freedom , ” NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said in early 2017 .
But less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fell from grace—and it fell hard .
During the 2018 midterms , for the first time in recent history , gun control groups outspent the NRA , helping to usher in a new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives .
And just this month , New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a groundbreaking lawsuit against the NRA , accusing it of widespread corruption and seeking to dissolve it in its entirety .
But even amid these very public humiliations , the NRA has quietly—and successfully—worked to persuade Trump and Senate Majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominate and confirm a series of judges who who are virulently opposed to gun control laws .
All the while , the group has filed an onslaught of lawsuits against state gun regulations in hopes that the newly appointed judges will overturn them .
“ There are now more judges on the lower courts and the court of appeals who take an extreme view of the Second Amendment and that are hostile to most gun safety laws , ” says Hannah Shearer , the litigation director for the Giffords Law Center , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ founded by former Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords ( D ) .
In a report released Monday , the Giffords group noted that “ these judges are ultimately responsible for deciding not only if many gun safety laws are constitutional , but also for determining the relevant legal framework for making this decision in the first place.
” What that means , essentially , is that these judges determine how certain gun safety laws fit into the broad interpretation of the Second Amendment that the Supreme Court established in 2008 when it ruled that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to own a gun but also stipulated that certain restrictions were permissible .
By the end of July 2020 , Trump had appointed 201 federal judges to lifetime posts , putting him on track to exceed the number of first-term judicial appointments by any president in at least 40 years .
Fifty-three of those appointments were appellate judges—more than any president has named in a single term since Jimmy Carter .
This sea change in the federal judiciary has already given a boost to what the Giffords report describes as the NRA ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filing legal challenges to gun laws across the country .
Currently , the NRA is involved in such lawsuits in at least 18 states .
It only takes a couple of wins in a few courts with sympathetic judges to begin to shift legal precedents .
Most recently , a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out California ’ s ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines , ruling that the law violates the Second Amendment .
The appellate judge who wrote the panel ’ s majority opinion was Kenneth Lee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during his confirmation hearing for past controversial writings on HIV and the LGBTQ community .
“ Even well-intentioned laws must pass constitutional muster , ” Lee wrote , adding that the state ’ s ban on magazines holding more than 10 bullets “ strikes at the core of the Second Amendment—the right to armed self-defense.
” For Shearer , the California decision is just the latest example that the tide is turning—and a warning that the real deluge could still be coming , thanks partly to the Supreme Court ’ s recent decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases next term .
The high court ’ s move effectively leaves the fate of a number of state gun laws in the hands of appellate courts , which have been packed with Trump appointees .
The Giffords report points to other examples of Trump appointees who have argued that the Second Amendment should be interpreted in a way that would invalidate a wide array of existing gun laws .
Don Willett , a Trump appointee to the Fifth Circuit , lamented that the Second Amendment is currently “ spurned as peripheral , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and “ scorned as fringe.
” Another Trump appointee to the Fifth Circuit , James Ho , has said that “ the Second Amendment continues to be treated as a ‘ second-class ’ right.
” And Stephanos Bibas , who was appointed to the Third Circuit in 2017 , dissented from a decision to uphold New Jersey ’ s large-capacity magazine ban , accusing the panel ’ s majority of “ subjecting the Second Amendment to different , watered-down rules .
“ No matter how strong Democrats ’ policy platform is on issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to be challenged in the courts , ” Shearer says .
“ Trump and McConnell have prioritized appointing judges with far more extreme views .
And so they ’ re pushing gun safety issues and other issues far to the right .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The future looked bright for the NRA at the end of 2016. Donald Trump had just been elected president—thanks, at least in part, to the $31 million that the gun rights group spent on the race—and rolling back a slew of firearms restrictions was a top priority for the GOP. “We have the next eight years alongside President Trump to undo the Obama transformation of America and set our country back on its rightful, righteous course of freedom,” NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said in early 2017.
“There are now more judges on the lower courts and the court of appeals who take an extreme view of the Second Amendment.”
But less than two years later, the NRA fell from grace—and it fell hard. During the 2018 midterms, for the first time in recent history, gun control groups outspent the NRA, helping to usher in a new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives. And just this month, New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a groundbreaking lawsuit against the NRA, accusing it of widespread corruption and seeking to dissolve it in its entirety. But even amid these very public humiliations, the NRA has quietly—and successfully—worked to persuade Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to nominate and confirm a series of judges who who are virulently opposed to gun control laws. All the while, the group has filed an onslaught of lawsuits against state gun regulations in hopes that the newly appointed judges will overturn them.
“There are now more judges on the lower courts and the court of appeals who take an extreme view of the Second Amendment and that are hostile to most gun safety laws,” says Hannah Shearer, the litigation director for the Giffords Law Center, the legal arm of the gun control group founded by former Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords (D). In a report released Monday, the Giffords group noted that “these judges are ultimately responsible for deciding not only if many gun safety laws are constitutional, but also for determining the relevant legal framework for making this decision in the first place.” What that means, essentially, is that these judges determine how certain gun safety laws fit into the broad interpretation of the Second Amendment that the Supreme Court established in 2008 when it ruled that the Constitution gives Americans an individual right to own a gun but also stipulated that certain restrictions were permissible.
By the end of July 2020, Trump had appointed 201 federal judges to lifetime posts, putting him on track to exceed the number of first-term judicial appointments by any president in at least 40 years. Fifty-three of those appointments were appellate judges—more than any president has named in a single term since Jimmy Carter.
This sea change in the federal judiciary has already given a boost to what the Giffords report describes as the NRA’s “kitchen-sink litigation approach” of filing legal challenges to gun laws across the country. Currently, the NRA is involved in such lawsuits in at least 18 states. It only takes a couple of wins in a few courts with sympathetic judges to begin to shift legal precedents. Most recently, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals threw out California’s ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines, ruling that the law violates the Second Amendment. The appellate judge who wrote the panel’s majority opinion was Kenneth Lee, a Trump appointee who faced scrutiny during his confirmation hearing for past controversial writings on HIV and the LGBTQ community. “Even well-intentioned laws must pass constitutional muster,” Lee wrote, adding that the state’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 bullets “strikes at the core of the Second Amendment—the right to armed self-defense.”
For Shearer, the California decision is just the latest example that the tide is turning—and a warning that the real deluge could still be coming, thanks partly to the Supreme Court’s recent decision not to hear any new Second Amendment cases next term. The high court’s move effectively leaves the fate of a number of state gun laws in the hands of appellate courts, which have been packed with Trump appointees. The Giffords report points to other examples of Trump appointees who have argued that the Second Amendment should be interpreted in a way that would invalidate a wide array of existing gun laws. Don Willett, a Trump appointee to the Fifth Circuit, lamented that the Second Amendment is currently “spurned as peripheral,” “snubbed as anachronistic,” and “scorned as fringe.” Another Trump appointee to the Fifth Circuit, James Ho, has said that “the Second Amendment continues to be treated as a ‘second-class’ right.” And Stephanos Bibas, who was appointed to the Third Circuit in 2017, dissented from a decision to uphold New Jersey’s large-capacity magazine ban, accusing the panel’s majority of “subjecting the Second Amendment to different, watered-down rules.
“No matter how strong Democrats’ policy platform is on issues like gun safety, these laws are going to be challenged in the courts,” Shearer says. “Trump and McConnell have prioritized appointing judges with far more extreme views. And so they’re pushing gun safety issues and other issues far to the right.”


motherjones--2020-08-18--How Scared You Should Be About the Postal Service and the 2020 Election

President Trump appeared to admit last week—twice—that he was blocking funds for the United States Postal Service because he believes doing so will boost his odds of reelection .
These kinds of pronouncements naturally have Americans freaked out that the government is tampering with the ability to vote by mail in the midst of a pandemic and preventing a fair election .
And they ’ re right—but not for the reasons Trump thinks .
As explosive as the president ’ s remarks were , his threat to block congressional Democrats ’ request for $ 25 billion in emergency Postal Service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t have the money to do the universal mail-in voting , ” he said at a White House coronavirus briefing .
“ So , therefore , they can ’ t do it , I guess.
” But that hunch is misguided : It ’ s states—not the federal government—that are responsible for election procedures , and right now , only nine states are automatically sending registered voters a request for absentee ballots .
In other words , Trump appeared to be blocking critical funding for a government agency , thus stalling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misplaced paranoia that Democrats would have the power to install a national mail-in voting system .
Democrats ’ request for the $ 25 billion has less do with the voting practices Trump openly abhors and more to do with assisting the agency amid the shortfall created by the pandemic , which caused mail advertisements and other sources of postal revenue to plummet .
But just because Trump ’ s logic is wrong doesn ’ t mean mail-in voting isn ’ t under attack .
While Trump might not have a grasp of how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the president and his administration are indeed hampering the agency ’ s ability to manage the fast-approaching presidential election .
As Russell Berman writes in the Atlantic , much of the peril rests with Louis DeJoy , a Trump megadonor recently appointed postmaster general , for making changes that have likely contributed to the significant postal delays across the country .
DeJoy has prohibited overtime work , directed workers to leave late-arriving mail for the following day , and instituted larger organizational restructurings—actions that could delay mail-in voting just when the demand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AJ Vicens has a deeper look at how these changes have already disrupted Postal Service activities in Michigan , a key battleground state : One recent morning Steve Wood , a mail clerk who works at the Michigan Metroplex , a massive mail sorting center near Detroit , said he and others at working at the Metroplex counted 400 all-purpose containers holding undelivered mail due to short staffing and other recent changes .
“ That ’ s never—even during Christmas , when the Postal Service deals with 1.2 billion Christmas cards—we never had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ floor , ” he says .
The coronavirus , which has killed several postal workers in Michigan , has brought “ never-ending ” turmoil , Wood says , which has only been exacerbated by changes cutting overtime , temporary employees , and access to mail sorting machines .
“ DeJoy comes on the scene and it ’ s just feeding the chaos , ” Woods says .
“ To do this in the middle of a pandemic when we ’ re short ?
” The Postal Service appears to have also quietly moved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treating election mail with priority , no matter the postage rate , explains Tammy Patrick , a senior adviser at the nonprofit Democracy Fund .
“ This year , at this moment , is the first time that the Postal Service has changed how they talk about that , ” Patrick says .
Democrats are now accusing DeJoy of forcing states , already cash-strapped by the pandemic , to pay higher rates to ensure on-time delivery .
It ’ s these changes—not the unprecedented demand for absentee ballots or any funding shortfalls—that could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The volume is not the problem , ” Patrick says .
“ The Postal Service processes anywhere between right around 180 million mail pieces a day .
So even if every voter in the United States was going to vote by mail , that would just be a couple of days ’ worth of mail.
” Many Americans who view Trump and the inadequate Postal Service funding as the primary threats to the election have taken up a campaign to buy stamps .
“ The best way is simply to purchase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called @ restoretheusps declared , echoing countless similar pleas on social media .
“ Just buying a costume , shirt , stamp , toy , wallet , etc .
can help protect the post office.
” But the idea that individual purchases , even when carried out by millions of citizens concerned for their democracy , can save one of the largest civilian employers in the country is magical thinking .
After all , the Postal Service has been operating in the red for years , and by the billions .
Much of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be traced to the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 , which made it nearly impossible for the Postal Service to raise rates while forcing the agency to pre-fund $ 5 billion annually for retiree benefits until the year 2056 .
( No other federal agency is burdened by such a staggering financial requirement . )
In other words , it would take an act of Congress—not the mass buying of stamps—to save the USPS .
But in the short term , despite the new changes sweeping the Postal Service , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hope .
More states are implementing temporary changes aimed at making voting more accessible , such as sending mail-in ballots to all registered voters and formally asking courts to extend deadlines for mail-in voting .
As calls to subpoena DeJoy mount , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Sunday that the House would return early from recess in order to vote on a proposal to block Trump from further overhauling the USPS .
But the best thing voters can do to ensure their ballots are counted , Patrick says , is simply to act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we can get voters to request their ballot early , and return it early or through an in-person drop-off kind of alternative , then none of this matters , ” Patrick says .
So forget the fistfuls of merch , and get on that ballot request .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
President Trump appeared to admit last week—twice—that he was blocking funds for the United States Postal Service because he believes doing so will boost his odds of reelection. These kinds of pronouncements naturally have Americans freaked out that the government is tampering with the ability to vote by mail in the midst of a pandemic and preventing a fair election. And they’re right—but not for the reasons Trump thinks.
As explosive as the president’s remarks were, his threat to block congressional Democrats’ request for $25 billion in emergency Postal Service funding made little sense. “They don’t have the money to do the universal mail-in voting,” he said at a White House coronavirus briefing. “So, therefore, they can’t do it, I guess.” But that hunch is misguided: It’s states—not the federal government—that are responsible for election procedures, and right now, only nine states are automatically sending registered voters a request for absentee ballots. In other words, Trump appeared to be blocking critical funding for a government agency, thus stalling coronavirus relief negotiations, out of a misplaced paranoia that Democrats would have the power to install a national mail-in voting system. Democrats’ request for the $25 billion has less do with the voting practices Trump openly abhors and more to do with assisting the agency amid the shortfall created by the pandemic, which caused mail advertisements and other sources of postal revenue to plummet.
But just because Trump’s logic is wrong doesn’t mean mail-in voting isn’t under attack. While Trump might not have a grasp of how he’s kneecapping the Postal Service, the president and his administration are indeed hampering the agency’s ability to manage the fast-approaching presidential election.
As Russell Berman writes in the Atlantic, much of the peril rests with Louis DeJoy, a Trump megadonor recently appointed postmaster general, for making changes that have likely contributed to the significant postal delays across the country. DeJoy has prohibited overtime work, directed workers to leave late-arriving mail for the following day, and instituted larger organizational restructurings—actions that could delay mail-in voting just when the demand for ballots is skyrocketing. My colleague AJ Vicens has a deeper look at how these changes have already disrupted Postal Service activities in Michigan, a key battleground state:
One recent morning Steve Wood, a mail clerk who works at the Michigan Metroplex, a massive mail sorting center near Detroit, said he and others at working at the Metroplex counted 400 all-purpose containers holding undelivered mail due to short staffing and other recent changes. “That’s never—even during Christmas, when the Postal Service deals with 1.2 billion Christmas cards—we never had 400 containers of mail on the workroom floor,” he says. The coronavirus, which has killed several postal workers in Michigan, has brought “never-ending” turmoil, Wood says, which has only been exacerbated by changes cutting overtime, temporary employees, and access to mail sorting machines. “DeJoy comes on the scene and it’s just feeding the chaos,” Woods says. “To do this in the middle of a pandemic when we’re short?”
The Postal Service appears to have also quietly moved to end to its longstanding practice of treating election mail with priority, no matter the postage rate, explains Tammy Patrick, a senior adviser at the nonprofit Democracy Fund. “This year, at this moment, is the first time that the Postal Service has changed how they talk about that,” Patrick says. Democrats are now accusing DeJoy of forcing states, already cash-strapped by the pandemic, to pay higher rates to ensure on-time delivery.
It’s these changes—not the unprecedented demand for absentee ballots or any funding shortfalls—that could end up disenfranchising whole swaths of voters. “The volume is not the problem,” Patrick says. “The Postal Service processes anywhere between right around 400 million mail pieces a day. So even if every voter in the United States was going to vote by mail, that would just be a couple of days’ worth of mail.”
Many Americans who view Trump and the inadequate Postal Service funding as the primary threats to the election have taken up a campaign to buy stamps. “The best way is simply to purchase USPS merch!” an Instagram account called @restoretheusps declared, echoing countless similar pleas on social media. “Just buying a costume, shirt, stamp, toy, wallet, etc. can help protect the post office.” But the idea that individual purchases, even when carried out by millions of citizens concerned for their democracy, can save one of the largest civilian employers in the country is magical thinking. After all, the Postal Service has been operating in the red for years, and by the billions. Much of the agency’s financial strife can be traced to the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, which made it nearly impossible for the Postal Service to raise rates while forcing the agency to pre-fund $5 billion annually for retiree benefits until the year 2056. (No other federal agency is burdened by such a staggering financial requirement.) In other words, it would take an act of Congress—not the mass buying of stamps—to save the USPS.
But in the short term, despite the new changes sweeping the Postal Service, there are some legitimate reasons to hold out hope. More states are implementing temporary changes aimed at making voting more accessible, such as sending mail-in ballots to all registered voters and formally asking courts to extend deadlines for mail-in voting. As calls to subpoena DeJoy mount, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Sunday that the House would return early from recess in order to vote on a proposal to block Trump from further overhauling the USPS. But the best thing voters can do to ensure their ballots are counted, Patrick says, is simply to act as early as possible. “If we can get voters to request their ballot early, and return it early or through an in-person drop-off kind of alternative, then none of this matters,” Patrick says. So forget the fistfuls of merch, and get on that ballot request.
Pema Levy contributed reporting.


motherjones--2020-08-18--A Senate Intelligence Committee Report Reveals Damning New Information About Trump’s Russia Ties

During the 2016 presidential race , while Vladimir Putin attacked the election in part to help Donald Trump , there was a “ direct tie between senior Trump Campaign officials and the Russian intelligence services.
” This damning statement comes from a long-awaited bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report released on Tuesday morning .
The report , 966-pages long , is the final volume resulting from the committee ’ s investigation of Russian intervention in the 2016 campaign .
It is full of revelations and findings that make clear that there is no Trump-Russia “ hoax ” and that Trump and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s assault on American democracy and sought to exploit it .
The report also explores the question of whether Russian intelligence developed blackmail material on Trump , revealing new information on this dicey subject but without reaching a conclusion .
A good chunk of the report is dedicated to Paul Manafort , who was a senior Trump campaign official for about five months in 2016 .
The committee notes that Manafort , who was imprisoned in 2018 for committing fraud and money laundering , posed a “ grave counterintelligence threat ” due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his extensive dealings during the campaign with a former business associate named Konstantin Kilimnik , who the committee describes as a “ Russian intelligence officer.
” ( Special counsel Robert Mueller characterized Kilimnik as an “ associate ” of Russian intelligence . )
The committee puts it bluntly : “ Kilimnik likely served as a channel to Manafort for Russian intelligence services.
” Throughout the campaign , according to the report , Manafort “ directly and indirectly communicated with Kilimnik , ” Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska , and several pro-Russian oligarchs in Ukraine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The report continues : “ The Committee obtained some information suggesting Kilimnik may have been connected to the [ Russian intelligence ’ s ] hack and leak operation targeting the 2016 U.S. election.
” Whoa .
This report is saying that Trump ’ s campaign manager was in close contact with a Russian intelligence officer who might have been tied to Putin ’ s covert attack on the 2016 campaign to help elect Trump .
Moreover , the report reveals that the committee found “ two pieces of information ” that “ raise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ connected “ to the hack-and-leak operations.
” The report ’ s discussion of that information , though , is redacted .
Whether this counts as collusion or not , it ’ s a big deal .
Manafort , according to the committee ’ s investigation , also explored using his access to Trump to help advance Russian interests .
He discussed with Kilimnik promoting a pro-Russia “ peace plan ” for Ukraine that would have entailed creating an autonomous zone in eastern Ukraine , a scheme Manafort knew would offer a “ ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eastern Ukraine , ” the report says .
Manafort understood that Kilimnik had cleared the plan with “ someone in the Russian government.
” Why was Manafort willing to assist a move seemingly at odds with US interests ?
“ Manafort could benefit financially , ” the committee explains .
The picture gets worse for the Trump-Russia truthers .
Manafort , the report says , “ worked with Kilimnik starting in 2016 on narratives that sought to undermine evidence that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. election.
” That is , Manafort helped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it wasn ’ t just Manafort .
The committee states , “ The Trump Campaign publicly undermined the attribution of the hack-and-leak campaign to Russia and was indifferent to whether it and WikiLeaks were furthering a Russian election interference effort… The Campaign was aware of the extensive media reporting and other private sector attribution of the hack to Russian actors prior to that point.
” So though the committee found no evidence that Trump and his crew engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Moscow , it has concluded that Trump , Manafort , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assault by denying or dismissing its existence .
This is not a new observation , but it is an important point that has often been drowned out by Trump ’ s shouts of “ no collusion.
” The report ’ s findings show that the FBI and CIA were right to be alarmed by contacts between Russians and the Trump campaign ( this included interactions beyond Manafort ’ s ) and that the bureau was justified in opening up an investigation in mid-summer 2016 .
As the report puts it , “ Taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high-level access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services , particularly Kilimnik and associates of Oleg Deripaska , represented a grave counterintelligence threat.
” The Senate Intelligence Committee ’ s release contains other eye-popping material .
In a section on Russian kompromat—the use of compromising material—the committee explores several allegations that Russian intelligence had developed blackmail on Trump based on his personal conduct during trips to Russia .
The report goes far beyond the infamous “ pee tape ” rumor .
It states that Trump “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a Russian woman during a 1996 trip to Moscow—without reaching a firm conclusion .
And it reports that the committee spoke with a Marriott International executive who said he ’ d heard two colleagues discuss the existence of a video showing Trump in the elevator of the Moscow Ritz-Carlton with “ hostesses ” during a 2013 visit there .
But the two other executives denied any such discussion .
The committee said it could not resolve the matter .
The committee ’ s report includes plenty of information to inconvenience Republicans and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump-Russia scandal .
It shows that Donald Trump Jr.—and possibly Manafort and Jared Kushner—deliberately tried to collude with a secret Russian government effort to boost the Trump campaign .
( “ The Committee found evidence suggesting that it was the intent of the Campaign participants in the June 9 , 2016 [ Trump Tower ] meeting , particularly Donald Trump Jr. , to receive derogatory information that would be of benefit to the Campaign from a source known , at least by Trump Jr. to have connections to the Russian government.
” ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Michael Cohen , Trump ’ s personal lawyer , had lied to Congress about Trump ’ s efforts to secretly score a big Moscow tower project while he was campaigning for president .
It also states that Putin “ almost certainly ” knew of this project—meaning that the Russian leader possessed information that he could have leaked to embarrass Trump during the campaign .
The report reveals that Trump Jr. would only submit to an interview with the committee after he learned he might be held in contempt .
The committee describes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stone to try to get inside information they could exploit on the Russia-WikiLeaks operation .
( Trump likely lied about this to Robert Mueller—which could be a crime—and the committee report , approved by Republicans and Democrats , strengthens the case against Trump .
Actually , it nails it . )
The report notes that in the summer of 2016 , Carter Page , then a foreign policy adviser for the Trump campaign , met in Moscow with a person who presented “ counterintelligence concerns ” and that Page did not explain to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Russian capital .
The report does reaffirm there were serious problems with the FBI ’ s surveillance of Page and the bureau ’ s use of the Steele Dossier to obtain a search warrant for Page after he had left the Trump campaign .
Naturally , Sen. Marco Rubio ( R-Fla. ) , the acting chair of the committee , fixated on the report ’ s findings regarding the FBI and the Steele memos , long a hobbyhorse of the right and Trump .
He sidestepped the most significant aspects of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run by a counterintelligence threat , and Trump and his lieutenants assisted a foreign adversary ’ s attack on the United States .
These are truths that Trump and his enablers with the GOP and the conservative movement can not handle .
And the report discloses a related truth they largely wish to ignore : Russia is currently intervening in the 2020 election to help Trump .
The end of the report includes a statement from Sen. Ron Wyden ( D-Ore. ) , a committee member , who maintains that the report excessively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough .
He writes , “ The Committee investigated interactions between Donald Trump and particular Russians and identified deeply concerning financial links , it did not seek to answer key questions about Donald Trump ’ s finances that relate directly to counterintelligence .
In short , the Committee did not follow the money.
” Wyden alleges that information on this front “ and other revelations in the report suffice to establish that Donald Trump poses a counterintelligence threat to the United States.
” He asserted that the committee blocked the release of key @ @ @ @

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
During the 2016 presidential race, while Vladimir Putin attacked the election in part to help Donald Trump, there was a “direct tie between senior Trump Campaign officials and the Russian intelligence services.” This damning statement comes from a long-awaited bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report released on Tuesday morning. The report, 966-pages long, is the final volume resulting from the committee’s investigation of Russian intervention in the 2016 campaign. It is full of revelations and findings that make clear that there is no Trump-Russia “hoax” and that Trump and his campaign aided and abetted Moscow’s assault on American democracy and sought to exploit it.
The report also explores the question of whether Russian intelligence developed blackmail material on Trump, revealing new information on this dicey subject but without reaching a conclusion.
A good chunk of the report is dedicated to Paul Manafort, who was a senior Trump campaign official for about five months in 2016. The committee notes that Manafort, who was imprisoned in 2018 for committing fraud and money laundering, posed a “grave counterintelligence threat” due to his Russian connections. The report details his extensive dealings during the campaign with a former business associate named Konstantin Kilimnik, who the committee describes as a “Russian intelligence officer.” (Special counsel Robert Mueller characterized Kilimnik as an “associate” of Russian intelligence.) The committee puts it bluntly: “Kilimnik likely served as a channel to Manafort for Russian intelligence services.” Throughout the campaign, according to the report, Manafort “directly and indirectly communicated with Kilimnik,” Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, and several pro-Russian oligarchs in Ukraine:
On numerous occasions, Manafort sought to secretly share internal Campaign information with Kilimnik. The Committee was unable to reliably determine why Manafort shared sensitive internal polling data or Campaign strategy with Kilimnik or with whom Kilimnik further shared that information. The Committee had limited insight into Kilimnik’s communications with Manafort and into Kilimnik’s communications with other individuals connected to Russian influence operations, all of whom used communications security practices.
So their conversations were hush-hush.
The report continues: “The Committee obtained some information suggesting Kilimnik may have been connected to the [Russian intelligence’s] hack and leak operation targeting the 2016 U.S. election.” Whoa. This report is saying that Trump’s campaign manager was in close contact with a Russian intelligence officer who might have been tied to Putin’s covert attack on the 2016 campaign to help elect Trump. Moreover, the report reveals that the committee found “two pieces of information” that “raise the possibility” that Manafort himself was connected “to the hack-and-leak operations.” The report’s discussion of that information, though, is redacted. Whether this counts as collusion or not, it’s a big deal.
Manafort, according to the committee’s investigation, also explored using his access to Trump to help advance Russian interests. He discussed with Kilimnik promoting a pro-Russia “peace plan” for Ukraine that would have entailed creating an autonomous zone in eastern Ukraine, a scheme Manafort knew would offer a “‘backdoor’ means for Russia to control eastern Ukraine,” the report says. Manafort understood that Kilimnik had cleared the plan with “someone in the Russian government.” Why was Manafort willing to assist a move seemingly at odds with US interests? “Manafort could benefit financially,” the committee explains.
The picture gets worse for the Trump-Russia truthers. Manafort, the report says, “worked with Kilimnik starting in 2016 on narratives that sought to undermine evidence that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. election.” That is, Manafort helped Russia cover up its attack. And it wasn’t just Manafort. The committee states, “The Trump Campaign publicly undermined the attribution of the hack-and-leak campaign to Russia and was indifferent to whether it and WikiLeaks were furthering a Russian election interference effort… The Campaign was aware of the extensive media reporting and other private sector attribution of the hack to Russian actors prior to that point.” So though the committee found no evidence that Trump and his crew engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Moscow, it has concluded that Trump, Manafort, and others aided and abetted the Russian assault by denying or dismissing its existence. This is not a new observation, but it is an important point that has often been drowned out by Trump’s shouts of “no collusion.”
The report’s findings show that the FBI and CIA were right to be alarmed by contacts between Russians and the Trump campaign (this included interactions beyond Manafort’s) and that the bureau was justified in opening up an investigation in mid-summer 2016. As the report puts it, “Taken as a whole, Manafort’s high-level access and willingness to share information with individuals closely affiliated with the Russian intelligence services, particularly Kilimnik and associates of Oleg Deripaska, represented a grave counterintelligence threat.”
The Senate Intelligence Committee’s release contains other eye-popping material. In a section on Russian kompromat—the use of compromising material—the committee explores several allegations that Russian intelligence had developed blackmail on Trump based on his personal conduct during trips to Russia. The report goes far beyond the infamous “pee tape” rumor. It states that Trump “may have” begun a short affair with a Russian woman during a 1996 trip to Moscow—without reaching a firm conclusion. And it reports that the committee spoke with a Marriott International executive who said he’d heard two colleagues discuss the existence of a video showing Trump in the elevator of the Moscow Ritz-Carlton with “hostesses” during a 2013 visit there. But the two other executives denied any such discussion. The committee said it could not resolve the matter.
The committee’s report includes plenty of information to inconvenience Republicans and conservatives who have tried to erase the Trump-Russia scandal. It shows that Donald Trump Jr.—and possibly Manafort and Jared Kushner—deliberately tried to collude with a secret Russian government effort to boost the Trump campaign. (“The Committee found evidence suggesting that it was the intent of the Campaign participants in the June 9, 2016 [Trump Tower] meeting, particularly Donald Trump Jr., to receive derogatory information that would be of benefit to the Campaign from a source known, at least by Trump Jr. to have connections to the Russian government.”) The report suggests that Trump Jr. knew that Michael Cohen, Trump’s personal lawyer, had lied to Congress about Trump’s efforts to secretly score a big Moscow tower project while he was campaigning for president. It also states that Putin “almost certainly” knew of this project—meaning that the Russian leader possessed information that he could have leaked to embarrass Trump during the campaign. The report reveals that Trump Jr. would only submit to an interview with the committee after he learned he might be held in contempt.
The committee describes how Trump and his campaign used Roger Stone to try to get inside information they could exploit on the Russia-WikiLeaks operation. (Trump likely lied about this to Robert Mueller—which could be a crime—and the committee report, approved by Republicans and Democrats, strengthens the case against Trump. Actually, it nails it.) The report notes that in the summer of 2016, Carter Page, then a foreign policy adviser for the Trump campaign, met in Moscow with a person who presented “counterintelligence concerns” and that Page did not explain to the committee all his actions while in the Russian capital.
The report does reaffirm there were serious problems with the FBI’s surveillance of Page and the bureau’s use of the Steele Dossier to obtain a search warrant for Page after he had left the Trump campaign. Naturally, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), the acting chair of the committee, fixated on the report’s findings regarding the FBI and the Steele memos, long a hobbyhorse of the right and Trump. He sidestepped the most significant aspects of the investigation: Trump’s campaign was run by a counterintelligence threat, and Trump and his lieutenants assisted a foreign adversary’s attack on the United States. These are truths that Trump and his enablers with the GOP and the conservative movement cannot handle. And the report discloses a related truth they largely wish to ignore: Russia is currently intervening in the 2020 election to help Trump.
The end of the report includes a statement from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a committee member, who maintains that the report excessively redacted material and did not go far enough. He writes, “The Committee investigated interactions between Donald Trump and particular Russians and identified deeply concerning financial links, it did not seek to answer key questions about Donald Trump’s finances that relate directly to counterintelligence. In short, the Committee did not follow the money.” Wyden alleges that information on this front “and other revelations in the report suffice to establish that Donald Trump poses a counterintelligence threat to the United States.”
He asserted that the committee blocked the release of key information about Manafort: