motherjones--2020-10-06--Empty Promises and Preventable Deaths: Trump’s Bungled Response to Opioids Was a Test Run for COVID

Ever since the start of the pandemic , President Trump has taken to repeating , like a mantra , that the coronavirus will vanish into thin air .
“ It ’ s going to disappear one day , ” he said in February .
“ It ’ s like a miracle—it will disappear.
” This week , after spending three days at Walter Reed Medical Center undergoing experimental treatment for his own case of COVID-19 , he triumphantly told Americans , “ Don ’ t be afraid of COVID.
” Trump ’ s magical thinking , while breathtaking in its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , his unfounded promises bear a chilling resemblance to his claims about another health crisis : the opioid epidemic .
“ The number of drug users and the addicted will start to tumble downward over a period of years , ” he said in 2017 , when he declared the opioid crisis a public health emergency .
“ It will be a beautiful thing to see.
” A year later , in New Hampshire , he proclaimed , “ This scourge of drug addiction will stop .
It will stop.
” He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a drug-free generation of children.
” This year , the overdose epidemic has gone barely mentioned on the campaign trail , eclipsed by the coronavirus pandemic .
The only passing mention of addiction during last week ’ s presidential debate came when Trump attacked Biden for his son ’ s cocaine use .
But in a way , the overdose epidemic and the coronavirus pandemic are variations of the same story : one characterized by lip service , disorganization , and making a big show of quick fixes while simultaneously threatening to cut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the deaths have mounted as the blithe promises have continued .
Neither is anywhere close to its magical end .
Overdoses claimed an estimated 72,000 lives last year , a 12 percent increase from when Trump was elected into office .
The lesson , says Harvard health economist Richard Frank , is that “ if you suck on public health , you ’ re going to suck on public health across the board.
” Ever since the beginning of his presidency , it has been unclear , even to those of us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overseeing the administration ’ s work on opioids .
Soon after taking office , in 2017 , Trump appointed then–New Jersey Gov .
Chris Christie ( R ) to guide an opioid task force , which created a list of public health-oriented recommendations that drug policy experts on both sides of the aisle commended .
But without funding or leadership to implement the changes , the efforts stalled .
The same year , Trump famously declared the opioid epidemic a public health emergency—but a Government Accountability Office report later found that little came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the top political appointee at the federal office charged with coordinating the nation ’ s anti-drug initiative—an office that Trump nearly eliminated in budget cuts—was a 24-year-0ld former campaign staffer .
For a time , Kellyanne Conway , who had no prior experience with addiction issues , was spearheading the opioid agenda , which had the effect of “ quietly freezing out drug policy professionals and relying instead on political staff , ” reported Politico .
But perhaps the biggest shortcoming in addressing the opioid epidemic since Trump took office has been in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has allocated some funding toward addiction treatment and drug interdiction efforts , the money—in the “ single-digit billions , ” as German Lopez at Vox put it—pales in comparison to what experts deem necessary to making a dent in the problem .
For perspective , in 2018 Sen. Elizabeth Warren and the late Rep. Elijah Cummings presented a bill that would have provided states $ 100 billion over 10 years , modeled directly after the legislation Congress passed in 1990 that provided an infusion of federal funding to combat the HIV/AIDS crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s campaign meanwhile has a detailed plan to spend $ 125 billion over 10 years to quell the overdose epidemic .
While he ’ s done little to help the epidemic , Trump has certainly taken steps to make it worse—critically , by steadily chipping away at the Affordable Care Act , which made addiction treatment available to hundreds of thousands of people .
A recent JAMA study found that Medicaid expansion , a key component of the ACA , was associated with a 6 percent reduction in opioid overdoses .
The ACA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but at the same time we knew that if there was anything that this would help a lot for , it ’ s addiction , ” Keith Humphreys , a Stanford drug policy expert who advised the Obama administration , told me in 2017 .
That year , Trump and his allies in Congress got one step closer to doing away with the ACA altogether , with the passage of landmark tax legislation that repealed the individual mandate .
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that as a result of this law , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by 13 million over the 10 years .
Of those 13 million , Frank estimates that one-third—or about 4 million Americans—struggle with addiction or mental health .
Trump ’ s war on the ACA has continued since then , with his administration supporting a lawsuit that would undo the legislation altogether .
It is scheduled to be heard next month by the Supreme Court .
Meanwhile , the Trump administration continues to promote work requirements for recipients of Medicaid , the nation ’ s largest addiction-coverage provider .
Such rules , Frank notes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with addiction , ” presenting yet another hurdle to recovery .
The result is that , by almost any measure , the epidemic has worsened during Trump ’ s presidency .
Preliminary data suggests overdoses rising steeply this year in a number of states , as fentanyl , a powerful synthetic opioid that has for years devastated communities east of the Mississippi , permeates the drug supply in the West .
Fentanyl continues to flow into the country from China , where enforcement of recent rules banning the production of some variants of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brookings report noted that “ in the midst of ongoing rancor with the United States , ” China ’ s motivation to crack down on fentanyl “ may be lacking as well.
” Meanwhile , rehabs remain inaccessible to many and simultaneously underregulated and thus ripe with fraud .
While numerous studies show that access to addiction medications dramatically improves recovery prospects for people addicted to opioids , as of last year , only about one-third of treatment programs offer any of the three FDA-approved drugs .
In recent months , Trump has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and suicides due to social isolation as a rallying cry to reopen the country .
He ’ s right that such deaths appear to be increasing , but the solution , experts argue , is to make substance use treatment and harm reduction services more accessible—not to reopen .
In fact , some states with particularly high overdose death rates , like Florida , have also seen soaring COVID death rates .
The source of the poor response to both crises is fundamentally the same , says Frank : a public health infrastructure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past 30 years .
In both the epidemic and the pandemic , surveillance has failed ; just as we still don ’ t know how many people use drugs , or exactly how many people die of opioid overdoses each year , we also didn ’ t know in April how many ventilators we had in the country and where they were .
As Frank sums up the past few years of the nation ’ s overdose response , it ’ s impossible not to see parallels to the present .
“ Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ] signs the bill , ” he says , “ but then he puts alongside it a bunch of policies that cut the other way .
”

Ever since the start of the pandemic, President Trump has taken to repeating, like a mantra, that the coronavirus will vanish into thin air. “It’s going to disappear one day,” he said in February. “It’s like a miracle—it will disappear.” This week, after spending three days at Walter Reed Medical Center undergoing experimental treatment for his own case of COVID-19, he triumphantly told Americans, “Don’t be afraid of COVID.”
Trump’s magical thinking, while breathtaking in its callousness, is nothing new. In fact, his unfounded promises bear a chilling resemblance to his claims about another health crisis: the opioid epidemic.
In both cases, the deaths have mounted as the blithe promises have continued.
“The number of drug users and the addicted will start to tumble downward over a period of years,” he said in 2017, when he declared the opioid crisis a public health emergency. “It will be a beautiful thing to see.” A year later, in New Hampshire, he proclaimed, “This scourge of drug addiction will stop. It will stop.” He went on, “We will raise a drug-free generation of children.”
This year, the overdose epidemic has gone barely mentioned on the campaign trail, eclipsed by the coronavirus pandemic. The only passing mention of addiction during last week’s presidential debate came when Trump attacked Biden for his son’s cocaine use. But in a way, the overdose epidemic and the coronavirus pandemic are variations of the same story: one characterized by lip service, disorganization, and making a big show of quick fixes while simultaneously threatening to cut critical social services. In both cases, the deaths have mounted as the blithe promises have continued. Neither is anywhere close to its magical end. Overdoses claimed an estimated 72,000 lives last year, a 12 percent increase from when Trump was elected into office.
The lesson, says Harvard health economist Richard Frank, is that “if you suck on public health, you’re going to suck on public health across the board.”
Ever since the beginning of his presidency, it has been unclear, even to those of us covering the epidemic full-time, who is overseeing the administration’s work on opioids. Soon after taking office, in 2017, Trump appointed then–New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) to guide an opioid task force, which created a list of public health-oriented recommendations that drug policy experts on both sides of the aisle commended. But without funding or leadership to implement the changes, the efforts stalled. The same year, Trump famously declared the opioid epidemic a public health emergency—but a Government Accountability Office report later found that little came out of it. For months, the top political appointee at the federal office charged with coordinating the nation’s anti-drug initiative—an office that Trump nearly eliminated in budget cuts—was a 24-year-0ld former campaign staffer. For a time, Kellyanne Conway, who had no prior experience with addiction issues, was spearheading the opioid agenda, which had the effect of “quietly freezing out drug policy professionals and relying instead on political staff,” reported Politico.
But perhaps the biggest shortcoming in addressing the opioid epidemic since Trump took office has been in funding. While Trump has signed legislation that has allocated some funding toward addiction treatment and drug interdiction efforts, the money—in the “single-digit billions,” as German Lopez at Vox put it—pales in comparison to what experts deem necessary to making a dent in the problem. For perspective, in 2018 Sen. Elizabeth Warren and the late Rep. Elijah Cummings presented a bill that would have provided states $100 billion over 10 years, modeled directly after the legislation Congress passed in 1990 that provided an infusion of federal funding to combat the HIV/AIDS crisis. Former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign meanwhile has a detailed plan to spend $125 billion over 10 years to quell the overdose epidemic.
Ever since the beginning of his presidency, it was unclear, even to those of us covering the epidemic full-time, who was overseeing the administration’s work on opioids.
While he’s done little to help the epidemic, Trump has certainly taken steps to make it worse—critically, by steadily chipping away at the Affordable Care Act, which made addiction treatment available to hundreds of thousands of people. A recent JAMA study found that Medicaid expansion, a key component of the ACA, was associated with a 6 percent reduction in opioid overdoses. The ACA “was designed to be very broad, but at the same time we knew that if there was anything that this would help a lot for, it’s addiction,” Keith Humphreys, a Stanford drug policy expert who advised the Obama administration, told me in 2017.
That year, Trump and his allies in Congress got one step closer to doing away with the ACA altogether, with the passage of landmark tax legislation that repealed the individual mandate. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that as a result of this law, the number of uninsured Americans would increase by 13 million over the 10 years. Of those 13 million, Frank estimates that one-third—or about 4 million Americans—struggle with addiction or mental health. Trump’s war on the ACA has continued since then, with his administration supporting a lawsuit that would undo the legislation altogether. It is scheduled to be heard next month by the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues to promote work requirements for recipients of Medicaid, the nation’s largest addiction-coverage provider. Such rules, Frank notes, are “especially harmful for people with addiction,” presenting yet another hurdle to recovery.
The result is that, by almost any measure, the epidemic has worsened during Trump’s presidency. Preliminary data suggests overdoses rising steeply this year in a number of states, as fentanyl, a powerful synthetic opioid that has for years devastated communities east of the Mississippi, permeates the drug supply in the West. Fentanyl continues to flow into the country from China, where enforcement of recent rules banning the production of some variants of the drug remains minimal. A recent Brookings report noted that “in the midst of ongoing rancor with the United States,” China’s motivation to crack down on fentanyl “may be lacking as well.”
Meanwhile, rehabs remain inaccessible to many and simultaneously underregulated and thus ripe with fraud. While numerous studies show that access to addiction medications dramatically improves recovery prospects for people addicted to opioids, as of last year, only about one-third of treatment programs offer any of the three FDA-approved drugs.
The source of the poor response to both crises is fundamentally the same, says Frank: a public health infrastructure that has been slowly gutted over the past 30 years.
In recent months, Trump has taken to using reports of increasing overdoses and suicides due to social isolation as a rallying cry to reopen the country. He’s right that such deaths appear to be increasing, but the solution, experts argue, is to make substance use treatment and harm reduction services more accessible—not to reopen. In fact, some states with particularly high overdose death rates, like Florida, have also seen soaring COVID death rates.
The source of the poor response to both crises is fundamentally the same, says Frank: a public health infrastructure that has been slowly gutted over the past 30 years. In both the epidemic and the pandemic, surveillance has failed; just as we still don’t know how many people use drugs, or exactly how many people die of opioid overdoses each year, we also didn’t know in April how many ventilators we had in the country and where they were.
As Frank sums up the past few years of the nation’s overdose response, it’s impossible not to see parallels to the present. “Congress does a few things right and [Trump] signs the bill,” he says, “but then he puts alongside it a bunch of policies that cut the other way.”


motherjones--2020-10-07--The Justice Department May Have Violated Attorney General Barr’s Own Policy Memo

This story was published originally by ProPublica , a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power .
Sign up for ProPublica ’ s Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox as soon as they are published .
When the Justice Department recently publicized an ongoing investigation into potentially improperly discarded Trump ballots , critics accused it of violating long-standing agency policy against interfering in an election .
But the unusual decision to publicly detail the Pennsylvania case may also have run afoul of guidelines that Attorney General William Barr himself issued to federal prosecutors this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by ProPublica .
In May , Barr wrote a directive to all Justice Department employees imploring them to be “ particularly sensitive to safeguarding the Department ’ s reputation for fairness , neutrality , and non-partisanship ” when it comes to election-related crimes .
“ Partisan politics , ” he wrote , “ must play no role in the decisions of federal investigators or prosecutors regarding any investigations or criminal charges .
Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of public statements ( attributed or not ) , investigative steps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action in any matter or case for the purpose of affecting any election , or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.
” Nevertheless , last month Barr ’ s Justice Department issued a press release announcing an investigation into whether local elections officials illegally discarded nine mail-in military ballots in Pennsylvania .
The announcement of an open investigation was highly unusual .
Even more abnormal was that the press release specified that at least seven of those ballots were for President Donald Trump .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ release is unclear , Barr had personally briefed Trump on the matter before the announcement , the Washington Post subsequently reported , citing an anonymous source .
The president raised it in a media interview and then DOJ ’ s Pennsylvania office announced the investigation .
Then , the Trump campaign quickly jumped on the Pennsylvania case to bolster those claims .
“ BREAKING : FBI finds military mail-in ballots discarded in Pennsylvania .
100 % of them were cast for President Trump .
Democrats are trying to steal the election , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a former deputy assistant attorney general in the DOJ ’ s civil rights division , said the Pennsylvania press release was “ flatly inconsistent ” with Barr ’ s memo “ and shamefully so.
” “ There ’ s absolutely no legitimate law enforcement reason I know of to mention who the ballots were cast for : They were either dealt with properly or not properly , ” he said .
“ And if there ’ s no good reason , it leaves only the most likely bad reason : that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partisan political purposes.
” Some experts did not agree .
Samuel Buell , a former federal prosecutor who is now a professor at Duke Law School , said Barr could argue that “ any public announcement about a ballot investigation complies with [ the memo ] because the language is so broad.
” Barr , he said , could say the “ purpose ” of the Pennsylvania announcement was not to affect the outcome of the election or support a particular candidate , but some other non-prohibited motivation like “ protecting the vote.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ guidance that previous attorneys general sent out under both the Obama and George W. Bush administrations .
Barr himself said at his Senate confirmation hearings last year that the election policies were in place because the incumbent party has “ their hands on the levers of the law enforcement apparatus of the country , and you do not want it used against the opposing political party.
” Asked whether the Pennsylvania announcement ran afoul of the agency ’ s election policies , Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec responded : “ No.
” She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overseeing the case is David Freed , a former Republican nominee for Pennsylvania state attorney general who was nominated for his current role by Trump in 2017 .
In a publicly released letter , Freed said he was detailing initial findings despite an ongoing investigation “ based on the limited amount of time before the general election and the vital public importance of these issues.
” A second memo obtained by ProPublica , issued in August by Corey Amundson , chief of the DOJ ’ s Public Integrity Section , was even more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Justice Department ’ s long-standing policy in election fraud cases : “ Overt criminal investigative measures should not ordinarily be taken in matters involving alleged fraud in the manner in which votes were cast or counted until the election in question has been concluded.
” The memo was addressed to the Attorney General Advisory Committee , a group of U.S. attorneys that advise the attorney general .
The policy Amundson cites appears to make an exception for extraordinary cases .
But it seems unlikely that would apply to the case in Pennsylvania @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which appear to have been discarded by a sole contract employee .
The motivation may have been an innocuous attempt to follow Pennsylvania rules barring ballots sent back without the proper envelope .
Current and former Justice Department officials told ProPublica that , even without the memos from top agency officials including Barr , the Pennsylvania press release violated long-standing department policy .
They explained that prosecutors not only should not announce that they are investigating , but that they should be slow even to start an election-sensitive investigation during the campaign .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an opposing candidate could use it to smear his or her opponent .
“ That ’ s what they drill into us : the policy of non-interference and never , ever , ever announcing an investigation , ” one official said .
“ That ’ s why the thing in Pennsylvania is bonkers , completely bonkers.
” Barr has amplified Trump ’ s attempt to discredit mail-in voting before , claiming falsely that there is widespread fraud .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
This story was published originally by ProPublica, a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for ProPublica’s Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox as soon as they are published.
When the Justice Department recently publicized an ongoing investigation into potentially improperly discarded Trump ballots, critics accused it of violating long-standing agency policy against interfering in an election.
But the unusual decision to publicly detail the Pennsylvania case may also have run afoul of guidelines that Attorney General William Barr himself issued to federal prosecutors this year, according to a memo obtained by ProPublica.
In May, Barr wrote a directive to all Justice Department employees imploring them to be “particularly sensitive to safeguarding the Department’s reputation for fairness, neutrality, and non-partisanship” when it comes to election-related crimes.
“Partisan politics,” he wrote, “must play no role in the decisions of federal investigators or prosecutors regarding any investigations or criminal charges. Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of public statements (attributed or not), investigative steps, criminal charges, or any other action in any matter or case for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.”
Nevertheless, last month Barr’s Justice Department issued a press release announcing an investigation into whether local elections officials illegally discarded nine mail-in military ballots in Pennsylvania. The announcement of an open investigation was highly unusual. Even more abnormal was that the press release specified that at least seven of those ballots were for President Donald Trump.
While the motivation of the Pennsylvania press release is unclear, Barr had personally briefed Trump on the matter before the announcement, the Washington Post subsequently reported, citing an anonymous source. The president raised it in a media interview and then DOJ’s Pennsylvania office announced the investigation.
Then, the Trump campaign quickly jumped on the Pennsylvania case to bolster those claims.
“BREAKING: FBI finds military mail-in ballots discarded in Pennsylvania. 100% of them were cast for President Trump. Democrats are trying to steal the election,” a campaign official tweeted.
Justin Levitt, a former deputy assistant attorney general in the DOJ’s civil rights division, said the Pennsylvania press release was “flatly inconsistent” with Barr’s memo “and shamefully so.”
“There’s absolutely no legitimate law enforcement reason I know of to mention who the ballots were cast for: They were either dealt with properly or not properly,” he said. “And if there’s no good reason, it leaves only the most likely bad reason: that the identity of the candidate was revealed for partisan political purposes.”
Some experts did not agree . Samuel Buell, a former federal prosecutor who is now a professor at Duke Law School, said Barr could argue that “any public announcement about a ballot investigation complies with [the memo] because the language is so broad.”
Barr, he said, could say the “purpose” of the Pennsylvania announcement was not to affect the outcome of the election or support a particular candidate, but some other non-prohibited motivation like “protecting the vote.”
The Barr memo closely mirrored election-year guidance that previous attorneys general sent out under both the Obama and George W. Bush administrations. Barr himself said at his Senate confirmation hearings last year that the election policies were in place because the incumbent party has “their hands on the levers of the law enforcement apparatus of the country, and you do not want it used against the opposing political party.”
Asked whether the Pennsylvania announcement ran afoul of the agency’s election policies, Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec responded: “No.” She declined to elaborate.
The U.S. attorney overseeing the case is David Freed, a former Republican nominee for Pennsylvania state attorney general who was nominated for his current role by Trump in 2017. In a publicly released letter, Freed said he was detailing initial findings despite an ongoing investigation “based on the limited amount of time before the general election and the vital public importance of these issues.”
A second memo obtained by ProPublica, issued in August by Corey Amundson, chief of the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section, was even more explicit.
In it, Amundson reiterated the Justice Department’s long-standing policy in election fraud cases: “Overt criminal investigative measures should not ordinarily be taken in matters involving alleged fraud in the manner in which votes were cast or counted until the election in question has been concluded.”
The memo was addressed to the Attorney General Advisory Committee, a group of U.S. attorneys that advise the attorney general.
The policy Amundson cites appears to make an exception for extraordinary cases. But it seems unlikely that would apply to the case in Pennsylvania. That involved only nine ballots, which appear to have been discarded by a sole contract employee. The motivation may have been an innocuous attempt to follow Pennsylvania rules barring ballots sent back without the proper envelope.
Current and former Justice Department officials told ProPublica that, even without the memos from top agency officials including Barr, the Pennsylvania press release violated long-standing department policy. They explained that prosecutors not only should not announce that they are investigating, but that they should be slow even to start an election-sensitive investigation during the campaign. Such an investigation is so sensitive, an opposing candidate could use it to smear his or her opponent.
“That’s what they drill into us: the policy of non-interference and never, ever, ever announcing an investigation,” one official said. “That’s why the thing in Pennsylvania is bonkers, completely bonkers.”
A spokeswoman for Freed declined to comment.
Barr has amplified Trump’s attempt to discredit mail-in voting before, claiming falsely that there is widespread fraud.


motherjones--2020-10-07--Mike Pence’s Debate Strategy Is Simple: He Lies a Lot

Heading into the 2016 vice presidential debate , the Republican ticket found itself in a now-familiar position : trailing in the polls and awash in scandal .
Donald Trump had struggled in his first debate , and Mike Pence , then governor of Indiana , was faced with the unenviable prospect of defending a presidential nominee with a record of bigoted and sexist comments , legal and ethical transgressions , and deeply unpopular policies .
How would Pence defend the seemingly indefensible ?
The answer , it turned out , was easy : He simply denied it all .
Over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frustration of his Democratic opponent , Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine , Pence returned to the same circular tactic when confronted with his own nominee ’ s words .
First , a disappointed shake of the head and a flat-out denial , then a denial that he was in denial , and finally a vigorous promise to defend Trump should he ever be presented with anything the candidate actually said .
This year ’ s vice presidential debate , which tips off Wednesday night at the University of Utah , isn ’ t likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this event is a box-checking affair , fan service for the kind of political die-hards who lowered their flags to half-staff when CNN cancelled “ Crossfire.
” The most famous line ever uttered at a VP debate was delivered by a candidate whose ticket went on to lose 40 states .
Even given the advanced age of both presidential candidates—one of whom was recently hospitalized with a deadly illness—the election isn ’ t about the running mates , and it won ’ t hinge on what happens in Salt Lake City .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , just because a debate isn ’ t memorable doesn ’ t mean it can ’ t be revealing .
His 2016 performance foreshadowed the ways in which nearly every Republican official—even the ones most critical of Trump—would learn to fall in line by feigning ignorance .
And it offers a preview of what ’ s in store for Harris .
Back in 2016 , at Longwood University in Farmville , Virginia , the tone was established early on .
“ Both Donald Trump and Mike Pence think we ought to eliminate the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ No I don ’ t , ” Pence said quietly , shaking his head with the not-mad-just-disappointed look that would remain fixed on his face for much of the next four years .
But Trump had said during the campaign that that the federal government should be eliminated , and Pence had previously complained that having a minimum wage “ violates fundamental free market economics ” and “ costs jobs.
” ( President Trump ’ s chief economics adviser Larry Kudlow has called the concept of a federal minimum wage a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after , when Kaine criticized Trump for breaking his promise to release his tax returns ( a subject likely to be revisited on Wednesday ) , Pence insisted that “ he will.
” Indeed , “ he hasn ’ t broken his promise , ” but “ he ’ s going to release his tax returns when the audit is over.
” It was clearly false then ; it ’ s farcical now .
Later , Kaine mentioned Trump and Pence ’ s stated support for privatizing Social Security—a position Trump had articulated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America We Deserve—and Pence advocated on the floor of Congress .
Pence , of course , did not defend the deeply unpopular idea .
Instead he denied that either of them had held it .
“ There they go again , okay ?
” he said , invoking Ronald Reagan ’ s famous 1980 debate line .
“ All Donald Trump and I have said about Social Security is we ’ re going to meet our obligations to our seniors .
That ’ s it.
” Like the Clinton campaign more broadly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on all of the terrible things Trump had said about , well , everyone—and challenged Pence to defend any of them .
“ Donald Trump during his campaign has called Mexicans rapists and criminals , ” Kaine said .
“ He ’ s called women slobs , pigs , dogs , disgusting .
I don ’ t like saying that in front of my wife and my mother .
He attacked an Indiana-born federal judge , and said he was unqualified to hear a federal lawsuit because his parents were Mexican .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and said he wasn ’ t hero because he ’ d been captured .
He said African-Americans are living in Hell .
And he perpetrated this outrageous and bigoted lie that President Obama is not a U.S. citizen.
” Once again , Pence didn ’ t take the bait .
He did not even accept the premise that Trump said these things .
“ If ” Trump said them , he argued—if—it was nothing compared to the things Hillary Clinton had said , such as her remark that many Trump voters were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had promised to send a “ deportation force ” to deport undocumented immigrants , and denied that a federal judge had struck down Pence ’ s own order blocking Syrian refugees from coming to Indiana ( a state-level version of what Trump would eventually do at the national level ) .
“ With respect to refugees , we want to keep people out if they ’ re dangerous , ” Kaine said a short while later .
“ Donald Trump said keep them out if they ’ re Muslim.
” Pence , again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look .
“ Absolutely not.
” Just to be clear : At the time of this debate , the “ Muslim ban ” was still posted on the Trump campaign website .
When the subject turned to foreign policy , Kaine pointed out that Trump called NATO “ obsolete and that we need to get rid of NATO.
” “ That ’ s not his plan , ” Pence said .
Not only was this a fair rendering of Trump ’ s views then , but the New York Times reported last year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , floated breaking up the alliance .
A man of his word , just like Pence promised .
Pence ’ s habit of shaking his head and saying something was not true when confronted with something that was started to wear on Kaine .
Eventually , he got tired of it and called Pence out on his strategy .
“ Six times tonight , I have said to Governor Pence I can ’ t imagine how you can defend your running mate ’ s position on one issue after the next , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all six cases , he ’ s refused to defend his running mate.
” Pence , predictably , denied that too .
“ Well , let ’ s—no , no , don ’ t put words in my mouth , ” he said , adding , “ I ’ m very , very happy to defend Donald Trump .
If he wants to take these one at a time , I ’ ll take them one at a time.
” Kaine obliged .
“ More nations should get nuclear weapons—try to defend that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t put words in my mouth , ” Pence said .
“ Well , he never said that , Senator.
” “ Most of the stuff you ’ ve said , he ’ s never said , ” Pence insisted , starting the cycle yet again .
Trump did say those things , of course .
The real tell was that Mike Pence said he hadn ’ t .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Heading into the 2016 vice presidential debate, the Republican ticket found itself in a now-familiar position: trailing in the polls and awash in scandal. Donald Trump had struggled in his first debate, and Mike Pence, then governor of Indiana, faced the unenviable prospect of defending a presidential nominee with a record of bigoted and sexist comments, legal and ethical transgressions, and deeply unpopular policies. How would Pence defend the seemingly indefensible?
The answer, it turned out, was easy: He simply denied it all.
Over and over again, to the visible frustration of his Democratic opponent, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, Pence returned to the same circular tactic when confronted with his own nominee’s words. First, a disappointed shake of the head and a flat-out denial, then a denial that he was in denial, and finally a vigorous promise to defend Trump should he ever be presented with anything the candidate actually said.
This year’s vice presidential debate, which tips off Wednesday night at the University of Utah, isn’t likely to shake up the race. Traditionally, this event is a box-checking affair, fan service for the kind of political diehards who lowered their flags to half-staff when CNN canceled Crossfire. The most famous line ever uttered at a VP debate was delivered by a candidate whose ticket went on to lose 40 states. Even given the advanced age of both presidential candidates—one of whom was recently hospitalized with a deadly illness—the election isn’t about the running mates, and it won’t hinge on what happens in Salt Lake City. But as Pence showed four years ago, just because a debate isn’t memorable doesn’t mean it can’t be revealing. His 2016 performance foreshadowed the ways in which nearly every Republican official—even the ones most critical of Trump—would learn to fall in line by feigning ignorance. And it offers a preview of what’s in store for Harris.
Back in 2016, at Longwood University in Farmville, Virginia, the tone was established early on. “Both Donald Trump and Mike Pence think we ought to eliminate the federal minimum wage,” Kaine said.
“No I don’t,” Pence said quietly, shaking his head with the not-mad-just-disappointed look that would remain fixed on his face for much of the next four years. But Trump had said during the campaign that the federal government should be eliminated, and Pence had previously complained that having a minimum wage “violates fundamental free market economics” and “costs jobs.” (President Trump’s chief economics adviser Larry Kudlow has called the concept of a federal minimum wage a “terrible idea.”)
Not long after, when Kaine criticized Trump for breaking his promise to release his tax returns (a subject likely to be revisited on Wednesday), Pence insisted that “he will.” Indeed, “he hasn’t broken his promise,” but “he’s going to release his tax returns when the audit is over.” It was clearly false then; it’s farcical now.
Later, Kaine mentioned Trump and Pence’s stated support for privatizing Social Security—a position Trump had articulated in one of his books—appropriately titled The America We Deserve—and Pence advocated on the floor of Congress.
Pence, of course, did not defend the deeply unpopular idea. Instead he denied that either of them had held it. “There they go again, okay?” he said, invoking Ronald Reagan’s famous 1980 debate line. “All Donald Trump and I have said about Social Security is we’re going to meet our obligations to our seniors. That’s it.”
(This assertion is even more questionable today, now that Trump has proposed permanently eliminating the payroll tax—through which Social Security is funded.)
Like the Clinton campaign more broadly, Kaine focused a lot of his energy on all of the terrible things Trump had said about, well, everyone—and challenged Pence to defend any of them.
“Donald Trump during his campaign has called Mexicans rapists and criminals,” Kaine said. “He’s called women slobs, pigs, dogs, disgusting. I don’t like saying that in front of my wife and my mother. He attacked an Indiana-born federal judge, and said he was unqualified to hear a federal lawsuit because his parents were Mexican. He went after John McCain, a POW, and said he wasn’t hero because he’d been captured. He said African-Americans are living in Hell. And he perpetrated this outrageous and bigoted lie that President Obama is not a US citizen.”
Once again, Pence didn’t take the bait. He did not even accept the premise that Trump said these things. “If” Trump said them, he argued—if—it was nothing compared to the things Hillary Clinton had said, such as her remark that many Trump voters were “deplorable.”
Pence denied that Trump had promised to send a “deportation force” to deport undocumented immigrants, and denied that a federal judge had struck down Pence’s own order blocking Syrian refugees from coming to Indiana (a state-level version of what Trump would eventually do at the national level).
“That’s absolutely false,” he said.
“With respect to refugees, we want to keep people out if they’re dangerous,” Kaine said a short while later. “Donald Trump said keep them out if they’re Muslim.”
Pence, again, shook his head with a pained look. “Absolutely not.”
Just to be clear: At the time of this debate, the “Muslim ban” was still posted on the Trump campaign website.
When the subject turned to foreign policy, Kaine pointed out that Trump called NATO “obsolete and that we need to get rid of NATO.”
“That’s not his plan,” Pence said.
Not only was this a fair rendering of Trump’s views then, but the New York Times reported last year that Trump as president had, in fact, floated breaking up the alliance. A man of his word, just like Pence promised.
Pence’s habit of shaking his head and saying something was not true when confronted with something that was started to wear on Kaine. Eventually, he got tired of it and called Pence out on his strategy.
“Six times tonight, I have said to Governor Pence I can’t imagine how you can defend your running mate’s position on one issue after the next,” he complained, “and in all six cases, he’s refused to defend his running mate.”
Pence, predictably, denied that too. “Well, let’s—no, no, don’t put words in my mouth,” he said, adding, “I’m very, very happy to defend Donald Trump. If he wants to take these one at a time, I’ll take them one at a time.”
Kaine obliged. “More nations should get nuclear weapons—try to defend that,” he said.
“Don’t put words in my mouth,” Pence said. “Well, he never said that, Senator.”
“He absolutely said it,” Kaine shot back. “Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Japan.”
“Most of the stuff you’ve said, he’s never said,” Pence insisted, starting the cycle yet again.
Trump did say those things, of course. The real tell was that Mike Pence said he hadn’t.


motherjones--2020-10-07--Meet the YouTube Star Who’s Pushing a Generation of Florida’s Cuban Voters to Trump

The lobby of the Four Ambassadors condo building in Miami wouldn ’ t look out of place in a Trump property .
There are marble floors , fountains , chandeliers , and views of an outdoor pool facing the water .
Over the years , the complex has hosted Martin Luther King Jr. , the White House press corps , and Nicaraguan contras and their CIA handlers .
These days , the action takes place behind what could easily be mistaken for a closet door off the lobby .
On the other side of that door is a tiny studio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consumed by a life-size cardboard cutout of President Trump .
There are Latinos for Trump placards strewn about , and a blown-up image of the president on the wall .
In the production booth hangs a painting of Alex Otaola , the YouTube star whose legions of Cuban American fans could help Trump win Florida and possibly the election .
Otaola arrived more than fashionably late , wearing glasses in Dolphins aqua and orange , a baseball cap in place of the fashion turbans he sometimes favors , and a forearm full of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the frequent occasions when he grew animated .
After an initial interview , I watched Otaola ’ s fifth live broadcast of the week from the booth .
Over the course of three frenetic hours , Otaola , speaking in Spanish , attacked left-wing Cuban media , told viewers how to register to vote , gossiped about Cuban reggaetoneros , derided Black Lives Matters as a bunch of Marxists , belted out a song , and reminded people to vote again .
Three full-time producers crammed into the booth laughed incredulously at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ music for the villains ( Democrats , the Cuban government ) , hollered when Otaola needed a studio audience , and served as the judges of a Zoom karaoke contest that happened as news broke of Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s death , which barely registered among them .
More than 100,000 people would end up watching a spectacle that mashed together elements of The Jerry Springer Show , Judge Judy , Entertainment Tonight , and Breitbart .
Typically , they are younger Cuban immigrants like the 41-year-old Otaola .
If Trump squeezes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his generation of Cubans will be among the people he has to thank .
Older Cubans , who fled after Fidel Castro took power in 1959 , are generally considered the reliable Republican voting bloc .
But the younger generation has moved sharply to the right in the Trump years : A recent poll found that 56 percent of recent Cuban immigrants were planning to vote for Trump this summer , up from 22 percent four years earlier .
Subscribe to Mother Jones podcasts on Apple Podcasts or your favorite podcast app @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responsible for this shift , but some prominent members of Miami ’ s Cuban community credit a new crop of right-wing media personalities promoting Trump—in particular Otaola .
“ Oh my god , ” Maria Elvira Salazar , a Republican running for Congress , told me outside her Little Havana campaign office .
“ He ’ s the one changing the newly arrived Cubans from Democrats to Republicans .
He is the one.
” A few minutes after I spoke to Salazar , Arlene Paredes walked out of the campaign office after attending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on his show .
Like Otaola , she ’ d moved to the United States in 2003 .
Had she heard of him ?
“ Of course , ” she said .
“ He ’ s the best YouTuber in Miami.
” She watches his show every day .
The whole thing—nearly 15 hours of Otaola a week .
Paredes voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 .
Otaola changed her mind .
She ’ s voting for Trump .
Her Cuban American husband , who didn ’ t vote in the last election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good reason to hope that more recent Cuban immigrants would help end Republicans ’ dominance among Cuban voters in Florida .
It ’ s a group that ’ s been more likely to support ending the embargo , to travel back to the island , and to send remittances to family members .
In August 2016 , Cubans who arrived in the United States since 1995 favored Clinton by a more than two-to-one margin , according to Florida International University ’ s long-running and highly respected Cuba Poll .
Two years later , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Poll , which surveys the attitudes of South Florida ’ s Cuban population every two years , found that more recent arrivals had just voted for Republicans by a roughly two-to-one margin in the midterms .
Otaola , who switched parties in 2018 , was part of that shift .
Equis Research , a Latino-focused polling company , found last year that party identification among Cubans who have arrived after 1993 swung 50 points towards Republicans between 2016 and 2019 .
“ While we wouldn ’ t stake too much on the exact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sample sizes , ” Equis wrote in July , “ the trend is undeniable.
” On Friday , the latest installment of the Cuba Poll backed up Equis ’ findings .
The survey found that among Cubans who came to the United States between 2010 and 2015 , 76 percent are Republicans and only 5 percent are Democrats .
Overall , Biden has made up some ground among Cubans since the Cuba Poll was conducted this summer .
Still , the cohort of Cuban immigrants that was supposed to be the friendliest to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican one .
That ’ s particularly important because Cuban Americans who have arrived since 1995 make up about 45 percent of Miami-Dade County ’ s Cuban community , which includes nearly 500,000 registered voters , or about a third of the electorate .
( Cuban Americans account for about 5 percent of registered voters statewide . )
Those who are registered overwhelmingly say they ’ re definitely planning to vote in November , by a margin of 89 to 1 .
Even within one section of one demographic group , large shifts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Florida .
In 2000 , Miami Cubans ’ vehement opposition to President Bill Clinton ’ s decision to return Elián González to his father in Cuba helped cost Al Gore the presidency .
In 2012 , Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney among recent Cuban immigrants—and roughly tied him among all Cubans according to exit polls—and won the state by about 75,000 votes .
In 2018 , Democrats Bill Nelson and Andrew Gillum lost their respective Senate and gubernatorial bids by less than half a percentage point each ; in Miami-Dade County , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s 2016 results in heavily Cuban areas .
Today , Joe Biden leads by 3.5 points in RealClearPolitics ’ average of Florida polls .
Then again , at this point in 2016 , Clinton was leading by 2.3 points and she ended up losing the state by 1.2 points .
Once again , the election could come down to a key slice of Cuban voters .
Sitting in his studio , Otaola told me in Spanish that his first jobs after coming to the United States in 2003 were at places like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chicken chain .
Two years later , he bought a modest townhome just outside Miami .
For him and his audience , who know his story like they would a friend ’ s , his success is proof that the American Dream is still alive .
Like the president , Otaola told me he ’ s always been drawn to provocation .
“ To be born gay in a machista society like Cuba ’ s , ” he explained , “ is to be a provocateur from birth.
” He likes likes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ application was rejected by a man who called him a maricón de mierda , a fucking faggot .
He had a brief career in TV , radio , and theater in Havana before leaving for Florida in his twenties via a visa lottery .
In Miami , he landed bit parts in soap operas and dubbed shows like South Park into Spanish before making his name on gossipy talk and variety shows .
After the 2016 election , Otaola expressed his disgust at the result on Instagram .
In a post denouncing Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ hate filled ” campaign , he concluded in all-caps , “ AMERICA HAS SPOKEN AND IT WILL GET WHAT IT DESERVES.
” Spurred on by what he called the supreme “ mediocrity ” of Spanish-language television executives , he started his YouTube show , Hola !
Ota-Ola , the next year .
“ I ’ m everything here , ” he said .
“ I ’ m an actor .
I ’ m a political analyst .
I ’ m an art critic .
I ’ m a censor .
I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ job.
” His idea was always to mix pop culture with politics , which at first meant mostly Cuban politics .
Guennady Rodriguez , a fellow Cuban immigrant who now edits a Spanish outlet called 23 y Flagler , said Otaola ’ s initial success came from tapping into Miami Cubans ’ frustration with Cuban celebrities who made good money in the United States without taking a stand against the island ’ s government .
Otaola named names and succeeded in getting the concerts of Cuban performers canceled .
At first , his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ March 2018 interview with Salazar , the Republican congressional candidate who is challenging Rep. Donna Shalala again after losing to her two years ago , Otaola criticized both parties and challenged her to explain why prescription drugs are so expensive in the United States .
When Salazar blamed Democrats for the state of affairs in Cuba , Otaola countered , “ Now , you have all the power.
” Politicians from both parties , Otaola told his guest , used Cuba and its communism to win the votes of Cuban Americans .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continued .
“ There ’ s been no change .
No benefits.
” After the 2018 election , Otaola quickly became relentlessly pro-Trump .
By February 2019 , he was yelling “ bravo !
” and “ hallelujah ” in response to a clip of Trump saying Cuba , Venezuela , and Nicaragua would soon be free .
“ We ’ re proud of you , Mr. President , ” Otaola told the cardboard Trump cutout that remains in his studio .
“ Can I give you a kiss ?
” Many recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it shifted leftward under the sway of politicians like Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , who proudly embrace democratic socialism—a term that sounds enough like the communist regimes they fled to turn them off , even if the policy proposals are worlds apart .
Otaola has said Ocasio-Cortez ’ s rise made him a Republican , though many of Otaola ’ s critics suspect the rightward turn was designed to boost ratings .
Either way , the switch has been a good career move .
Instead of posing tough questions to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ads from her campaign .
He also draws far more attention .
In February , Otaola organized a pro-Trump caravan that attracted as many as 2,000 cars , the Miami Herald reported .
This spring , Otaola interviewed John Barsa , the acting head of USAID , for a segment that the federal development agency said was designed to “ counter the Cuban regime ’ s disinformation.
” In July , Otaola led another caravan in support of the Miami police .
His latest project is trying to help launch a Cuban political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remain unclear .
Plenty of Miami area Cubans haven ’ t heard of Otaola , but just about everyone I talked to in his target demographic had .
At a watch kiosk in a mall in the heavily Cuban city of Hialeah , I asked Yanetzy , a 24-year-old who ’ d moved from Cuba a few years ago , what percentage of Cuban immigrants her age were familiar with Otaola .
“ All the Cubans know his name , ” she responded .
“ Some follow him , other ones not .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Odio , Equis Research ’ s co-founder and the grandson of a Cuban president , remembers the first time Otaola ’ s name came up during a focus group of recent Cuban immigrants .
It caught people off guard .
Several of the observers in the room had to ask , “ Who ’ s Alex Otaola ?
” Ricardo Herrero , the head of the Cuba Study Group , said that Otaola was a constant presence in those discussions among recent arrivals .
“ Otaola is one of them , ” Herrero @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-made image and believe his bleak assessment of life in Cuba because they ’ ve lived it .
So when Otaola talks about American politics , a subject they know less about , they ’ re more likely to believe him , Herrero explained .
He ’ s helped create a permission structure for supporting the president they see getting criticized on Univision and Telemundo .
Still , he adds , we have no idea how many voters Otaola is actually swaying .
For starters , we don ’ t know how much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how many of the Florida viewers actually vote .
And then there ’ s the fact that his generation had already lurched to the right in 2018 , before Otaola ’ s show became a Trump-loving spectacle , due to a changing perception of the Democratic Party .
Over the course of a week in Miami last month , I was inundated by warnings—over the radio , Facebook , YouTube , WhatsApp , and in person—that Democrats are pushing the country toward the socialism that Cubans , Nicaraguans , and Venezuelans came to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 , Florida Republicans falsely branded Gillum as a socialist , to great effect .
Now they ’ re continuing that message in the presidential race , even though Democrats nominated a 77-year-old moderate .
The socialism attack is particularly potent because Democrats are running against someone who Cuban Americans believe is great for the economy .
The 2020 Cuba Poll found that 68 percent of post-1995 immigrants strongly support Trump ’ s handling of the economy , compared to 10 percent who strongly oppose it .
Trump also gets high marks for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Part of the problem for Democrats is widespread frustration in Miami that Obama ’ s engagement with Cuba did not lead to economic and political reforms .
As the new Cuba Poll states bluntly , “ Cubans here and on the island expected great changes and they never came.
” Republicans and the Trump administration have been a near-constant presence in Miami .
“ The Republican Party makes Cubans feel very , very important , ” said Guillermo Grenier , the Florida International University sociologist who has been conducting the Cuba Poll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t know how to do that.
” His colleague at FIU , the political scientist Eduardo Gamarra , cited research from one of his graduate students showing that Cuban Americans feel even more influential under Trump than they did under Ronald Reagan , who has long been a hero to Cuban exiles .
To win back voters , Trump ’ s critics in Florida have sometimes tried to paint him as an autocrat in the vein of Castro or Hugo Chávez .
But in focus groups , Equis found , those attacks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cuban immigrants are offended by the comparison , and some see Trump ’ s similarities to the typical caudillo as a plus .
I saw that firsthand at a pro-Trump event in Hialeah , where someone wore a MAGA-style hat that read “ Trump es un pingu.
” A Venezuelan Republican translated the slang somewhat bashfully .
It meant that Trump has a big dick , but it was intended to convey that he gets things done .
He ’ s their strongman .
Otaola ’ s strength lies in his ability to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into a show that can appeal to people without a particularly deep interest in politics .
You can tune in for the video of him bottle-feeding his new baby squirrel monkey , Karma Otaola , then stay for the instructions on how to vote Republican .
Otaola ’ s guest on the day I watched his show from the booth was the hunky Cuban actor Pedro Moreno .
“ Alex , there ’ s a party that ’ s pushing socialism , and they want to impose it here in the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the vehicle against that , and I have to vote for Trump.
” From there , they pivoted to Black Lives Matter , which Otaola has depicted as a left-wing insurrection intent on toppling American democracy as part of a conspiracy to take down Trump by creating chaos .
Where ’ s George Soros ?
Otaola asked in one June episode .
( At a Trump campaign event I attended in Miami , a Cuban American radio host echoed the criticism of the major Democratic donor , who is frequently the target @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fingers to make devil horns . )
One of the founders of the Black Lives Matter movement , Moreno warned , had appeared in a photo with Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro .
Otaola agreed that the founders were Marxists , then steered the conversation to Cuba .
In a matter of minutes , Black Lives Matter , Democrats , and the Cuban government had been stacked into a communist leviathan .
A few days later , I showed up at the job fair at Salazar ’ s campaign office , watching as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in .
The volunteer working the sign-in table knew all about Otaola , down to the year he ’ d left Cuba .
Paredes , the Otaola superfan , proudly showed me a photo she ’ d taken with him .
In the background , I recognized one of the fountains in the Four Ambassadors .
She knew Otaola lived on the building ’ s 19th floor and that he ’ d been looking to upgrade to something nicer .
Following his advice , she ’ d stopped sending money back to her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of starving its government of revenue .
Paredes recounted the feeling of getting sucked into his orbit .
“ Tomorrow , I ’ m going to see what he ’ ll be talking about , ” she said .
“ And then the next day .
And the next day .
And you don ’ t realize .
Then you ’ re watching the show every day .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The lobby of the Four Ambassadors condo building in Miami wouldn’t look out of place in a Trump property. There are marble floors, fountains, chandeliers, and views of an outdoor pool facing the water. Over the years, the complex has hosted Martin Luther King Jr., the White House press corps, and Nicaraguan contras and their CIA handlers. These days, the action takes place behind what could easily be mistaken for a closet door off the lobby.
On the other side of that door is a tiny studio, a sizable portion of which is consumed by a life-size cardboard cutout of President Trump. There are Latinos for Trump placards strewn about, and a blown-up image of the president on the wall. In the production booth hangs a painting of Alex Otaola, the YouTube star whose legions of Cuban American fans could help Trump win Florida and possibly the election.
Otaola arrived more than fashionably late, wearing glasses in Dolphins aqua and orange, a baseball cap in place of the fashion turbans he sometimes favors, and a forearm full of beaded bracelets that shook like a maraca on the frequent occasions when he grew animated.
After an initial interview, I watched Otaola’s fifth live broadcast of the week from the booth. Over the course of three frenetic hours, Otaola, speaking in Spanish, attacked left-wing Cuban media, told viewers how to register to vote, gossiped about Cuban reggaetoneros, derided Black Lives Matters as a bunch of Marxists, belted out a song, and reminded people to vote again. Three full-time producers crammed into the booth laughed incredulously at their boss’ antics, played ominous music for the villains (Democrats, the Cuban government), hollered when Otaola needed a studio audience, and served as the judges of a Zoom karaoke contest that happened as news broke of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, which barely registered among them.
More than 100,000 people would end up watching a spectacle that mashed together elements of The Jerry Springer Show, Judge Judy, Entertainment Tonight, and Breitbart. Typically, they are younger Cuban immigrants like the 41-year-old Otaola. If Trump squeezes out a win in Florida, Otaola and his generation of Cubans will be among the people he has to thank. Older Cubans, who fled after Fidel Castro took power in 1959, are generally considered the reliable Republican voting bloc. But the younger generation has moved sharply to the right in the Trump years: A recent poll found that 56 percent of recent Cuban immigrants were planning to vote for Trump this summer, up from 22 percent four years earlier.
Listen to the latest episode of the Mother Jones Podcast: Subscribe using Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.
There are a number of factors responsible for this shift, but some prominent members of Miami’s Cuban community credit a new crop of right-wing media personalities promoting Trump—in particular Otaola.
“Oh my god,” Maria Elvira Salazar, a Republican running for Congress, told me outside her Little Havana campaign office. “He’s the one changing the newly arrived Cubans from Democrats to Republicans. He is the one.”
A few minutes after I spoke to Salazar, Arlene Paredes walked out of the campaign office after attending a job fair that Otaola had plugged on his show. Like Otaola, she’d moved to the United States in 2003. Had she heard of him? “Of course,” she said. “He’s the best YouTuber in Miami.” She watches his show every day. The whole thing—nearly 15 hours of Otaola a week. Paredes voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. Otaola changed her mind. She’s voting for Trump. Her Cuban American husband, who didn’t vote in the last election, is too.
Progressives have had good reason to hope that more recent Cuban immigrants would help end Republicans’ dominance among Cuban voters in Florida. It’s a group that’s been more likely to support ending the embargo, to travel back to the island, and to send remittances to family members. In August 2016, Cubans who arrived in the United States since 1995 favored Clinton by a more than two-to-one margin, according to Florida International University’s long-running and highly respected Cuba Poll.
Two years later, that had flipped. The next Cuba Poll, which surveys the attitudes of South Florida’s Cuban population every two years, found that more recent arrivals had just voted for Republicans by a roughly two-to-one margin in the midterms. Otaola, who switched parties in 2018, was part of that shift. Equis Research, a Latino-focused polling company, found last year that party identification among Cubans who have arrived after 1993 swung 50 points towards Republicans between 2016 and 2019. “While we wouldn’t stake too much on the exact size of the swing, given smaller sample sizes,” Equis wrote in July, “the trend is undeniable.”
On Friday, the latest installment of the Cuba Poll backed up Equis’ findings. The survey found that among Cubans who came to the United States between 2010 and 2015, 76 percent are Republicans and only 5 percent are Democrats. Overall, Biden has made up some ground among Cubans since the Cuba Poll was conducted this summer. Still, the cohort of Cuban immigrants that was supposed to be the friendliest to Democrats now appears to be the most Republican one.
That’s particularly important because Cuban Americans who have arrived since 1995 make up about 45 percent of Miami-Dade County’s Cuban community, which includes nearly 500,000 registered voters, or about a third of the electorate. (Cuban Americans account for about 5 percent of registered voters statewide.) Those who are registered overwhelmingly say they’re definitely planning to vote in November, by a margin of 89 to 1.
Even within one section of one demographic group, large shifts can make the difference in a state like Florida. In 2000, Miami Cubans’ vehement opposition to President Bill Clinton’s decision to return Elián González to his father in Cuba helped cost Al Gore the presidency. In 2012, Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney among recent Cuban immigrants—and roughly tied him among all Cubans according to exit polls—and won the state by about 75,000 votes. In 2018, Democrats Bill Nelson and Andrew Gillum lost their respective Senate and gubernatorial bids by less than half a percentage point each; in Miami-Dade County, both experienced their biggest drop-offs from Clinton’s 2016 results in heavily Cuban areas.
Today, Joe Biden leads by 3.5 points in RealClearPolitics’ average of Florida polls. Then again, at this point in 2016, Clinton was leading by 2.3 points and she ended up losing the state by 1.2 points. Once again, the election could come down to a key slice of Cuban voters.
Sitting in his studio, Otaola told me in Spanish that his first jobs after coming to the United States in 2003 were at places like Walmart and Pollo Tropical, a fast-food chicken chain. Two years later, he bought a modest townhome just outside Miami. For him and his audience, who know his story like they would a friend’s, his success is proof that the American Dream is still alive.
Like the president, Otaola told me he’s always been drawn to provocation. “To be born gay in a machista society like Cuba’s,” he explained, “is to be a provocateur from birth.” He likes to tell the story of how his university application was rejected by a man who called him a maricón de mierda, a fucking faggot. He had a brief career in TV, radio, and theater in Havana before leaving for Florida in his twenties via a visa lottery. In Miami, he landed bit parts in soap operas and dubbed shows like South Park into Spanish before making his name on gossipy talk and variety shows.
After the 2016 election, Otaola expressed his disgust at the result on Instagram. In a post denouncing Trump’s “extremely divisive” and “hate filled” campaign, he concluded in all-caps, “AMERICA HAS SPOKEN AND IT WILL GET WHAT IT DESERVES.”
Spurred on by what he called the supreme “mediocrity” of Spanish-language television executives, he started his YouTube show, Hola! Ota-Ola, the next year. “I’m everything here,” he said. “I’m an actor. I’m a political analyst. I’m an art critic. I’m a censor. I’m a judge…It’s a perfect job.”
His idea was always to mix pop culture with politics, which at first meant mostly Cuban politics. Guennady Rodriguez, a fellow Cuban immigrant who now edits a Spanish outlet called 23 y Flagler, said Otaola’s initial success came from tapping into Miami Cubans’ frustration with Cuban celebrities who made good money in the United States without taking a stand against the island’s government. Otaola named names and succeeded in getting the concerts of Cuban performers canceled.
At first, his tone could be earnest. In a March 2018 interview with Salazar, the Republican congressional candidate who is challenging Rep. Donna Shalala again after losing to her two years ago, Otaola criticized both parties and challenged her to explain why prescription drugs are so expensive in the United States. When Salazar blamed Democrats for the state of affairs in Cuba, Otaola countered, “Now, you have all the power.” Politicians from both parties, Otaola told his guest, used Cuba and its communism to win the votes of Cuban Americans. “And then nothing happens,” Otaola continued. “There’s been no change. No benefits.”
After the 2018 election, Otaola quickly became relentlessly pro-Trump. By February 2019, he was yelling “bravo!” and “hallelujah” in response to a clip of Trump saying Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua would soon be free. “We’re proud of you, Mr. President,” Otaola told the cardboard Trump cutout that remains in his studio. “Can I give you a kiss?”
Many recent Cuban immigrants abandoned the Democratic Party as it shifted leftward under the sway of politicians like Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who proudly embrace democratic socialism—a term that sounds enough like the communist regimes they fled to turn them off, even if the policy proposals are worlds apart. Otaola has said Ocasio-Cortez’s rise made him a Republican, though many of Otaola’s critics suspect the rightward turn was designed to boost ratings. Either way, the switch has been a good career move. Instead of posing tough questions to Salazar, he now profits from paid ads from her campaign.
He also draws far more attention. In February, Otaola organized a pro-Trump caravan that attracted as many as 2,000 cars, the Miami Herald reported. This spring, Otaola interviewed John Barsa, the acting head of USAID, for a segment that the federal development agency said was designed to “counter the Cuban regime’s disinformation.” In July, Otaola led another caravan in support of the Miami police. His latest project is trying to help launch a Cuban political party to free Cuba through means that remain unclear.
Plenty of Miami area Cubans haven’t heard of Otaola, but just about everyone I talked to in his target demographic had. At a watch kiosk in a mall in the heavily Cuban city of Hialeah, I asked Yanetzy, a 24-year-old who’d moved from Cuba a few years ago, what percentage of Cuban immigrants her age were familiar with Otaola. “All the Cubans know his name,” she responded. “Some follow him, other ones not. But everybody knows about him.”
Carlos Odio, Equis Research’s co-founder and the grandson of a Cuban president, remembers the first time Otaola’s name came up during a focus group of recent Cuban immigrants. It caught people off guard. Several of the observers in the room had to ask, “Who’s Alex Otaola?”
Ricardo Herrero, the head of the Cuba Study Group, said that Otaola was a constant presence in those discussions among recent arrivals. “Otaola is one of them,” Herrero said. His fans identify with his self-made image and believe his bleak assessment of life in Cuba because they’ve lived it. So when Otaola talks about American politics, a subject they know less about, they’re more likely to believe him, Herrero explained. He’s helped create a permission structure for supporting the president they see getting criticized on Univision and Telemundo.
Still, he adds, we have no idea how many voters Otaola is actually swaying. For starters, we don’t know how much of his audience is in Florida and how many of the Florida viewers actually vote. And then there’s the fact that his generation had already lurched to the right in 2018, before Otaola’s show became a Trump-loving spectacle, due to a changing perception of the Democratic Party.
Over the course of a week in Miami last month, I was inundated by warnings—over the radio, Facebook, YouTube, WhatsApp, and in person—that Democrats are pushing the country toward the socialism that Cubans, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans came to the United States to escape. In 2018, Florida Republicans falsely branded Gillum as a socialist, to great effect. Now they’re continuing that message in the presidential race, even though Democrats nominated a 77-year-old moderate.
The socialism attack is particularly potent because Democrats are running against someone who Cuban Americans believe is great for the economy. The 2020 Cuba Poll found that 68 percent of post-1995 immigrants strongly support Trump’s handling of the economy, compared to 10 percent who strongly oppose it.
Trump also gets high marks for returning to a hardline stance toward Cuba. Part of the problem for Democrats is widespread frustration in Miami that Obama’s engagement with Cuba did not lead to economic and political reforms. As the new Cuba Poll states bluntly, “Cubans here and on the island expected great changes and they never came.”
Republicans and the Trump administration have been a near-constant presence in Miami. “The Republican Party makes Cubans feel very, very important,” said Guillermo Grenier, the Florida International University sociologist who has been conducting the Cuba Poll since 1991. “The Democrats don’t know how to do that.” His colleague at FIU, the political scientist Eduardo Gamarra, cited research from one of his graduate students showing that Cuban Americans feel even more influential under Trump than they did under Ronald Reagan, who has long been a hero to Cuban exiles.
To win back voters, Trump’s critics in Florida have sometimes tried to paint him as an autocrat in the vein of Castro or Hugo Chávez. But in focus groups, Equis found, those attacks have tended to backfire: Many recent Cuban immigrants are offended by the comparison, and some see Trump’s similarities to the typical caudillo as a plus.
I saw that firsthand at a pro-Trump event in Hialeah, where someone wore a MAGA-style hat that read “Trump es un pingu.” A Venezuelan Republican translated the slang somewhat bashfully. It meant that Trump has a big dick, but it was intended to convey that he gets things done. He’s their strongman.
Otaola’s strength lies in his ability to take all these themes and package them into a show that can appeal to people without a particularly deep interest in politics. You can tune in for the video of him bottle-feeding his new baby squirrel monkey, Karma Otaola, then stay for the instructions on how to vote Republican.
Otaola’s guest on the day I watched his show from the booth was the hunky Cuban actor Pedro Moreno. “Alex, there’s a party that’s pushing socialism, and they want to impose it here in the United States,” Moreno said. “Trump is the vehicle against that, and I have to vote for Trump.”
From there, they pivoted to Black Lives Matter, which Otaola has depicted as a left-wing insurrection intent on toppling American democracy as part of a conspiracy to take down Trump by creating chaos. Where’s George Soros? Otaola asked in one June episode. (At a Trump campaign event I attended in Miami, a Cuban American radio host echoed the criticism of the major Democratic donor, who is frequently the target of anti-Semitic attacks, by using her fingers to make devil horns.)
One of the founders of the Black Lives Matter movement, Moreno warned, had appeared in a photo with Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Otaola agreed that the founders were Marxists, then steered the conversation to Cuba. In a matter of minutes, Black Lives Matter, Democrats, and the Cuban government had been stacked into a communist leviathan.
A few days later, I showed up at the job fair at Salazar’s campaign office, watching as a disinfectant machine misted people on their way in. The volunteer working the sign-in table knew all about Otaola, down to the year he’d left Cuba.
Paredes, the Otaola superfan, proudly showed me a photo she’d taken with him. In the background, I recognized one of the fountains in the Four Ambassadors. She knew Otaola lived on the building’s 19th floor and that he’d been looking to upgrade to something nicer. Following his advice, she’d stopped sending money back to her family in Cuba, in the hopes of starving its government of revenue.
Paredes recounted the feeling of getting sucked into his orbit. “Tomorrow, I’m going to see what he’ll be talking about,” she said. “And then the next day. And the next day. And you don’t realize. Then you’re watching the show every day.”


motherjones--2020-10-07--Donald Trump’s New Clinton Conspiracy Theory Is Complete Bullshit

Less than a month before the election , President Donald Trump is pinning his hopes to yet another wild conspiracy theory .
With the help of congressional Republicans , right-wing media , and his top intelligence official , Trump is falsely claiming that Hillary Clinton and her fellow Democrats fabricated the entire Trump-Russia scandal in 2016 .
Not surprisingly , this claim is inaccurate , incoherent Fox News fodder that is unlikely to sway anyone not already deep in Trump ’ s camp .
But importantly , it is being advanced through selective and misleading declassification by Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ratcliffe .
And Trump seemed to cite it on Wednesday to assert that he is now “ ENTITLED TO ASK THE VOTERS FOR FOUR MORE YEARS.
” Who knows if he ’ s kidding ?
Here ’ s what happened : Acting on orders from Trump , Ratcliffe on Tuesday declassified notes from former CIA Director John Brennan indicating that on July 28 , 2016 , Brennan had told President Barack Obama about US intelligence findings related to Russia .
These finding included information suggesting that Russian intelligence analysis said that Hillary Clinton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.
” This same intelligence was apparently the basis of documents declassified by Ratcliffe last week that describe Russian claims that Clinton ’ s campaign wanted to highlight Trump ’ s Russian ties as “ a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.
” Ratcliffe said the Russian claims may “ reflect exaggeration or fabrication , ” but he released them anyway .
These releases by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and co. to make a claims that , though they are false , have the virtue of simplicity .
“ They knew Crooked Hillary cooked up the Russia hoax the whole time , ” the Trump campaign tweeted Tuesday .
The big problem with these assertions is that Russia—according to the unanimous conclusion of US intelligence community and a bipartisan Senate investigation—did indeed interfere in the 2016 election to help Trump .
The Kremlin did so by hacking and then releasing sensitive Democratic emails , by social media manipulation , and through other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extensive contacts with Russians and “ expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts , ” special counsel Robert Mueller found .
Mueller ’ s team said it “ did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government , ” but Trump publicly encouraged Moscow to hack Clinton ’ s emails .
And Donald Trump Jr. , Jared Kushner , and Paul Manafort secretly met with a Russian lawyer who , they had been told , would provide them with dirt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and its government ’ s support for Mr. Trump.
” If Hillary Clinton had really decided to concoct a scandal about Trump and Russia to distract from her emails , how fortunate she was to happen upon an allegation that proved correct .
What are the odds ?
But of course , Clinton did not invent Trump ’ s ties to Russia .
They were already public knowledge by the time Brennan briefed Obama—and probably by the time Russian spies speculated that Clinton would raise the matter , though the date of that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On June 14 , 2016 , the Washington Post reported that “ Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee.
” The Russians passed stolen Democratic emails to WikiLeaks , which made them public in July .
The hacked emails—which showed DNC staffers favoring Clinton over Bernie Sanders—led to the resignation of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and disrupted the Democratic convention .
The Russian hackers reportedly gained access to the DNC ’ s opposition research on Trump .
But they didn ’ t need it to know that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support for his campaign .
Clinton and her team did that publicly .
For his part , Trump refused to publicly acknowledge that Russia was behind the DNC hack , helping to cover for the Kremlin .
Still , when asked at a July 27 , 2016 , campaign event why he didn ’ t tell Russian President Vladimir Putin to stay out of the US election , Trump famously invited more Russian hacking .
“ Russia , if you ’ re listening , I hope you ’ re able to find the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump said , referring to emails from Clinton ’ s tenure as secretary of State that she allegedly deleted .
Trump has claimed he was joking , but Mueller reported that within hours of Trump ’ s remark , Russian hackers redoubled spear-phishing attacks aimed at hacking Democratic emails .
Notably , Trump today is promoting four-year-old Russian speculation that may have been deliberate misinformation .
And he is pretending it was US intelligence , not unidentified Russians , that said Clinton planned to play up Trump ’ s ties to Russia .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ outlining US intelligence on what Russians were saying .
“ I briefed President Obama and the rest of the national security council team about what the Russians were up to and I was giving examples of the type of access that the US intelligence community had to Russian information and what the Russians were talking about and alleging , ” Brennan told CNN Tuesday .
Ratcliffe acknowledged much the same thing last week , describing the claims as “ Russian intelligence analysis ” and noting that the US intelligence community “ does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.
” Brennan told CNN that Ratcliffe is selectively declassifying information “ to advance the political interests of Donald Trump and Republicans who are aligned with him.
” Because Ratcliffe has declassified select information while leaving much secret , Brennan and congressional Democrats have limited ability to rebut Trump ’ s claims .
But Democratic aides privately say the claims Ratcliffe is pushing were dismissed years ago by US intelligence agencies as inaccurate or deliberate misinformation .
Rep. Devin Nunes ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the House Intelligence Committee and requested that Ratcliffe share the Russian claims—has had the intelligence for four years , a committee aide said .
A Nunes spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment .
Meanwhile , Politico reported Tuesday that the “ Russians ’ assessment of Clinton was only one part of a larger intelligence report that was billed as an initial examination of Russian cyberattacks targeting the 2016 election.
” That suggests that Brennan ’ s description of the baseless Russian allegations was part of a broader US intelligence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , interfering in the US election .
And the Russians , who still deny hacking Democratic emails , had ample reason in 2016 to try to distract from a crime they were in the middle of committing .
No one needed multiple spy agencies to figure out in the summer of 2016 that Hillary Clinton would try to make an issue of the Trump campaign ’ s enthusiastic acceptance of Russia ’ s help .
But Trump and his supporters would like Americans to believe that Obama relied on the CIA spying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mention that topic on the stump .
That is nonsensical bullshit .
As voters focus on Trump ’ s mishandling of an epidemic that has killed more than 210,000 people in the United States and has sickened 7 million , including the president himself , few outside the Fox News bubble are likely to care about more presidential tweets about Hillary .
But it is worth noting that Trump , Ratcliffe , and congressional Republicans are attempting a perhaps unprecedented politicization of US intelligence .
Four years after Trump helped Russia mess with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meddling even as he worked to capitalize on it , he is trying his best to do it again .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Less than a month before the election, President Donald Trump is pinning his hopes to yet another wild conspiracy theory. With the help of congressional Republicans, right-wing media, and his top intelligence official, Trump is falsely claiming that Hillary Clinton and her fellow Democrats fabricated the entire Trump-Russia scandal in 2016.
They went for a Coup. Almost destroyed our Country. You had the right President at the right moment. Current Voters, REMEMBER THIS WHEN YOU VOTE! https://t.co/w2s8LdiRu0 — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 7, 2020
Not surprisingly, this claim is inaccurate, incoherent Fox News fodder that is unlikely to sway anyone not already deep in Trump’s camp. But importantly, it is being advanced through selective and misleading declassification by Trump’s pliant director of national intelligence, John Ratcliffe. And Trump seemed to cite it on Wednesday to assert that he is now “ENTITLED TO ASK THE VOTERS FOR FOUR MORE YEARS.” Who knows if he’s kidding?
Here’s what happened: Acting on orders from Trump, Ratcliffe on Tuesday declassified notes from former CIA Director John Brennan indicating that on July 28, 2016, Brennan had told President Barack Obama about US intelligence findings related to Russia. These finding included information suggesting that Russian intelligence analysis said that Hillary Clinton had approved “a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.” This same intelligence was apparently the basis of documents declassified by Ratcliffe last week that describe Russian claims that Clinton’s campaign wanted to highlight Trump’s Russian ties as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” Ratcliffe said the Russian claims may “reflect exaggeration or fabrication,” but he released them anyway.
These releases by the director of national intelligence have enabled Trump and co. to make a claims that, though they are false, have the virtue of simplicity. “They knew Crooked Hillary cooked up the Russia hoax the whole time,” the Trump campaign tweeted Tuesday.
The big problem with these assertions is that Russia—according to the unanimous conclusion of US intelligence community and a bipartisan Senate investigation—did indeed interfere in the 2016 election to help Trump. The Kremlin did so by hacking and then releasing sensitive Democratic emails, by social media manipulation, and through other efforts. The 2016 Trump campaign had extensive contacts with Russians and “expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts,” special counsel Robert Mueller found. Mueller’s team said it “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government,” but Trump publicly encouraged Moscow to hack Clinton’s emails. And Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort secretly met with a Russian lawyer who, they had been told, would provide them with dirt on Clinton as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”
If Hillary Clinton had really decided to concoct a scandal about Trump and Russia to distract from her emails, how fortunate she was to happen upon an allegation that proved correct. What are the odds?
But of course, Clinton did not invent Trump’s ties to Russia. They were already public knowledge by the time Brennan briefed Obama—and probably by the time Russian spies speculated that Clinton would raise the matter, though the date of that “analysis” is not clear. On June 14, 2016, the Washington Post reported that “Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee.” The Russians passed stolen Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, which made them public in July. The hacked emails—which showed DNC staffers favoring Clinton over Bernie Sanders—led to the resignation of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and disrupted the Democratic convention.
The Russian hackers reportedly gained access to the DNC’s opposition research on Trump. But they didn’t need it to know that Clinton would make an issue of Russian support for his campaign. Clinton and her team did that publicly. For his part, Trump refused to publicly acknowledge that Russia was behind the DNC hack, helping to cover for the Kremlin. Still, when asked at a July 27, 2016, campaign event why he didn’t tell Russian President Vladimir Putin to stay out of the US election, Trump famously invited more Russian hacking. “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Trump said, referring to emails from Clinton’s tenure as secretary of State that she allegedly deleted. Trump has claimed he was joking, but Mueller reported that within hours of Trump’s remark, Russian hackers redoubled spear-phishing attacks aimed at hacking Democratic emails.
Notably, Trump today is promoting four-year-old Russian speculation that may have been deliberate misinformation. And he is pretending it was US intelligence, not unidentified Russians, that said Clinton planned to play up Trump’s ties to Russia. In fact, Brennan says he was outlining US intelligence on what Russians were saying. “I briefed President Obama and the rest of the national security council team about what the Russians were up to and I was giving examples of the type of access that the US intelligence community had to Russian information and what the Russians were talking about and alleging,” Brennan told CNN Tuesday. Ratcliffe acknowledged much the same thing last week, describing the claims as “Russian intelligence analysis” and noting that the US intelligence community “does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.”
Brennan told CNN that Ratcliffe is selectively declassifying information “to advance the political interests of Donald Trump and Republicans who are aligned with him.”
Because Ratcliffe has declassified select information while leaving much secret, Brennan and congressional Democrats have limited ability to rebut Trump’s claims. But Democratic aides privately say the claims Ratcliffe is pushing were dismissed years ago by US intelligence agencies as inaccurate or deliberate misinformation. Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.)—who is the top-ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee and requested that Ratcliffe share the Russian claims—has had the intelligence for four years, a committee aide said. A Nunes spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.
Meanwhile, Politico reported Tuesday that the “Russians’ assessment of Clinton was only one part of a larger intelligence report that was billed as an initial examination of Russian cyberattacks targeting the 2016 election.” That suggests that Brennan’s description of the baseless Russian allegations was part of a broader US intelligence finding that the Russia was, in fact, interfering in the US election. And the Russians, who still deny hacking Democratic emails, had ample reason in 2016 to try to distract from a crime they were in the middle of committing.
No one needed multiple spy agencies to figure out in the summer of 2016 that Hillary Clinton would try to make an issue of the Trump campaign’s enthusiastic acceptance of Russia’s help. But Trump and his supporters would like Americans to believe that Obama relied on the CIA spying on Russians to learn that Clinton might mention that topic on the stump. That is nonsensical bullshit.
As voters focus on Trump’s mishandling of an epidemic that has killed more than 210,000 people in the United States and has sickened 7 million, including the president himself, few outside the Fox News bubble are likely to care about more presidential tweets about Hillary. But it is worth noting that Trump, Ratcliffe, and congressional Republicans are attempting a perhaps unprecedented politicization of US intelligence. Four years after Trump helped Russia mess with a presidential election, by denying their meddling even as he worked to capitalize on it, he is trying his best to do it again.


motherjones--2020-10-07--Trump Campaign Claims It’ll Match Donors in Honor of Mike Pence. Don’t Believe It.

Donald Trump ’ s presidential campaign regularly promises donors that any donations will be matched .
That ’ s unlikely , given Federal Election Commission limits on donations , but especially so given the outlandish size of the matches .
Today ’ s fundraising email , ostensibly in honor of Vice President Mike Pence ’ s debate appearance tonight , claims that contributions will be matched at a rate of 825 percent , meaning that a $ 100 donation would result in $ 925 going to the campaign .
The email also strongly implies that Trump himself will be contributing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , none of this is true .
According to the email , which was signed ( ostensibly ) by the COVID-19-infected president , the Trump campaign wants to set a fundraising record today .
“ I know this is a big goal , but you ’ ve NEVER let me down before , and I know you never will , ” the email states .
“ It ’ s going to take EVERY supporter stepping up if we ’ re going to succeed , and I need to know that I can count @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that I ’ ve upped the stakes…For the FIRST TIME EVER : all gifts will receive an 825 % -MATCH !
” Here ’ s the rub : Under campaign finance rules , no donor may give more than $ 2,800 to a single campaign this election .
That means , to make sure a donation is matched , the campaign would have to find a donor who had given less than $ 2,800 so far this year—and if the campaign has a trove of untapped donors , it should probably start tapping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden ’ s fundraising advantage .
If there are donors who have not hit their maximum contribution , they can only match today ’ s donations up to the limit .
So , any gift over $ 339.39 will need to have more than one donor on hand to make a 825 percent match .
There ’ s one exception : The candidate himself can make as large of a donation as he wants .
And that ’ s just what the email implies , with images of checks signed “ Your president.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is also “ I ’ ve never done this before , ” which is certainly true .
While Trump loaned his campaign some money in 2016 , he has yet to donate or loan a single dollar to his campaign this time—although he allegedly was considering the possibility of it when it became clear how far behind Biden his campaign was in terms of fundraising .
But he didn ’ t .
And , frankly , his finances are a bit shaky right now , so it doesn ’ t seem likely he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Donald Trump’s presidential campaign regularly promises donors that any donations will be matched. That’s unlikely, given Federal Election Commission limits on donations, but especially so given the outlandish size of the matches. Today’s fundraising email, ostensibly in honor of Vice President Mike Pence’s debate appearance tonight, claims that contributions will be matched at a rate of 825 percent, meaning that a $100 donation would result in $925 going to the campaign. The email also strongly implies that Trump himself will be contributing the matching funds.
In all likelihood, none of this is true.
According to the email, which was signed (ostensibly) by the COVID-19-infected president, the Trump campaign wants to set a fundraising record today.
“I know this is a big goal, but you’ve NEVER let me down before, and I know you never will,” the email states. “It’s going to take EVERY supporter stepping up if we’re going to succeed, and I need to know that I can count on you. This is so important that I’ve upped the stakes…For the FIRST TIME EVER: all gifts will receive an 825%-MATCH!”
Here’s the rub: Under campaign finance rules, no donor may give more than $2,800 to a single campaign this election. That means, to make sure a donation is matched, the campaign would have to find a donor who had given less than $2,800 so far this year—and if the campaign has a trove of untapped donors, it should probably start tapping them soon, given Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s fundraising advantage. If there are donors who have not hit their maximum contribution, they can only match today’s donations up to the limit. So, any gift over $339.39 will need to have more than one donor on hand to make a 825 percent match.
There’s one exception: The candidate himself can make as large of a donation as he wants. And that’s just what the email implies, with images of checks signed “Your president.”
The email’s subject line is also “I’ve never done this before,” which is certainly true. While Trump loaned his campaign some money in 2016, he has yet to donate or loan a single dollar to his campaign this time—although he allegedly was considering the possibility of it when it became clear how far behind Biden his campaign was in terms of fundraising. But he didn’t.
And, frankly, his finances are a bit shaky right now, so it doesn’t seem likely he’ll follow through on this one either.