motherjones--2020-07-10--The Deaths Trump Wants You to See and the Deaths He Wants You to Ignore

Two stories went viral this week .
One was how the New York Times was forced to sue the Centers for Disease Control in order to get data on how the number of coronavirus cases broke down by race .
The story provided the facts behind what we already know : COVID-19 is disproportionately infecting and killing people of color across the United States .
The other was a Washington Post story about President Trump ’ s reelection campaign ’ s plans for finessing the catastrophic mounting death toll from the pandemic .
They are apparently counting on the voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They hope Americans will just shrug their shoulders as the mostly Black , Brown , old , and poor bodies pile up around them .
But pay attention , because there are deaths they want you to ignore and deaths they want to make a public spectacle .
Next week , the Trump administration intends to open up the federal execution chamber for business after it has been dormant for 17 years .
As the government hopes you won ’ t really notice the deaths that reveal their gross incompetence , they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe demonstrate what tough leaders they are .
“ The four murderers whose executions are scheduled today have received full and fair proceedings under our Constitution and laws.
” Barr said last month .
“ We owe it to the victims of these horrific crimes , and to the families left behind , to carry forward the sentence imposed by our justice system.
” But what do we owe to the victims of the president ’ s mishandling of the coronavirus response ?
The President has been public about his affection for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took out full page ads calling for execution of the five Black and Latino teenagers who were falsely accused of rape in New York ’ s Central Park .
When he became president , even as executions at the state level declined and public support for it has waned—polling data shows 56 percent of Americans favor the death penalty , down from 80 percent in 1994—Trump pondered imposing the death penalty for drug dealers .
For a year , Attorney General William Barr has been trying to revive the death penalty at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after a long legal battle , the pathway was cleared late last month by the US Supreme Court ’ s refusal to take up the case of several of the federal inmates scheduled to be executed this summer .
Next week , Daniel Lee and Wesley Purkey will be put to death on July 15 , and Dustin Honken on July 17 .
Keith Nelson will be executed next month .
Only three people have been executed by the federal government since its reinstatement in 1988 .
If Trump is successful , his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one summer .
Almost nobody is asking for this .
Faith-based groups , mental health experts , criminal justice reform activists , and the family members of the victims are demanding the US government not carry out these executions .
Some are citing the pandemic , others their moral opposition to capital punishment .
Earlene Peterson , the mother of one of Lee ’ s victims has also asked Trump , whom she supported in 2016 , to halt the execution saying it would not bring her justice .
Executions are also exceedingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prison staff , witnesses , lawyers , even next of kin .
Since March , the only states that have carried out an execution are Missouri and Texas , despite the public health concerns .
For some inmates , simply being in prison these days can be tantamount to a death sentence .
The coronavirus risk in prisons is heightened for a number of reasons .
Crowded conditions make it hard to socially distance , there ’ s often a lack of hand soap , and hand sanitizer can be considered as contraband @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have more chronic illnesses and health concerns than the general population .
And Black and brown people are more likely to be incarcerated than their white counterparts .
Across the country , cases of the virus have dramatically increased , especially in states like Florida , Texas , and Arizona , which reopened early .
In Indiana , which is where the federal execution chamber is located , Republican Gov .
Eric Holcomb halted plants to fully reopen the state after an increase in hospitalizations .
“ Asking hundreds of people from around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now to attend this execution is like asking them to run into a burning building , ” Cassandra Stubbs , director of the Capital Punishment Project of the American Civil Liberties Union , said in a statement .
“ We haven ’ t had a federal execution in 17 years ; there is absolutely no reason for the government to rush forward with such a reckless and dangerous plan.
” But there may be a reason hiding in plain site : The Trump campaign ’ s strategy for a November victory that appears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will collectively ignore the deaths of the most vulnerable among us actually isn ’ t that insidious .
After all , it ’ s what we ’ ve always done .
All of the coronavirus hot spots—nursing homes , communities of color , and prisons in particular—were already places where easy-to-ignore deaths have taken place even when there was not a global pandemic .
The racial disparities in health outcomes that were reasons for the mortality of people of color didn ’ t suddenly happen because of this virus .
When the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what they ’ re really saying is that it is unwilling and incapable of navigating the country to a new normal .
Instead , they ’ d rather just go back to the status quo of not caring at all .
Since George Floyd , a Black Minneapolis man , was killed by a white police officer over Memorial Day weekend , massive protests demanding a myriad of changes , including an overhaul of the criminal justice system , have swept the country .
The Trump administration has chosen to dole out the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while people are in the streets decrying the very system that has perpetuated these injustices .
The signal this sends—not a dog whistle but a bullhorn—is bad enough .
Sending it while also hoping more than 130,000 other deaths will go unnoticed is craven .

Two stories went viral this week. One was how the New York Times was forced to sue the Centers for Disease Control in order to get data on how the number of coronavirus cases broke down by race. The story provided the facts behind what we already know: COVID-19 is disproportionately infecting and killing people of color across the United States. The other was a Washington Post story about President Trump’s reelection campaign’s plans for finessing the catastrophic mounting death toll from the pandemic. They are apparently counting on the voters experiencing a kind of psychic numbing. They hope Americans will just shrug their shoulders as the mostly Black, Brown, old, and poor bodies pile up around them.
But pay attention, because there are deaths they want you to ignore and deaths they want to make a public spectacle. Next week, the Trump administration intends to open up the federal execution chamber for business after it has been dormant for 17 years. As the government hopes you won’t really notice the deaths that reveal their gross incompetence, they’re seeking to highlight the ones they believe demonstrate what tough leaders they are. “The four murderers whose executions are scheduled today have received full and fair proceedings under our Constitution and laws.” Barr said last month. “We owe it to the victims of these horrific crimes, and to the families left behind, to carry forward the sentence imposed by our justice system.”
But what do we owe to the victims of the president’s mishandling of the coronavirus response?
The President has been public about his affection for the death penalty since 1989, when he took out full page ads calling for execution of the five Black and Latino teenagers who were falsely accused of rape in New York’s Central Park. When he became president, even as executions at the state level declined and public support for it has waned—polling data shows 56 percent of Americans favor the death penalty, down from 80 percent in 1994—Trump pondered imposing the death penalty for drug dealers. For a year, Attorney General William Barr has been trying to revive the death penalty at the highest levels of government, and, after a long legal battle, the pathway was cleared late last month by the US Supreme Court’s refusal to take up the case of several of the federal inmates scheduled to be executed this summer.
Next week, Daniel Lee and Wesley Purkey will be put to death on July 15, and Dustin Honken on July 17. Keith Nelson will be executed next month. Only three people have been executed by the federal government since its reinstatement in 1988. If Trump is successful, his administration will double that number in just one summer.
“Asking hundreds of people from around the country to go to Indiana right now to attend this execution is like asking them to run into a burning building.”
Almost nobody is asking for this. Faith-based groups, mental health experts, criminal justice reform activists, and the family members of the victims are demanding the US government not carry out these executions. Some are citing the pandemic, others their moral opposition to capital punishment. Earlene Peterson, the mother of one of Lee’s victims has also asked Trump, whom she supported in 2016, to halt the execution saying it would not bring her justice. Executions are also exceedingly difficult to socially distance, usually involving prison staff, witnesses, lawyers, even next of kin.
Since March, the only states that have carried out an execution are Missouri and Texas, despite the public health concerns. For some inmates, simply being in prison these days can be tantamount to a death sentence. The coronavirus risk in prisons is heightened for a number of reasons. Crowded conditions make it hard to socially distance, there’s often a lack of hand soap, and hand sanitizer can be considered as contraband. Plus, incarcerated people tend to have more chronic illnesses and health concerns than the general population. And Black and brown people are more likely to be incarcerated than their white counterparts.
Across the country, cases of the virus have dramatically increased, especially in states like Florida, Texas, and Arizona, which reopened early. In Indiana, which is where the federal execution chamber is located, Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb halted plants to fully reopen the state after an increase in hospitalizations. “Asking hundreds of people from around the country to go to Indiana right now to attend this execution is like asking them to run into a burning building,” Cassandra Stubbs, director of the Capital Punishment Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. “We haven’t had a federal execution in 17 years; there is absolutely no reason for the government to rush forward with such a reckless and dangerous plan.”
But there may be a reason hiding in plain site: The Trump campaign’s strategy for a November victory that appears to be predicated on the assumption we will collectively ignore the deaths of the most vulnerable among us actually isn’t that insidious. After all, it’s what we’ve always done. All of the coronavirus hot spots—nursing homes, communities of color, and prisons in particular—were already places where easy-to-ignore deaths have taken place even when there was not a global pandemic. The racial disparities in health outcomes that were reasons for the mortality of people of color didn’t suddenly happen because of this virus. When the Trump campaign asks you to look away, what they’re really saying is that it is unwilling and incapable of navigating the country to a new normal. Instead, they’d rather just go back to the status quo of not caring at all.
Since George Floyd, a Black Minneapolis man, was killed by a white police officer over Memorial Day weekend, massive protests demanding a myriad of changes, including an overhaul of the criminal justice system, have swept the country. The Trump administration has chosen to dole out the harshest punishment the system has to offer, while people are in the streets decrying the very system that has perpetuated these injustices. The signal this sends—not a dog whistle but a bullhorn—is bad enough. Sending it while also hoping more than 130,000 other deaths will go unnoticed is craven.


motherjones--2020-07-12--Mueller Breaks His Silence: Roger Stone “Lied Repeatedly”

Breaking a year of public silence , special counsel Robert Mueller defended his investigation in an op-ed published Saturday in the Washington Post .
Mueller ’ s piece ran a day after President Donald Trump commuted the three-year prison sentence of Roger Stone , his longtime adviser .
In announcing the move , the White House asserted that Stone , who Mueller ’ s office prosecuted last year , “ is a victim of the Russia Hoax that the Left and its allies in the media perpetuated for years in an attempt to undermine the Trump Presidency.
” “ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office—its report , indictments , guilty pleas and convictions—should speak for itself , ” Mueller wrote .
“ But I feel compelled to respond both to broad claims that our investigation was illegitimate and our motives were improper , and to specific claims that Roger Stone was a victim of our office.
” Last November , a jury convicted Stone on five counts of making false statements to the House Intelligence Committee , obstructing a congressional inquiry , and witness tampering .
Mueller noted Saturday that the jurors “ determined [ Stone ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He lied about the identity of his intermediary to WikiLeaks .
He lied about the existence of written communications with his intermediary .
He lied by denying he had communicated with the Trump campaign about the timing of WikiLeaks ’ releases .
He in fact updated senior campaign officials repeatedly about WikiLeaks .
And he tampered with a witness , imploring him to stonewall Congress.
” Mueller ’ s op-ed , like his report last year , is bland and avoids taking direct shots at Trump .
But the former FBI boss did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s lies to Congress were significant .
“ Russian efforts to interfere in our political system , and the essential question of whether those efforts involved the Trump campaign , required investigation , ” Mueller wrote .
“ In that investigation , it was critical for us ( and , before us , the FBI ) to obtain full and accurate information .
Likewise , it was critical for Congress to obtain accurate information from its witnesses .
When a subject lies to investigators , it strikes at the core of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth and hold wrongdoers accountable .
It may ultimately impede those efforts .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Breaking a year of public silence, special counsel Robert Mueller defended his investigation in an op-ed published Saturday in the Washington Post. Mueller’s piece ran a day after President Donald Trump commuted the three-year prison sentence of Roger Stone, his longtime adviser. In announcing the move, the White House asserted that Stone, who Mueller’s office prosecuted last year, “is a victim of the Russia Hoax that the Left and its allies in the media perpetuated for years in an attempt to undermine the Trump Presidency.”
“The work of the special counsel’s office—its report, indictments, guilty pleas and convictions—should speak for itself,” Mueller wrote. “But I feel compelled to respond both to broad claims that our investigation was illegitimate and our motives were improper, and to specific claims that Roger Stone was a victim of our office.”
Last November, a jury convicted Stone on five counts of making false statements to the House Intelligence Committee, obstructing a congressional inquiry, and witness tampering. Mueller noted Saturday that the jurors “determined [Stone] lied repeatedly to members of Congress. He lied about the identity of his intermediary to WikiLeaks. He lied about the existence of written communications with his intermediary. He lied by denying he had communicated with the Trump campaign about the timing of WikiLeaks’ releases. He in fact updated senior campaign officials repeatedly about WikiLeaks. And he tampered with a witness, imploring him to stonewall Congress.”
Mueller’s op-ed, like his report last year, is bland and avoids taking direct shots at Trump. But the former FBI boss did explain why the Trump-Russia investigation and Stone’s lies to Congress were significant.
“Russian efforts to interfere in our political system, and the essential question of whether those efforts involved the Trump campaign, required investigation,” Mueller wrote. “In that investigation, it was critical for us (and, before us, the FBI) to obtain full and accurate information. Likewise, it was critical for Congress to obtain accurate information from its witnesses. When a subject lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government’s efforts to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable. It may ultimately impede those efforts.”


motherjones--2020-07-11--Trump Allegedly Suggested Selling Puerto Rico as Hurricane Maria Approached

Donald Trump ’ s initial reaction to the devastating hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico in 2017 were to suggest that the United States sell , or “ divest ” from the territory , a former acting secretary of Homeland Security said on Friday .
Elaine Duke , who served as Trump ’ s second secretary of Homeland Security , replacing John Kelly when he became Trump ’ s chief-of-staff , has become the latest former Trump cabinet member to speak out against her old boss , telling the New York Times in an interview this past week that Trump cares @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hate-filled , angry and divisive ” language .
Duke was acting secretary when she signed off on ending the DACA protections—the program set up by the Obama administration to protect young undocumented immigrants , known as Dreamers , from deportation .
Duke told the Times that she agreed the program was illegal , but wasn ’ t ready to sign off on its closure , and that she was “ ambushed ” by Trump and his political allies at an August 2017 White House meeting .
Last month the Supreme Court ruled that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dreamers a reprieve , but also opening the door for the Trump administration to try again .
Duke also described to the Times how as Hurricane Maria approached Puerto Rico in the fall of 2017—it would go on to devastate the island , leaving much of it without power for months—other Trump cabinet members derided her for trying to urge the president to take it more seriously .
Duke said that Trump did initially show concern for the suffering of Puerto Rican people after the disaster , but was disturbed by his first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The president ’ s initial ideas were more of as a businessman , you know , ” she recalled .
“ Can we outsource the electricity ?
Can we can we sell the island ?
You know , or divest of that asset ?
” She said the idea was never seriously considered or discussed after that meeting .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Donald Trump’s initial reaction to the devastating hurricanes that hit Puerto Rico in 2017 were to suggest that the United States sell, or “divest” from the territory, a former acting secretary of Homeland Security said on Friday. Elaine Duke, who served as Trump’s second secretary of Homeland Security, replacing John Kelly when he became Trump’s chief-of-staff, has become the latest former Trump cabinet member to speak out against her old boss, telling the New York Times in an interview this past week that Trump cares little about policy, and uses “hate-filled, angry and divisive” language.
Duke was acting secretary when she signed off on ending the DACA protections—the program set up by the Obama administration to protect young undocumented immigrants, known as Dreamers, from deportation. Duke told the Times that she agreed the program was illegal, but wasn’t ready to sign off on its closure, and that she was “ambushed” by Trump and his political allies at an August 2017 White House meeting. Last month the Supreme Court ruled that the DACA program was improperly ended—giving the Dreamers a reprieve, but also opening the door for the Trump administration to try again.
Duke also described to the Times how as Hurricane Maria approached Puerto Rico in the fall of 2017—it would go on to devastate the island, leaving much of it without power for months—other Trump cabinet members derided her for trying to urge the president to take it more seriously. Duke said that Trump did initially show concern for the suffering of Puerto Rican people after the disaster, but was disturbed by his first instincts on how to react:


motherjones--2020-07-11--Mitt Romney Blasts Trump for Commuting Roger Stone’s Sentence

Utah Senator Mitt Romney once again emerged as the leading anti-Trump voice in the Republican Party , with a Saturday morning statement laying into Donald Trump ’ s Friday night commutation of his old friend Roger Stone ’ s prison sentence for his convictions on charges he obstructed investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election , even as many of his GOP colleagues remained silent .
In June , Stone was convicted in a jury trial on seven charges that he obstructed justice and lied under oath during Congressional investigations into Russian interference .
Stone , who has known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run for president , has proclaimed his innocence and claimed that he was only charged as a way for prosecutors to put pressure on him to flip on the president .
As late as Friday afternoon , hours before the commutation , Stone told an interviewer that he felt he deserved a break for the way he protected the president against investigators .
Romney was the sole Republican senator to vote for Trump ’ s impeachment , and has emerged as one of the few nationally-prominent Republicans willing to not only disagree with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In June , Romney made clear his support for racial justice protesters and the need to address their concerns , not just forcefully repress them , earning him further ire from the president .
Romney has also been vocal in his criticisms of Trump ’ s handling of COVID-19 , warning repeatedly that it is too early for declarations of success—as Trump has regularly done since the pandemic hit American shores and steadily spread .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Utah Senator Mitt Romney once again emerged as the leading anti-Trump voice in the Republican Party, with a Saturday morning statement laying into Donald Trump’s Friday night commutation of his old friend Roger Stone’s prison sentence for his convictions on charges he obstructed investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election, even as many of his GOP colleagues remained silent.
Unprecedented, historic corruption: an American president commutes the sentence of a person convicted by a jury of lying to shield that very president. — Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) July 11, 2020
In June, Stone was convicted in a jury trial on seven charges that he obstructed justice and lied under oath during Congressional investigations into Russian interference. Stone, who has known Trump for decades and encouraged him to run for president, has proclaimed his innocence and claimed that he was only charged as a way for prosecutors to put pressure on him to flip on the president. As late as Friday afternoon, hours before the commutation, Stone told an interviewer that he felt he deserved a break for the way he protected the president against investigators.
Romney was the sole Republican senator to vote for Trump’s impeachment, and has emerged as one of the few nationally-prominent Republicans willing to not only disagree with the president, but criticize him. In June, Romney made clear his support for racial justice protesters and the need to address their concerns, not just forcefully repress them, earning him further ire from the president. Romney has also been vocal in his criticisms of Trump’s handling of COVID-19, warning repeatedly that it is too early for declarations of success—as Trump has regularly done since the pandemic hit American shores and steadily spread.


motherjones--2020-07-12--These Photos of Kids Protesting Systemic Racism Will Give You Hope for the Future

As protests against systemic racism swept through the boroughs of New York City earlier this summer , Brooklyn-based photographer Ximena Natera looked for a different perspective .
She found it by going low , literally—focusing on the youngest voices trying to be heard at the marches .
Using a small portable backdrop , Natera set up on June 9 at the large children ’ s march outside the Brooklyn Public Library , where , she says , “ dozens of kids occupied a miniature podium.
” From there , several kids took turns giving speeches .
Natera says that one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promised that in order to stop the violence against black children , she would become ‘ a teacher and a cop and the president.
’ ” Another speaker that day , Kennedy , implored everyone at the march to help defeat COVID-19 by wearing a mask .
A few days later , on June 13 , Natera brought her backdrop to a small gathering in Bed-Stuy that was organized by Gigi Ramos , a black grandmother of two who offered snacks and games to the kids there , in addition to a space @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and racism .
“ Our children have mental issues before they even enter school , ” Ramos told Natera .
“ We need to have space for them to be kids.
” For the parents of these engaged children , kid-focused events not only offered an opportunity to interact with the world outside their homes after being cooped up for months , but also allowed the children to have a voice in their own futures .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
As protests against systemic racism swept through the boroughs of New York City earlier this summer, Brooklyn-based photographer Ximena Natera looked for a different perspective. She found it by going low, literally—focusing on the youngest voices trying to be heard at the marches.
Using a small portable backdrop, Natera set up on June 9 at the large children’s march outside the Brooklyn Public Library, where, she says, “dozens of kids occupied a miniature podium.” From there, several kids took turns giving speeches. Natera says that one of the children, Christalina, “promised that in order to stop the violence against black children, she would become ‘a teacher and a cop and the president.’” Another speaker that day, Kennedy, implored everyone at the march to help defeat COVID-19 by wearing a mask.
A few days later, on June 13, Natera brought her backdrop to a small gathering in Bed-Stuy that was organized by Gigi Ramos, a black grandmother of two who offered snacks and games to the kids there, in addition to a space to voice their concerns about police violence and racism. “Our children have mental issues before they even enter school,” Ramos told Natera. “We need to have space for them to be kids.”
For the parents of these engaged children, kid-focused events not only offered an opportunity to interact with the world outside their homes after being cooped up for months, but also allowed the children to have a voice in their own futures.


motherjones--2020-07-12--The Big Boy President Wore a Big Boy Mask And Now the Election is Over, Aides Say

“ They said this day would never come ” —Barack Obama once said that , referring to his historic victory in the 2008 Iowa caucuses .
But I also said it—aloud to myself , when I saw this photo of President Donald Trump wearing a mask on a visit to Walter Reed Army Medical Center on Saturday : For months , the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and state and local governing bodies have advised Americans to wear masks indoors and in situations where social distancing is impossible , in order to slow the spread of Coronavirus .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wearing one ( and of not social-distancing , for that matter ) .
Unlike you , he gets tested regularly , as do those around him , but—like Gerald Ford getting his flu shot—it ’ s the symbolism that matters as much as anything .
One might think wearing a mask in front of photographers for the first time in July would be a source of tremendous embarrassment , like realizing 40 minutes into your commute that you are not wearing pants .
CNN reported that Trump ’ s aides had spent months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mask .
But when the first images dropped , Trump ’ s campaign orbit was on-message : He looks totally badass .
And also : the presidential election is now over .
This is like putting up a huge sign on the White House lawn that says “ Days Without an Accident : 1.
” Congrats to the Big Boy president !
The president ’ s most loyal supporters are treating “ the president following his government ’ s own guidelines on the plague ” like proud parents of a toddler who just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the sort of positive reinforcement people use on dogs .
There might well be some truth to the idea that Trump wearing a mask four months into a pandemic that has killed nearly 140,000 Americans will effectively settle the election .
But it might not be the outcome they want .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
“They said this day would never come”—Barack Obama once said that, referring to his historic victory in the 2008 Iowa caucuses. But I also said it—aloud to myself, when I saw this photo of President Donald Trump wearing a mask on a visit to Walter Reed Army Medical Center on Saturday:
After months of refusing to wear one publicly, President Trump wears a mask at Walter Reed. pic.twitter.com/QB62XS4q9x — Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) July 11, 2020
For months, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and state and local governing bodies have advised Americans to wear masks indoors and in situations where social distancing is impossible, in order to slow the spread of Coronavirus. But Trump has made a point of not wearing one (and of not social-distancing, for that matter). Unlike you, he gets tested regularly, as do those around him, but—like Gerald Ford getting his flu shot—it’s the symbolism that matters as much as anything.
One might think wearing a mask in front of photographers for the first time in July would be a source of tremendous embarrassment, like realizing 40 minutes into your commute that you are not wearing pants. CNN reported that Trump’s aides had spent months trying to convince him to wear a mask. But when the first images dropped, Trump’s campaign orbit was on-message: He looks totally badass. And also: the presidential election is now over.
Joe Biden is finished. pic.twitter.com/cYjerzBBay — Jason Miller (@JasonMillerinDC) July 11, 2020
This is like putting up a huge sign on the White House lawn that says “Days Without an Accident: 1.” Congrats to the Big Boy president! The president’s most loyal supporters are treating “the president following his government’s own guidelines on the plague” like proud parents of a toddler who just cursed for the first time. This is the sort of positive reinforcement people use on dogs. There might well be some truth to the idea that Trump wearing a mask four months into a pandemic that has killed nearly 140,000 Americans will effectively settle the election. But it might not be the outcome they want.


motherjones--2020-07-13--Global Warming. Inequality. COVID-19. And Al Gore Is…Optimistic?

This piece was originally published in Wired and appears here as part of our Climate Desk Partnership .
Before he was the guy with the climate change PowerPoint presentation , before he lost the US presidency by a nose ( and a Supreme Court decision ) , Al Gore had a reputation for pitching ambitious policy solutions to the knottiest societal problems .
From the Senate to the vice presidency , while most politicians were yelling about oil prices , Gore was talking about connecting information superhighways to public schools and taxing British Thermal Units to fight global warming .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Gore , a self-described “ recovering politician , ” has been a capitalist .
He ’ s chair of Generation Investment Management , a $ 20 billion equity firm focusing on environmentally sustainable companies .
It might seem like a tough time to put on that specific happy face—a pandemic and resurgent fights over racial and economic inequality might take cuts in the queue ahead of a global economic meltdown and planetary ecosystem collapse .
Even Generation ’ s annual sustainability report shows that public attention toward climate change has taken a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Yet somehow now , as the firm releases this fourth annual Sustainability Trends Report , Gore seems almost … optimistic .
Which—well , how could that be ?
It turns out that the trend lines Gore has spent a lifetime either warning people about ( carbon ! )
or trying to goose upward ( green energy !
Access to health care ! )
are finally headed in the directions he was hoping for .
The Covid-19 pandemic , he says , has accelerated the kinds of systemic changes he pushed for , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And while Gore declined to offer specific advice for how leaders in the public sector should be handling the pandemic , he seems supremely confident that pressure from the private sector will steer governments in the right direction .
He also believes the world will be “ pleasantly surprised ” by sooner-than-expected , safe vaccines , and that the public will somehow overcome the misinformation atrocities on that thing called the internet .
As a presidential candidate in what turns out to have been a far simpler time , Gore had a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of person you ’ d want to have a beer with , as if that were a valid criterion for choosing a president .
But nothing softens a person ’ s attitude than a book ’ s worth of evidence that maybe he was right all along .
Gore talked to WIRED reporters Adam Rogers and Lauren Goode about the business and political trends that Covid-19 has turbocharged in what he hopes are the right directions .
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity .
Adam Rogers : Implicit in Generation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies is some basic confidence you must have that a venture capital investment model is a way to push innovation .
When three-quarters of venture capital investments are in software , not things like biotech or big engineering , why does venture capital seem to you to be a way to address big problems like climate and public health ?
Is investment the way to get the innovation that you need ?
Al Gore : Well , first of all , let me just note for the record that we don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ growth stage investing , and the larger part of our business is in global equity .
What we found in our fourth annual Sustainability Trends Report is that—well , a lot of things—but first of all , in responding to the pandemic there has been a growing recognition around the world of the new political and social realities that give us a generational obligation to shift to a more sustainable world .
Governments have to play a role , investors have to play a role , and businesses have to play a role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emergency and recovery measures lead to a better and more resilient future .
Let me just say a couple of other things , Adam .
We find that there is an unmistakable , rising awareness of the need for change .
The pandemic accelerated fundamental changes in consumer and social behavior , and this is matched by an acceleration and innovation by governments and businesses .
Secondly , we have found a growing awareness that the world ’ s collective social and economic faith is inextricably linked to that of the natural world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shared understanding of what an existential threat might look like .
The consequences of ignoring scientific advice from epidemiologists and virologists has been brought home to us .
And it is not much of a leap to realize that the dire advice from a climate scientist must be taken into account as well .
In order to limit global temperature rise to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius , greenhouse gas emissions need to fall by roughly 7.5 percent per year for the next decade .
That ’ s more than the drop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And that sounds daunting , but we are finding fundamental changes in the global economy pushing us toward sustainability .
And the report highlights the many ways in which the burden of this crisis has fallen unequally .
Addressing these historical injustices reflected in the Black Lives Matter movement has to be at the center of a transition to a sustainable future .
Addressing these historical injustices reflected in the Black Lives Matter movement has to be at the center of a transition to a sustainable future .
Sorry to go on too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basics out there .
AR : You ’ ve been known for ambitious policy solutions to really hairy problems .
You ’ re saying that our three current crises—Covid-19 , climate , and inequality—are intertwined .
So I just want to ask you to make the connection between an investment fund and the policy and structural changes that seem likely to be necessary .
If the real answers are , you have to rip up the way health care gets handled in the United States and the way fossil fuel gets subsidized , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an investment fund ?
Well , those are some of the things that need to happen , for sure .
First of all , there has been a fundamental shift in thinking in the business world and in the investor world .
Just in the last six months , both the Business Roundtable and the British Academy have made a fundamental change to their definition of the purpose of a corporation .
They have dethroned shareholder primacy and emphasized multi-stakeholder analysis and a long-term view .
That ’ s reflected in the new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe that we ’ re in the early stages of a sustainability revolution , one that will be larger than the Industrial Revolution with the speed of the digital revolution .
We believe it ’ s the biggest investing opportunity in the history of the world , and the biggest business opportunity in the history of the world .
But to get a little more granular , on the subject of health , we are right at a tipping point in the adoption of personalized health care .
Interest in direct-to-consumer health care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And in April of this year Covid-19 became one of the top five drivers of telehealth .
Now weaknesses and preparedness and the capacity to respond to this crisis have relevance beyond health care , because it is triggering a new awareness of the need for change and improvements in social safety nets in the role of essential workers .
And to address the unequal access to health care that I mentioned earlier , it has a huge impact on life expectancy for different groups .
Also in some countries , like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for nearly 10 percent of total health spending .
That is unacceptable .
AR : You just said that was a huge opportunity for investing and a business opportunity .
Do you not see a tension between so-called Environment , Social and Governance investing and the fiduciary responsibility that institutional investors and executives have to maximize returns ?
Or do you think that responsibility now actually includes ESG investing ?
Yes , I believe that is the case .
First of all , there is now voluminous research showing that businesses that fully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are more profitable in almost every sector of the global economy .
And the research also shows very clearly that investors that fully integrate ESG factors into their investment models perform better .
So as this reality becomes more widely known and understood , asset managers who do not integrate ESG factors are definitely at high risk of violating their fiduciary responsibility to their clients .
And there ’ s some irony in that , because during an earlier period those who ignored ESG—including some that diminished the importance of ESG factors that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you can ’ t use those factors because you might violate your fiduciary responsibility ” —that ’ s been turned on its head now .
Lauren Goode : In going through your portfolio companies , it struck me how some of them appear to be rather prescient and some less so .
I ’ m sure that ’ s something that a lot of investors are going through right now , since the world has dramatically changed in a short amount of time .
You ’ ve invested in Toast , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for electric buses ; Convoy was another—so a couple there in the transit and transportation sector .
So , we ’ re living in a connected world in the time of Covid-19 , but also at the same time things like the point-of-sale experience has changed in the pandemic , and public transit is being cut or even questioned in terms of public safety .
I ’ m wondering how Covid-19 has changed your investment thinking and what may be some areas or companies you ’ re eyeing right now that you weren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ six months ago .
OK , if you have your pencil , I ’ ll give you the top 10 companies that we ’ re just about to invest in .
LG : Please .
Just pull back the curtain !
No , I ’ m probably not going to do that , but it ’ s a very thoughtful question .
We were founded 16 years ago , and we ’ ve been managing assets for 15 years .
And our goal throughout our existence has been to get the best return @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it in a way that proves the business case for sustainable investing .
We only invest in businesses that we believe produce goods and services that are consistent with the emergence of a clean , prosperous , healthy , fair world .
And we have had , for all of that time , a conviction that the world was moving in this direction .
That ’ s kind of been driven by the laws of physics .
We ’ re putting 150 million tons of global warming pollution into the sky every day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough heat to equal the energy release by 500,000 Hiroshima-class atomic explosions every day .
I won ’ t go through the rest of the bill of particulars , but it ’ s been obvious for quite a while that the world is changing because human activities are changing the world .
And as those changes mount up , we ’ re going to have to to deal with them .
We ’ re going to have to mitigate the climate crisis and the broader ecological crisis , the collision between the way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the natural world .
I think that the pandemic is also driving people to take these sustainability factors into account in the planning for a post-pandemic world .
I will say that the pandemic has actually accelerated those changes , and I think that the pandemic is also driving people to take these sustainability factors into account in the planning for a post-pandemic world .
So that the emergency response , the recovery plans , will drive us toward a better world .
That ’ s what people want , and our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have changed dramatically all around the world .
LG : So what I ’ m hearing you say , I think , is that you ’ re really thinking about this long term .
That even if some of these investments and the companies themselves are maybe weakened in the short-term because of the pandemic , you ’ re willing to make that investment toward sustainability for that timeline in the future when we actually are post-Covid-19 .
And if I ’ m hearing that correctly , when you look at that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Are you looking five to seven years from now ?
When do you think that we reemerge from this ?
Yeah , well , first of all , we don ’ t know and no one knows .
My guess is that the maturation and strength of the global biotech community has advanced so much that there ’ s a real chance there—that we will be pleasantly surprised with the arrival of efficacious and safe vaccines sooner than the experts have told us to expect .
I ’ m not an expert on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who have been following it and it ’ s very impressive what these groups have done .
Of course , it will take as much time as it ’ ll take , because you have to do the large safety studies and they take some time .
But in any case , whenever we emerge , I think that these trends are producing a new world .
And we think that it ’ s the biggest business and investing opportunity in history .
LG : You ’ ve been clamoring for the public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decades now .
But as your own report highlights , people are more concerned about the coronavirus than they are about climate change .
The younger groups care a little bit more about climate change , but everyone else , right now the attention has totally shifted .
How do you propose that people essentially care about these dual crises right now ?
And it ’ s not just a dual crisis , of course—we ’ re experiencing a new Civil Rights Movement .
We ’ ve talked about inequality .
I guess @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to always take a backseat even as all of these events are intertwined .
How do you propose to keep climate change in the center of attention ?
Well , first of all , I would be surprised if the Covid-19 pandemic was not the principal concern occupying most people ’ s thoughts right now , because of the obvious consequences and the fact that in some countries—including the US—the case numbers are still rising .
We had a botched reopening , and the predictable consequences are unfolding now .
But I don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for attention and awareness .
I see it as a natural relationship , and I do think that there ’ s some real evidence of a broader general awakening .
I don ’ t want to sound Pollyannaish on this point , but if you think back a few years , the awakening to the incredible injustice that was suffered for so long by the LGBTQ community led to a startling change in the demand for marriage equality and for an end to discrimination in employment , recently codified in a Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LGBTQ community are being consolidated .
They ’ re not going away .
Similarly , the gender equity demands of the last few years are being consolidated .
One magazine referred to our present time as the “ Great Awokening , ” and I won ’ t necessarily endorse that glib phrase , but I think that it does carry some meaning .
No kidding .
The general lesson is that when scientists are setting their hair on fire , so to speak , to try to warn us of something , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think that the general lesson is that when scientists are setting their hair on fire , so to speak , to try to warn us of something , it ’ s best to pay attention .
When both the pandemic and the climate crisis reveal for all to see the incredible injustices suffered by communities of color , I mean , how in God ’ s name could the majority in our country—and I include myself in this indictment—how could we have tolerated for so long a situation where the earnings gap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same now as it was 50 years ago ?
How could we tolerate the fact that the net worth of the so-called typical Black family , compared to the net worth of a typical white family , it takes 11.5 Black families to make up the net worth of one white family ?
How could we have looked the other way and not been more focused on changing that ?
Now , the general awakening to these factors , driven home by George Floyd ’ s murder and by the horrible excess @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a more general awareness—not only of the need to put the fighting of these injustices at the center of our country , but it has also sensitized people to the fact that the climate scientists are growing ever more dire in their warnings .
And the business community is seeing that the opportunity for more sustainable profits and more job creation , by going in a green recovery direction , is the way we should go .
LG : As one of a few people living who have served in the Senate and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s government , and also at incredibly high executive levels , how would you propose that US leaders fix the problem we ’ re in right now ?
How would you be addressing the coronavirus pandemic ?
Well , as luck would have it , we have elections on a regular basis and they often present an opportunity for fundamental change .
I ’ m a recovering politician now and don ’ t want to get into the politics of the situation .
But when there is a need for significant change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it can sometimes lead to results in elections that lead to a change in policies .
But these changes need to take place around the world .
And ultimately when business is on board , when business makes a fundamental change , when investors make a fundamental change , when people generally are demanding that fundamental change , then it becomes much more likely that governments will change the policies to facilitate the emergence of this new , more sustainable , more prosperous , fair , healthy , just world .
I see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to me like you ’ re saying you see this change being led by the private sector .
It requires both .
It requires policy changes .
We need to stop subsidizing fossil fuels .
We need to incorporate sustainability values in the ways in which we measure and compensate for value in our economy .
Investors need to respond to the new realities .
And businesses already are beginning to respond to this new reality .
AR : It struck me as you were talking about that—as you called it—glib phrase the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are more and more aware of these things that need to get changed , at the same time , there ’ s more resistance .
Some of that is even driven by overt disinformation via the internet , some by the politics that you say you ’ re recovering from .
Can the change you ’ re talking about overcome that kind of resistance ?
No worthwhile change comes without a struggle .
It ’ s true that the resistance is often ferocious , but those resisting have the burden of the reality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerned , we ’ re even beginning to see some changes there .
Look at the changes on Twitter and even Reddit .
Just recently , look at the pressure that Facebook is under to change its atrocious practices .
On the positive side , look at the leadership that many tech companies have provided .
Look at the demands from employees , at some other tech companies that haven ’ t yet changed enough , where their employees are demanding that they change .
People want to work for a place where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they also want to work for a firm that is helping to make the world a better place .
They want to tell their friends and peers and family that it ’ s not just about money ; they ’ re helping in a more general way to move the world in the right direction .

LG: So what I’m hearing you say, I think, is that you’re really thinking about this long term. That even if some of these investments and the companies themselves are maybe weakened in the short-term because of the pandemic, you’re willing to make that investment toward sustainability for that timeline in the future when we actually are post-Covid-19. And if I’m hearing that correctly, when you look at that, what is that timeline for you? Are you looking five to seven years from now? When do you think that we reemerge from this?
Yeah, well, first of all, we don’t know and no one knows. My guess is that the maturation and strength of the global biotech community has advanced so much that there’s a real chance there—that we will be pleasantly surprised with the arrival of efficacious and safe vaccines sooner than the experts have told us to expect. I’m not an expert on that, but we listen to those who have been following it and it’s very impressive what these groups have done. Of course, it will take as much time as it’ll take, because you have to do the large safety studies and they take some time. But in any case, whenever we emerge, I think that these trends are producing a new world. And we think that it’s the biggest business and investing opportunity in history.
LG: You’ve been clamoring for the public to pay attention to climate change for decades now. But as your own report highlights, people are more concerned about the coronavirus than they are about climate change. The younger groups care a little bit more about climate change, but everyone else, right now the attention has totally shifted. How do you propose that people essentially care about these dual crises right now? And it’s not just a dual crisis, of course—we’re experiencing a new Civil Rights Movement. We’ve talked about inequality. I guess I wonder if climate change is destined to always take a backseat even as all of these events are intertwined. How do you propose to keep climate change in the center of attention?
Well, first of all, I would be surprised if the Covid-19 pandemic was not the principal concern occupying most people’s thoughts right now, because of the obvious consequences and the fact that in some countries—including the US—the case numbers are still rising. We had a botched reopening, and the predictable consequences are unfolding now.
But I don’t see it as a competition for attention and awareness. I see it as a natural relationship, and I do think that there’s some real evidence of a broader general awakening. I don’t want to sound Pollyannaish on this point, but if you think back a few years, the awakening to the incredible injustice that was suffered for so long by the LGBTQ community led to a startling change in the demand for marriage equality and for an end to discrimination in employment, recently codified in a Supreme Court decision. And the gains of the LGBTQ community are being consolidated. They’re not going away.
Similarly, the gender equity demands of the last few years are being consolidated. One magazine referred to our present time as the “Great Awokening,” and I won’t necessarily endorse that glib phrase, but I think that it does carry some meaning. No kidding.
The general lesson is that when scientists are setting their hair on fire, so to speak, to try to warn us of something, it’s best to pay attention.
I think that the general lesson is that when scientists are setting their hair on fire, so to speak, to try to warn us of something, it’s best to pay attention. When both the pandemic and the climate crisis reveal for all to see the incredible injustices suffered by communities of color, I mean, how in God’s name could the majority in our country—and I include myself in this indictment—how could we have tolerated for so long a situation where the earnings gap between Black workers and white workers is the same now as it was 50 years ago? How could we tolerate the fact that the net worth of the so-called typical Black family, compared to the net worth of a typical white family, it takes 11.5 Black families to make up the net worth of one white family? How could we have looked the other way and not been more focused on changing that?


motherjones--2020-07-12--The Big Boy President Wore a Big Boy Mask And Now the Election Is Over, Aides Say


motherjones--2020-07-13--Prison CEOs Say They Had No Clue Guards Pepper-Sprayed Hundreds of Immigration Detainees

Private prison executives claimed at a congressional hearing Monday to be unaware of any recent instances of guards pepper-spraying immigration detainees at the facilities they run .
It was a shocking claim : Detainees have been pepper-sprayed on more than a dozen occasions since late March , and Immigration and Custom Enforcement ’ s own press office has confirmed many of the incidents the CEOs say they know nothing about .
Monday ’ s hearing focused on the often abysmal conditions in for-profit immigration detention centers during the coronavirus pandemic .
One question from Rep. Donald Payne ( D-N.J. ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to misinterpret .
“ So no one is aware of any time that rubber bullets , or pepper spray , or tear gas has been used by officers at your facilities against detainees since the COVID-19 pandemic ?
” he asked .
“ Are you all categorically denying it ?
” In response , CoreCivic CEO Damon Hininger , Management and Training Corporation CEO Scott Marquardt , and LaSalle Corrections executive director Rodney Cooper said they were aware of no such incidents .
GEO Group CEO George Zoley said he was aware of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , people at CoreCivic facilities have been pepper-sprayed on at least four occasions .
At LaSalle , it ’ s happened on at least five occasions .
And at GEO Group detention centers , the total is also at least five .
Hundreds of immigrants and asylum seekers have been exposed to pepper spray during those uses of force .
There have been no recent documented cases of pepper spray at Management and Training Corporation centers .
( All of these companies have contracts with ICE , which pays them to house immigration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve broken the news of several uses of pepper spray at for-profit ICE detention centers in recent months .
In one case , guards at a GEO Group detention center in Louisiana left nearly 80 women trapped in a pepper spray-filled dorm after a COVID-19 briefing .
Later in the hearing , Rep. Kathleen Rice ( D-N.Y. ) , the chair of a border security subcommittee , asked Hininger of CoreCivic to address the fact that one of his own spokespeople confirmed that pepper spray was used against detainees at a CoreCivic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said he misunderstood Payne ’ s question and confirmed that pepper spray was used at the Torrance detention center .
He didn ’ t mention other incidents in Arizona and Georgia .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Private prison executives claimed at a congressional hearing Monday to be unaware of any recent instances of guards pepper-spraying immigration detainees at the facilities they run. It was a shocking claim: Detainees have been pepper-sprayed on more than a dozen occasions since late March, and Immigration and Custom Enforcement’s own press office has confirmed many of the incidents the CEOs say they know nothing about.
Monday’s hearing focused on the often abysmal conditions in for-profit immigration detention centers during the coronavirus pandemic. One question from Rep. Donald Payne (D-N.J.) to four executives testifying virtually was hard to misinterpret. “So no one is aware of any time that rubber bullets, or pepper spray, or tear gas has been used by officers at your facilities against detainees since the COVID-19 pandemic?” he asked. “Are you all categorically denying it?”
In response, CoreCivic CEO Damon Hininger, Management and Training Corporation CEO Scott Marquardt, and LaSalle Corrections executive director Rodney Cooper said they were aware of no such incidents. GEO Group CEO George Zoley said he was aware of one incident in California.
Here’s the video of Rep. Payne asking about uses of pepper spray, tear gas, and rubber bullets. pic.twitter.com/zJ1DC402Ol — Noah Lanard (@nlanard) July 13, 2020
In reality, people at CoreCivic facilities have been pepper-sprayed on at least four occasions. At LaSalle, it’s happened on at least five occasions. And at GEO Group detention centers, the total is also at least five. Hundreds of immigrants and asylum seekers have been exposed to pepper spray during those uses of force. There have been no recent documented cases of pepper spray at Management and Training Corporation centers. (All of these companies have contracts with ICE, which pays them to house immigration detainees at their facilities.)
I’ve broken the news of several uses of pepper spray at for-profit ICE detention centers in recent months. In one case, guards at a GEO Group detention center in Louisiana left nearly 80 women trapped in a pepper spray-filled dorm after a COVID-19 briefing.
Later in the hearing, Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.), the chair of a border security subcommittee, asked Hininger of CoreCivic to address the fact that one of his own spokespeople confirmed that pepper spray was used against detainees at a CoreCivic detention center in New Mexico.
Hininger said he misunderstood Payne’s question and confirmed that pepper spray was used at the Torrance detention center. He didn’t mention other incidents in Arizona and Georgia.


motherjones--2020-07-13--Trump Says He’ll Revoke Schools’ Tax Exemption for “Indoctrination.” He Can’t Do That, Can He?

Late last week , as part of his ongoing effort to pressure schools into reopening this fall during the coronavirus pandemic , President Donald Trump threatened the tax-exempt status afforded to schools throughout the country , adding that “ too many Schools and Universities are about Radical Left Indoctrination , not Education.
” As a legal matter , law professors and a former US Education Department attorney tell Mother Jones , Trump ’ s threat is a nonstarter on First Amendment grounds , but that doesn ’ t mean it ’ s harmless .
“ At a practical level , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a nonprofit basis .
That ’ s the way it ’ s been for time immemorial , ” says John DiPaolo , who worked at the Education Department for five years during the Obama administration .
“ To threaten to try to remove that is to threaten to economic harm or even to destroy higher education or K-12 institutions.
” DiPaolo , who served as deputy general counsel for postsecondary education from 2014 to 2017 and now works as general counsel to University of California , Hastings College of the Law , sees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immediate material threat to schools than as a revival of an old right-wing trope .
It ’ s the claim that higher education is “ a political player on the left and a threat to the political position of those on the right , ” a rhetorical attack used to “ debilitate educational institutions.
” “ Whatever the political viewpoints that could be espoused or discussed in a classroom or at an institution , the government can ’ t decide to remove a benefit because the president or any part of the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” says DiPaolo , who emphasized that he wasn ’ t speaking as a representative of UC Hastings .
“ That ’ s a cardinal view of the First Amendment , that the government doesn ’ t get to pick and choose among the viewpoints that it likes and doesn ’ t like , and give benefits on that basis.
” The president ’ s latest Twitter eruption comes as he and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos pressure administrators by tying additional funding relief to their willingness to reopen their schools ’ doors—another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fox News on Sunday , DeVos told Chris Wallace that schools that fail to reopen during the fall shouldn ’ t receive federal funds .
The closest precedent for revoking an institution ’ s tax exemption is the case of Bob Jones University , says Clinton Wallace , who teaches tax law and tax policy at the University of South Carolina .
The Christian fundamentalist college in Greenville , S.C. , was stripped of its exemption in 1970 because of its ban on interracial dating and marriage .
Bob Jones argued that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ religious freedom .
In 1983 , the Supreme Court sided with the IRS , concluding that the government ’ s interest in eliminating racial discrimination in education outstripped whatever burden the denial of tax benefits would place on Bob Jones ’ religious freedom .
In 2017 , the university regained its tax-exempt status .
Wallace says that the Bob Jones case was an outlier—one of the rare moments when the IRS revoked an exemption because an institution ’ s actions were “ so obviously contrary to general public policy.
” “ And that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bob Jones , and they were defending their right to discriminate , ” he says .
“ But it has been harder in other cases .
It ’ s not something that they [ the IRS ] have pressed.
” “ Fighting racial discrimination , particularly in education is a value that has been embraced and enshrined in the constitution , ” DiPaolo says .
The Bob Jones case is an “ exception that proves the rule , ” he adds .
“ It was a very special case in terms of what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ related to the overall conception of the public good and the whole nation that led to this happening .
It ’ s really , really different from what Trump ’ s is talking about.
” Derek W. Black , Wallace ’ s colleague at South Carolina at the University of South Carolina and author of Schoolhouse Burning : Public Education and the Assault on American Democracy , tells Mother Jones that threats from the president don ’ t need much legal backing to cause real harm .
“ When you are willing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he says , referring to the Trump administration ’ s threat to withhold money from schools that refuse to open .
“ You end up scaring them into giving up their legal rights because you are talking about millions of dollars at stake .
Maybe you ’ re not sure or maybe you ’ ve never fought with the federal government before .
Or maybe it ’ s better just to go along to get along and hope that someone else will step up and write things .
But you have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once they issued that [ threat ] , they get what they want .
If it forces additional 30 , 40 , 50 , or 100 universities to do something they weren ’ t going to before , this administration could care less that they lose in court after he ’ s not even in an office anymore .
“ When we used to talk about the bully pulpit of the presidency , what we meant was the president ’ s ability to convince people that he or she was right , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But [ for ] this president and the secretary of education , the bully pulpit is actually different .
It is a physical bully pulpit , in which we will try to compel you and force you through money to do things that we think are in our political best interest but there ’ s no legal basis for .
So they ’ re taking the bully pulpit to a whole new level , and then it ’ s on institutions to defend themselves in court against a bully .
”

Late last week, as part of his ongoing effort to pressure schools into reopening this fall during the coronavirus pandemic, President Donald Trump threatened the tax-exempt status afforded to schools throughout the country, adding that “too many Schools and Universities are about Radical Left Indoctrination, not Education.” As a legal matter, law professors and a former US Education Department attorney tell Mother Jones, Trump’s threat is a nonstarter on First Amendment grounds, but that doesn’t mean it’s harmless.
“At a practical level, higher education and K-12 education operate on a nonprofit basis. That’s the way it’s been for time immemorial,” says John DiPaolo, who worked at the Education Department for five years during the Obama administration. “To threaten to try to remove that is to threaten to economic harm or even to destroy higher education or K-12 institutions.”
… and/or Funding, which will be taken away if this Propaganda or Act Against Public Policy continues. Our children must be Educated, not Indoctrinated! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 10, 2020
DiPaolo, who served as deputy general counsel for postsecondary education from 2014 to 2017 and now works as general counsel to University of California, Hastings College of the Law, sees Trump’s tweets less as an immediate material threat to schools than as a revival of an old right-wing trope. It’s the claim that higher education is “a political player on the left and a threat to the political position of those on the right,” a rhetorical attack used to “debilitate educational institutions.”
“Whatever the political viewpoints that could be espoused or discussed in a classroom or at an institution, the government can’t decide to remove a benefit because the president or any part of the government doesn’t like those political views,” says DiPaolo, who emphasized that he wasn’t speaking as a representative of UC Hastings. “That’s a cardinal view of the First Amendment, that the government doesn’t get to pick and choose among the viewpoints that it likes and doesn’t like, and give benefits on that basis.”
The president’s latest Twitter eruption comes as he and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos pressure administrators by tying additional funding relief to their willingness to reopen their schools’ doors—another bluff lacking any legal basis. On Fox News on Sunday, DeVos told Chris Wallace that schools that fail to reopen during the fall shouldn’t receive federal funds.
Wallace follows up on multiple Trump threats to cut off school aid; asks how she would do that. Shouldn't you want to spend *more* money, he asks?
DeVos: If schools aren't going to reopen, they shouldn't get federal funds.
Wallace: You can't do that unilaterally. — Andrew Ujifusa (@AndrewUjifusa) July 12, 2020
The closest precedent for revoking an institution’s tax exemption is the case of Bob Jones University, says Clinton Wallace, who teaches tax law and tax policy at the University of South Carolina. The Christian fundamentalist college in Greenville, S.C., was stripped of its exemption in 1970 because of its ban on interracial dating and marriage. Bob Jones argued that the Internal Revenue Service was infringing on its religious freedom. In 1983, the Supreme Court sided with the IRS, concluding that the government’s interest in eliminating racial discrimination in education outstripped whatever burden the denial of tax benefits would place on Bob Jones’ religious freedom. In 2017, the university regained its tax-exempt status.
Wallace says that the Bob Jones case was an outlier—one of the rare moments when the IRS revoked an exemption because an institution’s actions were “so obviously contrary to general public policy.”
“And that was easy enough with blatant racism at Bob Jones, and they were defending their right to discriminate,” he says. “But it has been harder in other cases. It’s not something that they [the IRS] have pressed.”
“Fighting racial discrimination, particularly in education is a value that has been embraced and enshrined in the constitution,” DiPaolo says. The Bob Jones case is an “exception that proves the rule,” he adds. “It was a very special case in terms of what the school was doing and how that related to the overall conception of the public good and the whole nation that led to this happening. It’s really, really different from what Trump’s is talking about.”
Derek W. Black, Wallace’s colleague at South Carolina at the University of South Carolina and author of Schoolhouse Burning: Public Education and the Assault on American Democracy, tells Mother Jones that threats from the president don’t need much legal backing to cause real harm.
“When you are willing to be that lawless, you scare people,” he says, referring to the Trump administration’s threat to withhold money from schools that refuse to open. “You end up scaring them into giving up their legal rights because you are talking about millions of dollars at stake. Maybe you’re not sure or maybe you’ve never fought with the federal government before. Or maybe it’s better just to go along to get along and hope that someone else will step up and write things. But you have this vacuum in time in which, once they issued that [threat], they get what they want. If it forces additional 30, 40, 50, or 100 universities to do something they weren’t going to before, this administration could care less that they lose in court after he’s not even in an office anymore.
“When we used to talk about the bully pulpit of the presidency, what we meant was the president’s ability to convince people that he or she was right, and for them to agree with the president. But [for] this president and the secretary of education, the bully pulpit is actually different. It is a physical bully pulpit, in which we will try to compel you and force you through money to do things that we think are in our political best interest but there’s no legal basis for. So they’re taking the bully pulpit to a whole new level, and then it’s on institutions to defend themselves in court against a bully.”


motherjones--2020-07-14--Joe Biden Is Promising Progressive Policies. Who’s Going to Hold Him to It?

Joe Biden stood in the rain near his hometown of Scranton , Pennsylvania , last week , espousing a vein of economic populism he ’ d resisted for much of his presidential campaign .
He promised his presidency would be the end of an “ era of shareholder capitalism ” in which corporations like Amazon pay “ nothing in federal income taxes.
” Now is the moment , Biden said , “ to imagine and build a new American economy.
” Biden was announcing his “ Build Back Better ” plan , an aggressive economic recovery proposal to lift the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If enacted , it would be the biggest federal investment in American manufacturing since World War II , the heaviest hand in government job creation since the Great Depression .
While it doesn ’ t contain a federal jobs program as comprehensive as Franklin Roosevelt ’ s policies , Biden ’ s proposal is the closest thing the Democrats have had to a New Deal agenda in generations .
The plan announced last week would invest $ 700 billion in American-made products , with the aim of creating 5 million new manufacturing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday , Biden will present the details of his clean energy and infrastructure plan , which the campaign promises will create additional jobs .
The proposals fulfill a dream Biden has harbored since the beginning of his previous stint in the White House .
As he and President-elect Barack Obama weighed the grim economy they ’ d inherit on Inauguration Day , Biden imagined ambitious proposals that would not just heal the economy , but build the future—a project as aspirational as Kennedy ’ s space program .
The transitions ’ economic advisers—which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideas .
“ Biden was at the December 2008 meeting [ about the economic recovery ] in Chicago and asked ‘ Where ’ s the moonshot ?
’ ” recalls Reed Hundt , a former Federal Communications Commission chair who served on Obama ’ s transition team .
“ The economists said , ‘ We didn ’ t give you any plan like that.
’ ” The final 2009 stimulus bill was , in fact , bold .
But Obama ’ s White House advisers had stood in the way of it being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Biden campaign has signaled that it won ’ t repeat that mistake , offering both formal and informal avenues for progressives to share their priorities .
But liberals are mobilizing to ensure that continues beyond the campaign , since an election season platform can quickly turn into a list of promises broken once the reality of governing settles in .
And so the left is turning up its efforts , hoping to ensure that a potential Biden administration is full of progressive stewards who will help turn these bold ideas into law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressive direction , he ’ s talking about a presidency that ’ s a progressive presidency , ” says Faiz Shakir , who managed Bernie Sanders ’ 2020 campaign .
“ But a lot of that will rest in having personnel who are committed to the policies that the Biden administration is saying they ’ d like to pursue.
” The Democratic presidential primary was an audition of sorts for which progressive ideas would stick , and some—universal health care , canceling student debt , and closing the racial wealth gap—did .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan echo those of his most progressive primary rivals , Sanders and Elizabeth Warren .
As do the specifics : Portions of his manufacturing proposal mirror the “ green manufacturing ” and “ economic patriotism ” plans Warren unveiled during her presidential campaign .
But for the most part , Biden sat out the wonk primary earlier this year , opting instead to run against Donald Trump ’ s debasing of the country and promising a broader return to decency .
Once he ascended to the top of the ticket , progressives worried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And while liberal activists have lauded the campaign ’ s outreach to progressives , Biden ’ s team hasn ’ t necessarily promised to act on the input they ’ ve received .
The former vice president has not yet committed to adopting the policy recommendations of the “ unity task forces ” that his campaign jointly established with Sanders ’ team .
The campaign also maintains 20 committees of experts devoted to evaluating domestic policy proposals .
Though these groups include progressives who consulted with the Sanders and Warren campaigns , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 100 , and some who have signed on are skeptical that their ideas will make a difference .
And so attention has turned to personnel—the appointees to roles big and small across the White House and executive branch .
Few have embraced the power of those offices as fully as Warren , who premised her own presidential run in part on her mantra of “ personnel is policy ” ; her ubiquitous plans often noted which specific executive branch powers could be called upon to enact her vision , even in the face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Warren took a stern insider approach with Clinton , pushing her to select certain appointees and resist Wall Street types ; her then-Senate chief of staff , Dan Geldon , met several times with Jake Sullivan , Clinton ’ s senior policy advisor .
This time around , Warren ’ s efforts are being held tightly under wraps as she continues to be vetted for the vice presidency , though some familiar characters are reprising their roles : Sullivan is a senior policy adviser to the Biden campaign , and Geldon , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her presidential campaign , has been in touch with progressive groups who are thinking about personnel .
While Warren has sidestepped questions as to whether she ’ s had a hand in crafting Biden ’ s economic recovery agenda , the former vice president told members of the Warren-aligned Progressive Change Campaign Committee that he was “ grateful ” to Warren for her help “ in putting together this bold new set of policies aimed at healing our economy.
” In the meantime , Warren ’ s allies have charted their own courses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think tank , is in the process of identifying progressive economic policy experts , a more concerted iteration of a similar project it conducted in 2016 .
So far , the effort has identified more than 1,000 wonks ready to plug into a hypothetical Biden administration ; the organization plans to circulate those names to key Biden allies in the coming months ( A Roosevelt spokesperson would not discuss the precise details of the project but said that the group , “ like many organizations , is thinking about both policy and personnel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will continue that work as Biden ’ s transition team begins taking shape . )
At the same time , the Progressive Change Institute—an affiliate of the PCCC—has set about creating a “ personnel power map ” of the executive branch , showing which appointed positions have the authority to enact , or thwart , various policy ideas .
“ The goal is to have people throughout the federal government who know how to exercise power , ” says Stephanie Taylor , a PCCC co-founder .
In the past , allies of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personnel .
After losing the Democratic primary to Hillary Clinton in 2016 , the Vermont senator had asked for input into the Democratic National Committee ’ s platform , but not into the members of Clinton ’ s cabinet .
Shakir says this time , the unity task forces were “ phase one of a multi-phase effort ” to influence a would-be Biden administration , and the delegates Sanders named to represent him on those task forces were the start of a Sanders-led personnel push .
“ You had people who served on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well , ” Shakir says , “ and would be valuable to a Biden administration.
” As an example , he pointed to the trust that developed between Sanders supporter Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-N.Y. ) and former Secretary of State John Kerry , a longtime Biden ally , who together led the task force on climate change .
Shakir says he ’ s been in touch with Biden ’ s transition team “ a fair amount.
” And while the Sanders camp had been characterized as uncompromising , there ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who have invested in caring about these issues for so long are invited to serve on a team that ’ s trying to solve the problem , any of us should be welcoming of the opportunity , ” says Stephanie Kelton , an economist who worked as an adviser to Sanders .
Others across the progressive movement are also plotting their plays .
Data for Progress , a liberal think tank and polling firm , is currently surveying voters about their appetite for “ revolving door ” -style appointments , such as whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gas lobbyist being named to the Environmental Protection Agency .
The Congressional Progressive Caucus , the House ’ s liberal flank , was active in Clinton ’ s personnel efforts in 2016 and expects to reprise that work this cycle .
But how much input can the left really expect ?
On the one hand , liberals are heartened that the campaign put Ted Kauffman , a longtime Biden aide and trusted progressive who was appointed to Biden ’ s Senate seat after the 2008 election , in charge of the transition .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Raghavan—the chief of staff to Sanders ally Rep. Pramila Jayapal ( D-Wash. ) —and Julie Siegel , senior counsel for economic policy in Warren ’ s Senate office .
But Biden World is also “ the mother of all alumni reunions , ” says Hundt , who worked on Bill Clinton ’ s transition team .
Scores of loyal , experienced would-be appointees are waiting in the campaign ’ s wings .
Some are progressive-minded experts like Jared Bernstein , a labor-aligned economist who served as Biden ’ s first White House economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record of resisting expensive economic programs favored by the left .
This latter group includes Summers , who reportedly has been consulting with the campaign .
There ’ s also a question of leverage .
Some on the left felt empowered to extract concessions from Biden as the price for uniting around his candidacy .
But a recent New York Times/Siena poll of voters in six swing states found that the party may not need all that much uniting after all : Eight-seven percent of voters who said Sanders was their top choice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the poll .
Among those who favored Warren , 96 percent said they will vote for the former vice president .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Joe Biden stood in the rain near his hometown of Scranton, Pennsylvania, last week, espousing a vein of economic populism he’d resisted for much of his presidential campaign. He promised his presidency would be the end of an “era of shareholder capitalism” in which corporations like Amazon pay “nothing in federal income taxes.” Now is the moment, Biden said, “to imagine and build a new American economy.”
“The goal is to have people throughout the federal government who know how to exercise power.”
Biden was announcing his “Build Back Better” plan, an aggressive economic recovery proposal to lift the United States out of its pandemic-induced depression. If enacted, it would be the biggest federal investment in American manufacturing since World War II, the heaviest hand in government job creation since the Great Depression. While it doesn’t contain a federal jobs program as comprehensive as Franklin Roosevelt’s policies, Biden’s proposal is the closest thing the Democrats have had to a New Deal agenda in generations. The plan announced last week would invest $700 billion in American-made products, with the aim of creating 5 million new manufacturing and research and development jobs. On Tuesday, Biden will present the details of his clean energy and infrastructure plan, which the campaign promises will create additional jobs.
The proposals fulfill a dream Biden has harbored since the beginning of his previous stint in the White House. As he and President-elect Barack Obama weighed the grim economy they’d inherit on Inauguration Day, Biden imagined ambitious proposals that would not just heal the economy, but build the future—a project as aspirational as Kennedy’s space program. The transitions’ economic advisers—which included deficit hawks like Larry Summers—had other ideas. “Biden was at the December 2008 meeting [about the economic recovery] in Chicago and asked ‘Where’s the moonshot?’” recalls Reed Hundt, a former Federal Communications Commission chair who served on Obama’s transition team. “The economists said, ‘We didn’t give you any plan like that.’”
The final 2009 stimulus bill was, in fact, bold. But Obama’s White House advisers had stood in the way of it being even bolder. In many respects, the Biden campaign has signaled that it won’t repeat that mistake, offering both formal and informal avenues for progressives to share their priorities. But liberals are mobilizing to ensure that continues beyond the campaign, since an election season platform can quickly turn into a list of promises broken once the reality of governing settles in. And so the left is turning up its efforts, hoping to ensure that a potential Biden administration is full of progressive stewards who will help turn these bold ideas into law.
“Biden is moving in a progressive direction, he’s talking about a presidency that’s a progressive presidency,” says Faiz Shakir, who managed Bernie Sanders’ 2020 campaign. “But a lot of that will rest in having personnel who are committed to the policies that the Biden administration is saying they’d like to pursue.”
The Democratic presidential primary was an audition of sorts for which progressive ideas would stick, and some—universal health care, canceling student debt, and closing the racial wealth gap—did. The pillars of Biden’s economic recovery plan echo those of his most progressive primary rivals, Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. As do the specifics: Portions of his manufacturing proposal mirror the “green manufacturing” and “economic patriotism” plans Warren unveiled during her presidential campaign.
But for the most part, Biden sat out the wonk primary earlier this year, opting instead to run against Donald Trump’s debasing of the country and promising a broader return to decency. Once he ascended to the top of the ticket, progressives worried their wish lists would be left behind. And while liberal activists have lauded the campaign’s outreach to progressives, Biden’s team hasn’t necessarily promised to act on the input they’ve received. The former vice president has not yet committed to adopting the policy recommendations of the “unity task forces” that his campaign jointly established with Sanders’ team. The campaign also maintains 20 committees of experts devoted to evaluating domestic policy proposals. Though these groups include progressives who consulted with the Sanders and Warren campaigns, membership in some groups is well over 100, and some who have signed on are skeptical that their ideas will make a difference.
And so attention has turned to personnel—the appointees to roles big and small across the White House and executive branch. Few have embraced the power of those offices as fully as Warren, who premised her own presidential run in part on her of “personnel is policy”; her ubiquitous plans often noted which specific executive branch powers could be called upon to enact her vision, even in the face of a hostile Congress. In 2016, Warren took a stern insider approach with Clinton, pushing her to select certain appointees and resist Wall Street types; her then-Senate chief of staff, Dan Geldon, met several times with Jake Sullivan, Clinton’s senior policy advisor.
This time around, Warren’s efforts are being held tightly under wraps as she continues to be vetted for the vice presidency, though some familiar characters are reprising their roles: Sullivan is a senior policy adviser to the Biden campaign, and Geldon, who served as chief of staff to her presidential campaign, has been in touch with progressive groups who are thinking about personnel. While Warren has sidestepped questions as to whether she’s had a hand in crafting Biden’s economic recovery agenda, the former vice president told members of the Warren-aligned Progressive Change Campaign Committee that he was “grateful” to Warren for her help “in putting together this bold new set of policies aimed at healing our economy.”
In the meantime, Warren’s allies have charted their own courses. The Roosevelt Institute, a Warren-allied think tank, is in the process of identifying progressive economic policy experts, a more concerted iteration of a similar project it conducted in 2016. Several sources familiar with the project say it has identified more than 1,000 wonks ready to plug into a hypothetical Biden administration; the organization plans to circulate those names to key Biden allies in the coming months, according to those sources. (When asked about the precise details of the project, a Roosevelt spokesperson would neither confirm nor discuss them, but said that the group, “like many organizations, is thinking about both policy and personnel ideas for a future administration” and will continue that work as Biden’s transition team begins taking shape.)*
At the same time, the Progressive Change Institute—an affiliate of the PCCC—has set about creating a “personnel power map” of the executive branch, showing which appointed positions have the authority to enact, or thwart, various policy ideas. “The goal is to have people throughout the federal government who know how to exercise power,” says Stephanie Taylor, a PCCC co-founder.
In the past, allies of the policy-obsessed Sanders have been less focused on personnel. After losing the Democratic primary to Hillary Clinton in 2016, the Vermont senator had asked for input into the Democratic National Committee’s platform, but not into the members of Clinton’s cabinet. Shakir says this time, the unity task forces were “phase one of a multi-phase effort” to influence a would-be Biden administration, and the delegates Sanders named to represent him on those task forces were the start of a Sanders-led personnel push.
“You had people who served on the task forces who acquitted themselves quite well,” Shakir says, “and would be valuable to a Biden administration.” As an example, he pointed to the trust that developed between Sanders supporter Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and former Secretary of State John Kerry, a longtime Biden ally, who together led the task force on climate change. Shakir says he’s been in touch with Biden’s transition team “a fair amount.”
And while the Sanders camp had been characterized as uncompromising, there’s a willingness to serve. “If people who have invested in caring about these issues for so long are invited to serve on a team that’s trying to solve the problem, any of us should be welcoming of the opportunity,” says Stephanie Kelton, an economist who worked as an adviser to Sanders.
Others across the progressive movement are also plotting their plays. Data for Progress, a liberal think tank and polling firm, is currently surveying voters about their appetite for “revolving door”-style appointments, such as whether they’d tolerate an oil and gas lobbyist being named to the Environmental Protection Agency. The Congressional Progressive Caucus, the House’s liberal flank, was active in Clinton’s personnel efforts in 2016 and expects to reprise that work this cycle.
But how much input can the left really expect? On the one hand, liberals are heartened that the campaign put Ted Kaufman, a longtime Biden aide and trusted progressive who was appointed to Biden’s Senate seat after the 2008 election, in charge of the transition. Other members of the team include Gautam Raghavan—the chief of staff to Sanders ally Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)—and Julie Siegel, senior counsel for economic policy in Warren’s Senate office.
But Biden World is also “the mother of all alumni reunions,” says Hundt, who worked on Bill Clinton’s transition team. Scores of loyal, experienced would-be appointees are waiting in the campaign’s wings. Some are progressive-minded experts like Jared Bernstein, a labor-aligned economist who served as Biden’s first White House economic adviser. But others have a track record of resisting expensive economic programs favored by the left. This latter group includes Summers, who reportedly has been consulting with the campaign.
There’s also a question of leverage. Some on the left felt empowered to extract concessions from Biden as the price for uniting around his candidacy. But a recent New York Times/Siena poll of voters in six swing states found that the party may not need all that much uniting after all: Eight-seven percent of voters who said Sanders was their top choice are already backing Biden, according to the poll. Among those who favored Warren, 96 percent said they will vote for the former vice president.
*This paragraph has been revised to clarify the sourcing.