vox--2020-09-29--The Trump administration is still trying to end the census early, despite a court order

Share All sharing options for : The Trump administration is still trying to end the census early , despite a court order There is still time to respond to the 2020 census , although how much time there is remains an open question , thanks to the Trump administration ’ s latest attempt to cut it short .
Though a court order issued last week put the deadline at October 31 , Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross , who oversees the census , decided on Monday evening that the deadline should be October 5 instead : This new deadline may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the battle over the census deadline has been fought since mid-August , and where the Trump administration ’ s attempts to change or compromise the decennial census have repeatedly met with defeat .
Regardless of the outcome , the shifting deadlines and court challenges have already created plenty of confusion and threaten to compromise the results .
2020 has been a strange and unpredictable year for so many things , and the US census is no exception .
Some of its challenges were anticipated : It ’ s America ’ s first digital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expected to come through the online option .
The census has also been dealing with funding cuts and the Trump administration ’ s continued attempts to exclude undocumented immigrants from its count .
But the pandemic added a whole new set of problems to the mix , resulting in what some experts fear will be the least accurate census in modern history .
Since the census determines how many representatives states get in Congress and how federal funding is distributed , undercounted communities will be deprived of resources and representation .
You can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you haven ’ t already .
In a normal year , self-response and door-to-door census-taking would have been done by July 31 .
When the pandemic pushed everything back , the Census Bureau set a new deadline of October 31 .
Then in August , under pressure from the Trump administration , the Bureau suddenly announced that it would wrap up those operations by September 30 .
Several organizations and some municipalities sued the Census Bureau and the Department of Commerce , which oversees the Bureau .
They were able to get a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to October 31 .
The Trump administration is planning to appeal that decision , however , and the Census Bureau set a new deadline , October 5 , for self-responses and field work — though it says that field work may end even earlier in some areas .
With so much uncertainty , the best thing you can do is respond now to ensure that you ’ ll be counted no matter what the outcome .
Why you should respond “ The census is the largest , most complex activity this nation conducts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Terri Ann Lowenthal , former staff director of the House census oversight subcommittee and census consultant , told Recode .
“ The census is the largest , most complex activity this nation conducts short of mobilizing for war ” The census count affects everything from how many seats in the House of Representatives a state gets to how trillions of dollars in federal funds are distributed to communities across the country for the next 10 years .
That money goes to things like Medicaid , roads , education , assistance for lower-income families @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be affected , one way or another , by the census results .
It happens once every 10 years , it ’ s mandated in the Constitution , and you are legally required to respond to it .
But not everyone does : In previous recent censuses , roughly two-thirds of the population self-responded , and that ’ s about how many have self-responded this year so far .
But this national number can be a bit misleading , as self-response rates vary across the country .
The rest of the count @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the homes of nonrespondents , and then from other methods the census uses to impute whoever is still missing .
But the self-response is generally considered to be the most accurate answer , so the more of those the census gets , the better .
This is especially true for so-called “ hard to count ” areas , where people are more likely to be undercounted or missed .
Those tend to be certain minorities , people with lower incomes , people who live in rural or remote communities , and young children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reasons why some groups are hard to count : hard to locate , hard to contact , hard to persuade , and hard to interview .
For 2020 , the Census Bureau promoted an online option that makes it easier than ever for most people to respond .
Unless you live in certain remote or rural communities that don ’ t have physical addresses for mail service , you should have received a notice in the mail with your census ID , which you can use to log into the online questionnaire .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ census ID , just click this link to answer a few additional questions about your address and you ’ ll be able to fill out the questionnaire .
If you don ’ t have an address , that ’ s okay , too : You can and should still answer with as much information about your location as possible .
If you don ’ t have easy access to the internet or would rather respond offline , you can call ( 844 ) 330-2020 if you speak English and live in the 50 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you need to answer in another language or if you live in Puerto Rico , check this for a list of phone numbers for the one that applies to your situation .
A third option is in the mail .
If you didn ’ t respond to the initial invitation mailed to you in March , you should have received a paper questionnaire to mail back instead .
What happens if you don ’ t respond If you don ’ t self-respond , you ’ re leaving it up to someone else to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accurately — or at all .
Census takers , or enumerators , will try to visit every household that doesn ’ t self-respond , a process that was supposed to begin in May .
The pandemic pushed things back significantly , so census takers began their work in most places in mid-August .
If census takers are unable to reach you through their door-to-door efforts , they might rely on proxies — asking your neighbor or landlord to supply the information instead , for instance — or they will just mark your home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to do and the less time they have to do it , the less accurate the census count will likely be .
“ More self-response means better data , so more time for self-response is a good thing , ” Steven Romalewski , director of the mapping service at the Center for Urban Research at City University of New York Graduate Center and creator of the “ Hard to Count ” map , told Recode .
Romalewski said the recent ruling extending the deadline “ also means the Bureau will stick to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meaning the door-knocking enumeration won ’ t be rushed , and census takers will have the time they had planned on to be more thorough in reaching people in the hardest-to-count communities.
” After the self-response and door-to-door enumeration deadline passes ( whenever that is ) , the Bureau will switch to other means to complete the count , like using existing administrative records from other agencies , such as the Social Security Administration and state departments of motor vehicles .
These are considered to be the least accurate method of counting , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undercounted populations .
Why 2020 ’ s census could be one of the least accurate ever Between budget cuts , politics , and the pandemic , the 2020 census — an already complex and massive undertaking — has been more difficult to pull off .
Experts have been warning for years that the 2020 census is underfunded to the point that it could affect its accuracy .
This underfunding predates Trump ’ s presidency , but Trump hasn ’ t helped matters .
“ We ’ ve never had a pandemic like this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political climate this bad , ” Romalewski said .
“ In some ways , it ’ s impressive that we ’ ve even gotten to this level .
But we know that in 2010 , even with a higher self-response rate , there were still problems with the accuracy , the count , as far as certain population groups go .
So despite the challenges , we still need to do better.
” Trump was determined to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census , the justification for which remained elusive — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it down .
But Trump ’ s push for it still discouraged many undocumented immigrants from responding .
Their undocumented status could also mean they don ’ t show up in the administrative records the Bureau will use to fill in the numbers of people who weren ’ t counted by enumerators or self-responses .
“ It really did enormous damage to the trust that people need to have in the Census Bureau in order to participate , ” Romalewski said .
The Trump administration is now trying to exclude undocumented immigrants from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numbers not be included when determining congressional apportionments .
The final decision on this will likely be determined by the Supreme Court in the coming months .
The pandemic has added several new wrinkles to the already troubled process .
Planned in-person events to spread awareness or take census counts — which often focus on hard-to-count areas — have been canceled or replaced with virtual outreach efforts .
But those won ’ t do much for areas with limited or no internet access , which tend to be undercounted in the first place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have had to be delayed .
Typically , homes that don ’ t have regular mail delivery — remote or rural communities , including Native American reservations — get their census forms through hand delivery .
The pandemic delayed these , which therefore delayed their responses .
People also may be less inclined to open their door and talk to a stranger when census takers come to their homes for nonresponse followups .
The Census Bureau has had trouble hiring and retaining census takers due , in part , to their reluctance to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the middle of a pandemic ( the bureau was already having trouble getting enough workers before the pandemic hit ) .
The new timing of in-person operations is also not ideal , Lowenthal told Recode .
Coming in late summer and early fall puts it in the middle of wildfire and hurricane season — two things that make it difficult to conduct in-person counts in affected locations .
And the length of time that has elapsed between the census date of April 1 and the beginning of the in-person counts , as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around the country because of the pandemic , may also cause accuracy issues .
“ Once the population started to churn because of the pandemic , the Census Bureau faced an unprecedented challenge of trying to count people who have moved from where they could have been residing months ago , ” Lowenthal said .
The Census Bureau had planned to compensate for these delays by shifting from December 31 , 2020 , to April 30 , 2021 , as the date when the president would receive the final results with the apportionment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough time to respond and the Census Bureau ample time to process the data it collected .
The Trump administration initially agreed with this , asking Congress to extend the deadline accordingly .
But the Senate has so far failed to act , despite the House passing a bill that included an extension and bipartisan support in the Senate .
Then , the Trump administration changed course on that April 2021 deadline .
In early August , the Census Bureau announced that it was concluding self-response and field operations a month early in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the data and meet a December 31 deadline to give the results to the president .
Secretary Ross said that the Bureau would be able to deliver its complete and accurate count by this time .
But many others disagree .
Internal Census Bureau emails show its employees have serious concerns that the new deadlines can be met , and the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Commerce said in a recent report that the accelerated timeline will likely increase the risk of an inaccurate and incomplete count .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ estimated that cutting the response deadline short by a month would mean significantly fewer households will be counted in some states .
That , in turn , could mean that the communities that already tend to have the lowest self-response rates are more likely to be inaccurately counted again .
The recent decision from Northern California District Court Judge Lucy Koh put the response deadline back to October 31 and suspended the December 31 deadline to give the results to the president .
This should give the Bureau the time it needs to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s assuming the Trump administration ’ s latest attempt to move up the deadlines fails .
In the meantime , the count continues .
“ The Census Bureau continues to focus on conducting a complete 2020 Census count and will comply with court orders , ” the Bureau told Recode last week .
There is one bright spot here : the online self-response system .
Leading up to the census , there were concerns that too much traffic at once could cause the site to crash or that it might fall victim to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t appear to have happened .
“ The majority of people responding to the 2020 census on their own have done so online , the online response has not experienced a single moment of downtime since it opened in March , ” the Census Bureau said .
So , why don ’ t you go ahead and fill yours out now .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as @ @ @ @ @

The court battle over when the census response period can end is effectively over, with a Supreme Court decision allowing the Trump administration to end it whenever it so chooses — and it has chosen October 15. Door-to-door field operations will end that day, while the internet self-response option will be open until October 16, 5:59 am ET (that’s to give Hawaiians a deadline of 11:59 pm, October 15).
2020 has been a strange and unpredictable year for so many things, and the US census is no exception.
Some of its challenges were anticipated: It’s America’s first digital census, with the majority of self-responses expected to come through the online option. The census has also been dealing with funding cuts and the Trump administration’s continued attempts to exclude undocumented immigrants from its count. But the pandemic added a whole new set of problems to the mix, resulting in what some experts fear will be the least accurate census in modern history.
Since the census determines how many representatives states get in Congress and how federal funding is distributed, undercounted communities will be deprived of resources and representation. You can help avoid this by responding now if you haven’t already.
In a normal year, self-response and door-to-door census-taking would have been done by July 31. When the pandemic pushed everything back, the Census Bureau set a new response deadline of October 31 and a deadline to process the data and give the results to the president of April 30, 2021. Everyone, including President Trump, seemed to agree this was necessary. Then, in August, the Trump administration abruptly changed course, and the Bureau announced a new response deadline of September 30 in order to have the apportionment counts by December 31. Several organizations and some municipalities sued the Census Bureau and the Department of Commerce, which oversees the Bureau, to keep the October and April deadlines. The case worked its way up the judicial system food chain until the Supreme Court denied a stay to keep the deadline at October 31. It remains to be seen whether the apportionment count deadline will be extended.
Why you should respond
“The census is the largest, most complex activity this nation conducts short of mobilizing for war,” Terri Ann Lowenthal, former staff director of the House census oversight subcommittee and census consultant, told Recode.
“The census is the largest, most complex activity this nation conducts short of mobilizing for war”
The census count affects everything from how many seats in the House of Representatives a state gets to how trillions of dollars in federal funds are distributed to communities across the country for the next 10 years. That money goes to things like Medicaid, roads, education, assistance for lower-income families, and environmental programs. Your life will be affected, one way or another, by the census results.
It happens once every 10 years, it’s mandated in the Constitution, and you are legally required to respond to it. But not everyone does: In previous recent censuses, roughly two-thirds of the population self-responded, and that’s about how many have self-responded this year so far. But this national number can be a bit misleading, as self-response rates vary across the country.
The rest of the count comes from census takers who go to the homes of nonrespondents, and then from other methods the census uses to impute whoever is still missing. But the self-response is generally considered to be the most accurate answer, so the more of those the census gets, the better. This is especially true for so-called “hard to count” areas, where people are more likely to be undercounted or missed. Those tend to be certain minorities, people with lower incomes, people who live in rural or remote communities, and young children. The Census Bureau gives four main reasons why some groups are hard to count: hard to locate, hard to contact, hard to persuade, and hard to interview.
How to respond
For 2020, the Census Bureau promoted an online option that makes it easier than ever for most people to respond. Unless you live in certain remote or rural communities that don’t have physical addresses for mail service, you should have received a notice in the mail with your census ID, which you can use to log into the online questionnaire. If you don’t have your census ID, just click this link to answer a few additional questions about your address and you’ll be able to fill out the questionnaire. If you don’t have an address, that’s okay, too: You can and should still answer with as much information about your location as possible.
If you don’t have easy access to the internet or would rather respond offline, you can call (844) 330-2020 if you speak English and live in the 50 states or Washington, DC. If you need to answer in another language or if you live in Puerto Rico, check this for a list of phone numbers for the one that applies to your situation.
A third option is in the mail. If you didn’t respond to the initial invitation mailed to you in March, you should have received a paper questionnaire to mail back instead.
What happens if you don’t respond
If you don’t self-respond, you’re leaving it up to someone else to ensure that you’ll be counted accurately — or at all. Census takers, or enumerators, will try to visit every household that doesn’t self-respond, a process that was supposed to begin in May. The pandemic pushed things back significantly, so census takers began their work in most places in mid-August. If census takers are unable to reach you through their door-to-door efforts, they might rely on proxies — asking your neighbor or landlord to supply the information instead, for instance — or they will just mark your home as vacant. The more work enumerators have to do and the less time they have to do it, the less accurate the census count will likely be.
“More self-response means better data, so more time for self-response is a good thing,” Steven Romalewski, director of the mapping service at the Center for Urban Research at City University of New York Graduate Center and creator of the “Hard to Count” map, told Recode. Romalewski said the recent ruling extending the deadline “also means the Bureau will stick to its Covid-19 timeframe for nonresponse follow-up, meaning the door-knocking enumeration won’t be rushed, and census takers will have the time they had planned on to be more thorough in reaching people in the hardest-to-count communities.”
After the self-response and door-to-door enumeration deadline passes (whenever that is), the Bureau will switch to other means to complete the count, like using existing administrative records from other agencies, such as the Social Security Administration and state departments of motor vehicles. These are considered to be the least accurate method of counting, and the most likely to miss typically undercounted populations.
Why 2020’s census could be one of the least accurate ever
Between budget cuts, politics, and the pandemic, the 2020 census — an already complex and massive undertaking — has been more difficult to pull off. Experts have been warning for years that the 2020 census is underfunded to the point that it could affect its accuracy. This underfunding predates Trump’s presidency, but Trump hasn’t helped matters.
“We’ve never had a pandemic like this; we’ve never had a political climate this bad,” Romalewski said. “In some ways, it’s impressive that we’ve even gotten to this level. But we know that in 2010, even with a higher self-response rate, there were still problems with the accuracy, the count, as far as certain population groups go. So despite the challenges, we still need to do better.”
Trump was determined to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, the justification for which remained elusive — which was why the Supreme Court struck it down. But Trump’s push for it still discouraged many undocumented immigrants from responding. Their undocumented status could also mean they don’t show up in the administrative records the Bureau will use to fill in the numbers of people who weren’t counted by enumerators or self-responses.
“It really did enormous damage to the trust that people need to have in the Census Bureau in order to participate,” Romalewski said.
The Trump administration is now trying to exclude undocumented immigrants from the census, recently ordering that their numbers not be included when determining congressional apportionments. The final decision on this will likely be determined by the Supreme Court in the coming months.
The pandemic has added several new wrinkles to the already troubled process. Planned in-person events to spread awareness or take census counts — which often focus on hard-to-count areas — have been canceled or replaced with virtual outreach efforts. But those won’t do much for areas with limited or no internet access, which tend to be undercounted in the first place.
Even some of the questionnaire distributions have had to be delayed. Typically, homes that don’t have regular mail delivery — remote or rural communities, including Native American reservations — get their census forms through hand delivery. The pandemic delayed these, which therefore delayed their responses.
People also may be less inclined to open their door and talk to a stranger when census takers come to their homes for nonresponse followups. The Census Bureau has had trouble hiring and retaining census takers due, in part, to their reluctance to be exposed to multitudes of people in the middle of a pandemic (the bureau was already having trouble getting enough workers before the pandemic hit).
The new timing of in-person operations is also not ideal, Lowenthal told Recode. Coming in late summer and early fall puts it in the middle of wildfire and hurricane season — two things that make it difficult to conduct in-person counts in affected locations. And the length of time that has elapsed between the census date of April 1 and the beginning of the in-person counts, as well as the significantly increased movement of people around the country because of the pandemic, may also cause accuracy issues.
“Once the population started to churn because of the pandemic, the Census Bureau faced an unprecedented challenge of trying to count people who have moved from where they could have been residing months ago,” Lowenthal said.
The Census Bureau had planned to compensate for these delays by shifting the deadline for the results from December 31, 2020, to April 30, 2021. But the Senate has so far failed to act to extend the deadline, despite the House passing a bill that included an extension and bipartisan support in the Senate.
While Secretary Ross has said he believes it is possible to have a complete and accurate count by December 31, many experts disagree. Internal Census Bureau emails show its employees have serious concerns, and the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Commerce said in a recent report that the accelerated timeline will likely increase the risk of errors. A report from the American Statistical Association estimated that cutting the response deadline short would mean significantly fewer households will be counted in some states. In other words, the communities that already tend to have the lowest self-response rates are more likely to be inaccurately counted again.
There is one bright spot here: the online self-response system. Leading up to the census, there were concerns that too much traffic at once could cause the site to crash or that it might fall victim to a cybersecurity attack. That doesn’t appear to have happened.
“The majority of people responding to the 2020 census on their own have done so online, the online response has not experienced a single moment of downtime since it opened in March,” the Census Bureau told Recode.
So, why don’t you go ahead and fill yours out now.


vox--2020-09-29--Trump could be in a lot of legal hot water if he loses the election

A surprising revelation in the New York Times story about President Donald Trump ’ s taxes is that the “ audit ” he ’ s long claimed prevented him from releasing his tax returns to the public is real .
It turns out the IRS perked up when Trump claimed business losses during the Great Recession of 2008 and 2009 .
The losses were so large that they could be retroactively applied to previous years and cancel out millions of dollars ’ worth of tax liability from his days as host of The Apprentice .
It ’ s legal to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ income ( though whether it should be is another question ) , but it ’ s not at all legal to cook the books in order to generate paper accounting losses to avoid taxes .
It ’ s not clear whether Trump broke the law , but the existence of the years-long legal battle over the audit suggests the IRS has reason to believe he did .
And some of the accounting practices documented on his tax returns are extremely fishy — characterizing aspects of his lifestyle and wealth transfers to his heirs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being audited prevents you from releasing your taxes , it would seemingly make it unwise to do so .
The IRS is limited in its investigative capabilities , while journalistic and scholarly interests are eager to put resources behind hunting through Trump ’ s tax returns .
What the Times story , and the paper ’ s previous reporting on Fred Trump ’ s taxes , showed is a lot of dodgy tax avoidance going on .
But as long as Trump is president , he can shield himself from accountability for any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shield himself from debt collectors , who seem to have significant claims coming due over the next four years .
From obstruction of justice to sexual assault allegations to campaign finance law violations , Trump is counting on the fact that he ’ s president to stop the law from coming after him .
As he prepares to take the stage to debate former Vice President Joe Biden Tuesday night , he ’ s making a case not only for continuing his governance approach , but also for maintaining his personal immunity to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the stakes in the election and gives a president who ’ s rarely been law-abiding more reason to bend and break the rules in his quest to maintain power .
One of the most intriguing revelations in the Times ’ s reporting on Trump ’ s long-hidden tax returns is that money he gave his daughter Ivanka was treated as a tax write-off .
The full details are not available on Trump ’ s tax returns .
They show instead that his company once paid $ 747,622 to an unnamed consultant for hotel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to consultants can be legitimate business expenses , and there ’ s nothing unusual about deducting something like that .
But in this case , the consultant appears to have been his daughter , whose own public financial disclosures show receipt of $ 747,622 .
This is the kind of thing the IRS could easily overlook because it requires checking two different forms , realizing that the numbers match , and then seeing that the $ 747,622 payment was almost certainly to Ivanka .
There ’ s nothing wrong with giving your daughter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough to do so .
But when you receive gifts of this size , you need to pay a gift tax on them .
If you structure your gift as a consulting fee , it passes to your heir untaxed .
Taking what ’ s really a gift and pretending it ’ s a business expense is against the law .
Gifts as corporate payments are not without precedent in the Trump family .
An earlier New York Times story about Trump ’ s father ’ s taxes showed that not only did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he did so largely while avoiding paying estate taxes .
Some of that involved aggressive use of avoidance strategists that experts say are legal .
But one thing Fred Trump did was set his kids up as owners of a company called All County Building Supply .
All County gave building supplies — at inflated prices — to buildings owned by Fred Trump .
This generated tax-free gifts for the Trump kids and deductible expenses for Fred , and was even used in applications to New York state housing regulators as a reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ By the time this story emerged , the statute of limitations had passed , so it was impossible to hold anyone criminally responsible .
But Trump ’ s sister was a senior-status federal judge at the time , so a petition was filed to open an ethics inquiry into her potentially illegal conduct — conduct she would have shared with her brother .
But the moment the ethics board agreed that an inquiry should move forward , she retired from her position .
It ’ s possible that a thorough investigation would show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But it ’ s also possible that it wouldn ’ t .
Now that the returns are public , we know that an investigation is warranted .
And that ’ s true of many of Trump ’ s claims .
The news that Trump deducted $ 70,000 worth of hairstyling expenses also raises a question of whether such a deduction is valid .
The law of personal appearance deductions is both vague and , at least in theory , fairly strict .
Bench , a vendor of small-business accounting services , cautions that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a tax deduction when they are specifically for work-related photo shoots or shows.
” “ You can write off makeup used for stage or photo shoots , but not if you wear the same makeup during your normal day , ” according to Chuck Sloan at Backpage , a trade publication for actors .
“ The same applies to your hair care costs.
” That doesn ’ t mean that abuse isn ’ t routine .
Ryan Grim , DC bureau chief for the Intercept , reports that a particular tax accountant who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recommends that clients who appear frequently on television claim these deductions .
That does not , however , mean it ’ s actually legitimate .
The IRS rules for taking a home office tax deduction , for example , state that “ you must regularly use part of your home exclusively for conducting business.
” Plenty of people with home offices that sometimes serve as guest rooms or television-watching rooms or excess coat storage during a party nonetheless claim a deduction based on the fact that it ’ s hard to prove you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rules are the rules .
Much of Trump ’ s lavish lifestyle seems to deliberately blur the lines between personal and business expenses .
If you own a luxury golf resort in Scotland , then flying on your private plane to Scotland and taking a week-long vacation could arguably be business as long as you discussed things with the property manager and had some meetings with local officials .
When someone says that Trump is rich , they likely mean he has lavish consumption habits .
When Trump tells the IRS he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t mean he ’ s “ a bad businessman ” who ’ s pretending to be rich .
It means he ’ s managed to classify a large amount of lavish personal consumption — from haircuts to flights on his giant private jet — as business expenses .
Getting away with it According to the FBI ’ s uniform crime reports , fewer than 14 percent of car thefts or burglaries are actually solved by the police .
But in elite circles , the fact that it ’ s relatively easy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not imply that they ’ re not really crimes , that there ’ s no ethical problem with committing them , or that the difficulty of enforcing the law against stealing cars implies that the whole charade is pointless and car theft should be legalized .
Unfortunately , the kind of people who ’ d never countenance burglary often do not take this approach to tax cheating , where they tend to apply a “ whatever you can get away with is fine ” mentality .
As Trump said four years ago of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me smart.
” But there has also been a concerted effort to make it easier to get away with cheating on your taxes .
Back in the day , the IRS routinely conducted so-called “ lifestyle audits ” when a person seemed to be living too high on the hog , but Congress banned the practice in the 1990s .
Natasha Sarin and Lawrence Summers estimate that there ’ s about $ 1 trillion in uncollected taxes of rich people that the IRS could get its hands on with a larger enforcement budget @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jesse Eisinger have reported for ProPublica , the agency ’ s budget was cut 20 percent after Republicans took control of Congress in 2010 — meaning there are plenty of people getting away with various kinds of abuses .
In other words , while it ’ s possible Trump ’ s meager tax payments are a situation where the real scandal is what ’ s legal , it ’ s also possible that he is simply one of the large number of wealthy Americans who ’ ve been cheating on taxes and getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an IRS head and an IRS chief counsel with business ties to him , and a whistleblower within the IRS has told Congress that political appointees have interfered with the audit of Trump ’ s taxes .
If true , this would be just one of several instances where Trump ’ s status as president is shielding him from the law .
If Trump had lost , he ’ d have dealt with the law Trump ’ s personal attorney Michael Cohen is currently serving a prison sentence for three separate crimes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Andrew Prokop has written — is “ arranging six-figure hush money payments for two women alleging sexual encounters with Trump — well above the federal limit for a campaign contribution .
The first of these was a payment to Karen McDougal from the National Enquirer ’ s parent company , and the second was a payment to Stormy Daniels from Cohen himself.
” These payments , according to sworn statements by Cohen accepted by prosecutors and the court , were made at the direction of Trump .
In a normal prosecutorial situation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be the candidate himself .
But it ’ s Justice Department policy that a sitting president can not be indicted for a crime , so the Southern District of New York prosecutors who made the case against Cohen simply dropped it .
Similarly , in his report to Congress , then-special counsel Robert Mueller describes Trump as being guilty of the factual elements of obstruction of justice .
But Mueller took the view that he should simply describe the facts and leave it up to Congress what to do with them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have impeached Trump , but Democrats decided that doing so would be politically unwise .
The fact remains , however , that it ’ s not unusual for a person to be charged with obstruction of justice or campaign finance crimes even in the absence of a larger conspiracy .
Trump is skating by because it ’ s DOJ policy not to indict the president , not because the material isn ’ t there for an indictment .
Somewhat similarly , E. Jean Carroll has an ongoing defamation suit against Trump stemming from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raped her in the 1990s .
This is not , on its face , a matter of concern to the American government .
But Attorney General Bill Barr ’ s Justice Department has taken over the case from Trump ’ s private attorneys , and arguments related to his status as president are being used in court to explain why he doesn ’ t need to provide DNA samples and otherwise cooperate with the litigation .
The president is also facing investigation by the New York state attorney general for alleged bank fraud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for allegations of related financial crimes .
In both cases , Trump is fighting subpoenas with arguments that draw on his status as president .
Trump also has hundreds of millions in debts that are coming due over the next four years — debts that banks are much more likely to take a lenient view on if the debtor is also the president .
Trump , in other words , may not be able to afford defeat .
Trump is in a very dangerous place Jimmy Carter and George H.W .
Bush both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they departed without complaint and swiftly rebuilt their reputations , becoming widely admired figures as former presidents whose children went on to have careers in public life .
Trump ’ s prospects as a former president are not nearly so bright .
He is the target of investigations into multiple financial crimes , and the potential target of campaign finance and obstruction of justice charges .
Separately , he is facing civil litigation and the bill is coming due for his substantial debts .
As president , he wields significant powers that can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these fronts .
And as president , he commands the loyalty of the Republican Party , which has taken the view that holding Trump accountable would undermine their larger partisan and ideological projects .
Even if a Biden administration chose to look forward rather than back on the loose threads from the Mueller and Cohen cases , the rest of these charges are unlikely to magically vanish .
This is all relevant context to the president ’ s various musings about how a “ ballot scam ” may give him reason to refuse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likes to lose .
But Trump has reasons that go far beyond pride , bad manners , or even lust for power .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

A surprising revelation in the New York Times story about President Donald Trump’s taxes is that the “audit” he’s long claimed prevented him from releasing his tax returns to the public is real. It turns out the IRS perked up when Trump claimed business losses during the Great Recession of 2008 and 2009. The losses were so large that they could be retroactively applied to previous years and cancel out millions of dollars’ worth of tax liability from his days as host of The Apprentice.
It’s legal to use huge business losses to offset other income (though whether it should be is another question), but it’s not at all legal to cook the books in order to generate paper accounting losses to avoid taxes. It’s not clear whether Trump broke the law, but the existence of the years-long legal battle over the audit suggests the IRS has reason to believe he did. And some of the accounting practices documented on his tax returns are extremely fishy — characterizing aspects of his lifestyle and wealth transfers to his heirs as business expenses.
While nothing about being audited prevents you from releasing your taxes, it would seemingly make it unwise to do so. The IRS is limited in its investigative capabilities, while journalistic and scholarly interests are eager to put resources behind hunting through Trump’s tax returns. What the Times story, and the paper’s previous reporting on Fred Trump’s taxes, showed is a lot of dodgy tax avoidance going on.
But as long as Trump is president, he can shield himself from accountability for any tax-related crimes. He can also likely shield himself from debt collectors, who seem to have significant claims coming due over the next four years. From obstruction of justice to sexual assault allegations to campaign finance law violations, Trump is counting on the fact that he’s president to stop the law from coming after him.
As he prepares to take the stage to debate former Vice President Joe Biden Tuesday night, he’s making a case not only for continuing his governance approach, but also for maintaining his personal immunity to legal liability. The tax matter raises the stakes in the election and gives a president who’s rarely been law-abiding more reason to bend and break the rules in his quest to maintain power.
Tax-free gifts to kids
One of the most intriguing revelations in the Times’s reporting on Trump’s long-hidden tax returns is that money he gave his daughter Ivanka was treated as a tax write-off.
The full details are not available on Trump’s tax returns. They show instead that his company once paid $747,622 to an unnamed consultant for hotel projects in Hawaii and Vancouver. Payments to consultants can be legitimate business expenses, and there’s nothing unusual about deducting something like that. But in this case, the consultant appears to have been his daughter, whose own public financial disclosures show receipt of $747,622.
This is the kind of thing the IRS could easily overlook because it requires checking two different forms, realizing that the numbers match, and then seeing that the $747,622 payment was almost certainly to Ivanka. There’s nothing wrong with giving your daughter a six-figure gift if you are rich enough to do so. But when you receive gifts of this size, you need to pay a gift tax on them. If you structure your gift as a consulting fee, it passes to your heir untaxed. Taking what’s really a gift and pretending it’s a business expense is against the law.
Gifts as corporate payments are not without precedent in the Trump family. An earlier New York Times story about Trump’s father’s taxes showed that not only did the president inherit a vast fortune, he did so largely while avoiding paying estate taxes. Some of that involved aggressive use of avoidance strategists that experts say are legal. But one thing Fred Trump did was set his kids up as owners of a company called All County Building Supply.
All County gave building supplies — at inflated prices — to buildings owned by Fred Trump. This generated tax-free gifts for the Trump kids and deductible expenses for Fred, and was even used in applications to New York state housing regulators as a reason to raise rents on rent-stabilized units. By the time this story emerged, the statute of limitations had passed, so it was impossible to hold anyone criminally responsible. But Trump’s sister was a senior-status federal judge at the time, so a petition was filed to open an ethics inquiry into her potentially illegal conduct — conduct she would have shared with her brother. But the moment the ethics board agreed that an inquiry should move forward, she retired from her position.
It’s possible that a thorough investigation would show the payments to Ivanka were legit. But it’s also possible that it wouldn’t. Now that the returns are public, we know that an investigation is warranted. And that’s true of many of Trump’s claims.
Dubious deductions
The news that Trump deducted $70,000 worth of hairstyling expenses also raises a question of whether such a deduction is valid.
The law of personal appearance deductions is both vague and, at least in theory, fairly strict. Bench, a vendor of small-business accounting services, cautions that “hair care expenses only qualify as a tax deduction when they are specifically for work-related photo shoots or shows.”
“You can write off makeup used for stage or photo shoots, but not if you wear the same makeup during your normal day,” according to Chuck Sloan at Backstage, a trade publication for actors. “The same applies to your hair care costs.”
That doesn’t mean that abuse isn’t routine. Ryan Grim, DC bureau chief for the Intercept, reports that a particular tax accountant who is widely used by DC writers regularly recommends that clients who appear frequently on television claim these deductions.
The tax guy in DC who does a ton of media folks always recommends it. @jamieson and I were just talking about how annoyed he'd be at the low cost of our cuts and the lack of frequency. Just leaving money on the table! — Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) September 28, 2020
That does not, however, mean it’s actually legitimate. The IRS rules for taking a home office tax deduction, for example, state that “you must regularly use part of your home exclusively for conducting business.” Plenty of people with home offices that sometimes serve as guest rooms or television-watching rooms or excess coat storage during a party nonetheless claim a deduction based on the fact that it’s hard to prove you’re lying about it.
But the rules are the rules. Much of Trump’s lavish lifestyle seems to deliberately blur the lines between personal and business expenses. If you own a luxury golf resort in Scotland, then flying on your private plane to Scotland and taking a week-long vacation could arguably be business as long as you discussed things with the property manager and had some meetings with local officials.
When someone says that Trump is rich, they likely mean he has lavish consumption habits. When Trump tells the IRS he’s “poor,” that doesn’t mean he’s “a bad businessman” who’s pretending to be rich. It means he’s managed to classify a large amount of lavish personal consumption — from haircuts to flights on his giant private jet — as business expenses.
Getting away with it
According to the FBI’s uniform crime reports, fewer than 14 percent of car thefts or burglaries are actually solved by the police. But in elite circles, the fact that it’s relatively easy to get away with these crimes does not imply that they’re not really crimes, that there’s no ethical problem with committing them, or that the difficulty of enforcing the law against stealing cars implies that the whole charade is pointless and car theft should be legalized.
Unfortunately, the kind of people who’d never countenance burglary often do not take this approach to tax cheating, where they tend to apply a “whatever you can get away with is fine” mentality. As Trump said four years ago of his tax avoidance, “that makes me smart.”
But there has also been a concerted effort to make it easier to get away with cheating on your taxes. Back in the day, the IRS routinely conducted so-called “lifestyle audits” when a person seemed to be living too high on the hog, but Congress banned the practice in the 1990s. Natasha Sarin and Lawrence Summers estimate that there’s about $1 trillion in uncollected taxes of rich people that the IRS could get its hands on with a larger enforcement budget. Instead, as Paul Kiel and Jesse Eisinger have reported for ProPublica, the agency’s budget was cut 20 percent after Republicans took control of Congress in 2010 — meaning there are plenty of people getting away with various kinds of abuses.
In other words, while it’s possible Trump’s meager tax payments are a situation where the real scandal is what’s legal, it’s also possible that he is simply one of the large number of wealthy Americans who’ve been cheating on taxes and getting away with it. Trump has appointed an IRS head and an IRS chief counsel with business ties to him, and a whistleblower within the IRS has told Congress that political appointees have interfered with the audit of Trump’s taxes. If true, this would be just one of several instances where Trump’s status as president is shielding him from the law.
If Trump had lost, he’d have dealt with the law
Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen is currently serving a prison sentence for three separate crimes, one of which — as my colleague Andrew Prokop has written — is “arranging six-figure hush money payments for two women alleging sexual encounters with Trump — well above the federal limit for a campaign contribution. The first of these was a payment to Karen McDougal from the National Enquirer’s parent company, and the second was a payment to Stormy Daniels from Cohen himself.”
These payments, according to sworn statements by Cohen accepted by prosecutors and the court, were made at the direction of Trump.
In a normal prosecutorial situation, that would mean the next investigative target would be the candidate himself. But it’s Justice Department policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted for a crime, so the Southern District of New York prosecutors who made the case against Cohen simply dropped it. Similarly, in his report to Congress, then-special counsel Robert Mueller describes Trump as being guilty of the factual elements of obstruction of justice. But Mueller took the view that he should simply describe the facts and leave it up to Congress what to do with them.
In either case, the House could have impeached Trump, but Democrats decided that doing so would be politically unwise. The fact remains, however, that it’s not unusual for a person to be charged with obstruction of justice or campaign finance crimes even in the absence of a larger conspiracy. Trump is skating by because it’s DOJ policy not to indict the president, not because the material isn’t there for an indictment.
Somewhat similarly, E. Jean Carroll has an ongoing defamation suit against Trump stemming from his response to her allegation that he raped her in the 1990s. This is not, on its face, a matter of concern to the American government. But Attorney General Bill Barr’s Justice Department has taken over the case from Trump’s private attorneys, and arguments related to his status as president are being used in court to explain why he doesn’t need to provide DNA samples and otherwise cooperate with the litigation. The president is also facing investigation by the New York state attorney general for alleged bank fraud and by the district attorney for Manhattan for allegations of related financial crimes. In both cases, Trump is fighting subpoenas with arguments that draw on his status as president.
Trump also has hundreds of millions in debts that are coming due over the next four years — debts that banks are much more likely to take a lenient view on if the debtor is also the president.
6. Trump is personally responsible for loans totaling $421 million, with most of it coming due within four years. Should he win re-election, his lenders could be placed in the unprecedented position of weighing whether to foreclose on a sitting president.https://t.co/wAZnwT02Ap — Yashar Ali (@yashar) September 27, 2020
Trump, in other words, may not be able to afford defeat.
Trump is in a very dangerous place
Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush both left office defeated and unpopular. But they departed without complaint and swiftly rebuilt their reputations, becoming widely admired figures as former presidents whose children went on to have careers in public life.
Trump’s prospects as a former president are not nearly so bright.
He is the target of investigations into multiple financial crimes, and the potential target of campaign finance and obstruction of justice charges. Separately, he is facing civil litigation and the bill is coming due for his substantial debts. As president, he wields significant powers that can be used to block accountability on all these fronts. And as president, he commands the loyalty of the Republican Party, which has taken the view that holding Trump accountable would undermine their larger partisan and ideological projects. Even if a Biden administration chose to look forward rather than back on the loose threads from the Mueller and Cohen cases, the rest of these charges are unlikely to magically vanish.
This is all relevant context to the president’s various musings about how a “ballot scam” may give him reason to refuse to concede defeat in November. Nobody likes to lose. But Trump has reasons that go far beyond pride, bad manners, or even lust for power.
Correction, October 2: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the publication Chuck Sloan works for. It is Backstage.


vox--2020-09-29--Kentucky AG to release the grand jury recording in Breonna Taylor case

After a grand jury ’ s decision to not indict a single officer in Breonna Taylor ’ s killing last week , the rallying cry turned from “ arrest the cops ” to “ release the transcripts ” of the grand jury proceedings .
And now activists , protesters , and Taylor ’ s family will see this request fulfilled .
On Monday night , after a juror filed a court motion criticizing Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron ’ s public characterization of the case and demanding the release of the transcripts , Cameron has agreed to do so and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the proceedings .
According to the unidentified juror , Cameron did not give the panel the opportunity to indict the two officers who shot Taylor .
In the motion , the juror said their request to have the recordings released is an effort to share “ only the truth , the whole truth , and nothing but the truth.
” According to the New York Times , Cameron ’ s office will release the recordings by Wednesday .
Cameron ’ s office also confirmed Monday night that the only charge he recommended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not any of the six felony homicide charges under Kentucky law , according to the Washington Post .
Cameron had previously declined to say what charges he presented to the grand jury .
At a Louisville press conference last Friday , Taylor ’ s family and their attorneys also gathered to express their dissatisfaction with the grand jury ’ s decision and questioned what Cameron presented .
“ Did he present any evidence on Breonna Taylor ’ s behalf ?
Or did he make a unilateral decision to put his thumb on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Benjamin Crump asked .
On September 23 , the country learned that no one was directly charged in Taylor ’ s death .
Former Louisville Metro police officer Brett Hankison was indicted on three counts of first-degree wanton endangerment for threatening the lives of Taylor ’ s neighbors when he fired bullets that went through Taylor ’ s apartment into theirs .
The two other officers who fired shots into the apartment that night — Sgt .
Jonathan Mattingly and detective Myles Cosgrove — were not indicted .
“ The decision before my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case was not to decide if the loss of Ms. Taylor ’ s life was a tragedy .
The answer to that question is , unequivocally , yes , ” Cameron said at a press conference after the announcement in Louisville .
“ My job as a special prosecutor in this case was to put emotions aside and investigate the facts to determine if criminal violations of state law resulted in the loss of Ms. Taylor ’ s life , ” Cameron said .
The nation had been awaiting the decision in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he presented his findings to the grand jury beginning on Monday , and the jury made its decision by noon on Wednesday .
The announcement came nearly 200 days after Taylor was shot dead by police while she was asleep in her apartment on March 13 .
As news of the incident drew attention in early May and picked up steam after the police killing of George Floyd later that month , protests broke out across the country .
Over time , the phrase “ Arrest the cops who killed Breonna Taylor ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well as the focal point of countless memes .
The phrase was plastered on T-shirts worn by athletes at sporting events and big-name actors at the Emmys .
Many pointed out that Black women killed by police don ’ t often receive much attention , or justice , in matters of police violence , and now was the time to correct that .
“ When I speak on it , I ’ m considered an angry Black woman , ” Palmer wrote in her statement read at Friday ’ s press conference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ am an angry Black woman .
I am not angry for the reasons that you would like me to be — but angry because our Black women keep dying at the hands of police officers .
And Black men.
” The grand jury decision caused outcry across the nation over what many see as a weak indictment charge .
Hankison wasn ’ t charged with killing Taylor , but with endangering her neighbors .
Wanton endangerment in the first degree is a class D felony in the state of Kentucky .
If convicted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years in prison for each count .
He could , alternately , be required to pay fines and complete probation and community service .
Kentucky law defines wanton endangerment in the first degree as : While there are six charges of homicide under Kentucky law , Cameron said his office did not pursue them because officers Cosgrove and Mattingly were justified in firing their weapons since Kenneth Walker , Taylor ’ s boyfriend , shot at them that night .
“ Use of force by Mattingly and Cosgrove was justified to protect themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminal charges , ” Cameron said .
Hankison , meanwhile , was only charged in connection to the fact that he fired his weapon and his bullets traveled through Taylor ’ s apartment to a neighboring residence where three civilians were at the time , according to the special investigation .
During the course of the investigation , the Louisville Metro Police Department terminated Hankison because it found he “ displayed an extreme indifference to the value of human life ” when he “ wantonly and blindly ” fired 10 rounds into Taylor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ termination letter .
The reason for Hankison ’ s termination essentially mirrors the decision of the grand jury .
Mattingly and Cosgrove were placed on administrative reassignment in May .
The grand jury announcement revealed a new version of what happened during the early hours of March 13 Cameron ’ s version of events of the raid on March 13 both differs from and fills in the gaps of the story that has been pieced together in news reports over months .
On the night Taylor was killed , police relied on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ search of two people suspected of selling drugs , neither of whom was Taylor .
While police say they announced themselves , Walker , Taylor ’ s boyfriend , who was inside the apartment at the time , disputes that claim .
On Wednesday , Cameron announced developments on this particular detail .
According to the attorney general , there was an independent witness ( a civilian ) near Taylor ’ s apartment who said that officers knocked and announced themselves .
“ The warrant was not served as a no-knock warrant , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answered the door , officers breached it .
The first officer to enter was Mattingly , who , in a statement , said he identified two individuals standing beside one another — Walker and Taylor — with the man holding a gun with his arms extended in a shooting stance .
“ Sergeant Mattingly saw the man ’ s gun fire , heard a boom , and immediately knew he was shot as a result of feeling heat in his upper thigh , ” Cameron said .
According to the ballistics report , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mm handgun , the gun that belonged to Walker .
Mattingly fired six shots back down the hallway .
Meanwhile , Detective Cosgrove shot 16 times , all in a matter of seconds .
In total , six bullets hit Taylor , Cameron revealed ( her death certificate had noted she was shot five times , and Taylor ’ s lawyer had previously said she was struck a total of eight times ) , with a ballistics report from the FBI concluding Cosgrove fired the fatal shot .
Determining who fired the fatal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extended the length of it , Cameron said .
But since Cosgrove was justified in his use of force because they were fired upon by Walker , Cameron said , he would not be charged .
Hankison , meanwhile , fired 10 shots from outside the apartment , with some bullets going through the bedroom window , through Taylor ’ s apartment and into the neighboring one .
At the time , three residents of that apartment were at home , including a man , a pregnant woman , and a child .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ any bullets fired from Detective Hankison ’ s weapons struck Ms. Taylor , ” Cameron said .
Cameron said his team of investigators reconstructed the events that took place that night by reviewing ballistics evidence , 911 calls , police radio traffic , and interviews .
Video footage — Cameron did not say from where — began at the point when area patrol officers arrived at the location .
They also used information from the Kentucky State Police local medical examiner ’ s lab and the FBI crime lab in Quantico .
At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family ’ s attorney , Crump , cast doubt on Cameron ’ s investigation and demanded that the attorney general release the transcripts of the case he presented before the grand jury .
Crump alleged Cameron may have left out key details and witnesses in his presentation .
“ Did he tell them about the 12 neighbors ... that live in close proximity of Breonna ’ s apartment that all said they did not hear the police knock and announce their presence — did he let him testify before the grand jury ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ let the cops who shot over 30 rounds of bullets in Breonna ’ s apartment ... testify before the grand jury ?
Did he allow Breonna ’ s boyfriend , Kenny Walker , to testify before the grand jury ?
” He also raised concerns about policy lapses around the “ no-knock ” warrant , saying , “ If he didn ’ t present these things to the grand jury , what kind of sham grand jury proceeding was this ?
” Crump said the lack of transparency follows a pattern of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” but especially Black women who have been killed by police .
At the press conference , attorney Lonita Baker also demanded that Cameron tell the public whether he recommended charges to the grand jury .
“ I don ’ t want to hear that the grand jury determined this , if it ’ s your office that unilaterally determined not to charge any officers with the death of Breanna Taylor , ” Baker said .
“ You can ’ t pawn this on the grand jury if your office made that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know who is it that we need to say got it wrong.
” Now that Cameron has confirmed he recommended the wanton endangerment charge for Hankison , this new information sheds light on some of the constraints the grand jury faced .
As the juror wrote in their motion , “ Using the grand jurors as a shield to deflect accountability and responsibility for these decisions only sows more seeds of doubt in the process while leaving a cold chill down the spines of future grand jurors.
” As Anna North reports , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a protégé of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who spoke glowingly of President Trump at the Republican National Convention , truly did his best as a prosecutor to secure indictments in the Taylor case .
( Cameron ’ s office has not responded to Vox ’ s request for comment . )
“ There are questions as to whether he really did the job he could ’ ve done , ” Dewey Clayton , a political science professor at the University of Louisville , told North .
Amy McGrath , who is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seat , had also called on Cameron to be more transparent .
“ AG Cameron needs to release the grand jury report now , including what evidence and recommendations he chose to present , ” McGrath tweeted on Thursday .
“ We shouldn ’ t have to take his word for it.
” What happens next in the fight for justice in Louisville In the wake of the grand jury announcement , protests erupted in Chicago , Los Angeles , Philadelphia , New York , Seattle , Washington , DC , and Portland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the decision was delivered , protesters didn ’ t let barricades , a curfew , the presence of police officers in riot gear , or the presence of the National Guard deter them from pouring out into the streets to say Breonna Taylor ’ s name .
People marched around downtown declaring that the city and law enforcement officials had failed them .
By early Thursday morning , police had arrested 127 people in Louisville , according to the Courier-Journal , and one suspect was taken into custody in connection with the shooting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sustained non-life-threatening injuries , according to interim Louisville Metro Police Chief Robert Schroeder .
On Thursday , protests continued .
In Louisville , at least two dozen more were arrested , according to the Courier-Journal .
Among those arrested were Kentucky state Rep. Attica Scott , who led the local effort to ban no-knock warrants , and activist Shameka Parrish-Wright of Louisville ’ s Bail Project .
At First Unitarian Church , hundreds of protesters sought sanctuary to avoid being arrested for violating the city ’ s 9 pm curfew .
In Los @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the streets and police detained a man for reportedly driving his vehicle through a crowd of protesters .
In Portland , after police declared the local Breonna Taylor protest a riot and used OC gas ( similar to pepper spray ) to disperse crowds on Wednesday night , protesters returned .
The same happened in Seattle , where an officer was captured on video rolling a bike over a protester ’ s head the night prior ( the officer has since been placed on administrative leave ) .
Protests also continued in Rochester @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vegas , and Philadelphia .
Friday marked a third night of protests around the country , with Louisville protesters continuing to clash with police .
In New York , protesters held a sit-in on the Brooklyn Bridge for over an hour before heading back over to Brooklyn .
Meanwhile in Boston , thousands marched from police headquarters to a park carrying Black Lives Matter signs .
In smaller cities like Kansas City and Providence , protests are expected to continue through the weekend .
A week ago , the city of Louisville announced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ settlement with Taylor ’ s family and attorneys — the largest sum the city has ever paid out for a police misconduct suit .
The settlement was in response to a lawsuit Taylor ’ s family filed in April , alleging excessive force and gross negligence on the part of the officers .
A court filing submitted by the family in July alleged that Taylor did not receive emergency medical aid after she was shot , and that the drug raid on her apartment was part of a government-backed development scheme to clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neighborhood .
While the settlement included a list of police reforms , Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer said it was not an acknowledgment of wrongdoing on the city ’ s part .
Cameron also announced he would create a task force of citizens , law enforcement officials , and elected officials to review the state ’ s process for securing , reviewing , and executing search warrants .
He also acknowledged that many would not be satisfied with the grand jury ’ s decision but fervently urged the country to accept “ the truth.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ sessions set to be released this week , the public may get a fuller picture of the truth .
According to critics , the truth requires that Cameron be more transparent with his process and accountable to the public .
Cameron was assigned the case as special prosecutor in May and in the past five months revealed few details about the independent investigation .
Meanwhile , activists have pressed lawmakers to defund the local police department .
While Louisville ’ s Metro Council did vote unanimously in June to ban no-knock warrants , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t even begin to defund LMPD .
The new spending plan will merely “ require police to put the money toward recruiting a more diverse force , additional training and exploring co-responder models that could send behavioral health professionals on calls with officers , ” according to the Courier-Journal .
The FBI is still investigating Taylor ’ s killing for possible civil rights violations .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3 .

The Kentucky attorney general’s office released about 20 hours of audio recordings from the Breonna Taylor grand jury on Friday, after being ordered by a judge to do so.
The highly anticipated audio files capture the full case that AG Daniel Cameron presented to the grand jury from September 21 to 23, including which witnesses they heard and the team’s presentation that led to the indictment of former Louisville Metro Police Department officer Brett Hankison.
On September 23, Hankison was indicted on three counts of first-degree wanton endangerment for threatening the lives of Taylor’s neighbors when he fired bullets that went through Taylor’s apartment into theirs. The two other officers who fired shots into the apartment that night hitting Taylor — Sgt. Jonathan Mattingly and detective Myles Cosgrove — were not indicted.
Rallying cries across the nation turned from “arrest the cops” to “release the transcripts” of the grand jury proceedings shortly after the decision was announced, as many wondered why no officers were charged with actually killing Taylor and what the attorney general’s office specifically presented to the jury.
On Monday, a juror filed a motion criticizing Cameron’s public characterization of the case and demanding the release of the transcripts. According to the unidentified juror, Cameron did not give the panel the opportunity to indict the two officers who shot Taylor. In the motion, the juror said their request to have the recordings released is an effort to share “only the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”
Cameron’s office confirmed on Monday that the only charge he recommended to the grand jury was wanton endangerment, not any of the six felony homicide charges under Kentucky law, according to the Washington Post. Cameron had previously declined to say what charges he presented to the grand jury.
At a Louisville press conference last Friday, Taylor’s family and their attorneys gathered to express their dissatisfaction with the grand jury’s decision and questioned what Cameron presented. “Did he present any evidence on Breonna Taylor’s behalf? Or did he make a unilateral decision to put his thumb on the scales of justice?” attorney Benjamin Crump asked.
The nation had been awaiting the decision in the criminal investigation all summer. Cameron said he presented his findings to the grand jury beginning on Monday, September 21, and the jury made its decision by noon on Wednesday, September 23. The announcement came nearly 200 days after Taylor was shot dead by police while she was asleep in her apartment on March 13. As news of the incident drew attention in early May and picked up steam after the police killing of George Floyd later that month, protests broke out across the country.
Over time, the phrase “Arrest the cops who killed Breonna Taylor” became a rallying cry for activists — as well as the focal point of countless memes. The phrase was plastered on T-shirts worn by athletes at sporting events and big-name actors at the Emmys. Many pointed out that Black women killed by police don’t often receive much attention, or justice, in matters of police violence, and now was the time to correct that.
The tapes might answer a number of questions that activists and the Taylor family’s attorneys have raised, like which witnesses Cameron’s office allowed to testify and whether the office presented pieces of evidence — sending the ambulance away before the raid, the many witnesses who have said they did not hear the police knock and announce themselves — that reportedly show the police violated protocol. As the tapes are parsed, the coming days may reveal new insight in the decision.
What is wanton endangerment?
The grand jury decision caused outcry across the nation over what many see as a weak indictment charge. Hankison was charged not with killing Taylor, but with endangering her neighbors.
Wanton endangerment in the first degree is a class D felony in the state of Kentucky. If convicted, Hankison could face up to five years in prison for each count. He could, alternatively, be required to pay fines and complete probation and community service.
Kentucky law defines wanton endangerment in the first degree as:
A person is guilty of wanton endangerment in the first degree when, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, he wantonly engages in conduct which creates a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to another person.
While there are six charges of homicide under Kentucky law, Cameron said his office did not pursue them because officers Cosgrove and Mattingly were justified in firing their weapons since Kenneth Walker, Taylor’s boyfriend, shot at them that night. “Use of force by Mattingly and Cosgrove was justified to protect themselves. This justification bars us from pursuing criminal charges,” Cameron said.
Hankison, meanwhile, was only charged in connection to the fact that he fired his weapon and his bullets traveled through Taylor’s apartment to a neighboring residence where three civilians were at the time, according to the special investigation.
During the course of the investigation, the Louisville Metro Police Department terminated Hankison because it found he “displayed an extreme indifference to the value of human life” when he “wantonly and blindly” fired 10 rounds into Taylor’s apartment, according to his termination letter. The reason for Hankison’s termination essentially mirrors the decision of the grand jury. Mattingly and Cosgrove were placed on administrative reassignment in May.
The grand jury announcement revealed a new version of what happened during the early hours of March 13
Cameron’s version of events of the raid on March 13 both differs from and fills in the gaps of the story that has been pieced together in news reports over months.
On the night Taylor was killed, police relied on a no-knock warrant to enter her apartment in search of two people suspected of selling drugs, neither of whom was Taylor. While police say they announced themselves, Walker, Taylor’s boyfriend, who was inside the apartment at the time, disputes that claim.
In his grand jury announcement on September 23, Cameron announced developments on this particular detail. According to the attorney general, there was an independent witness (a civilian) near Taylor’s apartment who said that officers knocked and announced themselves. “The warrant was not served as a no-knock warrant,” Cameron said.
When no one answered the door, officers breached it. The first officer to enter was Mattingly, who, in a statement, said he identified two individuals standing beside one another — Walker and Taylor — with the man holding a gun with his arms extended in a shooting stance. “Sergeant Mattingly saw the man’s gun fire, heard a boom, and immediately knew he was shot as a result of feeling heat in his upper thigh,” Cameron said.
According to the ballistics report, Mattingly was shot once by a 9 mm handgun, the gun that belonged to Walker. Mattingly fired six shots back down the hallway. Meanwhile, Detective Cosgrove shot 16 times, all in a matter of seconds.
In total, six bullets hit Taylor, Cameron revealed (her death certificate had noted she was shot five times, and Taylor’s lawyer had previously said she was struck a total of eight times), with a ballistics report from the FBI concluding Cosgrove fired the fatal shot. Determining who fired the fatal shot was integral to the investigation and extended the length of it, Cameron said. But since Cosgrove was justified in his use of force because they were fired upon by Walker, Cameron said, he would not be charged.
Hankison, meanwhile, fired 10 shots from outside the apartment, with some bullets going through the bedroom window, through Taylor’s apartment and into the neighboring one. At the time, three residents of that apartment were at home, including a man, a pregnant woman, and a child. “There is no conclusive evidence that any bullets fired from Detective Hankison’s weapons struck Ms. Taylor,” Cameron said.
Cameron said his team of investigators reconstructed the events that took place that night by reviewing ballistics evidence, 911 calls, police radio traffic, and interviews. Video footage — Cameron did not say from where — began at the point when area patrol officers arrived at the location. They also used information from the Kentucky State Police local medical examiner’s lab and the FBI crime lab in Quantico.
At the September 25 press conference, the family’s attorney, Crump, cast doubt on Cameron’s investigation and demanded that the attorney general release the transcripts of the case he presented before the grand jury. Crump alleged that Cameron may have left out key details and witnesses in his presentation.
“Did he tell them about the 12 neighbors ... that live in close proximity of Breonna’s apartment that all said they did not hear the police knock and announce their presence — did he let him testify before the grand jury?” Crump said. “Did he let the cops who shot over 30 rounds of bullets in Breonna’s apartment ... testify before the grand jury? Did he allow Breonna’s boyfriend, Kenny Walker, to testify before the grand jury?”
He also raised concerns about policy lapses around the no-knock warrant, saying, “If he didn’t present these things to the grand jury, what kind of sham grand jury proceeding was this?”
Crump said the lack of transparency follows a pattern of “blatant disrespect and marginalization of Black people,” but especially Black women who have been killed by police.
At the press conference, attorney Lonita Baker also demanded that Cameron tell the public whether he recommended charges to the grand jury.
“I don’t want to hear that the grand jury determined this, if it’s your office that unilaterally determined not to charge any officers with the death of Breanna Taylor,” Baker said. “You can’t pawn this on the grand jury if your office made that decision. We the voters deserve to know who is it that we need to say got it wrong.”
Now that Cameron has confirmed he recommended the wanton endangerment charge for Hankison, this new information sheds light on some of the constraints the grand jury faced. As the jurors wrote in their motion, “Using the grand jurors as a shield to deflect accountability and responsibility for these decisions only sows more seeds of doubt in the process while leaving a cold chill down the spines of future grand jurors.”
As Anna North reports, many others wonder if the attorney general, a protégé of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who spoke glowingly of President Trump at the Republican National Convention, truly did his best as a prosecutor to secure indictments in the Taylor case. (Cameron’s office has not responded to Vox’s request for comment.)
“There are questions as to whether he really did the job he could’ve done,” Dewey Clayton, a political science professor at the University of Louisville, told North.
Amy McGrath, who is running for McConnell’s Kentucky Senate seat, had also called on Cameron to be more transparent. “AG Cameron needs to release the grand jury report now, including what evidence and recommendations he chose to present,” McGrath tweeted on September 24. “We shouldn’t have to take his word for it.”
What happens next in the fight for justice in Louisville
In the wake of the grand jury announcement, protests erupted in Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, New York, Seattle, Washington, DC, and Portland on September 23. In Louisville, where the decision was delivered, protesters didn’t let barricades, a curfew, the presence of police officers in riot gear, or the presence of the National Guard deter them from pouring out into the streets to say Breonna Taylor’s name. People marched around downtown declaring that the city and law enforcement officials had failed them.
By early the next morning, police had arrested 127 people in Louisville, according to the Courier-Journal, and one suspect was taken into custody in connection with the shooting of two city police officers, who sustained non-life-threatening injuries, according to interim Louisville Metro Police Chief Robert Schroeder.
Later that night, protests continued throughout the country. In Louisville, at least two dozen more were arrested, according to the Courier-Journal. Among those arrested were Kentucky state Rep. Attica Scott, who led the local effort to ban no-knock warrants, and activist Shameka Parrish-Wright of Louisville’s Bail Project. At First Unitarian Church, hundreds of protesters sought sanctuary to avoid being arrested for violating the city’s 9 pm curfew.
In Los Angeles, protesters took to the streets and police detained a man for reportedly driving his vehicle through a crowd of protesters. In Portland, after police declared the local Breonna Taylor protest a riot and used OC gas (similar to pepper spray) to disperse crowds the previous night, protesters returned. The same happened in Seattle, where an officer was captured on video rolling a bike over a protester’s head the night prior (the officer has since been placed on administrative leave). Protests also continued in Rochester, Baltimore, Kansas City, Las Vegas, and Philadelphia and in other cities throughout the week and into the weekend.
On September 15, the city of Louisville announced it had reached a $12 million settlement with Taylor’s family and attorneys — the largest sum the city has ever paid out for a police misconduct suit. The settlement was in response to a lawsuit Taylor’s family filed in April, alleging excessive force and gross negligence on the part of the officers. A court filing submitted by the family in July alleged that Taylor did not receive emergency medical aid after she was shot, and that the drug raid on her apartment was part of a government-backed development scheme to clear out a block in Taylor’s neighborhood.
While the settlement included a list of police reforms, Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer said it was not an acknowledgment of wrongdoing on the city’s part. Cameron also announced he would create a task force of citizens, law enforcement officials, and elected officials to review the state’s process for securing, reviewing, and executing search warrants.
He also acknowledged that many would not be satisfied with the grand jury’s decision but fervently urged the country to accept “the truth.” But with the recordings of the sessions set to be released this week, the public may get a fuller picture of the truth. According to critics, the truth requires that Cameron be more transparent with his process and accountable to the public.
Cameron was assigned the case as special prosecutor in May and in the past five months revealed few details about the independent investigation. Meanwhile, activists have pressed lawmakers to defund the local police department. While Louisville’s Metro Council did vote unanimously in June to ban no-knock warrants, it also approved a budget that wouldn’t even begin to defund LMPD. The new spending plan will merely “require police to put the money toward recruiting a more diverse force, additional training and exploring co-responder models that could send behavioral health professionals on calls with officers,” according to the Courier-Journal.
The FBI is still investigating Taylor’s killing for possible civil rights violations.


vox--2020-09-30--Joe Biden smashed his single-hour fundraising record after the first presidential debate

At the end of a bruising first presidential debate on Tuesday night , Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden ’ s campaign announced yet another fundraising milestone .
The campaign saw $ 3.8 million raised between 10-11 pm ET during the debate , breaking its own record for the amount raised in a single hour , according to campaign officials .
A couple of hours later , Democratic National Committee officials announced the party had its best fundraising hour on record from 11 pm-12 am ET , although party officials did not say how much was raised .
“ Joe Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and they are responding , ” Biden deputy campaign manager Kate Bedingfield told reporters .
The fundraising numbers are another sign of enthusiasm for the Democratic candidate , and will help ensure Biden has a cash advantage going into the last few weeks of a contentious campaign .
The haul — which comes after Democrats and progressive grassroots groups raised more than $ 300 million in the wake of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s death — will also help keep Biden competitive against a Republican incumbent who has not been careful managing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out the race with a massive $ 1.1 billion war chest , but his campaign has spent the vast majority of that sum .
The president now has less cash on hand than his Democratic competitor , and Biden and the Democrats have been outraising him in recent months .
Both campaigns ’ best opportunities for fundraising thus far have come during big televised events , like Tuesday night ’ s debate and the Democratic National Convention .
Biden ’ s campaign pulled in $ 70 million during the DNC ; the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 76 million with the RNC and its various joint fundraising committees during the Republican National Convention .
As of Wednesday morning , the Trump campaign hadn ’ t yet released it ’ s post-debate fundraising numbers .
A Trump campaign spokesperson did not immediately respond to Vox ’ s request for comment .
The debate was a mess , but it looks like Biden came out on top The first presidential debate is typically a chance for the incumbent president to defend their record and make the case for a second term .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Instead , his debate performance was marked by shouting , constantly interrupting Biden ( who exasperatedly said , “ Will you shut up , man ?
” ) and getting into arguments with debate moderator and Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace .
Trump ’ s stand-out moment was when he again refused to condemn white supremacists , instead telling the violent far-right group Proud Boys to “ stand back and stand by.
” Biden ’ s debate performance was muted at times , but the vice president more or less did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looked directly into the camera to speak to Americans watching at home on Tuesday , with a consistent message : Trump doesn ’ t care about the people he ’ s supposed to lead , and Biden does .
“ It ’ s not about my family or his family , it ’ s about you , ” Biden said .
As Vox ’ s Andrew Prokop wrote , we don ’ t yet have enough comprehensive polling data to tell decisively who won the debate .
But the early polls and focus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
CBS News and YouGov have been tracking respondents in battleground states , and they were able to quickly contact some of those respondents and ask those who watched the Tuesday debate what they thought .
Overall , 48 percent said Biden won the debate , while 41 percent said Trump won , and 10 percent said it was a tie .
As CBS elections and survey director Anthony Salvanto pointed out on air , this was pretty close to the support for each candidate going in .
Kabir Khanna of the CBS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out that 42 percent of debate watchers said they thought worse of Trump afterward , and 24 percent said they thought better of him .
In contrast , 32 percent said they thought worse of Biden , while 38 percent thought better of him .
CNN and SSRS also conducted an instant poll of debate watchers , and they found a more lopsided margin in Biden ’ s favor .
Sixty percent of their respondents thought Biden won , while 28 percent thought Trump won .
Biden ’ s fundraising record set on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to turn an otherwise messy debate night to his advantage .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

At the end of a bruising first presidential debate on Tuesday night, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s campaign announced yet another fundraising milestone.
The campaign saw $3.8 million raised between 10-11 pm ET during the debate, breaking its own record for the amount raised in a single hour, according to campaign officials. A couple of hours later, Democratic National Committee officials announced the party had its best fundraising hour on record from 11 pm-12 am ET, although party officials did not say how much was raised.
“Joe Biden spoke directly to the American people tonight and they are responding,” Biden deputy campaign manager Kate Bedingfield told reporters.
The fundraising numbers are another sign of enthusiasm for the Democratic candidate, and will help ensure Biden has a cash advantage going into the last few weeks of a contentious campaign.
The haul — which comes after Democrats and progressive grassroots groups raised more than $300 million in the wake of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death — will also help keep Biden competitive against a Republican incumbent who has not been careful managing his money. President Donald Trump started out the race with a massive $1.1 billion war chest, but his campaign has spent the vast majority of that sum. The president now has less cash on hand than his Democratic competitor, and Biden and the Democrats have been outraising him in recent months.
Both campaigns’ best opportunities for fundraising thus far have come during big televised events, like Tuesday night’s debate and the Democratic National Convention. Biden’s campaign pulled in $70 million during the DNC; the Trump campaign later announced it had fundraised $76 million with the RNC and its various joint fundraising committees during the Republican National Convention.
As of Wednesday morning, the Trump campaign hadn’t yet released it’s post-debate fundraising numbers. A Trump campaign spokesperson did not immediately respond to Vox’s request for comment.
The debate was a mess, but it looks like Biden came out on top
The first presidential debate is typically a chance for the incumbent president to defend their record and make the case for a second term. Trump did none of that on Tuesday.
Instead, his debate performance was marked by shouting, constantly interrupting Biden (who exasperatedly said, “Will you shut up, man?”) and getting into arguments with debate moderator and Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace. Trump’s stand-out moment was when he again refused to condemn white supremacists, instead telling the violent far-right group Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by.”
Biden’s debate performance was muted at times, but the vice president more or less did what he needed to do. Biden looked directly into the camera to speak to Americans watching at home on Tuesday, with a consistent message: Trump doesn’t care about the people he’s supposed to lead, and Biden does.
“It’s not about my family or his family, it’s about you,” Biden said.
As Vox’s Andrew Prokop wrote, we don’t yet have enough comprehensive polling data to tell decisively who won the debate. But the early polls and focus groups are in Biden’s favor.
CBS News and YouGov have been tracking respondents in battleground states, and they were able to quickly contact some of those respondents and ask those who watched the Tuesday debate what they thought. Overall, 48 percent said Biden won the debate, while 41 percent said Trump won, and 10 percent said it was a tie. As CBS elections and survey director Anthony Salvanto pointed out on air, this was pretty close to the support for each candidate going in. Kabir Khanna of the CBS News Election and Survey Unit also points out that 42 percent of debate watchers said they thought worse of Trump afterward, and 24 percent said they thought better of him. In contrast, 32 percent said they thought worse of Biden, while 38 percent thought better of him. CNN and SSRS also conducted an instant poll of debate watchers, and they found a more lopsided margin in Biden’s favor. Sixty percent of their respondents thought Biden won, while 28 percent thought Trump won.
Biden’s fundraising record set on Tuesday night underscores that he was able to turn an otherwise messy debate night to his advantage.