vox--2020-08-31--A Trump judge’s attempt to bail out Michael Flynn ends

A federal appeals court ’ s 8-2 decision in In re : Michael T. Flynn , handed down Monday , affirms — over the objection of two right-wing judges — that the ordinary rules that apply to any other litigant also apply to President Trump ’ s former national security adviser .
Michael Flynn , a former general who briefly served as Trump ’ s top national security aide , won ’ t be able to have criminal charges against him dropped before his case is heard by a federal trial judge .
It ’ s hardly an earth-shattering legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because it unwinds a deeply radical opinion by one of President Trump ’ s most partisan appointees to the federal bench .
It remains likely that Flynn will escape federal charges that he lied to the FBI .
And it is likely that he will do so even though he once pleaded guilty to those charges .
But Flynn , at the very least , will not get a special exception to the rules governing criminal appeals .
Flynn tried to bypass the trial judge hearing his case The facts underlying Flynn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least , unusual .
In 2017 , Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI regarding his contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak .
Nearly three years later , however , Trump ’ s Justice Department decided to drop the charges against the former Trump aide .
Though DOJ admits that Flynn lied to investigators , the Justice Department now claims that these lies could not have “ conceivably ‘ influenced ’ an investigation that had neither legitimate or counterintelligence or criminal purpose.
” It is highly unusual for prosecutors to drop charges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure only permit the government to dismiss a prosecution “ with leave of court.
” So Judge Emmet Sullivan , the trial judge presiding over this case , decided to hold a hearing to address how he should proceed — and to consider whether Flynn should be held in contempt for perjury , a charge the court may pursue without DOJ ’ s consent .
Additionally , Sullivan asked a court-appointed lawyer to argue the case against Flynn , a common practice when parties appearing before a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heart of that case .
Judge Sullivan has yet to hold his hearing .
And he hasn ’ t ruled at all on whether the prosecution against Flynn should be dismissed .
It is possible — likely , even , since judges ordinary defer to prosecutors who wish to dismiss a case — that Sullivan will allow the original charges against Flynn to be dropped .
Should Sullivan rule against Flynn , Flynn always has the option of appealing that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against him on Monday .
But Flynn felt that he should not have to comply with the ordinary process that governs nearly every case that is heard by a federal district court .
Typically , the trial judge hears a case , decides it first , and then the case may be heard by an appeals court after the trial judge rules .
Instead , Flynn sought what is known as a “ writ of mandamus , ” a rarely granted court order that sometimes allows an appeals court to intervene against a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any event , the upshot of the DC Circuit ’ s decision in Flynn is that Flynn will have to comply with the same procedural rules as anyone else .
Quoting from a 1967 Supreme Court opinion , the court explains that “ a petition for a writ of mandamus ‘ may never be employed as a substitute for appeal.
’ ” Rather , mandamus relief is only available if “ the party seeking issuance of the writ [ has ] no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires.
” Because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — he can argue his case before Judge Sullivan , then appeal Sullivan ’ s decision if he doesn ’ t like it — mandamus relief is inappropriate .
The case only made it this far because of two outlier judges The DC Circuit ’ s Flynn ruling is a fairly rudimentary application of longstanding law .
So rudimentary , in fact , that it ’ s surprising that the full DC Circuit needed to consider this case at all .
The overwhelming majority of federal appeals court cases are heard by three-judge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from among the court ’ s judges .
In this case , Flynn briefly caught a lucky break because his panel included two extremely conservative judges : Judge Karen Henderson , a George H.W .
Bush appointee who sometimes took positions to Justice Brett Kavanaugh ’ s right when the two served together on the DC Circuit ; and Judge Neomi Rao , a recent Trump appointee who ’ s authored several dubiously reasoned decisions benefiting Trump or the Trump administration .
After Henderson and Rao voted to grant mandamus relief to Flynn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ override that decision .
Indeed , the full DC Circuit appears to have been so troubled by Henderson and Rao ’ s decision that they invoked an extraordinarily rare process to do so .
Less than 0.3 percent of all federal appeals court cases are heard “ en banc , ” the legal term for a full court hearing , according to a 2011 analysis of cases receiving en banc review .
Most of these cases , moreover , are heard en banc because the party that lost the case before a three-judge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case .
Yet in Flynn , the court disclosed that it decided to hear this case en banc “ based on a suggestion of a member of the court.
” Thus , Henderson and Rao ’ s colleagues appear to have decided , without needing to be prompted , that the two judges ’ decision could not stand .
That means that Rao wound up writing a dissenting opinion that was released on Monday , where she makes her best effort to defend her original decision benefiting Flynn .
The crux of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to special treatment because failing to grant him mandamus relief would upset the separation of powers .
“ In our system of separated powers , ” Rao claims in her dissent , “ the government may deprive a person of his liberty only upon the action of all three branches : Congress must pass a law criminalizing the activity ; the Executive must determine that prosecution is in the public interest ; and the Judiciary , independent of the political branches , must adjudicate the case.
” Thus , Flynn must prevail because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecutor.
” It is possible that , once this case winds its way through the courts , Judge Sullivan or maybe even the DC Circuit will agree with Rao on this point .
Again , the question in Flynn was whether Sullivan is allowed to hold a hearing before he decides whether to dismiss the charges against Flynn — not whether those charges may be sustained over DOJ ’ s objections .
But there is also very good reason to doubt Rao ’ s theory of the separation of powers .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as a constitutional matter , participate in prosecutions .
To the contrary , the modern system where federal prosecutions are typically initiated by executive branch officials in the Department of Justice is a fairly recent development .
As Fordham law professor Jed Shugerman explained in a 2019 article , for much of the nation ’ s history , the power to bring prosecutions wasn ’ t even limited to the government .
As Shugerman writes , “ for much of English and American history , most prosecution was not an executive function @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enterprise.
” Indeed , prosecutions led by lawyers in private practice were the norm for decades after the Constitution was ratified .
“ The vast majority of American prosecutions were still private through the mid-nineteenth century , ” Shugerman explains , “ as Allen Steinberg and many other historians have demonstrated.
” The Senate ’ s draft of the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave federal district judges — not the president — the power to appoint federal prosecutors .
And the final version of that law allowed many federal law enforcement officers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permits federal district judges to appoint interim US attorneys ( though only after a temporary appointee named by the attorney general has served for 120 days ) .
So Rao ’ s reasoning is , at best , anachronistic .
It ignores much of our nation ’ s early legal history .
And it even potentially endangers many modern prosecutions that are led by judicially appointed prosecutors .
Her reasoning also garnered little support from her colleagues .
And , given that the law is very clear that Flynn must follow the ordinary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s decision , it is unlikely — though certainly not impossible — that the Supreme Court will step in to grant mandamus relief to Flynn .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work , and helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

A federal appeals court’s 8-2 decision in In re: Michael T. Flynn, handed down Monday, affirms — over the objection of two right-wing judges — that the ordinary rules that apply to any other litigant also apply to President Trump’s former national security adviser. Michael Flynn, a former general who briefly served as Trump’s top national security aide, won’t be able to have criminal charges against him dropped before his case is heard by a federal trial judge.
It’s hardly an earth-shattering legal event. But the decision is significant because it unwinds a deeply radical opinion by one of President Trump’s most partisan appointees to the federal bench.
It remains likely that Flynn will escape federal charges that he lied to the FBI. And it is likely that he will do so even though he once pleaded guilty to those charges.
But Flynn, at the very least, will not get a special exception to the rules governing criminal appeals.
Flynn tried to bypass the trial judge hearing his case
The facts underlying Flynn’s case are, to say the least, unusual. In 2017, Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI regarding his contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Nearly three years later, however, Trump’s Justice Department decided to drop the charges against the former Trump aide. Though DOJ admits that Flynn lied to investigators, the Justice Department now claims that these lies could not have “conceivably ‘influenced’ an investigation that had neither legitimate or counterintelligence or criminal purpose.”
It is highly unusual for prosecutors to drop charges years after obtaining a guilty plea. And the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure only permit the government to dismiss a prosecution “with leave of court.” So Judge Emmet Sullivan, the trial judge presiding over this case, decided to hold a hearing to address how he should proceed — and to consider whether Flynn should be held in contempt for perjury, a charge the court may pursue without DOJ’s consent.
Additionally, Sullivan asked a court-appointed lawyer to argue the case against Flynn, a common practice when parties appearing before a court have presented important arguments at the heart of that case.
Judge Sullivan has yet to hold his hearing. And he hasn’t ruled at all on whether the prosecution against Flynn should be dismissed. It is possible — likely, even, since judges ordinary defer to prosecutors who wish to dismiss a case — that Sullivan will allow the original charges against Flynn to be dropped. Should Sullivan rule against Flynn, Flynn always has the option of appealing that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — the same court that ruled against him on Monday.
But Flynn felt that he should not have to comply with the ordinary process that governs nearly every case that is heard by a federal district court. Typically, the trial judge hears a case, decides it first, and then the case may be heard by an appeals court after the trial judge rules. Instead, Flynn sought what is known as a “writ of mandamus,” a rarely granted court order that sometimes allows an appeals court to intervene against a trial judge’s wishes.
In any event, the upshot of the DC Circuit’s decision in Flynn is that Flynn will have to comply with the same procedural rules as anyone else. Quoting from a 1967 Supreme Court opinion, the court explains that “a petition for a writ of mandamus ‘may never be employed as a substitute for appeal.’”
Rather, mandamus relief is only available if “the party seeking issuance of the writ [has] no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires.” Because Flynn has another means available to him — he can argue his case before Judge Sullivan, then appeal Sullivan’s decision if he doesn’t like it — mandamus relief is inappropriate.
The case only made it this far because of two outlier judges
The DC Circuit’s Flynn ruling is a fairly rudimentary application of longstanding law. So rudimentary, in fact, that it’s surprising that the full DC Circuit needed to consider this case at all.
The overwhelming majority of federal appeals court cases are heard by three-judge panels, whose members are selected randomly from among the court’s judges. In this case, Flynn briefly caught a lucky break because his panel included two extremely conservative judges: Judge Karen Henderson, a George H.W. Bush appointee who sometimes took positions to Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s right when the two served together on the DC Circuit; and Judge Neomi Rao, a recent Trump appointee who’s authored several dubiously reasoned decisions benefiting Trump or the Trump administration.
After Henderson and Rao voted to grant mandamus relief to Flynn, the full court stepped in to override that decision. Indeed, the full DC Circuit appears to have been so troubled by Henderson and Rao’s decision that they invoked an extraordinarily rare process to do so.
Less than 0.3 percent of all federal appeals court cases are heard “en banc,” the legal term for a full court hearing, according to a 2011 analysis of cases receiving en banc review. Most of these cases, moreover, are heard en banc because the party that lost the case before a three-judge panel asked the full court to reconsider the case.
Yet in Flynn, the court disclosed that it decided to hear this case en banc “based on a suggestion of a member of the court.” Thus, Henderson and Rao’s colleagues appear to have decided, without needing to be prompted, that the two judges’ decision could not stand.
That means that Rao wound up writing a dissenting opinion that was released on Monday, where she makes her best effort to defend her original decision benefiting Flynn. The crux of her argument is that Flynn is entitled to special treatment because failing to grant him mandamus relief would upset the separation of powers.
“In our system of separated powers,” Rao claims in her dissent, “the government may deprive a person of his liberty only upon the action of all three branches: Congress must pass a law criminalizing the activity; the Executive must determine that prosecution is in the public interest; and the Judiciary, independent of the political branches, must adjudicate the case.”
Thus, Flynn must prevail because “the prosecution no longer has a prosecutor.”
It is possible that, once this case winds its way through the courts, Judge Sullivan or maybe even the DC Circuit will agree with Rao on this point. Again, the question in Flynn was whether Sullivan is allowed to hold a hearing before he decides whether to dismiss the charges against Flynn — not whether those charges may be sustained over DOJ’s objections.
But there is also very good reason to doubt Rao’s theory of the separation of powers. It is simply untrue that the executive branch must, as a constitutional matter, participate in prosecutions. To the contrary, the modern system where federal prosecutions are typically initiated by executive branch officials in the Department of Justice is a fairly recent development.
As Fordham law professor Jed Shugerman explained in a 2019 article, for much of the nation’s history, the power to bring prosecutions wasn’t even limited to the government. As Shugerman writes, “for much of English and American history, most prosecution was not an executive function at all because it was a private enterprise.”
Indeed, prosecutions led by lawyers in private practice were the norm for decades after the Constitution was ratified. “The vast majority of American prosecutions were still private through the mid-nineteenth century,” Shugerman explains, “as Allen Steinberg and many other historians have demonstrated.”
The Senate’s draft of the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave federal district judges — not the president — the power to appoint federal prosecutors. And the final version of that law allowed many federal law enforcement officers to be removed by judges. Current law permits federal district judges to appoint interim US attorneys (though only after a temporary appointee named by the attorney general has served for 120 days).
So Rao’s reasoning is, at best, anachronistic. It ignores much of our nation’s early legal history. And it even potentially endangers many modern prosecutions that are led by judicially appointed prosecutors.
Her reasoning also garnered little support from her colleagues. And, given that the law is very clear that Flynn must follow the ordinary process if he disagrees with Sullivan’s decision, it is unlikely — though certainly not impossible — that the Supreme Court will step in to grant mandamus relief to Flynn.


vox--2020-08-31--Trump’s intelligence chief suspends in-person election security briefings

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence ( ODNI ) told Congress that it would no longer deliver in-person election security briefings , a move that ’ s angered lawmakers as Election Day approaches .
The change could make it more difficult for members of Congress to ask detailed questions about election security or press officials on their findings , a worrisome proposition for oversight in a year when foreign meddling has already been confirmed .
Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe , a Trump loyalist confirmed to the position in May , informed members of the House and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they will continue to provide members with written updates .
Ratcliffe explained to congressional leaders that the move is to prevent “ unauthorized disclosures , ” a.k.a .
leaks , of sensitive information by members of Congress , which he suggested was taking place .
( He didn ’ t explain why verbal briefings would be subject to leaks but written briefings would not . )
“ I believe this approach helps ensure , to the maximum extent possible , that the information ODNI provides Congress in support of your oversight responsibilities on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and election interference is not misunderstood nor politicized , ” Ratcliffe wrote in a letter dated August 28 .
“ It will also better protect our sources and methods and most sensitive intelligence from additional unauthorized disclosures or misuse.
” CNN , citing an ODNI official , reported that other intelligence entities that play a role in election security , including the FBI and Department of Homeland Security , will continue to brief lawmakers .
But lawmakers directly pushed back against Ratcliffe ’ s decision , with most of the criticism came from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has an obligation to brief Congress on threats to our elections .
Director Ratcliffe ’ s outrageous decision to stop providing briefings to Congress is an unprecedented attempt to politicize an issue — protecting our democracy from foreign intervention — that should be non-partisan , ” Sen. Mark Warner ( D-VA ) , vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence , said in a statement .
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) and Rep. Adam Schiff ( D-CA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Committee , said in a joint statement that the DNI ’ s decision is “ a shocking abdication of its lawful responsibility to keep the Congress currently informed , and a betrayal of the public ’ s right to know how foreign powers are trying to subvert our democracy.
” They added that the ODNI had canceled an election briefing for lawmakers scheduled in mid-September .
As for Republicans , Sen. Ron Johnson ( R-WI ) said the change was being “ blown out of proportion.
” Sen. Marco Rubio ( R-FL ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Intelligence Committee also accused member of Congress of leaking and politicizing information , but said in a statement that that “ does not release the intelligence community from fulfilling its legal requirements to respond to Congressional oversight committees and to keep members of Congress fully informed of relevant information on a timely basis.
” This change — with just two months until election day — comes after the National Counterintelligence and Security Center Director William Evanina confirmed in August that foreign actors were attempting to influence the 2020 election , calling out Russia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ODNI acknowledged that “ Russia is using a range of measures to primarily denigrate former Vice President Biden , ” but said China and Iran preferred Biden .
Some Democrats had urged intelligence officials to release more information publicly so American voters could be on guard against election interference .
Why limiting briefings before November 3 is a big deal The ODNI ’ s decision to switch to mostly written briefings likely means intelligence officials will get to more tightly control what information is included in those reports .
It ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and that may limit what details Congress and the public know about election security weeks before the election .
Rep. Schiff has suggested that Congress could subpoena the information , if necessary .
Evelyn Farkas , a former senior Pentagon official for Russia , Ukraine , and Eurasia from 2012 to 2015 , said that foreign and domestic threats against free and fair elections are political warfare .
“ When there ’ s any kind of war , you get regular in-person briefings from the administration , ” she told me .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ urgent , you need to be kept up to date as a member of Congress , because you need to be able to make decisions about funding , about whether the administration is doing a good enough job as part of their oversight responsibilities.
” She added it also directly involves members of Congress — many are running for reelection , after all — and the constituents who could potentially be influenced .
Sources and methods need to be protected , but the more the public is aware of the real threats , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And the ODNI ’ s decision to scale back briefings comes amid larger questions about the potential politicization of intelligence under the Trump administration .
President Donald Trump has repeatedly rejected the intelligence community ’ s assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 election with the goal of boosting his candidacy , and he has downplayed the Kremlin ’ s 2020 activities , contradicting his own officials .
A New York Times investigation revealed that intelligence officials tweaked assessments about Russia ’ s aims in the 2020 election so as not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to nominate Ratcliffe for the intelligence job in July 2019 , but Ratcliffe was quickly forced to withdraw his nomination after bipartisan pushback over his qualifications and because he embellished his resume .
Joseph Maguire took over as the acting DNI , but Trump fired him in February , reportedly because he was furious over a briefing to Congress that indicated Russia again preferred Trump .
In his place , Trump appointed Ric Grenell , the then-US ambassador to Germany and another Trump loyalist with no intelligence experience , to serve as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominated Ratcliffe again — and won .
Trump and his Republican allies have used the conclusions of special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation — which did not find conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian actors but confirmed Russian interference in the 2016 elections — to accuse Democrats of overhyping the “ Russia hoax.
” But a bipartisan Senate investigation also found that Russia did meddle to help Trump in 2016 , and their final report details that Russia most definitely made overtures to the Trump campaign and found among their ranks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
By all accounts , Russia is at it again — and China and Iran , too , are contemplating strategies to undermine the 2020 election .
That ’ s a national security threat to all Americans , but the public ’ s understanding of it is increasingly being shaped by partisan divisions .
Foreign actors , like Russia , have tried to exploit these very divisions .
And that ultimately makes it much easier for those interference activities to succeed in undermining American democracy .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of an increasingly chaotic world .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) told Congress that it would no longer deliver in-person election security briefings, a move that’s angered lawmakers as Election Day approaches.
The change could make it more difficult for members of Congress to ask detailed questions about election security or press officials on their findings, a worrisome proposition for oversight in a year when foreign meddling has already been confirmed.
Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, a Trump loyalist confirmed to the position in May, informed members of the House and Senate Friday of the change, noting they will continue to provide members with written updates. Ratcliffe explained to congressional leaders that the move is to prevent “unauthorized disclosures,” a.k.a. leaks, of sensitive information by members of Congress, which he suggested was taking place. (He didn’t explain why verbal briefings would be subject to leaks but written briefings would not.)
“I believe this approach helps ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that the information ODNI provides Congress in support of your oversight responsibilities on elections security, foreign malign influence, and election interference is not misunderstood nor politicized,” Ratcliffe wrote in a letter dated August 28. “It will also better protect our sources and methods and most sensitive intelligence from additional unauthorized disclosures or misuse.”
CNN, citing an ODNI official, reported that other intelligence entities that play a role in election security, including the FBI and Department of Homeland Security, will continue to brief lawmakers.
But lawmakers directly pushed back against Ratcliffe’s decision, with most of the criticism came from Democrats who called the decision “outrageous.”
“The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has an obligation to brief Congress on threats to our elections. Director Ratcliffe’s outrageous decision to stop providing briefings to Congress is an unprecedented attempt to politicize an issue — protecting our democracy from foreign intervention — that should be non-partisan,” Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said in a statement.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), chair of the House Intelligence Committee, said in a joint statement that the DNI’s decision is “a shocking abdication of its lawful responsibility to keep the Congress currently informed, and a betrayal of the public’s right to know how foreign powers are trying to subvert our democracy.” They added that the ODNI had canceled an election briefing for lawmakers scheduled in mid-September.
As for Republicans, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) said the change was being “blown out of proportion.” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), the acting chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee also accused member of Congress of leaking and politicizing information, but said in a statement that that “does not release the intelligence community from fulfilling its legal requirements to respond to Congressional oversight committees and to keep members of Congress fully informed of relevant information on a timely basis.”
This change — with just two months until election day — comes after the National Counterintelligence and Security Center Director William Evanina confirmed in August that foreign actors were attempting to influence the 2020 election, calling out Russia, China, and Iran. The ODNI acknowledged that “Russia is using a range of measures to primarily denigrate former Vice President Biden,” but said China and Iran preferred Biden. Some Democrats had urged intelligence officials to release more information publicly so American voters could be on guard against election interference.
Why limiting briefings before November 3 is a big deal
The ODNI’s decision to switch to mostly written briefings likely means intelligence officials will get to more tightly control what information is included in those reports. It’s not clear how thorough those briefings will be, and that may limit what details Congress and the public know about election security weeks before the election. Rep. Schiff has suggested that Congress could subpoena the information, if necessary.
Evelyn Farkas, a former senior Pentagon official for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia from 2012 to 2015, said that foreign and domestic threats against free and fair elections are political warfare. “When there’s any kind of war, you get regular in-person briefings from the administration,” she told me. “Why? Because it’s urgent, you need to be kept up to date as a member of Congress, because you need to be able to make decisions about funding, about whether the administration is doing a good enough job as part of their oversight responsibilities.”
She added it also directly involves members of Congress — many are running for reelection, after all — and the constituents who could potentially be influenced. Sources and methods need to be protected, but the more the public is aware of the real threats, the better a safeguard for our elections.
And the ODNI’s decision to scale back briefings comes amid larger questions about the potential politicization of intelligence under the Trump administration.
President Donald Trump has repeatedly rejected the intelligence community’s assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 election with the goal of boosting his candidacy, and he has downplayed the Kremlin’s 2020 activities, contradicting his own officials. A New York Times investigation revealed that intelligence officials tweaked assessments about Russia’s aims in the 2020 election so as not to upset the president.
Trump first tried to nominate Ratcliffe for the intelligence job in July 2019, but Ratcliffe was quickly forced to withdraw his nomination after bipartisan pushback over his qualifications and because he embellished his resume.
Joseph Maguire took over as the acting DNI, but Trump fired him in February, reportedly because he was furious over a briefing to Congress that indicated Russia again preferred Trump. In his place, Trump appointed Ric Grenell, the then-US ambassador to Germany and another Trump loyalist with no intelligence experience, to serve as the new acting director. Then, Trump nominated Ratcliffe again — and won.
Trump and his Republican allies have used the conclusions of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation — which did not find conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian actors but confirmed Russian interference in the 2016 elections — to accuse Democrats of overhyping the “Russia hoax.” But a bipartisan Senate investigation also found that Russia did meddle to help Trump in 2016, and their final report details that Russia most definitely made overtures to the Trump campaign and found among their ranks people who were receptive to foreign help.
By all accounts, Russia is at it again — and China and Iran, too, are contemplating strategies to undermine the 2020 election. That’s a national security threat to all Americans, but the public’s understanding of it is increasingly being shaped by partisan divisions. Foreign actors, like Russia, have tried to exploit these very divisions. And that ultimately makes it much easier for those interference activities to succeed in undermining American democracy.


vox--2020-08-31--Join the Vox Book Club!

Join the Vox Book Club!

The Vox Book Club is linking to Bookshop.org to support local and independent book sellers .
Here ’ s how the Vox Book Club works : Every month , we pick a book .
Throughout the month , we publish discussion posts containing thoughts and questions from Vox book critic Constance Grady , but we also have comments turned on and moderated so you can share your thoughts , too .
Talk among yourselves !
Post your opinions and questions !
Or use our discussion posts as a jumping-off point for ( socially distanced ) discussions with your own friends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the month , we gather on Zoom for a virtual live discussion .
Our pick for September is Elif Batuman ’ s The Idiot .
The Idiot was one of Vox book critic Constance Grady ’ s favorite novels of 2017 , a weird and funny and tender book about communication and semiotics and how absolutely bizarre language is .
It ’ s a campus novel set at Harvard in 1995 , during the cultural moment when email was just becoming a thing .
Freshman student Selin is struggling to figure out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person Harvard freshmen are supposed to be : She has to consciously remember to pretend she can ’ t resist chocolate , and when her roommate tells her to buy an Einstein poster , instead of buying the one where Einstein ’ s sticking out his tongue , she buys just a portrait of Einstein , so everyone thinks she stans for him and keeps explaining his flaws to her the whole year .
One day , Selin strikes up an email correspondence with a boy she ’ s barely spoken to , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strange and unexpected ways .
To close out the month , Constance will host a live discussion of The Idiot on Wednesday , September 30 , with the author herself , Elif Batuman .
Come join us !
Sign up here to be notified about new book selections , discussions , and related live events .
Friday , September 11 : First discussion post on The Idiot Friday , September 25 : Second discussion post on The Idiot Wednesday , September 30 : Virtual live discussion featuring Vox book critic Constance Grady and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up for the Vox Book Club newsletter and we ’ ll send you the RSVP link as soon as it ’ s up !

The Vox Book Club is linking to Bookshop.org to support local and independent booksellers.
Here’s how the Vox Book Club works: Each month, we pick a book. Around the middle of the month, we publish a discussion post containing thoughts and questions from Vox book critic Constance Grady, but we also have comments turned on and moderated so you can share your thoughts, too. Talk among yourselves! Post your opinions and questions! Or use the conversation as a jumping-off point for your own conversations with friends and family. And at the end of the month, we gather on Zoom for a virtual live discussion.
Our pick for November 2021 is Such a Fun Age by Kiley Reid. It’s a witty and biting debut novel that also contains one of the cringiest Thanksgiving scenes ever committed to the page. We’ll have plenty to discuss here on the site, and at the end of the month, we’ll meet with Reid herself live on Zoom to discuss the whole thing. RSVP here to join the fun, and in the meantime, subscribe to the Vox Book Club newsletter to make sure you don’t miss anything.
Here’s the full Vox Book Club schedule for November 2021:
Friday, November 19: Discussion post on Such a Fun Age published to Vox.com
Tuesday, November 30, 5 pm Eastern: Virtual live event with author Kiley Reid. RSVP here. Reader questions are encouraged!


vox--2020-08-31--What we know about a deadly shooting in Portland, Oregon

A shooter killed one person in Portland , Oregon , on Saturday night , according to a statement by the Portland Police Bureau .
Details are still emerging , but the victim is believed to be Aaron Danielson , a supporter of the far-right Patriot Prayer group ; according to Willamette Week reporter Aaron Mesh , the victim was wearing a hat and shirt with the group ’ s logo .
The shooting comes after supporters of President Donald Trump led a caravan of vehicles through the city Saturday and clashed with anti-police brutality protesters in Portland ’ s downtown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trucks flying Trump flags driving through people on a street and unleashing pepper spray as the vehicles forced their way through a crowd of protesters .
At least 10 people were arrested Saturday by Portland police on a variety of charges , including disorderly conduct and “ interfering with a peace officer , ” but no arrests have been made in connection with the shooting .
The killing follows another instance of deadly street violence from just days ago : On Tuesday , a 17-year-old Trump supporter allegedly shot and killed two protesters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and injured a third .
Kenosha has been the site of major protests since police shot Jacob Blake , a Black man , at least seven times in the back on Sunday , leaving him paralyzed from the waist down .
Early Sunday , Trump issued a string of tweets and retweets , including one retweet and a tweet condemning Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler ’ s leadership of the city .
“ The National Guard is Ready , Willing and Able ” to deploy , Trump wrote in a quote tweet shortly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump has attempted to paint himself as the “ law and order ” candidate ahead of the general election in November , and all signs point to his campaign believing that more violence is good for the president ’ s reelection chances .
Specifically , senior adviser to the president Kellyanne Conway told Fox & Friends on Thursday that “ the more chaos and anarchy and vandalism and violence reigns , the better it is for the very clear choice on who ’ s best on public safety and law and order ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is happening under the Trump administration , and Democratic nominee Joe Biden hasn ’ t held elected office since January 2017 .
Trump himself has argued that increasing unrest and recent violence is the result of Democratic leadership at the local level rather than the result of any of his policies or rhetoric .
In a statement Sunday , Biden reacted to the shooting by saying he condemned the violence “ unequivocally.
” “ We must not become a country at war with ourselves , ” Biden said .
“ But that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be , the America he believes we are .
As a country , we must condemn the incitement of hate and resentment that led to this deadly clash.
” Portland has been the site of continuous Black Lives Matter protests for approximately three months following the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis , Minnesota , in May .
Federal agents were deployed to the city in July , and armed far-right protesters have been a frequent presence as well .
The story is still developing .
Here ’ s what we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so far .
What we know • The Oregonian reports that the victim ’ s name was Aaron Danielson , a supporter of the far-right group Patriot Prayer .
Danielson was shot in the chest at around 8:46 pm Pacific time , and died at the scene .
• Joey Gibson , the leader of Patriot Prayer , confirmed Danielson ’ s affiliation with the group to local NBC News affiliate KGW ’ s Tim Gordon on Sunday .
“ I can confirm that he was a good friend and supporter of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • A 48-year-old man , Michael Forest Reinoehl , is reportedly under investigation for the shooting , according to the Oregonian .
• The shooting comes after Trump supporters in downtown Portland unleashed pepper spray and paintballs on protesters and journalists , and amid clashes between supporters of the president and protesters .
• Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf told ABC Sunday morning that “ all options continue to be on the table ” in terms of federal action in Portland .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work , and helping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

A shooter killed one person in Portland, Oregon, on Saturday night, according to a statement by the Portland Police Bureau.
Details are still emerging, but the victim is believed to be Aaron Danielson, a supporter of the far-right Patriot Prayer group; according to Willamette Week reporter Aaron Mesh, the victim was wearing a hat and shirt with the group’s logo.
The shooting comes after supporters of President Donald Trump led a caravan of vehicles through the city Saturday and clashed with anti-police brutality protesters in Portland’s downtown; video from journalist Cory Elia shows trucks flying Trump flags driving through people on a street and unleashing pepper spray as the vehicles forced their way through a crowd of protesters.
At least 10 people were arrested Saturday by Portland police on a variety of charges, including disorderly conduct and “interfering with a peace officer,” but no arrests have been made in connection with the shooting.
The killing follows another instance of deadly street violence from just days ago: On Tuesday, a 17-year-old Trump supporter allegedly shot and killed two protesters in the city of Kenosha, Wisconsin, and injured a third. Kenosha has been the site of major protests since police shot Jacob Blake, a Black man, at least seven times in the back on Sunday, leaving him paralyzed from the waist down.
Early Sunday, Trump issued a string of tweets and retweets, including one retweet and a tweet condemning Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler’s leadership of the city. “The National Guard is Ready, Willing and Able” to deploy, Trump wrote in a quote tweet shortly after calling Wheeler a “fool.”
The National Guard is Ready, Willing and Able. All the Governor has to do is call! https://t.co/iRe5ExgRGO — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 30, 2020
Trump has attempted to paint himself as the “law and order” candidate ahead of the general election in November, and all signs point to his campaign believing that more violence is good for the president’s reelection chances.
Specifically, senior adviser to the president Kellyanne Conway told Fox & Friends on Thursday that “the more chaos and anarchy and vandalism and violence reigns, the better it is for the very clear choice on who’s best on public safety and law and order” — an odd message given the violence is happening under the Trump administration, and Democratic nominee Joe Biden hasn’t held elected office since January 2017. Trump himself has argued that increasing unrest and recent violence is the result of Democratic leadership at the local level rather than the result of any of his policies or rhetoric.
In a statement Sunday, Biden reacted to the shooting by saying he condemned the violence “unequivocally.”
“We must not become a country at war with ourselves,” Biden said. “But that is the America that President Trump wants us to be, the America he believes we are. As a country, we must condemn the incitement of hate and resentment that led to this deadly clash.”
Portland has been the site of continuous Black Lives Matter protests for approximately three months following the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in May. Federal agents were deployed to the city in July, and armed far-right protesters have been a frequent presence as well.
The story is still developing. Here’s what we know, and don’t know, so far.
What we know


vox--2020-08-31--Voice of America reporters: Trump-backed CEO “is failing” the US

The tenure of the Steve Bannon ally who President Donald Trump appointed to run the vast global network of news agencies operated by the US government is going about as well you ’ d expect .
That is to say : not well at all , if you ask top reporters at one of the most prestigious outlets he now manages .
On Monday , 14 reporters at Voice of America sent a letter to their acting editor to sharply rebuke Michael Pack , the CEO of the US Agency for Global Media , for his controversial campaign to — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ drain the swamp.
” “ We fear that the current USAGM leadership is failing not only the news organizations ... and our audiences , but also our stakeholders , including the American public , ” reads the letter , signed by VOA Washington editor Aru Pande , White House bureau chief Steve Herman , Islamabad bureau chief Ayesha Tanzeem , and others .
“ Michael Pack ’ s actions risk crippling programs and projects for some countries that are considered national security priorities.
” Pack has made a series of eyebrow-raising moves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn the taxpayer-funded USAGM into a pro-Trump shop .
USAGM , which oversees VOA , Middle East Broadcasting , Radio Free Asia , Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty , and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting , had its bent before Pack arrived .
For instance , those outlets ran many stories that we effectively pro-US propaganda — particularly during World War II and the Cold War — though the news is much more objective now at the whole agency .
But Pack ’ s moves to reshape the agency have experts — and now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other things , he replaced the editors of four outlets at the agency within hours of becoming the Senate-confirmed CEO in June and fired senior officials for pointing out possible violations of the “ firewall ” that protects USAGM reporters from political interference .
Listen to Pack describe what he ’ s up to , and he defends taking action to rid the government agency of an alleged left-wing bent , deep-state plants , and foreign spies — even though he has provided no clear evidence for the presence of any of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drain the swamp , to root out corruption , and to deal with these issues of bias , ” he said on The Federalist Radio Hour podcast last week , joking with the host that he ’ d “ look into ” doing so by turning off the air conditioning or banning masks .
However , he did say it was not his goal “ to tell journalists what to report ” and that he ’ s not purging employees .
Later in the interview , Pack said , “ Foreign intelligence agencies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these agencies have been interested in penetrating them .
To be a journalist is a great cover for a spy , ” though he said he ’ s unaware of any staffer with ties to foreign intelligence , blaming that lack of knowledge on poor security screenings at the agency .
Such statements led to Monday ’ s letter from VOA reporters .
“ Many of us have repeatedly put ourselves in harm ’ s way abroad for our audiences of several hundred million people in nearly 50 languages , ” the signatories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ competent and professional oversight ” from their leaders in accordance with federal law .
The letter , obtained by Vox and others , puts a months-long internal fight for the future of US broadcasting out into the open .
What ’ s happening at USAGM isn ’ t just a disagreement about how one government agency operates , but also about how America represents itself to the world and the model it sets for other nations .
As I ’ ve previously written , these outlets were created “ to disseminate factual , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries where freedom of the press is either strongly curtailed or nonexistent.
” Though the news agencies are funded and overseen by the federal government , they operate independently when it comes to all editorial decisions like what stories to cover and how to cover them .
That “ firewall , ” enshrined in US law , “ prohibits interference by any US government official in the objective , independent reporting of news , thereby safeguarding the ability of our journalists to develop content that reflects the highest professional standards of journalism , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the VOA website .
This serves a critical purpose in US diplomacy abroad : Showcasing America ’ s ability to report independently , without direct government interference in the editorial process , displays the US as a free society where freedom of the press is not only protected but valued .
Pack , who is aware his actions have ruffled feathers inside and outside the organization , must now contend with the public discontent of his own employees .
It ’ s unlikely he ’ ll fire all 14 staffers , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strong pushback from Congress and potentially flout political interference protection laws .
USAGM didn ’ t immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter .
Pack has a point when he says his agency has problems , many of which have been previously highlighted by Democrats such as Hillary Clinton .
A recent controversy last month included a video made by Voice of America ’ s Urdu service which many ( including Pack ) said looked more like a pro-Biden political ad than a news piece , leading the CEO to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the production .
None of that justifies the blunt remedies Pack is proposing , experts say , namely his insistence of security problems at US-funded news outlets .
“ Pack ’ s insistence that there were issues related to security in hiring at VOA is merely a smokescreen to avert attention from his blatant attempt to interfere with the legislatively mandated independence , or firewall , protecting the journalists of VOA from government interference , ” former USAGM CEO John Lansing told NPR — the outlet he now leads — on Monday .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ revolt will cause Pack to change his ways .
Based on his actions and comments so far , though , that seems unlikely — which means an intra-USAGM fight is likely to continue spilling out into the open for weeks to come .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work , and helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The tenure of the Steve Bannon ally who President Donald Trump appointed to run the vast global network of news agencies operated by the US government is going about as well you’d expect. That is to say: not well at all, if you ask top reporters at one of the most prestigious outlets he now manages.
On Monday, 14 reporters at Voice of America sent a letter to their acting editor to sharply rebuke Michael Pack, the CEO of the US Agency for Global Media, for his controversial campaign to — as he put it last week — “drain the swamp.”
“We fear that the current USAGM leadership is failing not only the news organizations ... and our audiences, but also our stakeholders, including the American public,” reads the letter, signed by VOA Washington editor Aru Pande, White House bureau chief Steve Herman, Islamabad bureau chief Ayesha Tanzeem, and others. “Michael Pack’s actions risk crippling programs and projects for some countries that are considered national security priorities.”
Pack has made a series of eyebrow-raising moves that have many suspecting he aims to turn the taxpayer-funded USAGM into a pro-Trump shop.
USAGM, which oversees VOA, Middle East Broadcasting, Radio Free Asia, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, had its bent before Pack arrived. For instance, those outlets ran many stories that we effectively pro-US propaganda — particularly during World War II and the Cold War — though the news is much more objective now at the whole agency.
But Pack’s moves to reshape the agency have experts — and now his own reporters — worried. Among other things, he replaced the editors of four outlets at the agency within hours of becoming the Senate-confirmed CEO in June and fired senior officials for pointing out possible violations of the “firewall” that protects USAGM reporters from political interference.
Listen to Pack describe what he’s up to, and he defends taking action to rid the government agency of an alleged left-wing bent, deep-state plants, and foreign spies — even though he has provided no clear evidence for the presence of any of those.
“My job really is to drain the swamp, to root out corruption, and to deal with these issues of bias,” he said on The Federalist Radio Hour podcast last week, joking with the host that he’d “look into” doing so by turning off the air conditioning or banning masks. However, he did say it was not his goal “to tell journalists what to report” and that he’s not purging employees.
Later in the interview, Pack said, “Foreign intelligence agencies from the beginning of the creation of these agencies have been interested in penetrating them. To be a journalist is a great cover for a spy,” though he said he’s unaware of any staffer with ties to foreign intelligence, blaming that lack of knowledge on poor security screenings at the agency.
Such statements led to Monday’s letter from VOA reporters.
“Many of us have repeatedly put ourselves in harm’s way abroad for our audiences of several hundred million people in nearly 50 languages,” the signatories wrote, and therefore “insist on competent and professional oversight” from their leaders in accordance with federal law.
The letter, obtained by Vox and others, puts a months-long internal fight for the future of US broadcasting out into the open.
Why the USAGM fight matters
What’s happening at USAGM isn’t just a disagreement about how one government agency operates, but also about how America represents itself to the world and the model it sets for other nations.
As I’ve previously written, these outlets were created “to disseminate factual, unbiased news to people who live in countries where freedom of the press is either strongly curtailed or nonexistent.”
Though the news agencies are funded and overseen by the federal government, they operate independently when it comes to all editorial decisions like what stories to cover and how to cover them. That “firewall,” enshrined in US law, “prohibits interference by any US government official in the objective, independent reporting of news, thereby safeguarding the ability of our journalists to develop content that reflects the highest professional standards of journalism, free of political interference,” according to the VOA website. This serves a critical purpose in US diplomacy abroad: Showcasing America’s ability to report independently, without direct government interference in the editorial process, displays the US as a free society where freedom of the press is not only protected but valued.
Pack, who is aware his actions have ruffled feathers inside and outside the organization, must now contend with the public discontent of his own employees. It’s unlikely he’ll fire all 14 staffers, though, as such a move would receive strong pushback from Congress and potentially flout political interference protection laws.
USAGM didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter.
Pack has a point when he says his agency has problems, many of which have been previously highlighted by Democrats such as Hillary Clinton. A recent controversy last month included a video made by Voice of America’s Urdu service which many (including Pack) said looked more like a pro-Biden political ad than a news piece, leading the CEO to remove multiple contractors and editors involved with the production.
None of that justifies the blunt remedies Pack is proposing, experts say, namely his insistence of security problems at US-funded news outlets.
“Pack’s insistence that there were issues related to security in hiring at VOA is merely a smokescreen to avert attention from his blatant attempt to interfere with the legislatively mandated independence, or firewall, protecting the journalists of VOA from government interference,” former USAGM CEO John Lansing told NPR — the outlet he now leads — on Monday.
The question now is if the open revolt will cause Pack to change his ways. Based on his actions and comments so far, though, that seems unlikely — which means an intra-USAGM fight is likely to continue spilling out into the open for weeks to come.


vox--2020-08-31--Donald Trump is the president

Donald Trump is the president

Speaking from the convention stage in Cleveland in 2016 , Donald Trump made a solemn promise to the American people : that “ the crime and violence that today afflicts our nation will soon come to an end .
Beginning on January 20 , 2017 , safety will be restored.
” It was , at the time , a striking promise .
Starting in 1994 , the US murder rate had fallen consistently for 20 years .
Violent crime had fallen so much that nobody talked about it anymore as a political issue , and the “ tough on crime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was widely viewed as embarrassing .
After Michael Brown ’ s death at the hands of police in Ferguson , Missouri , the mainstream conversation in the United States was about criminal justice reform , not reducing crime .
But crime went up a bit in 2015 and then up by a larger amount in 2016 .
Progressives didn ’ t really want to talk about it , but Trump — a man who seems unafraid to be seen as an embarrassing throwback to the 1980s — did .
It ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particular gambit persuasive and appealing , but obviously Trump thinks it works because he ’ s saying the same stuff again .
And if Trump were just some guy on Twitter , that would make sense : Murder is on the rise again after ticking down for a few years , and acts of looting and vandalism are occurring in cities across the country .
But Donald Trump is the president of the United States .
He promised four years ago to restore safety and bring law and order to our streets .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ about how he would do that , but it didn ’ t matter .
He was the “ law and order ” candidate .
But today he ’ s a candidate with a record .
A record of rising crime and urban disorder , and a record that makes it clear he has no idea how to make any of it better — and is intervening in several ways to make it worse .
One of the greatest oddities of the 2020 election season is that while it offers many examples of Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the police , the exact opposite is happening on a policymaking level .
Trump has been very critical of the 1994 crime bill and the 2009 economic recovery act , both of which increased federal support for local police .
He ’ s also submitted four budget proposals to Congress , each of which proposed cuts in police spending .
More to the point , right now politicians are debating what to do about the expiration of bonus unemployment insurance money that was provided by the CARES Act .
Democrats and Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the structure of UI benefits .
But they are also arguing about Democrats ’ desire to provide state and local government with a massive injection of emergency aid money to plug giant budget holes created by the Covid-19 pandemic .
With no aid forthcoming due to GOP opposition , cities are cutting budgets .
And while the abstract defunding debate plays out among intellectuals , real cities are cutting .
Not just liberal enclaves , either .
Oklahoma City , one of the most conservative cities in America , is cutting its police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the board .
If you believe in the empirical evidence that more cops equals less crime — which Trump seems to pretend to — then this trend would appear to make America less safe .
And that ’ s only more so the case , given that the cutbacks in policing will be paired with cuts to mental health and other social services and occur at a time of high unemployment .
But while Trump undermines public safety , he also undermines citizens ’ efforts to demand accountability for the actions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the administration ’ s standpoint has been to deny that any increased accountability from police is needed .
In February 2017 , then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the administration would no longer pursue civil rights lawsuits or investigations of alleged police abuses .
Sessions characterized federal consent decrees , a powerful tool DOJ can use to fight abuses , as “ an insult.
” In August , he reversed course on another Obama-era policy and restarted the flow of military equipment to police departments .
Trump himself has written in praise of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about White House protests that “ whenever someone got too frisky or out of line , [ the Secret Service ] would quickly come down on them , hard — didn ’ t know what hit them , ” before fantasizing about scenarios in which protesters would breach the White House fence only to be “ greeted with the most vicious dogs , and most ominous weapons , I have ever seen.
” He pardoned crooked cop Joe Arpaio , and defied the top brass of the military to issue pardons for suspected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policing is bad on the merits .
It also creates a very different political dynamic than prevailed from 2014 to 2016 .
The federal government is openly contemptuous of the basic goals of police reform advocates who are now taking to the streets in mass protest .
Trump leaves no way out Protesters have spent the summer on the streets as part of what some historians have said could be the “ largest movement in American history.
” If Trump ’ s goal is to disband protests to eliminate the adjacent violence , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislative process .
Mitch McConnell could send him a sweeping package setting forth plans for real reform that satisfy most protesters and signal to others that the political process is responsive to community concerns .
Ideally , then , it would be far easier to identify troublemakers who are more interested in stealing things than advancing a political cause .
It would also make it easier for police departments to expend their resources on conventional crime prevention , rather than focusing on nightly standoffs with predominantly peaceful protesters .
In this optimal world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misconduct would diminish , community trust would rise , and a virtuous circle where a higher level of confidence leads to more crimes being solved and a greater sense of public security could emerge .
That optimal path is hard to get on .
Trump isn ’ t even trying .
Senate Republicans blocked major policing reform legislation , and from the president down to governors and state legislators , Republicans are taking the side of police unions in a way conservatives would recognize as irresponsible with regard to any other form of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deliver wins for their members .
Elected officials don ’ t like to raise taxes .
That makes it perennially tempting to compensate public sector workers with things whose costs don ’ t show up on an official budget document — things like a level of job security bordering on impunity that can actually prove to be very costly to society as a whole .
But today ’ s Republicans are more interested in using cops and their unions as props in political campaigns than in pointing out that a classic piece of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the main concerns in the contemporary United States .
This creates a situation in which people are not only angry but frustrated with the prospects for political change .
NBA athletes have successfully used their clout to increase voter participation efforts .
But the GOP Senate majority that ’ s blocking reform is already elected by a minority of voters , precisely because the Senate map systemically underweights the political voice of Black people and residents of big metro areas — exactly the people the NBA is in a position to influence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Electoral College to gerrymandered state legislatures , Republicans have managed to put themselves in a position where ordinary participation in the political process doesn ’ t suffice to get rid of them .
That ’ s not to excuse random acts of theft or destruction .
But it is a reality that makes it much more challenging for responsible people to try to redirect the less responsible into more constructive activities .
But what does Trump have on tap beyond angry tweets and absurd posturing ?
He ’ s been the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s flailing even with the issues he does want to talk about .
Vice President Mike Pence ended his speech last week by asking the American people to let him and Trump “ Make America great again , again.
” In context , it was essentially a request for a mulligan on Covid-19 , which is absurd .
But it ’ s exactly what Trump is pushing on crime as well — that we should just ignore the parts of the presidency where his ideas don ’ t work and his administration fails @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of sustaining our resource-intensive work , and helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Speaking from the convention stage in Cleveland in 2016, Donald Trump made a solemn promise to the American people: that “the crime and violence that today afflicts our nation will soon come to an end. Beginning on January 20, 2017, safety will be restored.”
It was, at the time, a striking promise. Starting in 1994, the US murder rate had fallen consistently for 20 years. Violent crime had fallen so much that nobody talked about it anymore as a political issue, and the “tough on crime” politics of the 1980s and 1990s was widely viewed as embarrassing.
After Michael Brown’s death at the hands of police in Ferguson, Missouri, the mainstream conversation in the United States was about criminal justice reform, not reducing crime. But crime went up a bit in 2015 and then up by a larger amount in 2016. Progressives didn’t really want to talk about it, but Trump — a man who seems unafraid to be seen as an embarrassing throwback to the 1980s — did.
It’s not entirely clear how many voters found this particular gambit persuasive and appealing, but obviously Trump thinks it works because he’s saying the same stuff again. And if Trump were just some guy on Twitter, that would make sense: Murder is on the rise again after ticking down for a few years, and acts of looting and vandalism are occurring in cities across the country.
But Donald Trump is the president of the United States.
He promised four years ago to restore safety and bring law and order to our streets. He never bothered to articulate a message about how he would do that, but it didn’t matter. He was the “law and order” candidate. But today he’s a candidate with a record. A record of rising crime and urban disorder, and a record that makes it clear he has no idea how to make any of it better — and is intervening in several ways to make it worse.
Trump is defunding the police
One of the greatest oddities of the 2020 election season is that while it offers many examples of Republicans accusing Democrats of wanting to “defund” the police, the exact opposite is happening on a policymaking level.
Trump has been very critical of the 1994 crime bill and the 2009 economic recovery act, both of which increased federal support for local police. He’s also submitted four budget proposals to Congress, each of which proposed cuts in police spending. More to the point, right now politicians are debating what to do about the expiration of bonus unemployment insurance money that was provided by the CARES Act.
Democrats and Republicans are arguing, in part, about the structure of UI benefits. But they are also arguing about Democrats’ desire to provide state and local government with a massive injection of emergency aid money to plug giant budget holes created by the Covid-19 pandemic. With no aid forthcoming due to GOP opposition, cities are cutting budgets.
And while the abstract defunding debate plays out among intellectuals, real cities are cutting. Not just liberal enclaves, either. Oklahoma City, one of the most conservative cities in America, is cutting its police budget because it’s cutting spending across the board.
If you believe in the empirical evidence that more cops equals less crime — which Trump seems to pretend to — then this trend would appear to make America less safe. And that’s only more so the case, given that the cutbacks in policing will be paired with cuts to mental health and other social services and occur at a time of high unemployment. But while Trump undermines public safety, he also undermines citizens’ efforts to demand accountability for the actions of law enforcement officers.
Trump encourages bad policing
From day one, the administration’s standpoint has been to deny that any increased accountability from police is needed. In February 2017, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the administration would no longer pursue civil rights lawsuits or investigations of alleged police abuses. Sessions characterized federal consent decrees, a powerful tool DOJ can use to fight abuses, as “an insult.” In August, he reversed course on another Obama-era policy and restarted the flow of military equipment to police departments.
Trump himself has written in praise of rough police tactics, tweeting one day about White House protests that “whenever someone got too frisky or out of line, [the Secret Service] would quickly come down on them, hard — didn’t know what hit them,” before fantasizing about scenarios in which protesters would breach the White House fence only to be “greeted with the most vicious dogs, and most ominous weapons, I have ever seen.” He pardoned crooked cop Joe Arpaio, and defied the top brass of the military to issue pardons for suspected and convicted war criminals.
Encouraging bad policing is bad on the merits. It also creates a very different political dynamic than prevailed from 2014 to 2016. The federal government is openly contemptuous of the basic goals of police reform advocates who are now taking to the streets in mass protest.
Trump leaves no way out
Protesters have spent the summer on the streets as part of what some historians have said could be the “largest movement in American history.” If Trump’s goal is to disband protests to eliminate the adjacent violence, the best tool he has is the legislative process. Mitch McConnell could send him a sweeping package setting forth plans for real reform that satisfy most protesters and signal to others that the political process is responsive to community concerns. Ideally, then, it would be far easier to identify troublemakers who are more interested in stealing things than advancing a political cause. It would also make it easier for police departments to expend their resources on conventional crime prevention, rather than focusing on nightly standoffs with predominantly peaceful protesters.
In this optimal world, the reforms would work, police misconduct would diminish, community trust would rise, and a virtuous circle where a higher level of confidence leads to more crimes being solved and a greater sense of public security could emerge.
That optimal path is hard to get on. Trump isn’t even trying.
Senate Republicans blocked major policing reform legislation, and from the president down to governors and state legislators, Republicans are taking the side of police unions in a way conservatives would recognize as irresponsible with regard to any other form of public sector union.
Unions try to deliver wins for their members. Elected officials don’t like to raise taxes. That makes it perennially tempting to compensate public sector workers with things whose costs don’t show up on an official budget document — things like a level of job security bordering on impunity that can actually prove to be very costly to society as a whole. But today’s Republicans are more interested in using cops and their unions as props in political campaigns than in pointing out that a classic piece of conservative policy analysis speaks directly to one of the main concerns in the contemporary United States.
This creates a situation in which people are not only angry but frustrated with the prospects for political change. NBA athletes have successfully used their clout to increase voter participation efforts. But the GOP Senate majority that’s blocking reform is already elected by a minority of voters, precisely because the Senate map systemically underweights the political voice of Black people and residents of big metro areas — exactly the people the NBA is in a position to influence.
From the courts to the Senate to the Electoral College to gerrymandered state legislatures, Republicans have managed to put themselves in a position where ordinary participation in the political process doesn’t suffice to get rid of them.
That’s not to excuse random acts of theft or destruction. But it is a reality that makes it much more challenging for responsible people to try to redirect the less responsible into more constructive activities.
But what does Trump have on tap beyond angry tweets and absurd posturing? He’s been the president for years, and he’s flailing even with the issues he does want to talk about. Vice President Mike Pence ended his speech last week by asking the American people to let him and Trump “Make America great again, again.” In context, it was essentially a request for a mulligan on Covid-19, which is absurd. But it’s exactly what Trump is pushing on crime as well — that we should just ignore the parts of the presidency where his ideas don’t work and his administration fails on its own terms.


vox--2020-08-31--No one knows what “back-to-school shopping” means this year

Jasmine Nakasoni has put aside about $ 40 to $ 50 every month since last August for her daughter ’ s back-to-school shopping expenses .
As members of the debt-free community , she and her wife don ’ t rely on credit cards , so instead , they budget out for nearly every occasion or event they expect to spend on .
This year , the initial plan was to spend $ 500 on school supplies and new clothes for their 14-year-old , Hayley .
The coronavirus pandemic , however , threw their budget off-kilter , as Nakasoni realized that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ headphones , and organizational supplies for at-home learning , instead of the notebooks , pens , and dancewear she originally planned for .
The family attempted to maintain a sense of normalcy by taking Hayley on a socially distanced shopping spree and presenting her with an envelope of cash to spend , as they do every year .
“ A lot of things have changed , ” Nakasoni told me .
“ Hayley has to start freshman year and dance team virtually , so we just wanted to keep one thing as close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ atmosphere of back-to-school shopping — a tradition shared by many families across the country — has been replaced with reminders to socially distance , to wear masks , and to constantly sanitize surface areas .
And in a particularly cash-strapped economy , parents are more cautious with their purchases , while many school districts are in the midst of finalizing teaching plans , possibly delaying school supply and books lists .
Yet retailers are financially banking on families showing up : Back-to-school season is the second-biggest retail event of the calendar year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Retail Federation predicted that in 2020 , families with elementary to high school-age kids will spend on average $ 789.49 this season , compared to a record average of $ 696.70 in 2019 .
These are just estimates : Families are preparing for many different scenarios , which could impact their spending habits .
While there is less demand for traditional school supplies , parents and students are increasingly interested in things like computer monitors , headphones , desks , office chairs , and lamps .
However , the impulse to physically embark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in spite of the possible health risks involved .
On Instagram ’ s # BackToSchoolShopping tag ( which is inundated with advertisements ) , parents are still eagerly posting photos of their masked kids , posing in stores and carrying their latest purchases .
Similarly , on YouTube , high school-age , college , and family vloggers are posting “ shop with us ” videos and back-to-school hauls , featuring products from popular retailers like Walmart , Target , and Amazon .
The reality , though , is far from that happy-go-lucky vision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know how a pandemic back-to-school season will unfold .
“ We ’ ve undergone big changes but still don ’ t know what the next two months are going to hold , ” the vice president of marketing for the uniform company French Toast told the Washington Post .
Students ’ needs are changing , and families are increasingly focused on the need for personal protective equipment ( if their child is returning to school ) or technology ( if they ’ re pursuing distance learning ) .
One mother of a Minnesota @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that she ’ s “ stressed to the gills with distance learning , ” and has held off on making purchases until the family has attended a socially distanced “ open house ” to receive supply lists .
“ Until now , it ’ s been the school making sure everyone has [ laptop ] devices , ” she added .
In coronavirus hot spots , some parents have entirely shifted to ordering items online , while others — like Nakasoni ’ s family , who live in Richmond , Virginia — are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retailers .
In recent years , stores like Target and Walmart have attempted to digitize back-to-school shopping , offering one-click shopping options and partnering with certain schools and teachers to make the experience more convenient .
Teachers are actively posting their virtual supply wish lists ( often from Amazon ) on social media to solicit donations from community members and even strangers .
This isn ’ t surprising , considering how often educators are responsible for purchasing back-to-school supplies and other classroom necessities .
As a result of shrinking public school budgets prior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on online crowdfunding sites , grants , and Amazon wish lists to stock their classrooms if their schools aren ’ t able to pay for these products .
As Nadra Nittle previously reported for The Goods , teachers frequently pay out-of-pocket expenses — from furniture to books to clothing — for students , especially those in high-poverty areas .
Now that they are expected to maintain social distancing and hygienic standards in the classroom , in-person teachers will likely spend more money on items like hand sanitizer , wet wipes , or tissues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first day of school , many teachers have spoken up about the unclear , fickle policies some states and school districts have adopted : Some worry about being in the classroom in the first place and how , as the adult in the room , they ’ re responsible for enforcing social distancing and keeping students safe .
Back-to-school season has historically signified a fresh start — not just academically , but fashion-wise as well .
It ’ s a reason to buy more clothes , especially with retailers hosting sales and markdowns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though , instead of a new pair of shoes or jeans , students are opting for a better webcam or a pair of headphones .
Bella , a 17-year-old from Huntington Beach , California , said she bought a comfortable reading pillow and a laptop tray for the virtual classes she took this summer .
“ I know friends who have been getting pajama pants and stuff , ” she added , saying that she felt there was no need to buy additional clothes .
Still , popular retailers have leaned into broad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with the hopes of reaching customers in a variety of school scenarios .
Old Navy ’ s 30-second ad , synchronized to the beat of Lizzo ’ s “ Boys , ” addressed the vague nature of the school year with a voiceover saying , “ Whatever this year looks like , get fresh looks at Old Navy.
” Target has released a series of 15-second spots that highlight how it ’ s the go-to retailer for all sorts of back-to-school necessities , from jeans to 50-cent school supplies .
Home retailers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Wayfair also have promoted sections on their websites related to “ back to school , ” with some listing college dorm necessities and decor , even if students ’ return to campus has been a fraught experience .
These ads can only do so much to entice families to spend during uncertain times .
For Annie , a 16-year-old in Stafford , Virginia , her family skipped over their annual routine of purchasing clothes in the fall , partly because they wanted to save money and aren ’ t able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We usually get a new pair of shoes for the gym , and my sister and I constantly grow out of our jeans , ” she told me .
“ I was talking to my mom and we were joking about how we ’ d only need shirts for the Zoom classes.
” Her dad had bought her a laptop in March when her high school transitioned to remote learning , to ensure that the school ’ s distributed laptops could go to students who weren ’ t able to afford them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ note-taker , said the only items she felt invested in were her planner and gel pens , which she hopes to use for her notes and to stay organized .
“ I haven ’ t bought any binders , highlighters , pens , or loose-leaf paper , ” Annie added .
“ I ’ m going to be able to store most of my notes virtually on Google Drive or whatnot , and I have some leftover notebooks and pens.
” While she has no qualms about learning from home , there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ miss , like getting coffee before school , color-coding her planner , or simply sitting in a classroom .
Meanwhile , her family won ’ t be splurging anytime soon until they get a better sense of her school ’ s timeline next semester .
“ I ’ m still hopeful that things will be better by the second semester , ” she said .
“ I really do like working on my computer , but I miss being in a classroom and hearing people talk about a topic in front of me.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resource-intensive work , and helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world .
Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Jasmine Nakasoni has put aside about $40 to $50 every month since last August for her daughter’s back-to-school shopping expenses. As members of the debt-free community, she and her wife don’t rely on credit cards, so instead, they budget out for nearly every occasion or event they expect to spend on. This year, the initial plan was to spend $500 on school supplies and new clothes for their 14-year-old, Hayley.
The coronavirus pandemic, however, threw their budget off-kilter, as Nakasoni realized that her daughter would need a desk, headphones, and organizational supplies for at-home learning, instead of the notebooks, pens, and dancewear she originally planned for.
The family attempted to maintain a sense of normalcy by taking Hayley on a socially distanced shopping spree and presenting her with an envelope of cash to spend, as they do every year.
“A lot of things have changed,” Nakasoni told me. “Hayley has to start freshman year and dance team virtually, so we just wanted to keep one thing as close to normal as possible.”
The bustling atmosphere of back-to-school shopping — a tradition shared by many families across the country — has been replaced with reminders to socially distance, to wear masks, and to constantly sanitize surface areas. And in a particularly cash-strapped economy, parents are more cautious with their purchases, while many school districts are in the midst of finalizing teaching plans, possibly delaying school supply and books lists. Yet retailers are financially banking on families showing up: Back-to-school season is the second-biggest retail event of the calendar year, after the winter holidays. The National Retail Federation predicted that in 2020, families with elementary to high school-age kids will spend on average $789.49 this season, compared to a record average of $696.70 in 2019.
These are just estimates: Families are preparing for many different scenarios, which could impact their spending habits. While there is less demand for traditional school supplies, parents and students are increasingly interested in things like computer monitors, headphones, desks, office chairs, and lamps.
However, the impulse to physically embark on a shopping spree still exists, in spite of the possible health risks involved. On Instagram’s #BackToSchoolShopping tag (which is inundated with advertisements), parents are still eagerly posting photos of their masked kids, posing in stores and carrying their latest purchases. Similarly, on YouTube, high school-age, college, and family vloggers are posting “shop with us” videos and back-to-school hauls, featuring products from popular retailers like Walmart, Target, and Amazon. The reality, though, is far from that happy-go-lucky vision: Stores and shoppers don’t know how a pandemic back-to-school season will unfold.
“We’ve undergone big changes but still don’t know what the next two months are going to hold,” the vice president of marketing for the uniform company French Toast told the Washington Post. Students’ needs are changing, and families are increasingly focused on the need for personal protective equipment (if their child is returning to school) or technology (if they’re pursuing distance learning).
One mother of a Minnesota first-grader wrote to me on Facebook saying that she’s “stressed to the gills with distance learning,” and has held off on making purchases until the family has attended a socially distanced “open house” to receive supply lists. “Until now, it’s been the school making sure everyone has [laptop] devices,” she added. In coronavirus hot spots, some parents have entirely shifted to ordering items online, while others — like Nakasoni’s family, who live in Richmond, Virginia — are able to frequent shopping centers and big-box retailers. In recent years, stores like Target and Walmart have attempted to digitize back-to-school shopping, offering one-click shopping options and partnering with certain schools and teachers to make the experience more convenient.
Teachers are actively posting their virtual supply wish lists (often from Amazon) on social media to solicit donations from community members and even strangers. This isn’t surprising, considering how often educators are responsible for purchasing back-to-school supplies and other classroom necessities. As a result of shrinking public school budgets prior to Covid-19, many teachers already rely on online crowdfunding sites, grants, and Amazon wish lists to stock their classrooms if their schools aren’t able to pay for these products.
If you are a teacher in need of supplies for the upcoming school year, please drop your amazon wishlist here, I will do as many as I can! — chrissy teigen (@chrissyteigen) August 23, 2020
As Nadra Nittle previously reported for The Goods, teachers frequently pay out-of-pocket expenses — from furniture to books to clothing — for students, especially those in high-poverty areas. Now that they are expected to maintain social distancing and hygienic standards in the classroom, in-person teachers will likely spend more money on items like hand sanitizer, wet wipes, or tissues. In the months leading up the first day of school, many teachers have spoken up about the unclear, fickle policies some states and school districts have adopted: Some worry about being in the classroom in the first place and how, as the adult in the room, they’re responsible for enforcing social distancing and keeping students safe.
Back-to-school season has historically signified a fresh start — not just academically, but fashion-wise as well. It’s a reason to buy more clothes, especially with retailers hosting sales and markdowns throughout the season. This year, though, instead of a new pair of shoes or jeans, students are opting for a better webcam or a pair of headphones. Bella, a 17-year-old from Huntington Beach, California, said she bought a comfortable reading pillow and a laptop tray for the virtual classes she took this summer. “I know friends who have been getting pajama pants and stuff,” she added, saying that she felt there was no need to buy additional clothes.
Still, popular retailers have leaned into broad messaging when it comes to ad campaigns, with the hopes of reaching customers in a variety of school scenarios. Old Navy’s 30-second ad, synchronized to the beat of Lizzo’s “Boys,” addressed the vague nature of the school year with a voiceover saying, “Whatever this year looks like, get fresh looks at Old Navy.” Target has released a series of 15-second spots that highlight how it’s the go-to retailer for all sorts of back-to-school necessities, from jeans to 50-cent school supplies. Home retailers like Bed Bath & Beyond, Ikea, and Wayfair also have promoted sections on their websites related to “back to school,” with some listing college dorm necessities and decor, even if students’ return to campus has been a fraught experience.
These ads can only do so much to entice families to spend during uncertain times. For Annie, a 16-year-old in Stafford, Virginia, her family skipped over their annual routine of purchasing clothes in the fall, partly because they wanted to save money and aren’t able to try on clothes in public. “We usually get a new pair of shoes for the gym, and my sister and I constantly grow out of our jeans,” she told me. “I was talking to my mom and we were joking about how we’d only need shirts for the Zoom classes.”
Her dad had bought her a laptop in March when her high school transitioned to remote learning, to ensure that the school’s distributed laptops could go to students who weren’t able to afford them. Annie, who considers herself a prolific note-taker, said the only items she felt invested in were her planner and gel pens, which she hopes to use for her notes and to stay organized. “I haven’t bought any binders, highlighters, pens, or loose-leaf paper,” Annie added. “I’m going to be able to store most of my notes virtually on Google Drive or whatnot, and I have some leftover notebooks and pens.”
While she has no qualms about learning from home, there are certain things Annie said she’ll miss, like getting coffee before school, color-coding her planner, or simply sitting in a classroom. Meanwhile, her family won’t be splurging anytime soon until they get a better sense of her school’s timeline next semester. “I’m still hopeful that things will be better by the second semester,” she said. “I really do like working on my computer, but I miss being in a classroom and hearing people talk about a topic in front of me.”