msnbc--2020-10-13--GOP loves moms like Amy Coney Barrett. Black, brown or queer moms? Not so much.

On Monday , the Senate Judiciary Committee held the first of four days of confirmation hearings for Amy Coney Barrett , President Donald Trump ’ s Supreme Court nominee to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
The first day featured close to six hours of opening statements , during which Republican senators brought repeated attention to Barrett ’ s identity as the mother of a large family .
“ Judge Barrett , you and I have a number of things in common , ” Sen. Mike Lee , R-Utah , who tested positive for Covid-19 less than two weeks ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opening remarks .
“ We ’ re both raised in large families .
In fact , we 're both one of seven children .
In your case , as I recall , you 're the oldest of seven children .
Which means long before you had your own seven children you were also the de facto mother to many others .
The way things often work in large families , is such that the oldest child very often takes on responsibilities at an early age .
Those responsibilities have undoubtedly helped you throughout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would return to over and over .
Sen. Joni Ernst , R-Iowa , held up Barrett as an example of “ what a mom can do.
” Sen. John Cornyn , R-Texas , claimed that Barrett would serve as a source of inspiration for young women looking to find that ever-allusive “ personal and professional life ” balance .
Sen. Chuck Grassley , R-Iowa , described Barrett as a “ tireless mother of seven.
” The GOP message , of course , was clear : motherhood is both a professional and moral virtue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you are against motherhood and progress and women and virtue .
Indeed , just by nature of her large family , Republicans seemed to say , Barrett has proven she is ethically exemplary and worthy of a seat on the Supreme Court .
But only if you ’ re married .
And only if you ’ re straight .
And only if you ’ re wealthy .
And only if you ’ re white .
Because the GOP has a very different message when discussing Black , brown , single and queer moms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mom with a couple of kids , you could very well be what President Ronald Reagan notoriously dubbed a “ welfare Queen ” — a lazy mother who refuses to get a job and is instead happy to keep popping out children for the government to fund .
In the Republican party ’ s repeated and ongoing attempts to cut federal funding for vital social programs that , hypocritically enough , are a lifeline for countless American families , they demonize Black moms and criminalize Black motherhood .
And if you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerned you may be straining the American economy .
In 2015 , then-presidential candidate Donald Trump referred to the children of immigrants as “ anchor babies ” — a racist description used to accuse Immigrant mothers of using their children to secure U.S. citizenship .
If you ’ re a queer mom ( or dad ) , the GOP isn ’ t sure if you ’ re fit to be a parent at all .
Just earlier this year , Tennessee Republicans passed a law allowing adoption agencies to deny the applications of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gender and/or sexual identity .
And in June , the Trump administration filed a brief with the Supreme Court arguing that any taxpayer-funded organization should have the right to refuse to work with same-sex couples under the guise of religious liberty .
The same Republicans who applauded the number of children Barrett has decided to have and care for have spent their entire careers attacking less fortunate women for doing the same .
In 2018 , Republicans proposed cutting a total of $ 17 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ( SNAP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ program which helps tens of million of children and their families afford to eat every month .
Republicans have also argued for cuts to Medicaid and Medicare , both of which are disproportionately utilized by women .
And of course , motherhood is only inspirational to Republicans if it is preceded by marriage .
Sen. Marco Rubio , R-Fla. , argued that it was marriage , not welfare programs and other social safety nets , that can pull moms out of poverty .
In 1994 , then-Senate candidate Rick Santorum — who years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argued that women having “ children out of wedlock ” were to blame for ruining the country and were “ breeding more criminals.
” And in 2014 , Sen. Rand Paul , R-Ky. , opined about how difficult it was for the government to be able to tell single moms that “ enough ’ s enough , you shouldn ’ t be having kids after a certain amount.
” All of which is to say , the GOP has a very clear , very focused idea of what motherhood should look like .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is certainly free to have as many — or as few — children as she wishes .
At least theoretically .
What ’ s frustrating is the way Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are more than willing to use her specific type of motherhood to position her as the logical successor to the trailblazing Ginsburg .
And it will be Black , brown , poor , single , and queer moms who , once again , disproportionately pay the price .
In 2006 , Barrett signed a letter calling for the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the majority of people who have are abortions are Black .
Barrett has criticized the Affordable Care Act and many health care advocates are worried she would vote to gut the law should she be confirmed .
Prior to the passing of the ACA , women could be charged more for health care than men and pregnancy could be considered a pre-existing condition .
After the ACA was passed , an estimated 1.6 million moms secured health insurance between 2013 and 2014 , according to the Urban Institute .
And Barrett has argued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law of the land , but left up to individual states .
Republican Senators and conservative talking heads love Barrett for many reasons .
But on Monday they made a coordinated effort to paint her as the perfect symbol of working parenthood because , in doing so , they can continue their attacks on parents who don ’ t look like Barrett , don ’ t think like Barrett , don ’ t love like Barrett , and don ’ t benefit from their policies ... like Barrett .

On Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held the first of four days of confirmation hearings for Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The first day featured close to six hours of opening statements, during which Republican senators brought repeated attention to Barrett’s identity as the mother of a large family.
The first day featured close to six hours of opening statements, during which Republican senators brought repeated attention to Barrett’s identity as the mother of a large family.
“Judge Barrett, you and I have a number of things in common,” Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, who tested positive for Covid-19 less than two weeks ago, said during his (in-person) opening remarks. “We’re both raised in large families. In fact, we're both one of seven children. In your case, as I recall, you're the oldest of seven children. Which means long before you had your own seven children you were also the de facto mother to many others. The way things often work in large families, is such that the oldest child very often takes on responsibilities at an early age. Those responsibilities have undoubtedly helped you throughout life.”
It was a theme Republicans would return to over and over. Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, held up Barrett as an example of “what a mom can do.” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, claimed that Barrett would serve as a source of inspiration for young women looking to find that ever-allusive “personal and professional life” balance. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, described Barrett as a “tireless mother of seven.”
The GOP message, of course, was clear: motherhood is both a professional and moral virtue. If you are against Barrett, you are against motherhood and progress and women and virtue. Indeed, just by nature of her large family, Republicans seemed to say, Barrett has proven she is ethically exemplary and worthy of a seat on the Supreme Court.
But only if you’re married. And only if you’re straight. And only if you’re wealthy. And only if you’re white. Because the GOP has a very different message when discussing Black, brown, single and queer moms.
If you’re a Black mom with a couple of kids, you could very well be what President Ronald Reagan notoriously dubbed a “welfare Queen” — a lazy mother who refuses to get a job and is instead happy to keep popping out children for the government to fund. In the Republican party’s repeated and ongoing attempts to cut federal funding for vital social programs that, hypocritically enough, are a lifeline for countless American families, they demonize Black moms and criminalize Black motherhood.
And if you’re a brown mom, the GOP is concerned you may be straining the American economy. In 2015, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump referred to the children of immigrants as “anchor babies” — a racist description used to accuse Immigrant mothers of using their children to secure U.S. citizenship.
The GOP has a very different message when discussing Black, brown, single and queer moms.
If you’re a queer mom (or dad), the GOP isn’t sure if you’re fit to be a parent at all. Just earlier this year, Tennessee Republicans passed a law allowing adoption agencies to deny the applications of gay couples on the basis of their gender and/or sexual identity. And in June, the Trump administration filed a brief with the Supreme Court arguing that any taxpayer-funded organization should have the right to refuse to work with same-sex couples under the guise of religious liberty.
The same Republicans who applauded the number of children Barrett has decided to have and care for have spent their entire careers attacking less fortunate women for doing the same. In 2018, Republicans proposed cutting a total of $17 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) over the next decade, a program which helps tens of million of children and their families afford to eat every month. Republicans have also argued for cuts to Medicaid and Medicare, both of which are disproportionately utilized by women.
And of course, motherhood is only inspirational to Republicans if it is preceded by marriage. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., argued that it was marriage, not welfare programs and other social safety nets, that can pull moms out of poverty. In 1994, then-Senate candidate Rick Santorum — who years later would attempt to become president — argued that women having “children out of wedlock” were to blame for ruining the country and were “breeding more criminals.” And in 2014, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., opined about how difficult it was for the government to be able to tell single moms that “enough’s enough, you shouldn’t be having kids after a certain amount.”
All of which is to say, the GOP has a very clear, very focused idea of what motherhood should look like. So why does this matter? Barrett is certainly free to have as many — or as few — children as she wishes. At least theoretically. What’s frustrating is the way Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are more than willing to use her specific type of motherhood to position her as the logical successor to the trailblazing Ginsburg.
And it will be Black, brown, poor, single, and queer moms who, once again, disproportionately pay the price.
In 2006, Barrett signed a letter calling for the end of Roe v Wade. Currently, the majority of people who have are abortions are Black. Barrett has criticized the Affordable Care Act and many health care advocates are worried she would vote to gut the law should she be confirmed. Prior to the passing of the ACA, women could be charged more for health care than men and pregnancy could be considered a pre-existing condition. After the ACA was passed, an estimated 1.6 million moms secured health insurance between 2013 and 2014, according to the Urban Institute. And Barrett has argued that marriage equality should not be the law of the land, but left up to individual states.
Republican Senators and conservative talking heads love Barrett for many reasons. But on Monday they made a coordinated effort to paint her as the perfect symbol of working parenthood because, in doing so, they can continue their attacks on parents who don’t look like Barrett, don’t think like Barrett, don’t love like Barrett, and don’t benefit from their policies... like Barrett.


msnbc--2020-10-13--Amazon's Covid-19 Prime Day offers great deals — but at what price?

The Prime Day deals are once again upon us , this time spread over two days .
With all the additional customers Amazon has attracted in the past half year thanks to the pandemic , it could be the company ’ s biggest sales event ever .
Amazon claims it ’ s a company that is “ customer obsessed ” where “ leaders start with the customer and work backwards.
” That is supposed to mean that their actions are supposed to benefit all of us — the consumers — who spend less and have a more convenient shopping experience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But beneath all that consumption lurks depressing questions about the consequences of Amazon ’ s massive success .
The company has long been accused of mistreating its workers .
Last year , Reveal and The Atlantic found that “ the rate of serious injuries for those facilities was more than double the national average for the warehousing industry ” in 2018 .
That was damning enough , but a new Reveal investigation has provided a much more detailed picture of worker injuries and what the company is ( and isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reveal ’ s major findings ?
Injuries spike at peak times — and that includes Prime Day .
Amazon , for its part , has consistently and forcefully pushed back against any claims that its warehouses are unsafe or that injury rates are above average .
In 2019 , Amazon executive Jeff Wilke told PBS Frontline that the company ’ s use of robots in its warehouses “ make the job safer ” and the company also provided a statement to Business Insider stating , “ we know for a fact that recordable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These assurances sound great to people who want to keep shopping at Amazon , but are they true ?
Reveal ’ s reporting finds that across its fulfillment centers , Amazon recorded a rate of 7.7 serious injuries per 100 workers in 2019 , which is not only nearly double the industry standard , but 33 percent higher than its rate for 2016 .
And despite Amazon ’ s claim that robots make workers safer , Reveal found the opposite : warehouses using robots recorded more injuries than those without them .
At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for example , there were 22 serious injuries for every 100 workers — more than five times the industry standard .
Amazon denied Reveal ’ s requests for interviews , and only provided a general statement about safety when sent a detailed list of questions .
After publication , though , Amazon told The Verge that Reveal ’ s investigation actually showed the company ’ s “ deep focus on the safety of our teams.
” But Reveal ’ s reporting suggests the opposite .
Injuries increase during peak periods like Prime Day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Days ) and the holidays .
Reveal explains that Prime Day 2019 was “ the year ’ s most dangerous week for injuries at Amazon fulfillment centers , with nearly 400 serious injuries recorded across the country.
” So what is causing these reportedly higher rates of injury in robotic warehouses and during peak times ?
The answer , it seems , has everything to do with the pressure Amazon places on its workers .
Given that adherence to targets is closely tracked by management , there ’ s a lot of incentive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spoke to a physician who inspected Amazon warehouses for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration who explained that “ studies have shown that production rates have a direct impact on injuries.
” Ultimately , this report paints a picture of a company that is not doing right by its workers — or its consumers , who have the right to know what is happening to the workers fulfilling their orders .
And it shouldn ’ t come as a surprise .
Amazon is notorious for fighting workers ’ attempts at unionization , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back against management ’ s one-sided demands .
This was further put on display during the pandemic .
Workers charged that the company wasn ’ t doing enough to keep them safe from Covid-19 infection , and brought in its safety protocols too late .
Some workers said they had to track Covid-19 cases at their workplaces themselves because the company wasn ’ t keeping them informed .
Amazon recently announced nearly 20,000 of its U.S. workers have tested positive .
But the company has also recently stepped up its actions against workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for tracking Covid-19 cases and publicly criticizing the company , and was found to be tracking private Facebook groups and internal listservs used for labor organizing .
It also fired Christian Smalls , a worker in Staten Island who had been with the company for five years , after he helped organize a walkout at his warehouse .
Amazon claimed Smalls was fired for breaching social distancing guidelines , but leaked notes from an internal meeting with top executives highlighted a plan to smear him as “ not smart or articulate ” in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this , Tim Bray , a senior engineer at Amazon Web Services , resigned from the company .
In an open letter , he wrote that he “ quit in dismay at Amazon firing whistleblowers ” and the bigger problem was that “ Amazon treats the humans in the warehouses as fungible units of pick-and-pack potential .
Only that ’ s not just Amazon , it ’ s how 21st-century capitalism is done.
” But if the customer is Amazon ’ s focus , this “ obsession ” may succeed at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two questions .
First , with Prime Day deals showing up in your inbox , on television and in ad slots all over the web , are injuries that could arise from your purchase worth the money you might save ?
Second , and on a more fundamental level , is it ethical to shop at Amazon if the massive company cares more about profits than the health of its workers ?
Over the course of several decades , we ’ ve been taught to see ourselves as consumers seeking out the best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in solidarity with one another .
Amazon seems to have brought this notion to its logical conclusion , and but has that really worked out in our favor ?
Unionization has plummeted , wages have stagnated and it ’ s become harder than ever for most people to find a good job .
Now millions of people have once again lost their jobs , while Jeff Bezos ’ wealth soared by more than $ 70 billion .
We ’ re not individual consumers ; we ’ re workers with shared interests , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a good deal that ultimately benefits the richest man in the world .

The Prime Day deals are once again upon us, this time spread over two days. With all the additional customers Amazon has attracted in the past half year thanks to the pandemic, it could be the company’s biggest sales event ever.
Amazon claims it’s a company that is “customer obsessed” where “leaders start with the customer and work backwards.”
Amazon claims it’s a company that is “customer obsessed” where “leaders start with the customer and work backwards.” That is supposed to mean that their actions are supposed to benefit all of us — the consumers — who spend less and have a more convenient shopping experience because of their focus on those metrics. But beneath all that consumption lurks depressing questions about the consequences of Amazon’s massive success.
The company has long been accused of mistreating its workers. Last year, Reveal and The Atlantic found that “the rate of serious injuries for those facilities was more than double the national average for the warehousing industry” in 2018. That was damning enough, but a new Reveal investigation has provided a much more detailed picture of worker injuries and what the company is (and isn’t) doing about it. One of Reveal’s major findings? Injuries spike at peak times — and that includes Prime Day.
Amazon, for its part, has consistently and forcefully pushed back against any claims that its warehouses are unsafe or that injury rates are above average.
In 2019, Amazon executive Jeff Wilke told PBS Frontline that the company’s use of robots in its warehouses “make the job safer” and the company also provided a statement to Business Insider stating, “we know for a fact that recordable incidents do not increase during peak.” These assurances sound great to people who want to keep shopping at Amazon, but are they true?
Reveal’s reporting finds that across its fulfillment centers, Amazon recorded a rate of 7.7 serious injuries per 100 workers in 2019, which is not only nearly double the industry standard, but 33 percent higher than its rate for 2016. And despite Amazon’s claim that robots make workers safer, Reveal found the opposite: warehouses using robots recorded more injuries than those without them. At a robotic warehouse in Dupont, Washington for example, there were 22 serious injuries for every 100 workers — more than five times the industry standard.
Amazon robots move along the warehouse floor with packages before finding the proper delivery chute, at an Amazon warehouse facility in Goodyear, Ariz. on Dec. 17, 2019. Ross D. Franklin / AP file
Amazon denied Reveal’s requests for interviews, and only provided a general statement about safety when sent a detailed list of questions. After publication, though, Amazon told The Verge that Reveal’s investigation actually showed the company’s “deep focus on the safety of our teams.”
But Reveal’s reporting suggests the opposite. Injuries increase during peak periods like Prime Day (or in this case, Prime Days) and the holidays. Reveal explains that Prime Day 2019 was “the year’s most dangerous week for injuries at Amazon fulfillment centers, with nearly 400 serious injuries recorded across the country.” So what is causing these reportedly higher rates of injury in robotic warehouses and during peak times?
The answer, it seems, has everything to do with the pressure Amazon places on its workers. Given that adherence to targets is closely tracked by management, there’s a lot of incentive for workers to push themselves. Reveal spoke to a physician who inspected Amazon warehouses for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration who explained that “studies have shown that production rates have a direct impact on injuries.”
Ultimately, this report paints a picture of a company that is not doing right by its workers — or its consumers, who have the right to know what is happening to the workers fulfilling their orders.
And it shouldn’t come as a surprise. Amazon is notorious for fighting workers’ attempts at unionization, which would give them the power to push back against management’s one-sided demands. This was further put on display during the pandemic. Workers charged that the company wasn’t doing enough to keep them safe from Covid-19 infection, and brought in its safety protocols too late. Some workers said they had to track Covid-19 cases at their workplaces themselves because the company wasn’t keeping them informed. Amazon recently announced nearly 20,000 of its U.S. workers have tested positive.
But the company has also recently stepped up its actions against workers who pushed back. It fired workers for tracking Covid-19 cases and publicly criticizing the company, and was found to be tracking private Facebook groups and internal listservs used for labor organizing. It also fired Christian Smalls, a worker in Staten Island who had been with the company for five years, after he helped organize a walkout at his warehouse. Amazon claimed Smalls was fired for breaching social distancing guidelines, but leaked notes from an internal meeting with top executives highlighted a plan to smear him as “not smart or articulate” in the media.
In response to all of this, Tim Bray, a senior engineer at Amazon Web Services, resigned from the company. In an open letter, he wrote that he “quit in dismay at Amazon firing whistleblowers” and the bigger problem was that “Amazon treats the humans in the warehouses as fungible units of pick-and-pack potential. Only that’s not just Amazon, it’s how 21st-century capitalism is done.”
But if the customer is Amazon’s focus, this “obsession” may succeed at the expense of workers. This naturally presents two questions. First, with Prime Day deals showing up in your inbox, on television and in ad slots all over the web, are injuries that could arise from your purchase worth the money you might save?
Second, and on a more fundamental level, is it ethical to shop at Amazon if the massive company cares more about profits than the health of its workers? Over the course of several decades, we’ve been taught to see ourselves as consumers seeking out the best deal instead of workers who should stand in solidarity with one another. Amazon seems to have brought this notion to its logical conclusion, and but has that really worked out in our favor?
Unionization has plummeted, wages have stagnated and it’s become harder than ever for most people to find a good job. Now millions of people have once again lost their jobs, while Jeff Bezos’ wealth soared by more than $70 billion. We’re not individual consumers; we’re workers with shared interests, and that means not sacrificing one another for a good deal that ultimately benefits the richest man in the world.


msnbc--2020-10-13--How to restore America's faith in the 2020 election results — before it's too late

Americans are scared .
Regardless of what the polls suggest , they understand that our elections and democracy are under attack .
And a power grab is still unfolding , marked by legal games , voter suppression , a crippled postal system and a politicized Supreme Court , which may decide a disputed election .
Meanwhile , all electronic voting machines , whether directly connected to the internet or not , remain vulnerable to hacking and fraud .
Despite these serious challenges , there is a way to make America ’ s 2020 election results trustworthy .
Our nation can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and election officials act now .
In this op-ed , we discuss three simple but essential tools that will produce strong , verifiable evidence that the reported winner really won , despite any fraud or malfunction .
This means generating a dependable record of votes on paper ballots , keeping that paper trail physically secure , and auditing the reported results against that paper .
Whenever possible , we recommend voting by hand on paper ballots .
This first step prevents fraud at the front-end of the election process .
Hand-marked paper can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vote in person , don ’ t assume your state provides hand-markable paper ballots .
Check this easy-to-read map to make sure .
If your state or jurisdiction does not provide paper ballots at polling places , you can instead request a provisional ballot ( most states offer them ) or request a vote-by-mail ballot .
Voting on an absentee or vote-by-mail ballot is a good way to hand-mark a paper ballot .
Request your ballot now .
The vast majority of states provide no-excuse mail-in ballots or allow Covid-19 as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your state ’ s excuse policy . )
Complete your ballot carefully .
Every election , a small percentage of ballots aren ’ t counted because of avoidable voter errors .
But even a few votes can change the outcome of a close race .
Sign the envelope with your “ official signature , ” not your “ grocery store signature.
” If the ballot says to “ fill in an oval , ” then completely fill it in ; do not use a check mark or X or circle a name .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ink .
The best way to return your mail-in ballot is to drop it off at your local election official ’ s office , an official , monitored drop box , or a polling place .
( Check if your state requires ballots to be returned by mail or to find the nearest drop box . )
If you must return your ballot by U.S .
Postal Service , mail it right away , regardless of your state ’ s deadline for postmarks and receiving ballots .
Put stamps on the envelope unless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you mail or deposit your ballot in a drop box , check whether it was received on your state ’ s tracking system .
If you see evidence of voter suppression , voter intimidation , or obstacles ( such as long lines or broken machines ) that are making it difficult to vote , it ’ s important to “ say something.
” Vote early if you can .
Many states allow early in-person voting at vote centers or county offices and some let you drop your mail-in ballot early at vote centers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Once the paper ballots are marked , however , they need to be secured from tampering .
This step is a U.S. Election Assistance Commission ’ s “ best practice ” standard .
Election officials in every state must commit to safeguarding paper ballots and other election materials from fraud and error .
The third and final step in evidence-based elections is to conduct risk-limiting audits .
These audits , which require hand-marked paper ballots kept demonstrably secure , ensure that the reported winner really won , even if back-end systems that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( No other election auditing method can determine , with high confidence , that the official winner is the true winner ! )
Risk-limiting audits are the gold standard in post-election audits and are endorsed by the National Academies of Sciences , Engineering , and Medicine .
( Full disclosure , one of us created the audits , which are also a foundational part of Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden ’ s election security bill . )
Election officials must commit to conducting risk-limiting audits , whether the reported election result is close or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressure election officials to safeguard paper ballots verifiably and to conduct risk-limiting audits .
Let ’ s demand compliance with evidence-based election standards in the seven swing states using paper ballots exclusively : Arizona , Florida , Iowa , Michigan , North Carolina , Pennsylvania and Wisconsin .
Volunteering for the most effective get-out-the-vote activities can help to reduce the impact of election manipulation ; the more eligible voters vote , the harder it is to conceal certain types of election fraud .
It is possible to mobilize hundreds of thousands of additional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simple , voter turnout strategies that utilize potent persuasion psychology research methods .
( Studies show that when the possibility of being “ benignly observed ” exists , people tend to do good things for their communities .
When these findings are applied to get-out-the-vote strategies , research shows that voter turnout exponentially increases , compared to standard voter turnout methods . )
Working smarter in swing states will also help to convert a tight , likely-to-be contested race into a decisive victory .
We can not afford a repeat of 2016 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ votes and razor-thin margins in three states .
And in spite of perhaps unrealistic demands for an election winner to be declared on Nov. 3 , voters must resist the psychological desire for closure on Election Day eve .
Adjust your mindset now and normalize the fact that it could and likely should take weeks to count and properly audit the votes .
The most important principle is that we are certain that the reported winner actually won .
Our democracy depends on evidence-based elections .
And voting is America ’ s last @ @

Leanne Watt and Richard Painter and Philip B. Stark

Americans are scared. Regardless of what the polls suggest, they understand that our elections and democracy are under attack. And a power grab is still unfolding, marked by legal games, voter suppression, a crippled postal system and a politicized Supreme Court, which may decide a disputed election. Meanwhile, all electronic voting machines, whether directly connected to the internet or not, remain vulnerable to hacking and fraud.
Despite these serious challenges, there is a way to make America’s 2020 election results trustworthy. Our nation can have an evidence-based presidential election if voters and election officials act now.
Despite these serious challenges, there is a way to make America’s 2020 election results trustworthy.
In this op-ed, we discuss three simple but essential tools that will produce strong, verifiable evidence that the reported winner really won, despite any fraud or malfunction. This means generating a dependable record of votes on paper ballots, keeping that paper trail physically secure, and auditing the reported results against that paper.
Whenever possible, we recommend voting by hand on paper ballots. This first step prevents fraud at the front-end of the election process. Hand-marked paper cannot be hacked.
If you plan to vote in person, don’t assume your state provides hand-markable paper ballots. Check this easy-to-read map to make sure. If your state or jurisdiction does not provide paper ballots at polling places, you can instead request a provisional ballot (most states offer them) or request a vote-by-mail ballot.
Voting on an absentee or vote-by-mail ballot is a good way to hand-mark a paper ballot. Request your ballot now. The vast majority of states provide no-excuse mail-in ballots or allow Covid-19 as a reason to request one. (Check your state’s excuse policy.)
Complete your ballot carefully. Every election, a small percentage of ballots aren’t counted because of avoidable voter errors. But even a few votes can change the outcome of a close race. Sign the envelope with your “official signature,” not your “grocery store signature.” If the ballot says to “fill in an oval,” then completely fill it in; do not use a check mark or X or circle a name. Use a pen with blue or black ink.
The best way to return your mail-in ballot is to drop it off at your local election official’s office, an official, monitored drop box, or a polling place. (Check if your state requires ballots to be returned by mail or to find the nearest drop box.)
If you must return your ballot by U.S. Postal Service, mail it right away, regardless of your state’s deadline for postmarks and receiving ballots. Put stamps on the envelope unless your state prepays the postage.
If you mail or deposit your ballot in a drop box, check whether it was received on your state’s tracking system.
If you see evidence of voter suppression, voter intimidation, or obstacles (such as long lines or broken machines) that are making it difficult to vote, it’s important to “say something.”
Vote early if you can. Many states allow early in-person voting at vote centers or county offices and some let you drop your mail-in ballot early at vote centers. Check your state’s policy.
Once the paper ballots are marked, however, they need to be secured from tampering. This step is a U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s “best practice” standard. Election officials in every state must commit to safeguarding paper ballots and other election materials from fraud and error.
The third and final step in evidence-based elections is to conduct risk-limiting audits. These audits, which require hand-marked paper ballots kept demonstrably secure, ensure that the reported winner really won, even if back-end systems that count paper ballot votes are hacked. (No other election auditing method can determine, with high confidence, that the official winner is the true winner!)
Risk-limiting audits are the gold standard in post-election audits and are endorsed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (Full disclosure, one of us created the audits, which are also a foundational part of Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden’s election security bill.) Election officials must commit to conducting risk-limiting audits, whether the reported election result is close or not.
Now is the time to pressure election officials to safeguard paper ballots verifiably and to conduct risk-limiting audits. Let’s demand compliance with evidence-based election standards in the seven swing states using paper ballots exclusively: Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Volunteering for the most effective get-out-the-vote activities can help to reduce the impact of election manipulation; the more eligible voters vote, the harder it is to conceal certain types of election fraud. It is possible to mobilize hundreds of thousands of additional eligible voters in swing states by employing simple, voter turnout strategies that utilize potent persuasion psychology research methods. (Studies show that when the possibility of being “benignly observed” exists, people tend to do good things for their communities. When these findings are applied to get-out-the-vote strategies, research shows that voter turnout exponentially increases, compared to standard voter turnout methods.) Working smarter in swing states will also help to convert a tight, likely-to-be contested race into a decisive victory. We cannot afford a repeat of 2016, when the election was decided by 80,000 votes and razor-thin margins in three states.
And in spite of perhaps unrealistic demands for an election winner to be declared on Nov. 3, voters must resist the psychological desire for closure on Election Day eve. Adjust your mindset now and normalize the fact that it could and likely should take weeks to count and properly audit the votes. The most important principle is that we are certain that the reported winner actually won.
Our democracy depends on evidence-based elections. And voting is America’s last stand.


msnbc--2020-10-13--Voter suppression has many faces. One of them is apathy to your participation.

Voter participation in Puerto Rico is high — up to 80 percent of Puerto Ricans turn out to vote in most major elections , compared to less than 60 percent among Americans on the mainland .
Part of this is due to a “ culture of the vote , ” which includes the fact that Election Day is a holiday during which most people do n't work and schools are closed ( and you can drink afterward ) , but it 's not just that .
Puerto Ricans take their ability to vote seriously , in part because , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the voting day extravaganza of political party colors and affiliations passed on in the family — pro-statehood blue , pro-commonwealth red and independence green — is one of the only ways we can exercise our rights as Puerto Ricans .
But there is a marked drop in voter participation when Puerto Ricans move to the mainland , and among Boricuas there in general .
Puerto Ricans in the United States not only have lower voter participation than non-Hispanics , according to a 2016 study by Hunter University 's Carlos Vargas-Ramos , they often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ average For one — in a cycle that has been repeating itself — there are currently about 200,000 Boricuas that have yet to register to vote since their arrival on the mainland .
They lack the proper information about voter registration , they are not familiar with the U.S. party system or how the elections actually work .
Many do n't even know that there is early voting here , so they do n't know that this election has already started .
Their lack of knowledge about how things work in the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — is suppressing their participation and it has for decades .
That means Puerto Ricans , especially the newly arrived , could be both one of the most disenfranchised groups and the biggest missed opportunity for Democrats of the 2020 elections .
We 've seen this before : in 2015 and 2016 , the financial crisis on the island sent tens of thousands of Puerto Ricans to the mainland , and particularly to south and central Florida , where they would 've been eligible to vote in the 2016 elections ; Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 when he won by 1.2 percentage points or 112,911 votes .
Organizers said at the time that Hillary Clinton , despite her strong margins with Puerto Rican voters in the state , had failed to fully address the issues of concern to them .
Then , more than 130,000 Puerto Ricans fled the island after Hurricane Maria in 2017 , and tens of thousands more settled in central Florida .
By 2018 , Puerto Ricans in Orange County numbered more than 200,000 , and almost 125,000 lived in Osceola County .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 margin of victory , but they did n't deliver for Democrats in 2018 either .
In fact , Puerto Ricans helped Republican Rick Scott win his 2018 Senate race because , after the devastation of Maria , as governor of the state , Scott welcomed them warmly and showed he cared about the Puerto Rican community and the island .
Experts also noted that there were n't enough efforts made to help Puerto Ricans register to vote or engage them in the nuances of mainland politics in 2018 .
And now it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key swing state and the Puerto Ricans living there could decide who becomes the next president — which is why Joe Biden and Donald Trump are both busy luring the Boricua voter .
But these are Biden ’ s voters to lose : Puerto Ricans will never forgive Trump for his treatment of Puerto Rico and most will not vote for him .
The Democratic Party , however , needs to do a better job at engaging Boricuas and getting them to the polls , or else Florida in 2020 will be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the express desires of Puerto Rican voters ( a recent poll by EquisLabs , a Democratic polling group , suggested that 61 percent of Floridians who identify as Puerto Rican preferred Biden ) will be lost because they wo n't be able to adequately exercise their franchise .
Puerto Ricans , especially those who have lived in Puerto Rico , need to feel — and are used to feeling — engaged in the process and by the candidates .
Latino strategists say the Biden campaign needs to show it cares about Puerto Rican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boots on the ground if it expects to get the largest nonwhite voting bloc to the polls this year .
This means providing information on the voting process , hiring Puerto Ricans to lead the outreach to Puerto Ricans , and running a culturally sensitive campaign .
There are signs that this is n't happening “ Several grassroots organizations have told me that Democrats still have n't figured out how to mobilize the Puerto Rican vote , '' Julio Ricardo Varela , founder of Latino Rebels and co-host of In The Thick , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` Part of it is a lack of understanding of what Puerto Rican voters care about.
” In September , Biden did announce a proposal to provide more infrastructure funding to help Puerto Rico rebuild from 2017 's Hurricane Maria — but did not put a strategy in place to get the word out to the voters .
Meanwhile , a few days later , Trump fought back by announcing nearly $ 13 billion for recovery efforts from the disaster — which were technically funds already approved by Congress that he stalled .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Miami Herald , Florida field organizers for the Biden campaign who are Puerto Rican said they had been mistreated and transferred without explanation to communities where there are almost no Puerto Ricans or other Hispanics .
“ The [ Coordinated Campaign of Florida ] is suppressing the Hispanic vote by removing Spanish-speaking organizers from Central Florida without explanation , which fails to confront a system of white-dominated politics we are supposed to be working against as organizers of a progressive party , ” the letter reads , according to the Herald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ segregation in Central Florida for decades , '' Varela noted .
`` This is the South we are talking about , and the growing Puerto Rican community is no way near its full political power because established power in the region is not ready to relinquish it.
” In a recent address to the Latino community , Biden said that “ more than any other time , the Hispanic community , the Latino community holds in the palm of the hand the destiny of this country .
You can decide the direction of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would do well to heed its own candidate ’ s words .

Voter participation in Puerto Rico is high — up to 80 percent of Puerto Ricans turn out to vote in most major elections, compared to less than 60 percent among Americans on the mainland. Part of this is due to a “culture of the vote,” which includes the fact that Election Day is a holiday during which most people don't work and schools are closed (and you can drink afterward), but it's not just that. Puerto Ricans take their ability to vote seriously, in part because, as a colony of the United States, the voting day extravaganza of political party colors and affiliations passed on in the family — pro-statehood blue, pro-commonwealth red and independence green — is one of the only ways we can exercise our rights as Puerto Ricans.
But there is a marked drop in voter participation when Puerto Ricans move to the mainland, and among Boricuas there in general. Puerto Ricans in the United States not only have lower voter participation than non-Hispanics, according to a 2016 study by Hunter University's Carlos Vargas-Ramos, they often have lower participation rates than Hispanics on average
Why?
For one — in a cycle that has been repeating itself — there are currently about 200,000 Boricuas that have yet to register to vote since their arrival on the mainland. They lack the proper information about voter registration, they are not familiar with the U.S. party system or how the elections actually work. Many don't even know that there is early voting here, so they don't know that this election has already started. Their lack of knowledge about how things work in the United States — which is not by accident — is suppressing their participation and it has for decades.
That means Puerto Ricans, especially the newly arrived, could be both one of the most disenfranchised groups and the biggest missed opportunity for Democrats of the 2020 elections.
We've seen this before: in 2015 and 2016, the financial crisis on the island sent tens of thousands of Puerto Ricans to the mainland, and particularly to south and central Florida, where they would've been eligible to vote in the 2016 elections; Trump’s margin of victory in Florida in 2016 when he won by 1.2 percentage points or 112,911 votes. Organizers said at the time that Hillary Clinton, despite her strong margins with Puerto Rican voters in the state, had failed to fully address the issues of concern to them.
Then, more than 130,000 Puerto Ricans fled the island after Hurricane Maria in 2017, and tens of thousands more settled in central Florida. By 2018, Puerto Ricans in Orange County numbered more than 200,000, and almost 125,000 lived in Osceola County. That’s almost three times Trump's 2016 margin of victory, but they didn't deliver for Democrats in 2018 either. In fact, Puerto Ricans helped Republican Rick Scott win his 2018 Senate race because, after the devastation of Maria, as governor of the state, Scott welcomed them warmly and showed he cared about the Puerto Rican community and the island.
Experts also noted that there weren't enough efforts made to help Puerto Ricans register to vote or engage them in the nuances of mainland politics in 2018.
And now it's 2020. Florida is again a key swing state and the Puerto Ricans living there could decide who becomes the next president — which is why Joe Biden and Donald Trump are both busy luring the Boricua voter. But these are Biden’s voters to lose: Puerto Ricans will never forgive Trump for his treatment of Puerto Rico and most will not vote for him. The Democratic Party, however, needs to do a better job at engaging Boricuas and getting them to the polls, or else Florida in 2020 will be a repeat in 2016 and 2018 — and the express desires of Puerto Rican voters (a recent poll by EquisLabs, a Democratic polling group, suggested that 61 percent of Floridians who identify as Puerto Rican preferred Biden) will be lost because they won't be able to adequately exercise their franchise.
Puerto Ricans, especially those who have lived in Puerto Rico, need to feel — and are used to feeling — engaged in the process and by the candidates.
Latino strategists say the Biden campaign needs to show it cares about Puerto Rican voters with both its messaging and with boots on the ground if it expects to get the largest nonwhite voting bloc to the polls this year. This means providing information on the voting process, hiring Puerto Ricans to lead the outreach to Puerto Ricans, and running a culturally sensitive campaign.
There are signs that this isn't happening
“Several grassroots organizations have told me that Democrats still haven't figured out how to mobilize the Puerto Rican vote," Julio Ricardo Varela, founder of Latino Rebels and co-host of In The Thick, a political podcast, told me. "Part of it is a lack of understanding of what Puerto Rican voters care about.”
In September, Biden did announce a proposal to provide more infrastructure funding to help Puerto Rico rebuild from 2017's Hurricane Maria — but did not put a strategy in place to get the word out to the voters. Meanwhile, a few days later, Trump fought back by announcing nearly $13 billion for recovery efforts from the disaster — which were technically funds already approved by Congress that he stalled.
More recently, in a letter obtained by the Miami Herald, Florida field organizers for the Biden campaign who are Puerto Rican said they had been mistreated and transferred without explanation to communities where there are almost no Puerto Ricans or other Hispanics. “The [Coordinated Campaign of Florida] is suppressing the Hispanic vote by removing Spanish-speaking organizers from Central Florida without explanation, which fails to confront a system of white-dominated politics we are supposed to be working against as organizers of a progressive party,” the letter reads, according to the Herald.
“There has also been political segregation in Central Florida for decades," Varela noted. "This is the South we are talking about, and the growing Puerto Rican community is no way near its full political power because established power in the region is not ready to relinquish it.”
In a recent address to the Latino community, Biden said that “more than any other time, the Hispanic community, the Latino community holds in the palm of the hand the destiny of this country. You can decide the direction of this country."
The Biden campaign would do well to heed its own candidate’s words.


Tuesday's Mini-Report, 10.13.20

* Breaking late this afternoon : `` The Supreme Court has put on hold a federal judge 's order that data collection must continue in the 2020 census through the end of the month .
Justice Sonia Sotomayor is the only justice who noted her dissent , issuing with it a six-page dissenting opinion . ''
* I 'm curious why the DOJ is involved in this case : `` The Justice Department on Tuesday sued Stephanie Winston Wolkoff , a former adviser and confidant of first lady Melania Trump , alleging she breached a nondisclosure agreement when she published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the East Wing earlier this year . ''
* Today 's Q & A : `` Responding to questioning from Sen. Amy Klobuchar , D-Minn. , Barrett said she did not consider Roe v. Wade , the decision that helped ensure a woman 's ability to obtain an abortion , to be a 'super-precedent ' protected from reversal . ''
* From Michigan Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer ( D ) to Virginia Gov .
Ralph Northam ( D ) : `` Members of anti-government paramilitary groups discussed kidnapping Virginia 's governor during a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agent testified Tuesday during a court hearing in Michigan . ''
* Hurricane Delta : `` Three people have died in Hurricane Delta or in its aftermath in Louisiana and Florida , officials said days after it made landfall as a Category 2 storm . ''
* Vaccine trials : `` Johnson & Johnson has paused its clinical trials for a Covid-19 vaccine candidate after a participant fell ill , just weeks after it announced that trials were in their final stage . ''
* Related news : `` A government-sponsored clinical trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drug company Eli Lilly has been paused because of a 'potential safety concern , ' according to emails that government officials sent on Tuesday to researchers at testing sites , and confirmed by the company . ''
* Tax returns : `` Attorneys for President Donald Trump have asked the Supreme Court for an emergency application to stay -- or put on hold -- the recent decision by an appeals court to let Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance get Trump 's tax documents pursuant to a grand jury subpoena . ''
* USPS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saw its overall on-time delivery performance slip during the month of September , despite commitments from Postmaster General Louis DeJoy that he would right the ship ahead of the presidential election . ''
* There are still other Emoluments Clause cases pending : `` The Supreme Court declined Tuesday to revive a lawsuit filed by members of Congress against President Donald Trump alleging that he illegally profits off the presidency .
The high court said it would not hear a case filed by Democratic members of Congress in 2017 .
A federal appeals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawsuit should be dismissed . ''
* Quite a story : `` Senator Gary Peters of Michigan , a Democrat facing a competitive race for re-election , on Monday became one of only a handful of members of Congress to share a personal experience with abortion .
In an interview with Elle magazine , Mr. Peters said that in the late 1980s , his wife at the time , Heidi , had an abortion at four months ' gestation because the pregnancy was not viable and her life was in danger . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ yesterday of `` playing 'fingers ' with his mask . ''
I 'm still not sure what that means .

Today's edition of quick hits:
* Breaking late this afternoon: "The Supreme Court has put on hold a federal judge's order that data collection must continue in the 2020 census through the end of the month. Justice Sonia Sotomayor is the only justice who noted her dissent, issuing with it a six-page dissenting opinion."
* I'm curious why the DOJ is involved in this case: "The Justice Department on Tuesday sued Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, a former adviser and confidant of first lady Melania Trump, alleging she breached a nondisclosure agreement when she published a scathing tell-all about her experiences inside the East Wing earlier this year."
* Today's Q&A: "Responding to questioning from Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., Barrett said she did not consider Roe v. Wade, the decision that helped ensure a woman's ability to obtain an abortion, to be a 'super-precedent' protected from reversal."
* From Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) to Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D): "Members of anti-government paramilitary groups discussed kidnapping Virginia's governor during a June meeting in Ohio, an FBI agent testified Tuesday during a court hearing in Michigan."
* Hurricane Delta: "Three people have died in Hurricane Delta or in its aftermath in Louisiana and Florida, officials said days after it made landfall as a Category 2 storm."
* Vaccine trials: "Johnson & Johnson has paused its clinical trials for a Covid-19 vaccine candidate after a participant fell ill, just weeks after it announced that trials were in their final stage."
* Related news: "A government-sponsored clinical trial testing an antibody treatment made by the drug company Eli Lilly has been paused because of a 'potential safety concern,' according to emails that government officials sent on Tuesday to researchers at testing sites, and confirmed by the company."
* Tax returns: "Attorneys for President Donald Trump have asked the Supreme Court for an emergency application to stay -- or put on hold -- the recent decision by an appeals court to let Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance get Trump's tax documents pursuant to a grand jury subpoena."
* USPS: "The U.S. Postal Service saw its overall on-time delivery performance slip during the month of September, despite commitments from Postmaster General Louis DeJoy that he would right the ship ahead of the presidential election."
* There are still other Emoluments Clause cases pending: "The Supreme Court declined Tuesday to revive a lawsuit filed by members of Congress against President Donald Trump alleging that he illegally profits off the presidency. The high court said it would not hear a case filed by Democratic members of Congress in 2017. A federal appeals court in Washington previously ruled that the lawsuit should be dismissed."
* Quite a story: "Senator Gary Peters of Michigan, a Democrat facing a competitive race for re-election, on Monday became one of only a handful of members of Congress to share a personal experience with abortion. In an interview with Elle magazine, Mr. Peters said that in the late 1980s, his wife at the time, Heidi, had an abortion at four months' gestation because the pregnancy was not viable and her life was in danger."
* And Donald Trump accused Joe Biden yesterday of "playing 'fingers' with his mask." I'm still not sure what that means.
See you tomorrow.


msnbc--2020-10-13--Trump campaign used top general in ad without permission, too

Donald Trump 's re-election campaign drew the ire of Dr. Anthony Fauci this week when it took one of his quotes out of context and included it in a television ad without his consent .
As it turns out , the immunologist is n't alone .
Politico reported overnight that the president 's political operation is also running a digital ad featuring Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley , but the campaign did n't seek the general 's permission beforehand .
A Pentagon official told Politico , `` This photo , like many others , was not used with [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' said the official , who requested anonymity to speak about a sensitive topic .
The article went on to quote Jim Golby , a former Pentagon official who is now a senior fellow at the Clements Center at the University of Texas at Austin , describing the ad as `` a disturbing violation of civil-military norms by the president 's campaign . ''
Golby added , `` There is simply no reason for a sitting chairman of the Joint Chiefs to be included in an advertisement paid for by the campaign .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything , happens next .
It 's doubtful the Trump campaign will pull or edit the ad -- the president has proven himself indifferent to U.S. military standards -- though Milley may yet make his dissatisfaction known , as Fauci has done .
Indeed , it 's worth emphasizing for context that the Joint Chiefs chairman has been willing to put some distance between himself and the president who tapped him for his post .
In June , for example , the general publicly expressed regret for his role in Trump 's Lafayette @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't pleased by Milley 's reaction . )
Two months later , after the president tried to discredit his own country 's electoral system , and raised the prospect of ignoring election results he does n't like , the Joint Chiefs chairman made explicit that the armed forces would not be involved in the electoral process or resolving an election dispute .
And this week , after Donald Trump told the public that all U.S. troops currently deployed in Afghanistan should be home by Christmas , Milley seemed to contradict the presidential campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` conditions based . ''
Trump has reportedly treated the general as the top decision-maker at the Pentagon -- the president does n't seem to care about civilian control of the military , either -- but if the Republican starts tweeting complaints about Milley , we 'll apparently know why .

Donald Trump's re-election campaign drew the ire of Dr. Anthony Fauci this week when it took one of his quotes out of context and included it in a television ad without his consent. As it turns out, the immunologist isn't alone.
Politico reported overnight that the president's political operation is also running a digital ad featuring Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley, but the campaign didn't seek the general's permission beforehand.
The military has strict rules against uniformed service members participating in political campaigns, and the ad is just the latest example of the president or those around him pulling the nation's highest-ranking officer and other Defense Department officials into the political realm.... Active-duty service members are prohibited from participating in fundraisers, speaking before partisan gatherings and wearing military uniforms at campaign events, according to DoD.
A Pentagon official told Politico, "This photo, like many others, was not used with [Milley's] knowledge or consent," said the official, who requested anonymity to speak about a sensitive topic.
The article went on to quote Jim Golby, a former Pentagon official who is now a senior fellow at the Clements Center at the University of Texas at Austin, describing the ad as "a disturbing violation of civil-military norms by the president's campaign." Golby added, "There is simply no reason for a sitting chairman of the Joint Chiefs to be included in an advertisement paid for by the campaign."
Time will tell what, if anything, happens next. It's doubtful the Trump campaign will pull or edit the ad -- the president has proven himself indifferent to U.S. military standards -- though Milley may yet make his dissatisfaction known, as Fauci has done.
Indeed, it's worth emphasizing for context that the Joint Chiefs chairman has been willing to put some distance between himself and the president who tapped him for his post. In June, for example, the general publicly expressed regret for his role in Trump's Lafayette Square debacle. (The president wasn't pleased by Milley's reaction.)
Two months later, after the president tried to discredit his own country's electoral system, and raised the prospect of ignoring election results he doesn't like, the Joint Chiefs chairman made explicit that the armed forces would not be involved in the electoral process or resolving an election dispute.
And this week, after Donald Trump told the public that all U.S. troops currently deployed in Afghanistan should be home by Christmas, Milley seemed to contradict the presidential campaign promise and said deployment decisions would be "conditions based."
Trump has reportedly treated the general as the top decision-maker at the Pentagon -- the president doesn't seem to care about civilian control of the military, either -- but if the Republican starts tweeting complaints about Milley, we'll apparently know why.


msnbc--2020-10-13--Tuesday's Campaign Round-Up, 10.13.20

Tuesday's Campaign Round-Up, 10.13.20

Today 's installment of campaign-related news items from across the country .
* The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last night that Texas Gov .
Greg Abbott ( R ) can , in fact , limit ballot-drop-off sites to one per county .
The three-judge panel was comprised entirely of Donald Trump-appointed jurists .
* In Wisconsin , the latest New York Times/Siena College poll found Joe Biden leading Donald Trump in this key 2020 battleground , 51 % to 41 % , among likely voters .
* In Michigan , the New York Times/Siena College poll also found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % , though in the state 's U.S. Senate race , the same survey found incumbent Sen. Gary Peters ( D ) with the narrowest of leads over John James ( R ) , 43 % to 42 % .
* In North Carolina , a new Monmouth poll shows Biden leading Trump by four points in a high-turnout race , but only one point in a low-turnout race .
In the state 's U.S. Senate race , the same survey found Cal Cunningham ( D ) leading incumbent Sen. Thom Tillis ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high-turnout race , but only one point in a low-turnout race .
* To the surprise of many in New Hampshire , former state Attorney General Tom Rath ( R ) announced his support for Biden 's presidential candidacy yesterday .
It 's the first time the longtime Republican activist and former state GOP leader has ever publicly endorsed a Democrat for national office .
* In a debate last night , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R ) argued that Kentuckians should not want `` somebody from New York setting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intended to refer to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D ) , it 's worth emphasizing that Donald Trump is from New York .
* The Democratic National Committee today launched new , state-specific voter education videos featuring former President Barack Obama .
* And the president denied again this morning that his campaign is struggling financially , despite evidence that his coffers are running low .
`` I keep reading Fake News stories that my campaign is running low on money , '' Trump wrote .
`` Not true , & @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put up money myself . ''
The Republican has made similar comments before , but has been reluctant to write checks to his campaign .

Today's installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.
* The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last night that Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) can, in fact, limit ballot-drop-off sites to one per county. The three-judge panel was comprised entirely of Donald Trump-appointed jurists.
* In Wisconsin, the latest New York Times/Siena College poll found Joe Biden leading Donald Trump in this key 2020 battleground, 51% to 41%, among likely voters.
* In Michigan, the New York Times/Siena College poll also found Biden ahead, 48% to 40%, though in the state's U.S. Senate race, the same survey found incumbent Sen. Gary Peters (D) with the narrowest of leads over John James (R), 43% to 42%.
* In North Carolina, a new Monmouth poll shows Biden leading Trump by four points in a high-turnout race, but only one point in a low-turnout race. In the state's U.S. Senate race, the same survey found Cal Cunningham (D) leading incumbent Sen. Thom Tillis (R) by five points in a high-turnout race, but only one point in a low-turnout race.
* To the surprise of many in New Hampshire, former state Attorney General Tom Rath (R) announced his support for Biden's presidential candidacy yesterday. It's the first time the longtime Republican activist and former state GOP leader has ever publicly endorsed a Democrat for national office.
* In a debate last night, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) argued that Kentuckians should not want "somebody from New York setting the agenda." While the comment was intended to refer to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D), it's worth emphasizing that Donald Trump is from New York.
* The Democratic National Committee today launched new, state-specific voter education videos featuring former President Barack Obama.
* And the president denied again this morning that his campaign is struggling financially, despite evidence that his coffers are running low. "I keep reading Fake News stories that my campaign is running low on money," Trump wrote. "Not true, & if it were so, I would put up money myself." The Republican has made similar comments before, but has been reluctant to write checks to his campaign.


msnbc--2020-10-14--Trump admin admits embrace of disputed herd immunity strategy: WaPo

Gov .
Cuomo : The virus is going to flare up in places

Rachel Maddow shares reporting by the Washington Post that a Trump administration official has admitted that the Trump policy for dealing with coronavirus is tantamount to herd immunity, even as experts deride it as "fringe" and "dangerous," and the U.S. appears to be in the grips of a second wave of infections.Oct. 14, 2020


msnbc--2020-10-13--Amy Coney Barrett refuses to answer whether presidents should commit to a peaceful transfer of power

Sen. Cory Booker asked Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett whether she believed every president should make a commitment to ‘the peaceful transfer of power.’ Barrett refused to answer, saying “Well, senator, that seems to me to be pulling me in a little bit into this question of whether the president has said that he would not peacefully leave office and so to the extent that this is a political controversy right now as a judge I want to stay out of it."Oct. 13, 2020


msnbc--2020-10-13--Harris: ‘People are scared’ of losing ACA ‘in the middle of a pandemic’

Harris: ‘People are scared’ of losing ACA ‘in the middle of a pandemic’
Sen. Kamala Harris discussed the ACA in her opening statement at Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court nomination hearing. Harris said, “People are scared of what will happen if The Affordable Care Act is destroyed.”Oct. 13, 2020


msnbc--2020-10-14--An inside look at the Obama presidency through Pete Souza’s lens

Pete Souza spent 8 years as the chief White House photographer for the Obama presidency, building a bond that allowed him access to major events, both professional and personal. His work is the subject of a new documentary, “The Way I See It,” premiering on MSNBC Friday, October 16 at 10pm ET. Souza joins Lawrence O’Donnell to talk about Barack Obama’s bond with Joe Biden, the intensity of the Osama bin Laden raid and what it was like to introduce his mother to the commander-in-chief.Oct. 14, 2020


msnbc--2020-10-14--‘One last heist’: Chris on why Republicans are trying to ram through Amy Coney Barrett

Meacham: Pence probably saved the republic, but I don't always want to count on one person to do it


msnbc--2020-10-14--Rudy Giuliani on Covid-19: ‘People don’t die of this disease anymore’

Rudy Giuliani on Covid-19: ‘People don’t die of this disease anymore’
Despite hundreds of Americans dying of Covid-19 today, Trump campaign surrogate Rudy Giuliani told an adoring crowd in Philadelphia that, “People don’t die of this disease anymore.”Oct. 14, 2020


msnbc--2020-10-14--Barrett takes 'cautious' approach on election question

Legal analyst Danny Cevallos weighs in on the confirmation hearings for Amy Coney Barrett and her remarks on if the president can unilaterally delay an election.Oct. 14, 2020


msnbc--2020-10-14--Despite Trump remarks, Covid-19 isn't over for most Americans


msnbc--2020-10-14--Amy Coney Barrett preaches 'originalism' — but practices historical erasure

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Lindsey Graham , R-S.C. , a former prosecutor , opened the committee 's impromptu law school seminar Tuesday with a softball question for Judge Amy Coney Barrett , asking her to define in `` real English '' just what she and her mentor — the late Justice Antonin Scalia — mean when they refer to `` originalism '' and `` textualism . ''
To the casual observer , Barrett and Scalia have the imprimatur of history on their side .
It follows that if you want to determine how and whether laws fit within the framework @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ... read it ?
The words are right there .
Why leave it up to judges operating in today 's world who seem poised to consign history to the recycling bin ?
But that thinking falls apart when you begin to probe it .
I 'd go as far as to say it 's really the so-called originalists who are overwriting history with their focus on , as Scalia put it , `` original meaning . ''
Rather than as a `` living document , '' Scalia saw the Constitution as `` dead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in her answers so far this week shows that she shares that view .
But the narrowness of how they actually apply that idea becomes apparent when you consider the fundamental constitutional shift that occurred after the passage of the 13th , 14th and 15th amendments , as New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie pointed out on Twitter .
Through this revamping of the Constitution — and through later revisions , like the 19th and 24th amendments — the ideas of the founders themselves have already been superseded in the text .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amendments more valid than people like Republican Rep. Thaddeus Stevens , whose contributions in the Reconstruction era delivered broader rights to more people ?
When pressed about this through the course of the day , Barrett turned to what 's been called the Ginsburg rule — to not comment on cases that might come before her once she is confirmed and seated , or really any case she had n't written about directly .
That might be less of a concern if it had n't led to her missing what should have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ text as written , as opposed to someone who can twist legal history to their whims under the guise of following the founders ' intent .
Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar 's question asking Barrett whether intimidation at the polls is illegal went viral — since , you know , it is — but Barrett 's lead-up was honestly more telling .
Given the chance to cite the 15th Amendment 's exceedingly clear language granting Congress the power to protect voting rights , Barrett equivocated , saying she did n't write Shelby v. Holder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key part of the Voting Rights Act .
Since Barrett cited the Ginsburg rule , it 's worth noting that the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was one of the most effusive nominees when it came to answering senators ' questions .
At least when it came to what 's called settled law , provisions of the law deemed to be so established that challenging them would be almost unthinkable .
Part of the way laws become settled is through the review of precedents over time , like those set down in 1954 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , say , 1973 's Roe v. Wade .
To her credit , Barrett called Brown a `` super precedent , '' one requiring a case and a controversy to revisit it , something she says she does n't see happening .
But unlike Justice Brett Kavanaugh ahead of his hearing in 2018 , Barrett has indicated that Roe does n't fall under that banner .
Under the original meaning doctrine , those decisions could be swept aside if a case questioning the rights that they draw from the Constitution is brought before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obergefell v. Hodges , which made same-sex marriage legal nationally , as Barrett 's fellow originalist Justice Clarence Thomas recently suggested .
As it stands , 17 cases that challenge Roe are winding their way up through the courts — just Tuesday night , the 5th U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Texas law that banned the most common second-trimester abortion .
Roe is coming back to the highest court in the land , and soon .
Is it really so impossible to imagine a world in which , after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the federal courts , a case similarly questioning Brown makes its way up to the Supreme Court ?
So the question remains : Which side is the one that 's erasing history ?
But while we wait for the third day of hearings to start , here 's some things you should absolutely be reading : • The Washington Post : Well , that was a bust .
Even though President Donald Trump called the `` unmasking '' scandal one of the most heinous cases of political malfeasance against him , the investigation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • Austin American-Statesman : As we prepare for one of the highest-turnout elections ever , the American-Statesman reports that a full 97 percent of eligible voters in Travis County — which includes Austin — have registered to vote .
That 's about 850,000 people , and honestly , you love to see it .
• The New Yorker : Reporter Olivia Nuzzi went to Rudy Giuliani 's Trump < 3 Columbus Day party .
and all she got was Hizzoner being pretty dang racist : • The Daily Beast : I saw this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which I had to stare at for several minutes before believing that it 's real , before I read Will Somner 's story about it , so here you go :

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a former prosecutor, opened the committee's impromptu law school seminar Tuesday with a softball question for Judge Amy Coney Barrett, asking her to define in "real English" just what she and her mentor — the late Justice Antonin Scalia — mean when they refer to "originalism" and "textualism."
From this morning: Judge Amy Coney Barrett gives the definitions of "originalism" and "textualism" in Sen. Graham's impromptu Originalism 101 seminar pic.twitter.com/eMzT7qDNsm — Hayes Brown (@HayesBrown) October 14, 2020
To the casual observer, Barrett and Scalia have the imprimatur of history on their side. It follows that if you want to determine how and whether laws fit within the framework of the Constitution, you should just ... read it? The words are right there. Why leave it up to judges operating in today's world who seem poised to consign history to the recycling bin?
But that thinking falls apart when you begin to probe it. I'd go as far as to say it's really the so-called originalists who are overwriting history with their focus on, as Scalia put it, "original meaning."
Rather than as a "living document," Scalia saw the Constitution as "dead, dead, dead." Barrett in her answers so far this week shows that she shares that view. But the narrowness of how they actually apply that idea becomes apparent when you consider the fundamental constitutional shift that occurred after the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, as New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie pointed out on Twitter.
given that the constitution was effectively rewritten by the reconstruction amendments, it would be great to see a supreme court nominee say something like “I will interpret the Constitution as it was understood in 1870.” — b-boy boooo-eebaisse (@jbouie) October 13, 2020
Through this revamping of the Constitution — and through later revisions, like the 19th and 24th amendments — the ideas of the founders themselves have already been superseded in the text. What makes the authors of the first 10 amendments more valid than people like Republican Rep. Thaddeus Stevens, whose contributions in the Reconstruction era delivered broader rights to more people?
When pressed about this through the course of the day, Barrett turned to what's been called the Ginsburg rule — to not comment on cases that might come before her once she is confirmed and seated, or really any case she hadn't written about directly. That might be less of a concern if it hadn't led to her missing what should have been layups for someone who agrees with the text as written, as opposed to someone who can twist legal history to their whims under the guise of following the founders' intent.
Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar's question asking Barrett whether intimidation at the polls is illegal went viral — since, you know, it is — but Barrett's lead-up was honestly more telling. Given the chance to cite the 15th Amendment's exceedingly clear language granting Congress the power to protect voting rights, Barrett equivocated, saying she didn't write Shelby v. Holder, a 2013 decision that neutered a key part of the Voting Rights Act.
Since Barrett cited the Ginsburg rule, it's worth noting that the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was one of the most effusive nominees when it came to answering senators' questions. At least when it came to what's called settled law, provisions of the law deemed to be so established that challenging them would be almost unthinkable. Part of the way laws become settled is through the review of precedents over time, like those set down in 1954's Brown v. Board of Education or, say, 1973's Roe v. Wade.
To her credit, Barrett called Brown a "super precedent," one requiring a case and a controversy to revisit it, something she says she doesn't see happening. But unlike Justice Brett Kavanaugh ahead of his hearing in 2018, Barrett has indicated that Roe doesn't fall under that banner.
Under the original meaning doctrine, those decisions could be swept aside if a case questioning the rights that they draw from the Constitution is brought before the court. So could 2015's Obergefell v. Hodges, which made same-sex marriage legal nationally, as Barrett's fellow originalist Justice Clarence Thomas recently suggested. As it stands, 17 cases that challenge Roe are winding their way up through the courts — just Tuesday night, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Texas law that banned the most common second-trimester abortion. Roe is coming back to the highest court in the land, and soon. Is it really so impossible to imagine a world in which, after four years of a complete overhaul of the federal courts, a case similarly questioning Brown makes its way up to the Supreme Court?
So the question remains: Which side is the one that's erasing history?
But while we wait for the third day of hearings to start, here's some things you should absolutely be reading:
The Washington Post: Well, that was a bust. Even though President Donald Trump called the "unmasking" scandal one of the most heinous cases of political malfeasance against him, the investigation wrapped up without finding any wrongdoing.
Austin American-Statesman: As we prepare for one of the highest-turnout elections ever, the American-Statesman reports that a full 97 percent of eligible voters in Travis County — which includes Austin — have registered to vote. That's about 850,000 people, and honestly, you love to see it.
New York Magazine: Reporter Olivia Nuzzi went to Rudy Giuliani's Trump <3 Columbus Day party. and all she got was Hizzoner being pretty dang racist:
After claiming that Democrats used the pandemic to take away gun rights, which did not happen, he mentioned the McCloskeys, the couple who wielded guns on the porch of their St. Louis mansion in front of Black Lives Matter demonstrators who were passing by. Giuliani claimed, falsely, that the protesters had yelled, “’We want to rape your wife! We want to rape your wife! We want this for reparations! This is number one for reparations! Biggest house here! Reparations!’” He added, “Nobody knows this, but at the time, their daughter was upstairs under the bed because she was afraid they’re going to come in and they’re talking about rape and they’re going to rape the wife and they’re going to find the daughter.”
The Daily Beast: I saw this tweet from NBC News' Ben Collins, which I had to stare at for several minutes before believing that it's real, before I read Will Somner's story about it, so here you go:
The QAnon account retweeted by the president today that accused Barack Obama of accidentally killing Osama Bin Laden's body double is now suspended. — Ben Collins (@oneunderscore__) October 14, 2020
CORRECTION (Oct. 14, 2020, 11:40 p.m. ET): A previous version of this article misstated where an article by Olivia Nuzzi was published. It was published in New York Magazine, not The New Yorker.


msnbc--2020-10-14--Trump doesn't care that the militias that love him are illegal. We should.

A `` particular strain of Vanilla ISIS '' — that 's how terrorism expert Malcolm Nance described groups like the self-proclaimed `` militia '' that authorities say took part in what they said was a plot to abduct Michigan Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer .
`` They exist in a fantasy world , '' Nance said .
According to the 2020 Homeland Threat Assessment published early this month by the Department of Homeland Security , `` ideologically motivated lone offenders and small groups will pose the greatest terrorist threat to the homeland , with domestic violent extremists presenting the most persistent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Donald Trump failing to separate himself from racists , white nationalists and conspiracy theorists , the lines between a militant fantasy and reality are getting awful blurry .
Trump is courting danger by playing footsie with armed paramilitary groups , potentially encouraging violence and , by doing so , openly encouraging potential illegal activity , since it is illegal for armed private citizens to try to enforce laws or enact new ones .
Trump 's lack of full-throated , robust responses to alleged members of a Michigan militia who , allegedly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and `` trial '' of Whitmer , as well as to attacks on the Michigan State Capitol and a police station , has many wondering what he is signaling by avoiding criticizing those groups .
And what Trump does n't say can be equally as dangerous ; in any other era , the response of a president to news of the arrests would have been to condemn the plot and express solidarity with and support for the governor or whomever the target was .
But Trump tweeted criticism of Whitmer for the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : the Covid-19-related restrictions that she , like several other governors , had enacted .
He sided with the literal enemy of the state and blamed its victim .
Of course , it should be noted that most Americans who own firearms are not members of a militia .
But Trump 's references to `` liberating '' states with strict Covid-19 restrictions and encouraging supporters to protect private property , watch polls and `` stand back and stand by '' are certainly creating a comfortable space for militia groups in society .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — or are willing to be convinced — that immigrants are rapists , that Muslims are fanatics and that Joe Biden is going to put Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey in charge of the wholesale relocation of poor people of color into mostly white American suburbs .
During the protests that followed the police shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha , Wisconsin , on Aug. 23 , Kyle Rittenhouse , 17 , traveled to Kenosha from his home in the nearby Chicago suburb of Antioch , Illinois .
There , he is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killing two and wounding one .
In an interview with the conservative media outlet The Daily Caller before the shootings , Rittenhouse explained why he was there : `` People are getting injured , and our job is to protect this business ... and part of my job is to also help people .
If there is somebody hurt , I 'm running into harm 's way .
That 's why I have my rifle — because I can protect myself , obviously . ''
It 's unclear who the `` our '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the implication is that he identified with others who had also assumed responsibility for the protection of public property during the protests , some of which turned violent .
With Rittenhouse facing homicide charges , his attorney has described him as `` a Minuteman protecting his community when the government would not . ''
Except that 's not a thing .
The Minutemen were a civilian militia that took part in the Revolutionary War and were made obsolete by the creation of the National Guard in the early 20th century .
Since then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ formalized role for armed civilians in American law enforcement , but it is also expressly illegal in every state , either by state constitution or statute , for civilians to arm and organize outside of a government body without express authority .
In certain circumstances , the president can engage the National Guard or the military in civilian law enforcement duties , but never civilians .
The Minutemen may have been a reliable force back then , but today 's militias tend to be far-right nationalist groups made up of people who distrust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ militias in the country multiplied during Barack Obama 's presidency , and they seem to have found more footing under Trump , for whom many militia members have developed an affinity .
The federal government , which Trump trusts only insofar , it seems , as it helps him , agrees that armed gangs pose a major threat .
Trump 's own mantra of distrust of the federal government — particularly the so-called deep state — has the potential to dangerously embolden these groups .
In fairness , distrust of the government is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and lots of Americans are armed .
But these so-called militias blend these two features into a grievance with a potential solution , even if , as in the case of the alleged Michigan plot , the solution is entirely illegal .
While they 're not often violent , militias are , by definition , heavily armed , and while they exist in every state , they tend to proliferate in states with looser gun laws .
According to experts who study these paramilitary groups , they are made up almost exclusively of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost cartoonish views of patriotism and liberty .
Except that they 're heavily armed , which makes the whole thing a lot less cartoonish .
And regardless of whether the self-appointed vigilantes in Michigan felt that their beef with Gov .
Whitmer was valid ( ostensibly that her orders were trampling on their civil liberties ) , there is no role whatsoever for civilians , armed or not , to assume law enforcement duties .
What is legal when it comes to defending oneself and bearing arms ?
In many states , civilians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the protection of others , but they ca n't band together to do so in an organized fashion .
Private security firms can engage in the protection of people or property , but generally only under strict regulation by the state .
So if you are n't a member of the National Guard or an employee of a security firm or you are n't protecting your own property or family , you have no business in America attempting to enforce laws .
In not taking a strong position against these paramilitary groups , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has done little to create space between himself and the worst of these groups , starting with his now-infamous response to neo-Nazis in Charlottesville , Virginia , in 2017 : `` You had some very bad people in that group , but you also had people that were very fine people , on both sides . ''
Changing course at this point in his presidency is n't likely for Trump , but the effect and impact of his approval of militias and their ideals will outlast this election , no matter who ends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start getting our facts right .

A "particular strain of Vanilla ISIS" — that's how terrorism expert Malcolm Nance described groups like the self-proclaimed "militia" that authorities say took part in what they said was a plot to abduct Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. "They exist in a fantasy world," Nance said. According to the 2020 Homeland Threat Assessment published early this month by the Department of Homeland Security, "ideologically motivated lone offenders and small groups will pose the greatest terrorist threat to the homeland, with domestic violent extremists presenting the most persistent and lethal threat."
But with President Donald Trump failing to separate himself from racists, white nationalists and conspiracy theorists, the lines between a militant fantasy and reality are getting awful blurry. Trump is courting danger by playing footsie with armed paramilitary groups, potentially encouraging violence and, by doing so, openly encouraging potential illegal activity, since it is illegal for armed private citizens to try to enforce laws or enact new ones.
Trump's lack of full-throated, robust responses to alleged members of a Michigan militia who, allegedly, were plotting the abduction, unlawful extradition and "trial" of Whitmer, as well as to attacks on the Michigan State Capitol and a police station, has many wondering what he is signaling by avoiding criticizing those groups. And what Trump doesn't say can be equally as dangerous; in any other era, the response of a president to news of the arrests would have been to condemn the plot and express solidarity with and support for the governor or whomever the target was. But Trump tweeted criticism of Whitmer for the same reasons the conspirators wanted to harm her: the Covid-19-related restrictions that she, like several other governors, had enacted. He sided with the literal enemy of the state and blamed its victim.
Of course, it should be noted that most Americans who own firearms are not members of a militia. But Trump's references to "liberating" states with strict Covid-19 restrictions and encouraging supporters to protect private property, watch polls and "stand back and stand by" are certainly creating a comfortable space for militia groups in society. This rhetoric emboldens and empowers those who believe — or are willing to be convinced — that immigrants are rapists, that Muslims are fanatics and that Joe Biden is going to put Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey in charge of the wholesale relocation of poor people of color into mostly white American suburbs.
LIBERATE MICHIGAN! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 17, 2020
During the protests that followed the police shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on Aug. 23, Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, traveled to Kenosha from his home in the nearby Chicago suburb of Antioch, Illinois. There, he is alleged to have shot three people, killing two and wounding one. In an interview with the conservative media outlet The Daily Caller before the shootings, Rittenhouse explained why he was there: "People are getting injured, and our job is to protect this business ... and part of my job is to also help people. If there is somebody hurt, I'm running into harm's way. That's why I have my rifle — because I can protect myself, obviously."
It's unclear who the "our" is to whom Rittenhouse referred, but the implication is that he identified with others who had also assumed responsibility for the protection of public property during the protests, some of which turned violent. With Rittenhouse facing homicide charges, his attorney has described him as "a Minuteman protecting his community when the government would not."
Except that's not a thing. The Minutemen were a civilian militia that took part in the Revolutionary War and were made obsolete by the creation of the National Guard in the early 20th century. Since then, not only has there been no formalized role for armed civilians in American law enforcement, but it is also expressly illegal in every state, either by state constitution or statute, for civilians to arm and organize outside of a government body without express authority. In certain circumstances, the president can engage the National Guard or the military in civilian law enforcement duties, but never civilians.
The Minutemen may have been a reliable force back then, but today's militias tend to be far-right nationalist groups made up of people who distrust the federal government.
The Minutemen may have been a reliable force back then, but today's militias tend to be far-right nationalist groups made up of people who distrust the federal government. The number of militias in the country multiplied during Barack Obama's presidency, and they seem to have found more footing under Trump, for whom many militia members have developed an affinity. The federal government, which Trump trusts only insofar, it seems, as it helps him, agrees that armed gangs pose a major threat. Trump's own mantra of distrust of the federal government — particularly the so-called deep state — has the potential to dangerously embolden these groups.
In fairness, distrust of the government is something of a feature in America, and lots of Americans are armed. But these so-called militias blend these two features into a grievance with a potential solution, even if, as in the case of the alleged Michigan plot, the solution is entirely illegal. While they're not often violent, militias are, by definition, heavily armed, and while they exist in every state, they tend to proliferate in states with looser gun laws. According to experts who study these paramilitary groups, they are made up almost exclusively of white males, who hold exaggerated, almost cartoonish views of patriotism and liberty. Except that they're heavily armed, which makes the whole thing a lot less cartoonish.
And regardless of whether the self-appointed vigilantes in Michigan felt that their beef with Gov. Whitmer was valid (ostensibly that her orders were trampling on their civil liberties), there is no role whatsoever for civilians, armed or not, to assume law enforcement duties.
What is legal when it comes to defending oneself and bearing arms? In many states, civilians can engage in their own protection or the protection of others, but they can't band together to do so in an organized fashion. Private security firms can engage in the protection of people or property, but generally only under strict regulation by the state. So if you aren't a member of the National Guard or an employee of a security firm or you aren't protecting your own property or family, you have no business in America attempting to enforce laws.
In not taking a strong position against these paramilitary groups, Trump risks tacitly encouraging them. Trump has done little to create space between himself and the worst of these groups, starting with his now-infamous response to neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017: "You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides."
Changing course at this point in his presidency isn't likely for Trump, but the effect and impact of his approval of militias and their ideals will outlast this election, no matter who ends up winning. So we had better start getting our facts right.