msnbc--2020-10-20--Americans may soon refuse to trust the Supreme Court. And it will be Trump's fault.

We tell our children to play by the rules .
We tell them treating everyone fairly ensures respect for the system .
Unless , of course , you ’ re a nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States .
Then , based on how the Republicans have handled the vacancy created by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s death , there are no rules .
All that matters is getting your way .
There was a rule , of sorts , that the Republicans imposed for Judge Merrick Garland , the moderate judge nominated to fill the opening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scalia in February of the final year of Barack Obama ’ s presidency .
Obama nominated Garland because Republicans had voiced support for him in the past — Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah had called him a consensus choice for the Supreme Court .
Given that he would be replacing the court ’ s archconservative justice , that seemed fair .
But nothing that followed had even a hint of fairness to it .
Republican Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell declined to hold hearings or permit Garland ’ s nomination to come up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as multiple senators in the majority said , there should be no confirmations during a president ’ s final year in office .
Instead , they insisted that the people first be allowed to elect a new president , giving them a say in the process .
Sen. Lindsey Graham , R-S.C. , the current chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee , volunteered : “ If there 's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term , you can say Lindsey Graham said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president , whoever it might be , make that nomination.
’ ” Fast forward to September .
Ginsburg had been dead for less than 24 hours when President Donald Trump announced his intent to nominate her replacement .
McConnell took even less time , announcing on day she died that he would hold a vote on her successor .
What happened to the rule Republicans announced in 2016 ?
What happened to basic fairness ?
Or to Graham demanding that we hold him accountable if he violated his word ?
We live in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to apply equally to everyone .
There isn ’ t supposed to be one set of rules for Democrats and another for Republicans .
Nowhere is basic procedural fairness more important than at the Supreme Court , the institution charged with upholding the rule of law .
Confirming a justice in a process devoid of even the appearance of integrity will inevitably diminish public confidence in the court .
The words “ Equal Justice Under Law '' are written in large letters over the entrance to the Supreme Court , a constant reminder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go to have their most difficult and controversial disputes resolved .
Every case before the court has winners and losers , but losing parties abide by the court ’ s decisions .
Even disgruntled litigants understand that the justices uphold the oath they take , which requires them to “ faithfully and impartially discharge and perform ” all of their duties .
In other words , the justices play by the rules and so must the people who come before them .
Despite the criticism of Judge Amy Coney Barrett ’ s performance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what her confirmation portends for the Supreme Court ’ s future have more to do with the institution ’ s loss of legitimacy than her inability to name all five of the protections guaranteed by the First Amendment .
The process that brings her to the verge of confirmation for a lifetime appointment is transparently rank .
It is a bald political power play unbefitting the Supreme Court and the justices who serve on it .
It dishonors Ruth Bader Ginsburg , who served the country so faithfully .
Senate Republicans can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amy Coney Barrett differently and maintain the intellectual honesty of the confirmation process .
And that ’ s what the court is supposed to be about , intellectual honesty on the toughest calls we face in our society .
Many of Barrett ’ s own former Notre Dame colleagues called upon her to reject a process that was so blatantly opportunistic and demand that her “ nomination be suspended until after the election.
” Eighty eight of them pleaded with her to recognize the “ treacherous moment in the United States ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as you surely understand , will further inflame our civic wounds , undermine confidence in the court , and deepen the divide among ordinary citizens.
” In 2018 , Graham reaffirmed his commitment that no justices should be confirmed during a president ’ s last year in office , saying `` If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump 's term , and the primary process has started , we ’ ll wait till the next election . ''
Today , we are well past the primary process .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ voted in the 2020 presidential race .
Nonetheless Barrett ’ s confirmation seems all but assured .
If we have learned anything from the Trump administration , it ’ s that our government can not function properly when people lose confidence in it .
Trust is the essential foundation for the legitimacy of democratic institutions .
And given the perilous times we face , it ’ s likely that institutional legitimacy is more critical at the Supreme Court than anywhere else .
We won ’ t get that kind of legitimacy if Barrett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the election .
The president himself has weighed in , saying he needs a ninth justice to decide the outcome of the election , which he says he believes is headed to the courts .
Despite the president ’ s statement , Barrett declined to say during her confirmation hearing whether she would recuse herself from matters involving the outcome of the election .
Our country has witnessed so much that is not normal during the Trump administration .
It is our new ( ab ) normal to see the attorney general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not the people ’ s , or to watch an inspector general be fired for investigating a member of the administration .
We are , regrettably , becoming numb .
But letting Trump damage the Supreme Court ’ s integrity , even as he implies he will ask them to intervene in the electoral process , is an entirely different level of damage to our institutions .
Instead of a routine confirmation hearing , where statements were made and polite if sometimes pointed questions were asked , we need more outrage over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On Thursday , in the shadow of the election , the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on Barrett ’ s nomination .
We are at risk of losing the Supreme Court ’ s legitimacy at a time when the court and the country need it most .

We tell our children to play by the rules. We tell them treating everyone fairly ensures respect for the system.
Unless, of course, you’re a nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States. Then, based on how the Republicans have handled the vacancy created by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, there are no rules. All that matters is getting your way.
What happened to basic fairness? Or to Graham demanding that we hold him accountable if he violated his word?
There was a rule, of sorts, that the Republicans imposed for Judge Merrick Garland, the moderate judge nominated to fill the opening left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February of the final year of Barack Obama’s presidency. Obama nominated Garland because Republicans had voiced support for him in the past — Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah had called him a consensus choice for the Supreme Court. Given that he would be replacing the court’s archconservative justice, that seemed fair.
But nothing that followed had even a hint of fairness to it. Republican Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell declined to hold hearings or permit Garland’s nomination to come up for a vote. Why? Because, as multiple senators in the majority said, there should be no confirmations during a president’s final year in office. Instead, they insisted that the people first be allowed to elect a new president, giving them a say in the process. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the current chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, volunteered: “If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, ‘Let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.’”
Fast forward to September. Ginsburg had been dead for less than 24 hours when President Donald Trump announced his intent to nominate her replacement. McConnell took even less time, announcing on day she died that he would hold a vote on her successor.
What happened to the rule Republicans announced in 2016? What happened to basic fairness? Or to Graham demanding that we hold him accountable if he violated his word?
If we have learned anything from the Trump administration, it’s that our government cannot function properly when people lose confidence in it.
We live in a country where the rules are supposed to apply equally to everyone. There isn’t supposed to be one set of rules for Democrats and another for Republicans. Nowhere is basic procedural fairness more important than at the Supreme Court, the institution charged with upholding the rule of law. Confirming a justice in a process devoid of even the appearance of integrity will inevitably diminish public confidence in the court.
The words “Equal Justice Under Law" are written in large letters over the entrance to the Supreme Court, a constant reminder that it is the place where people go to have their most difficult and controversial disputes resolved. Every case before the court has winners and losers, but losing parties abide by the court’s decisions. Even disgruntled litigants understand that the justices uphold the oath they take, which requires them to“faithfully and impartially discharge and perform” all of their duties. In other words, the justices play by the rules and so must the people who come before them.
Despite the criticism of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s performance at her confirmation hearing, concerns over what her confirmation portends for the Supreme Court’s future have more to do with the institution’s loss of legitimacy than her inability to name all five of the protections guaranteed by the First Amendment. The process that brings her to the verge of confirmation for a lifetime appointment is transparently rank. It is a bald political power play unbefitting the Supreme Court and the justices who serve on it. It dishonors Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who served the country so faithfully.
Senate Republicans cannot treat the nominations of Merrick Garland and Amy Coney Barrett differently and maintain the intellectual honesty of the confirmation process. And that’s what the court is supposed to be about, intellectual honesty on the toughest calls we face in our society. Many of Barrett’s own former Notre Dame colleagues called upon her to reject a process that was so blatantly opportunistic and demand that her “nomination be suspended until after the election.” Eighty eight of them pleaded with her to recognize the “treacherous moment in the United States” and that “the politics of your nomination, as you surely understand, will further inflame our civic wounds, undermine confidence in the court, and deepen the divide among ordinary citizens.”
Instead of a routine confirmation hearing, where statements were made and polite if sometimes pointed questions were asked, we need more outrage over the process that brought us here.
In 2018, Graham reaffirmed his commitment that no justices should be confirmed during a president’s last year in office, saying "If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait till the next election." Today, we are well past the primary process. More than 33 million Americans have already voted in the 2020 presidential race. Nonetheless Barrett’s confirmation seems all but assured.
If we have learned anything from the Trump administration, it’s that our government cannot function properly when people lose confidence in it. Trust is the essential foundation for the legitimacy of democratic institutions. And given the perilous times we face, it’s likely that institutional legitimacy is more critical at the Supreme Court than anywhere else.
We won’t get that kind of legitimacy if Barrett is confirmed before we know the results of the election. The president himself has weighed in, saying he needs a ninth justice to decide the outcome of the election, which he says he believes is headed to the courts. Despite the president’s statement, Barrett declined to say during her confirmation hearing whether she would recuse herself from matters involving the outcome of the election.
Our country has witnessed so much that is not normal during the Trump administration. It is our new (ab)normal to see the attorney general act as the president’s lawyer, not the people’s, or to watch an inspector general be fired for investigating a member of the administration. We are, regrettably, becoming numb. But letting Trump damage the Supreme Court’s integrity, even as he implies he will ask them to intervene in the electoral process, is an entirely different level of damage to our institutions.
Instead of a routine confirmation hearing, where statements were made and polite if sometimes pointed questions were asked, we need more outrage over the process that brought us here. On Thursday, in the shadow of the election, the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on Barrett’s nomination. We are at risk of losing the Supreme Court’s legitimacy at a time when the court and the country need it most.


msnbc--2020-10-21--NYT exposes Trump Chinese bank account, millions in China-connected deals while president

What Trump 's taxes reveal about his dealings in China

Rachel Maddow shares highlights from new reporting from the New York Times that Donald Trump has a previously unknown Chinese bank account from which he withdrew millions of dollars after he became president, and conducted millions of dollars in real estate deals after he became president, with people connected to the Chinese government.Oct. 21, 2020


msnbc--2020-10-20--Trump keeps attacking Hunter Biden, but Trump’s kids have been accused of ethics violations

Trump keeps attacking Hunter Biden, but Trump’s kids have been accused of ethics violations
While President Donald Trump continues to go after Joe Biden's son, the president seems to be overlooking his own children's history of ethics violations.Oct. 20, 2020


msnbc--2020-10-21--Tim O'Brien: Trump's reported Chinese bank account is a national security threat

Tim O'Brien, author of "TrumpNation," tells Lawrence O'Donnell that Donald Trump's reported Chinese bank account is leverage that the Chinese government and Chinese businesses could use over the president of the United States.Oct. 21, 2020


msnbc--2020-10-21--U.S.Postal Service pulls uniformed police from protective patrols: WSJ

Rebecca Smith, reporter for the Wall Street Journal, talks with Rachel Maddow about a new U.S. Postal Service order ending police patrols that protect letter carriers and U.S.P.S. property, and other curiously timed, highly unusual changes at the Postal Service.Oct. 21, 2020


msnbc--2020-10-21--Covid-19 survivor becomes advocate for those still suffering

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


msnbc--2020-10-21--In final days of race against Biden, Trump attacks Hillary Clinton


msnbc--2020-10-21--EuroVision: The U.S. should look to the EU's fight against Google

When the Justice Department filed an antitrust suit against Google , it created what will likely be an inflection point in the history of the rise of Big Tech .
For a preview of how this all could turn out , take a look at Europe , which has managed to take on both the search giant and Microsoft in the last decade and — for the most part — win .
At the core of the Justice Department 's federal case is the claim that Google is boxing out other companies to maintain its monopoly as the world 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Justice Department brief argues , by spending billions of dollars to ensure that its search engine is the default on other companies ' hardware and browsers .
Google is alleged to flip that positioning into a perch to reap tens of billions from its ad sales and then pay out a cut of those profits to maintain its superiority .
If you happen to be entrenched in the high-stakes world of antitrust law , that may sound familiar .
It 's remarkably close to one of the three cases the European @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have resulted in $ 9 billion in fines .
Each of those cases examined more aspects of Google 's alleged monopoly than the U.S. suit did .
But Justice Department lawyers have a very big reason to be wary of overreach : United States .
v. Microsoft Corp. Back in 2001 , the government 's argument was that in bundling its Internet Explorer web browser with its operating system , Microsoft was leaving other browsers at a disadvantage .
The government won that case initially ; for a minute there , Microsoft was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies , one focused on software and the other on its operating system .
But Microsoft appealed and got the case remanded back to a lower court .
Eventually , the parties agreed to a settlement that several states ' attorneys general and tech writers believed was just a slap on the wrist .
Still , the affair showed how deeply even having to go to court could affect giant tech companies .
Microsoft 's explosive growth was temporarily stymied as it had to devote resources to fighting the case .
The antitrust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executives with an abundance of caution , Michael Cusumano , a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management , told The Seattle Times in 2011 .
`` They 're afraid , it seems , '' he said .
`` Whether it 's antitrust in U.S. or in Europe , they seem to be slowly reacting to the world around them , rather than trying to get in there fast , '' halting potential moves that might have more fully solidified its market share .
A Justice Department hoping to come away with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Europe 's battles with Microsoft for inspiration .
The European Union ended up slapping a $ 611 million fine on the company in 2004 for using its `` near-monopoly '' to crush its competitors building media players to rival Windows ' native player , the creatively named Windows Media Player .
In 2009 , the settlement in an EU case against its Internet Explorer bundle left room for Microsoft to avoid paying a fine if it allowed more access for other web browsers on its software .
But in 2013 , European @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms of the settlement , issuing the company a $ 732 million fine .
Joaquín Almunia , then the EU competition commissioner , admitted that his predecessor had been `` naive '' to put its faith in Microsoft .
It 's a mistake that the EU seems determined not to repeat against Google , as it has continued to hold the company 's feet to the fire , so to speak .
The EU is developing new rules to help curb tech companies ' grasp on digital markets .
It 's investigating whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` further entrench Google 's market position in the online advertising markets by increasing the already vast amount of data that Google could use for personalization of the ads it serves and displays . ''
Beyond the massive fines levied against Google , the EU cases ' other outcomes have also proved to be of interest to Americans .
In Europe , setting up Android phones — most of which run on Google 's in-house operating system — now triggers a menu allowing users to pick a default browser .
The menu exists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prompting questions from Justice Department lawyers about whether that could be enough to level the playing field in the U.S .
The case had the potential to seem politically motivated : It was filed two weeks before the presidential election , and Attorney General William Barr was reported to have overruled dozens of federal lawyers to speed up the timeline .
Instead , it seems a likely political winner , one of the few areas in which the Trump administration and Sen. Elizabeth Warren 's views align .
If cases on both sides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , though , it 's that United States v. Google will likely take years to reach a conclusion .
In the nearer term , it deals the next Congress a stronger hand when debating how to tackle Big Tech legislatively .
A House committee report released Oct. 6 determined that the Big Four tech giants — Apple , Google , Amazon and Facebook — `` enjoy monopoly power . ''
( Note Microsoft 's absence from that list . )
All four companies have said competition among them prevents any of them from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's hard to make that claim stick when you 're all at the same table , divvying up the world into spheres of influence like colonialists .
Apple , for example , plays a major role in the Justice Department 's case against Google , its ostensible rival : Cooperation between two of them in their respective spheres allows Google to cement its place atop the heap of search engines , and the money Google pays out for that provides a sizable chunk of revenue to Apple 's extremely profitable services division each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue having the cash on hand to corner the hardware market .
Now , how about some links to read on your fine Apple or Google or Microsoft product ?
• The Atlantic : Trump 's foreign policy , or lack thereof , has been a hot topic for years .
But this piece argues that underneath it all , Trump was actually asking big , important questions — even if he did n't realize it .
• BuzzFeed News : How many people do you know who 've said they 're holding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world 's uncertainty ?
Meet six women who said they decided to get pregnant despite the pandemic .
• CBS News : Emails threatening students in Florida said they came from the Proud Boys , the right-wing , violence-loving boys club .
But apparently the emails actually came from overseas ?
• NBC News : A new ACLU filing says lawyers ca n't find the parents of over 500 kids separated from their families during the Trump administration 's family separation policy in 2018 .
• GQ : Julia Ioffe goes in deep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around for a while without any real sense of closure .
It involves scientists , spies , energy weapons and a potential cover-up .
You 'll have to read it yourself .

When the Justice Department filed an antitrust suit against Google, it created what will likely be an inflection point in the history of the rise of Big Tech. For a preview of how this all could turn out, take a look at Europe, which has managed to take on both the search giant and Microsoft in the last decade and — for the most part — win.
At the core of the Justice Department's federal case is the claim that Google is boxing out other companies to maintain its monopoly as the world's top search engine. It does so, the Justice Department brief argues, by spending billions of dollars to ensure that its search engine is the default on other companies' hardware and browsers. Google is alleged to flip that positioning into a perch to reap tens of billions from its ad sales and then pay out a cut of those profits to maintain its superiority.
At the core of the Justice Department's federal case is the claim that Google is boxing out other companies to maintain its monopoly as the world's top search engine.
If you happen to be entrenched in the high-stakes world of antitrust law, that may sound familiar. It's remarkably close to one of the three cases the European Union has brought against Google, which have resulted in $9 billion in fines.
Each of those cases examined more aspects of Google's alleged monopoly than the U.S. suit did. But Justice Department lawyers have a very big reason to be wary of overreach: United States. v. Microsoft Corp. Back in 2001, the government's argument was that in bundling its Internet Explorer web browser with its operating system, Microsoft was leaving other browsers at a disadvantage. The government won that case initially; for a minute there, Microsoft was under court order to split into two companies, one focused on software and the other on its operating system. But Microsoft appealed and got the case remanded back to a lower court.
Eventually, the parties agreed to a settlement that several states' attorneys general and tech writers believed was just a slap on the wrist. Still, the affair showed how deeply even having to go to court could affect giant tech companies. Microsoft's explosive growth was temporarily stymied as it had to devote resources to fighting the case. The antitrust battles with the U.S. government also filled executives with an abundance of caution, Michael Cusumano, a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management, told The Seattle Times in 2011. "They're afraid, it seems," he said. "Whether it's antitrust in U.S. or in Europe, they seem to be slowly reacting to the world around them, rather than trying to get in there fast," halting potential moves that might have more fully solidified its market share.
A Justice Department hoping to come away with a bigger win against Google can look to Europe's battles with Microsoft for inspiration. The European Union ended up slapping a $611 million fine on the company in 2004 for using its "near-monopoly" to crush its competitors building media players to rival Windows' native player, the creatively named Windows Media Player. In 2009, the settlement in an EU case against its Internet Explorer bundle left room for Microsoft to avoid paying a fine if it allowed more access for other web browsers on its software. But in 2013, European regulators determined that Microsoft was violating the terms of the settlement, issuing the company a $732 million fine.
If cases on both sides of the Atlantic have taught us anything, though, it's that United States v. Google will likely take years to reach a conclusion.
Joaquín Almunia, then the EU competition commissioner, admitted that his predecessor had been "naive" to put its faith in Microsoft. It's a mistake that the EU seems determined not to repeat against Google, as it has continued to hold the company's feet to the fire, so to speak. The EU is developing new rules to help curb tech companies' grasp on digital markets. It's investigating whether Google's proposed acquisition of Fitbit could "further entrench Google's market position in the online advertising markets by increasing the already vast amount of data that Google could use for personalization of the ads it serves and displays."
The case had the potential to seem politically motivated: It was filed two weeks before the presidential election, and Attorney General William Barr was reported to have overruled dozens of federal lawyers to speed up the timeline.
Beyond the massive fines levied against Google, the EU cases' other outcomes have also proved to be of interest to Americans. In Europe, setting up Android phones — most of which run on Google's in-house operating system — now triggers a menu allowing users to pick a default browser. The menu exists only because of the antitrust cases, prompting questions from Justice Department lawyers about whether that could be enough to level the playing field in the U.S.
The case had the potential to seem politically motivated: It was filed two weeks before the presidential election, and Attorney General William Barr was reported to have overruled dozens of federal lawyers to speed up the timeline. Instead, it seems a likely political winner, one of the few areas in which the Trump administration and Sen. Elizabeth Warren's views align.
If cases on both sides of the Atlantic have taught us anything, though, it's that United States v. Google will likely take years to reach a conclusion. In the nearer term, it deals the next Congress a stronger hand when debating how to tackle Big Tech legislatively. A House committee report released Oct. 6 determined that the Big Four tech giants — Apple, Google, Amazon and Facebook — "enjoy monopoly power." (Note Microsoft's absence from that list.)
All four companies have said competition among them prevents any of them from being a true monopoly. But it's hard to make that claim stick when you're all at the same table, divvying up the world into spheres of influence like colonialists. Apple, for example, plays a major role in the Justice Department's case against Google, its ostensible rival: Cooperation between two of them in their respective spheres allows Google to cement its place atop the heap of search engines, and the money Google pays out for that provides a sizable chunk of revenue to Apple's extremely profitable services division each year, in effect helping Apple to continue having the cash on hand to corner the hardware market.
Now, how about some links to read on your fine Apple or Google or Microsoft product?


msnbc--2020-10-21--DOJ wants to make it possible for Trump to legally defame anyone while in office

If President Donald Trump and the Justice Department have their way , presidents will be legally permitted to defame anyone during their four ( or eight ) years in office .
On Wednesday , a federal judge in Manhattan will hear arguments on the Justice Department 's motion to substitute the United States for Trump as the defendant in a defamation suit .
The Justice Department filed a reply brief Monday , arguing that Trump 's conduct occurred within the scope of his employment because federal elected officials have a `` responsibility to communicate regarding matters of concern or interest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was filed by journalist E. Jean Carroll , who alleged in a 2019 book that Trump raped her in the 1990s in the dressing room of a New York department store .
Trump denied the allegations , adding that Carroll had falsely accused other men of rape , that she had a political motive , that he had never met her , that she had fabricated the allegations to sell books and that she was `` not my type . ''
Carroll claimed that Trump defamed her in 11 specific statements .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether Trump acted within the scope of his federal employment when he made the allegedly slanderous comments .
The law permits the Justice Department to remove tort cases from state court to federal court and to substitute the United States as the defendant when a federal employee is sued for acts committed within the scope of his employment .
For example , in a case alleging negligence against a national park ranger who was involved in an accident while on duty in his government vehicle , the Justice Department would certify that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his employment at the time of the accident and would move to substitute the United States as the defendant .
If the court were to agree , then the United States would assume any liability , and taxpayers would cover the legal fees and any money damages for the plaintiff .
In this case , the consequences of the decision about scope of employment are huge .
That 's because the United States enjoys sovereign immunity for defamation claims .
Under the Federal Tort Claims Act , the federal government has consented to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as negligence , but not for defamation .
That means that if the court agrees that Trump was acting within the scope of his employment and permits the United States to be substituted as the defendant , then Carroll 's lawsuit will be dismissed altogether .
Whether an act occurred within the scope of a person 's employment depends on two factors .
First , the court will look at whether the employee was acting to promote the employer 's interest .
Second , the court will consider whether the act was the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to perform .
It can hardly be said that Trump 's comments about Carroll advanced the interests of the United States or that making allegedly slanderous remarks is the type of conduct that Trump was elected to perform .
In its brief , the Justice Department argued that the court should focus on Trump 's conduct in communicating and not the content of Trump 's statements .
Denying allegations that a federal elected official is unfit to serve , the Justice Department argued , is within the scope of that official 's employment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on duty , then every statement is covered .
But even if this argument has any merit , the facts here present more than just a denial .
Trump did n't simply rebut the accusations .
He went out of his way to add insult to injury , accusing Carroll of fabricating the allegations to sell books , falsely accusing other men of rape and having a political agenda , among other things .
If the court finds that any one of those statements was made outside the scope of Trump 's employment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to substitute the United States as the defendant .
The court should also consider the long-term implications of the Justice Department 's arguments .
If a president acts within the scope of his employment whenever he communicates , then he can never be sued for any statement , and all future presidents would effectively be immune from claims of defamation .
To find in the president 's favor on this motion would give him and all future presidents carte blanche not only to deny allegations against them , but also to make their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Such a result would permit a president to defame his political opponents without any legal limitations .
In a re-election campaign , a president would be permitted to defame his opponent , who would lack the legal right to reciprocate .
The president already has a bully pulpit .
We do n't need to elevate it above the laws that apply to everyone else .

If President Donald Trump and the Justice Department have their way, presidents will be legally permitted to defame anyone during their four (or eight) years in office.
On Wednesday, a federal judge in Manhattan will hear arguments on the Justice Department's motion to substitute the United States for Trump as the defendant in a defamation suit. The Justice Department filed a reply brief Monday, arguing that Trump's conduct occurred within the scope of his employment because federal elected officials have a "responsibility to communicate regarding matters of concern or interest to their constituents."
The lawsuit was filed by journalist E. Jean Carroll, who alleged in a 2019 book that Trump raped her in the 1990s in the dressing room of a New York department store. Trump denied the allegations, adding that Carroll had falsely accused other men of rape, that she had a political motive, that he had never met her, that she had fabricated the allegations to sell books and that she was "not my type." Carroll claimed that Trump defamed her in 11 specific statements.
The key issue before the judge Wednesday is whether Trump acted within the scope of his federal employment when he made the allegedly slanderous comments. The law permits the Justice Department to remove tort cases from state court to federal court and to substitute the United States as the defendant when a federal employee is sued for acts committed within the scope of his employment. For example, in a case alleging negligence against a national park ranger who was involved in an accident while on duty in his government vehicle, the Justice Department would certify that the employee was acting in the scope of his employment at the time of the accident and would move to substitute the United States as the defendant. If the court were to agree, then the United States would assume any liability, and taxpayers would cover the legal fees and any money damages for the plaintiff.
In this case, the consequences of the decision about scope of employment are huge. That's because the United States enjoys sovereign immunity for defamation claims. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the federal government has consented to be sued for certain torts, such as negligence, but not for defamation. That means that if the court agrees that Trump was acting within the scope of his employment and permits the United States to be substituted as the defendant, then Carroll's lawsuit will be dismissed altogether.
Whether an act occurred within the scope of a person's employment depends on two factors. First, the court will look at whether the employee was acting to promote the employer's interest. Second, the court will consider whether the act was the type of conduct the employee was hired to perform. It can hardly be said that Trump's comments about Carroll advanced the interests of the United States or that making allegedly slanderous remarks is the type of conduct that Trump was elected to perform.
In its brief, the Justice Department argued that the court should focus on Trump's conduct in communicating and not the content of Trump's statements. Denying allegations that a federal elected official is unfit to serve, the Justice Department argued, is within the scope of that official's employment. And because a president is always on duty, then every statement is covered. But even if this argument has any merit, the facts here present more than just a denial. Trump didn't simply rebut the accusations. He went out of his way to add insult to injury, accusing Carroll of fabricating the allegations to sell books, falsely accusing other men of rape and having a political agenda, among other things. If the court finds that any one of those statements was made outside the scope of Trump's employment, then it will deny the motion to substitute the United States as the defendant.
Such a result would permit a president to defame his political opponents without any legal limitations.
The court should also consider the long-term implications of the Justice Department's arguments. If a president acts within the scope of his employment whenever he communicates, then he can never be sued for any statement, and all future presidents would effectively be immune from claims of defamation. To find in the president's favor on this motion would give him and all future presidents carte blanche not only to deny allegations against them, but also to make their own false allegations against others without consequence. Such a result would permit a president to defame his political opponents without any legal limitations. In a re-election campaign, a president would be permitted to defame his opponent, who would lack the legal right to reciprocate.
The president already has a bully pulpit. We don't need to elevate it above the laws that apply to everyone else.


msnbc--2020-10-21--Trump and Biden likely won't answer these questions before Nov. 3. Let's ask anyway.

Thursday 's presidential debate is the final chance for us to get answers to some of the most difficult and pressing national security questions facing the candidates .
As for the vice presidential candidates , their one and only debate has come and gone and along with it the opportunity to get the answers we need .
And with only a couple of weeks left until Election Day , it 's unlikely we 'll see the toughest security questions posed to the candidates , let alone hear their answers .
So let 's ask those hard questions now , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they say in the intelligence community when determining someone 's access to important information — we have a `` need to know . ''
Voters have already seen or heard the more obvious national security and geopolitical questions in queries to each candidate and in various written analyses .
For example , we know that whoever wins the election will face tough and continuing decisions about how to deal with the threat from adversaries like China , Russia , North Korea and Iran .
Some pundits have even opined that President Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allied relations that a newly elected Joe Biden would n't even be able to fully address the carnage .
But national security is so much more than foreign relations and diplomacy .
National security also encompasses threats closer to home that compromise the core principles of our democracy , imperil public safety and degrade a deeply divided nation .
Those imminent , even existential , threats should generate far more questions and demand far clearer answers from our candidates than what we 've seen thus far .
Here are the questions to which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Will you support a commission to investigate and prosecute Trump and members of his administration for their crimes ? ''
This question is n't about revenge or retribution ; it 's about acknowledging that the kind of deliberate damage done by the Trump administration to our institutions and our form of government has threatened the future of our republic and therefore our national security .
There is ample evidence that Trump and his cohort have committed serious crimes that strike at the heart of what it means to be an American and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country .
A president who was found by a special counsel 's inquiry to have committed 10 acts of potentially chargeable obstruction of justice , an acting Homeland Security secretary and a former attorney general who have directed the strategic separation of babies from their mothers , a director of national intelligence who knowingly declassified and disseminated Russian propaganda for a political purpose and a current attorney general who was alleged in a judicial proceeding to have led a `` gross abuse of prosecutorial power '' have n't just potentially skirted the law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ca n't be allowed to stand .
While Biden has already said he does n't intend to pardon Trump , he should be asked this different , more precise , question about establishing a crimes commission .
Not addressing the crimes committed during Trump 's tenure wo n't bring healing to a hurting nation .
Rather , inaction would be tantamount to tacit license for it to happen again .
Silence would send the wrong message to this and future generations about the vigilance required to secure our democracy .
`` What is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ? ''
America is a divided nation .
Part of that divide lies in the chasm between how Blacks and whites distinctly view and experience the police .
A Harvard University study found that Black people in the United States are more than six times as likely to be killed by police as others .
Protests in support of the Black Lives Matter movement have turned violent , while the police continue , seemingly unabated , to use excessive force against minorities .
Sen. Kamala Harris of California , Biden 's running mate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in San Francisco and as the attorney general of California .
But her record as a `` top cop '' is mixed and murky when it comes to whether she can lead true reform or whether she would merely pay lip service to a problem that is plaguing our country .
Harris might be the ideal vice president to spearhead police reform , yet we need to know whether her varying positions on issues such as increasing or reducing police presence , on banning chokeholds and on not prosecuting bad cops make her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just tests which way the wind is blowing .
Public safety and national unity are national security issues — that 's why we need to know .
`` How do you intend to pay off your at least $ 420 million in personal debt , and to whom do you owe it ? ''
As we learned from recent New York Times reporting , Trump 's tax returns revealed that he personally owes unidentified creditors at least $ 421 million in the next four years and may owe as much as $ 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this debt may make Trump one of American history 's most vulnerable presidents when it comes to potential blackmail and financial compromise by bad actors .
Our president 's dire financial straits make him a one-man national security threat .
And if he wo n't disclose whom he 's indebted to or how he plans to resolve his money crisis , we might not want him to keep occupying the Oval Office when all this debt comes crashing down on him during a second term .
A president has access to our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also has the power to make foreign trade , weapons sales , sanctions and other key decisions that could be driven not by our national interests but by his own self-interests .
That 's why we need to know how our president plans to dig out of his debt without compromising our security .
`` If Trump wo n't leave , will you be with Trump or with America ? ''
During his one and only debate with Harris , the vice president chose not to answer a vital question from moderator Susan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ role in the event that Biden were declared the winner of the election but Trump refused to accept a peaceful transition of power .
Pence declined to answer .
Pence 's non-answer presents a probable national security threat , and it demands a response .
How can voters cast their lots with Pence if they ca n't determine whether his allegiance is to Trump or to the stability of our democracy ?
That 's a pre-eminent national security question , and it 's a deal breaker for our democracy .
During Bill Clinton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ James Carville hung a sign at campaign headquarters intended to keep staffers on message : `` It 's the economy , stupid . ''
I 'd suggest a variation on the theme : `` It 's national security , stupid . ''
And we 'd be stupid not to get some answers .

UPDATE (October 21, 2020, 9:35 p.m. ET): This piece has been updated to include a report of a previously undisclosed Chinese bank account maintained by President Donald Trump and controlled by Trump International Hotels Management, L.L.C.
Thursday's presidential debate is the final chance for us to get answers to some of the most difficult and pressing national security questions facing the candidates. As for the vice presidential candidates, their one and only debate has come and gone and along with it the opportunity to get the answers we need. And with only a couple of weeks left until Election Day, it's unlikely we'll see the toughest security questions posed to the candidates, let alone hear their answers.
Those imminent, even existential, threats should generate far more questions and demand far clearer answers from our candidates than what we've seen thus far.
So let's ask those hard questions now, while we still have the chance. As they say in the intelligence community when determining someone's access to important information — we have a "need to know."
Voters have already seen or heard the more obvious national security and geopolitical questions in queries to each candidate and in various written analyses. For example, we know that whoever wins the election will face tough and continuing decisions about how to deal with the threat from adversaries like China, Russia, North Korea and Iran. Some pundits have even opined that President Donald Trump has so damaged U.S. foreign policy and allied relations that a newly elected Joe Biden wouldn't even be able to fully address the carnage.
But national security is so much more than foreign relations and diplomacy. National security also encompasses threats closer to home that compromise the core principles of our democracy, imperil public safety and degrade a deeply divided nation. Those imminent, even existential, threats should generate far more questions and demand far clearer answers from our candidates than what we've seen thus far. Here are the questions to which America needs to know the answers:
Question for Joe Biden
"Will you support a commission to investigate and prosecute Trump and members of his administration for their crimes?"
This question isn't about revenge or retribution; it's about acknowledging that the kind of deliberate damage done by the Trump administration to our institutions and our form of government has threatened the future of our republic and therefore our national security. There is ample evidence that Trump and his cohort have committed serious crimes that strike at the heart of what it means to be an American and a citizen of a free and democratic country.
Not addressing the crimes committed during Trump's tenure won't bring healing to a hurting nation.
A president who was found by a special counsel's inquiry to have committed 10 acts of potentially chargeable obstruction of justice, an acting Homeland Security secretary and a former attorney general who have directed the strategic separation of babies from their mothers, a director of national intelligence who knowingly declassified and disseminated Russian propaganda for a political purpose and a current attorney general who was alleged in a judicial proceeding to have led a "gross abuse of prosecutorial power" haven't just potentially skirted the law — they've set perilous precedents that can't be allowed to stand. While Biden has already said he doesn't intend to pardon Trump, he should be asked this different, more precise, question about establishing a crimes commission. Not addressing the crimes committed during Trump's tenure won't bring healing to a hurting nation. Rather, inaction would be tantamount to tacit license for it to happen again. Silence would send the wrong message to this and future generations about the vigilance required to secure our democracy.
Question for Kamala Harris
"What is your detailed plan for reimagining the police?"
America is a divided nation. Part of that divide lies in the chasm between how Blacks and whites distinctly view and experience the police. A Harvard University study found that Black people in the United States are more than six times as likely to be killed by police as others. Protests in support of the Black Lives Matter movement have turned violent, while the police continue, seemingly unabated, to use excessive force against minorities. Sen. Kamala Harris of California, Biden's running mate, previously served as the district attorney in San Francisco and as the attorney general of California. But her record as a "top cop" is mixed and murky when it comes to whether she can lead true reform or whether she would merely pay lip service to a problem that is plaguing our country. Harris might be the ideal vice president to spearhead police reform, yet we need to know whether her varying positions on issues such as increasing or reducing police presence, on banning chokeholds and on not prosecuting bad cops make her a real change agent or someone who just tests which way the wind is blowing. Public safety and national unity are national security issues — that's why we need to know.
Question for Donald Trump
“You owe at least $420 million in personal debt, and have a previously undisclosed bank account in China; how do you plan to pay off your debt and to whom do you owe it?”
As we learned from recent New York Times reporting, Trump's tax returns revealed that he personally owes unidentified creditors at least $421 million in the next four years and may owe as much as $1 billion. As I've previously written, this debt may make Trump one of American history's most vulnerable presidents when it comes to potential blackmail and financial compromise by bad actors. The New York Times also reports a previously undisclosed bank account in China under the name of Trump International Hotels Management, L.L.C. This makes China one of only three foreign nations where Trump maintains bank accounts. In 2017, Trump’s first year as president, the account balance surged to $17.5M, more than the amount held in the previous five years combined. The president’s foreign financial entanglements and dire financial straits make him a one-man national security threat.
The president’s foreign financial entanglements and dire financial straits make him a one-man national security threat.
And if he won't disclose whom he's indebted to or how he plans to resolve his money crisis, we might not want him to keep occupying the Oval Office when all this debt comes crashing down on him during a second term. A president has access to our country's most sensitive intelligence. He also has the power to make foreign trade, weapons sales, sanctions and other key decisions that could be driven not by our national interests but by his own self-interests. That's why we need to know how our president plans to dig out of his debt without compromising our security.
Question for Mike Pence
"If Trump won't leave, will you be with Trump or with America?"
During his one and only debate with Harris, the vice president chose not to answer a vital question from moderator Susan Page, who asked about Pence's role in the event that Biden were declared the winner of the election but Trump refused to accept a peaceful transition of power. Pence declined to answer. Pence's non-answer presents a probable national security threat, and it demands a response. How can voters cast their lots with Pence if they can't determine whether his allegiance is to Trump or to the stability of our democracy? That's a pre-eminent national security question, and it's a deal breaker for our democracy.
During Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign, his strategist James Carville hung a sign at campaign headquarters intended to keep staffers on message: "It's the economy, stupid." I'd suggest a variation on the theme: "It's national security, stupid." And we'd be stupid not to get some answers.


msnbc--2020-10-21--Steve Schmidt: A defeated Republican Party will be even crazier

With two weeks left until Election Day, Steve Schmidt joins to discuss how he thinks Donald Trump will do and what it means for the future of the Republican Party.Oct. 21, 2020


msnbc--2020-10-21--‘We literally left this White House a pandemic playbook’: Obama slams Trump's Covid-19 response

Trump wants to make the election about ‘ corruption.
’ Here ’ s why that could backfire .

Former President Obama slammed President Trump’s Covid-19 response, saying his administration left the current one a “pandemic playbook” on how to handle a situation like the coronavirus, which Trump did not follow.Oct. 21, 2020


msnbc--2020-10-21--FBI announces Iran, Russia interfering in election

The FBI announced that Iran and Russia have ‘taken specific actions to influence public opinion relating to our elections.’ Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe says that Iran was trying to meddle in the election and that Russia has obtained American voter information.Oct. 21, 2020


msnbc--2020-10-21--Trump jokes he didn't plan on campaigning in Erie, Pa.

During a Tuesday rally, the president joked that were it not for the coronavirus, he wouldn't have to campaign in places like Erie, Pennsylvania.Oct. 21, 2020


msnbc--2020-10-21--The harrowing effects of the Trump administration’s cruel separation policy

Jacob Soboroff speaks with Nicolle Wallace on his reporting that lawyers say they have yet to track down the parents of over 500 children, who are still separated from their parents years after the Trump administration’s separation programOct. 21, 2020


msnbc--2020-10-21--Rick Bright claims Trump is 'hiding the truth' of Covid from Americans

Rick Bright, who resigned from the Department of Health and Human services earlier this year, criticized President Trump as someone who was intent on "hiding the truth from Americans."Oct. 21, 2020


msnbc--2020-10-21--Obama speaks to voters on the street in Philadelphia

Former President Barack Obama stopped on the street to talk to voters in Philadelphia, Pa., while campaigning for Joe Biden. Obama sympathized with supporters about the stresses of the Covid-19 pandemic and said Biden would lead the way forward for the U.S.Oct. 21, 2020


msnbc--2020-10-21--LA County Supervisor speaks out on burnt ballot box

After a ballot drop box fire in Los Angeles, authorities are investigating possible arson. Los Angeles County Board Supervisor and former Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis comments on the effort to salvage damaged ballots.Oct. 21, 2020


msnbc--2020-10-21--What Trump's taxes reveal about his dealings in China

Meacham: Pence probably saved the republic, but I don't always want to count on one person to do it 08:18


msnbc--2020-10-21--'What's up with Trump's China bank account' and other questions that need to be asked at the debate

UPDATE ( October 21 , 2020 , 9:35 p.m .
ET ) : This piece has been updated to include a report of a previously undisclosed Chinese bank account maintained by President Donald Trump and controlled by Trump International Hotels Management , L.L.C .
Thursday 's presidential debate is the final chance for us to get answers to some of the most difficult and pressing national security questions facing the candidates .
As for the vice presidential candidates , their one and only debate has come and gone and along with it the opportunity to get the answers we need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks left until Election Day , it 's unlikely we 'll see the toughest security questions posed to the candidates , let alone hear their answers .
So let 's ask those hard questions now , while we still have the chance .
As they say in the intelligence community when determining someone 's access to important information — we have a `` need to know . ''
Voters have already seen or heard the more obvious national security and geopolitical questions in queries to each candidate and in various written analyses .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ wins the election will face tough and continuing decisions about how to deal with the threat from adversaries like China , Russia , North Korea and Iran .
Some pundits have even opined that President Donald Trump has so damaged U.S. foreign policy and allied relations that a newly elected Joe Biden would n't even be able to fully address the carnage .
But national security is so much more than foreign relations and diplomacy .
National security also encompasses threats closer to home that compromise the core principles of our democracy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ divided nation .
Those imminent , even existential , threats should generate far more questions and demand far clearer answers from our candidates than what we 've seen thus far .
Here are the questions to which America needs to know the answers : '' Will you support a commission to investigate and prosecute Trump and members of his administration for their crimes ? ''
This question is n't about revenge or retribution ; it 's about acknowledging that the kind of deliberate damage done by the Trump administration to our institutions and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future of our republic and therefore our national security .
There is ample evidence that Trump and his cohort have committed serious crimes that strike at the heart of what it means to be an American and a citizen of a free and democratic country .
A president who was found by a special counsel 's inquiry to have committed 10 acts of potentially chargeable obstruction of justice , an acting Homeland Security secretary and a former attorney general who have directed the strategic separation of babies from their mothers , a director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disseminated Russian propaganda for a political purpose and a current attorney general who was alleged in a judicial proceeding to have led a `` gross abuse of prosecutorial power '' have n't just potentially skirted the law — they 've set perilous precedents that ca n't be allowed to stand .
While Biden has already said he does n't intend to pardon Trump , he should be asked this different , more precise , question about establishing a crimes commission .
Not addressing the crimes committed during Trump 's tenure wo n't bring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , inaction would be tantamount to tacit license for it to happen again .
Silence would send the wrong message to this and future generations about the vigilance required to secure our democracy .
`` What is your detailed plan for reimagining the police ? ''
America is a divided nation .
Part of that divide lies in the chasm between how Blacks and whites distinctly view and experience the police .
A Harvard University study found that Black people in the United States are more than six times as likely to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in support of the Black Lives Matter movement have turned violent , while the police continue , seemingly unabated , to use excessive force against minorities .
Sen. Kamala Harris of California , Biden 's running mate , previously served as the district attorney in San Francisco and as the attorney general of California .
But her record as a `` top cop '' is mixed and murky when it comes to whether she can lead true reform or whether she would merely pay lip service to a problem that is plaguing our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vice president to spearhead police reform , yet we need to know whether her varying positions on issues such as increasing or reducing police presence , on banning chokeholds and on not prosecuting bad cops make her a real change agent or someone who just tests which way the wind is blowing .
Public safety and national unity are national security issues — that 's why we need to know .
“ You owe at least $ 420 million in personal debt , and have a previously undisclosed bank account in China ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your debt and to whom do you owe it ?
” As we learned from recent New York Times reporting , Trump 's tax returns revealed that he personally owes unidentified creditors at least $ 421 million in the next four years and may owe as much as $ 1 billion .
As I 've previously written , this debt may make Trump one of American history 's most vulnerable presidents when it comes to potential blackmail and financial compromise by bad actors .
The New York Times also reports a previously undisclosed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Trump International Hotels Management , L.L.C .
This makes China one of only three foreign nations where Trump maintains bank accounts .
In 2017 , Trump ’ s first year as president , the account balance surged to $ 17.5M , more than the amount held in the previous five years combined .
The president ’ s foreign financial entanglements and dire financial straits make him a one-man national security threat .
And if he wo n't disclose whom he 's indebted to or how he plans to resolve his money crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep occupying the Oval Office when all this debt comes crashing down on him during a second term .
A president has access to our country 's most sensitive intelligence .
He also has the power to make foreign trade , weapons sales , sanctions and other key decisions that could be driven not by our national interests but by his own self-interests .
That 's why we need to know how our president plans to dig out of his debt without compromising our security .
`` If Trump wo n't leave , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ America ? ''
During his one and only debate with Harris , the vice president chose not to answer a vital question from moderator Susan Page , who asked about Pence 's role in the event that Biden were declared the winner of the election but Trump refused to accept a peaceful transition of power .
Pence declined to answer .
Pence 's non-answer presents a probable national security threat , and it demands a response .
How can voters cast their lots with Pence if they ca n't determine whether his allegiance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of our democracy ?
That 's a pre-eminent national security question , and it 's a deal breaker for our democracy .
During Bill Clinton 's 1992 presidential campaign , his strategist James Carville hung a sign at campaign headquarters intended to keep staffers on message : `` It 's the economy , stupid . ''
I 'd suggest a variation on the theme : `` It 's national security , stupid . ''
And we 'd be stupid not to get some answers .


msnbc--2020-10-21--U.S. troop withdrawal plan leaves Afghan women scared for their rights, and their lives

If there 's a point of agreement between President Donald Trump and those on the left who favor a reduced U.S. military presence in the world , it 's that the war in Afghanistan should have ended long ago .
Trump campaigned against U.S. military involvements in Iraq and Afghanistan four years ago and tweeted the same years earlier .
In his 2019 State of the Union address , Trump noted that `` great nations do not fight endless wars . ''
Now , as Trump 's national security adviser pledges that U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan will fall to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talks about talks proceed between the Afghan government and the Taliban to determine the terms of a possible agreement on power-sharing once the United States leaves , that rare American bipartisan agreement might spell disaster for the best allies the U.S. has had in security in Afghanistan until now .
And those allies — Afghan women — wonder whether their rights to work and education will be able to survive the withdrawal of U.S. forces without a Taliban cease-fire and commitment to respect the gains women have made since 2001 .
No one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or risked more to bring security to Afghanistan than Afghan women since the end of Taliban rule in 2001 .
They have risked their own safety to fight for human rights , to work in local charities teaching agriculture and entrepreneurship and to serve in their government .
They have broken norms , battled extremism in their own homes , fought for schools , served as journalists and dared to challenge traditions .
All the while they have been peaceful and have argued for an end to the war between Taliban and Afghan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the one most often left out of the discussion as a peace deal is mapped out .
That means that whatever is resolved between the U.S. and the Taliban , and then the Afghan government and the Taliban — the latter are now talking in Doha , Qatar , about rules that will govern talks about the shape of a future peace agreement — it is far from certain that the gains and autonomy of Afghan women can be maintained .
Before the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan soon after the attacks of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of women —stonings , beatings , the closing of all schools for girls , the banning of women from their own streets without chaperones — horrified much of the Western world and was a rallying cry for the need for change in Afghanistan , not just the removal of the Taliban for giving sanctuary to Al Qaeda .
Soon after the U.S.-led coalition arrived , the situation of women improved markedly as they reshaped their own communities for themselves .
`` Because of our recent military gains in much of Afghanistan , women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They can listen to music and teach their daughters without fear of punishment , '' first lady Laura Bush said in a 2001 radio address .
`` Yet the terrorists who helped rule that country now plot and plan in many countries .
And they must be stopped .
The fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women . ''
Afghan women have been inextricably bound up with the fight for security and stability and against terrorism in the 19 years since .
During that time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women have used the windows of stability created by the end of Taliban rule in Kabul and the coalition 's training of Afghan forces to teach children , launch businesses , represent their people as governors and judges , deploy as diplomats and even risk their lives to become police officers and members of their country 's military .
More than 3 million girls are in school , and women account for roughly a third of the students enrolled at Kabul University .
An estimated one-third of the country 's civil servants are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2001 .
Change is challenging in a traditional society in which illiteracy remains rampant and Taliban attacks are the norm , but it is homegrown .
I have spent time with girls studying to become doctors and with young women who are saving women 's lives as midwives .
Many of the women I met knew that , even though most legal restrictions on their working and participating in public life have been removed , they could still face penalties from family disapproval to targeted killing by the Taliban as a result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the constriction of opportunity for girls and women if the Taliban returns to rule is what worries many now .
Women are working to be heard in the U.S.-launched talks with the Taliban to reach a peace deal , and it has not been easy .
Four of the 42 Afghans negotiating with the Taliban in Doha to reach a peace agreement are women .
On the Taliban side , all of those negotiating are men .
The U.S. has reached its own deal with the Taliban aimed at `` ending the war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' and troop levels are watched closely by many women who see their fate tied to international forces ' remaining in the country .
It is the U.S. that is securing Afghan forces , who are in turn fighting the Taliban .
Using the hashtags # newAfghanistan and # herAfghanistan , they have sought to help the world see how much would be lost if their rights are squandered .
As the U.S. reduces its presence , women fear that they will be bombed and assassinated into a return to the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Afghanistan troops today are stronger and more professional than they were 20 years ago , '' Kamila Sidiqi , a successful entrepreneur who served as Afghanistan 's deputy commerce minister , told me over WhatsApp this week .
`` However , we still need the support of U.S. troops until the peace talks reach a positive and stable conclusion and there is a complete ceasefire between Afghan troops and Taliban . ''
Sidiqi is not alone in this fear .
As secretary of state , Hillary Clinton spoke frequently of the plight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year at the United Nations : `` Women are essential to combating corruption , building economic growth and ensuring the longevity of any agreement that is reached .
If women are sidelined , the prospects for sustainable peace are slim . ''
A deal with the Taliban that overlooks these gains or sees women 's rights as regrettable but necessary fodder for gains in negotiations would not serve U.S. interests .
As talks continue and discussion of troop levels proceeds , a deal that considers the fate of only half the nation would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women are now working in leadership roles in different sectors , '' Sidiqi said .
`` We have a greater measure of control over our destiny now .
I am hopeful that our efforts of the past decades will not be wasted , and we will continue to have the opportunity to move forward . ''
For the sake of our collective security , let us hope she is right .

If there's a point of agreement between President Donald Trump and those on the left who favor a reduced U.S. military presence in the world, it's that the war in Afghanistan should have ended long ago. Trump campaigned against U.S. military involvements in Iraq and Afghanistan four years ago and tweeted the same years earlier. In his 2019 State of the Union address, Trump noted that "great nations do not fight endless wars."
No one has wanted peace more, sacrificed more or risked more to bring security to Afghanistan than Afghan women since the end of Taliban rule in 2001.
Now, as Trump's national security adviser pledges that U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan will fall to 2,500 by early next year and while talks about talks proceed between the Afghan government and the Taliban to determine the terms of a possible agreement on power-sharing once the United States leaves, that rare American bipartisan agreement might spell disaster for the best allies the U.S. has had in security in Afghanistan until now. And those allies — Afghan women — wonder whether their rights to work and education will be able to survive the withdrawal of U.S. forces without a Taliban cease-fire and commitment to respect the gains women have made since 2001.
No one has wanted peace more, sacrificed more or risked more to bring security to Afghanistan than Afghan women since the end of Taliban rule in 2001. They have risked their own safety to fight for human rights, to work in local charities teaching agriculture and entrepreneurship and to serve in their government. They have broken norms, battled extremism in their own homes, fought for schools, served as journalists and dared to challenge traditions. All the while they have been peaceful and have argued for an end to the war between Taliban and Afghan forces.
Yet this most important voice is the one most often left out of the discussion as a peace deal is mapped out. That means that whatever is resolved between the U.S. and the Taliban, and then the Afghan government and the Taliban — the latter are now talking in Doha, Qatar, about rules that will govern talks about the shape of a future peace agreement — it is far from certain that the gains and autonomy of Afghan women can be maintained.
Before the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan soon after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the treatment of women —stonings, beatings, the closing of all schools for girls, the banning of women from their own streets without chaperones — horrified much of the Western world and was a rallying cry for the need for change in Afghanistan, not just the removal of the Taliban for giving sanctuary to Al Qaeda.
Soon after the U.S.-led coalition arrived, the situation of women improved markedly as they reshaped their own communities for themselves. "Because of our recent military gains in much of Afghanistan, women are no longer imprisoned in their homes. They can listen to music and teach their daughters without fear of punishment," first lady Laura Bush said in a 2001 radio address. "Yet the terrorists who helped rule that country now plot and plan in many countries. And they must be stopped. The fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women."
Afghan women have been inextricably bound up with the fight for security and stability and against terrorism in the 19 years since. During that time, I've seen firsthand how much women have used the windows of stability created by the end of Taliban rule in Kabul and the coalition's training of Afghan forces to teach children, launch businesses, represent their people as governors and judges, deploy as diplomats and even risk their lives to become police officers and members of their country's military. More than 3 million girls are in school, and women account for roughly a third of the students enrolled at Kabul University. An estimated one-third of the country's civil servants are women. The number was around zero in 2001.
Change is challenging in a traditional society in which illiteracy remains rampant and Taliban attacks are the norm, but it is homegrown. I have spent time with girls studying to become doctors and with young women who are saving women's lives as midwives. Many of the women I met knew that, even though most legal restrictions on their working and participating in public life have been removed, they could still face penalties from family disapproval to targeted killing by the Taliban as a result. They do it anyway.
Yet the constriction of opportunity for girls and women if the Taliban returns to rule is what worries many now. Women are working to be heard in the U.S.-launched talks with the Taliban to reach a peace deal, and it has not been easy.
Four of the 42 Afghans negotiating with the Taliban in Doha to reach a peace agreement are women. On the Taliban side, all of those negotiating are men. The U.S. has reached its own deal with the Taliban aimed at "ending the war and opening the door to intra-Afghan negotiations," and troop levels are watched closely by many women who see their fate tied to international forces' remaining in the country. It is the U.S. that is securing Afghan forces, who are in turn fighting the Taliban.
Using the hashtags #newAfghanistan and #herAfghanistan, they have sought to help the world see how much would be lost if their rights are squandered. As the U.S. reduces its presence, women fear that they will be bombed and assassinated into a return to the past.
"There can be no doubt that Afghanistan troops today are stronger and more professional than they were 20 years ago," Kamila Sidiqi, a successful entrepreneur who served as Afghanistan's deputy commerce minister, told me over WhatsApp this week. "However, we still need the support of U.S. troops until the peace talks reach a positive and stable conclusion and there is a complete ceasefire between Afghan troops and Taliban."
Sidiqi is not alone in this fear.
As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton spoke frequently of the plight of Afghan women. She said this year at the United Nations: "Women are essential to combating corruption, building economic growth and ensuring the longevity of any agreement that is reached. If women are sidelined, the prospects for sustainable peace are slim."
As talks continue and discussion of troop levels proceeds, a deal that considers the fate of only half the nation will not serve us all.
A deal with the Taliban that overlooks these gains or sees women's rights as regrettable but necessary fodder for gains in negotiations would not serve U.S. interests. As talks continue and discussion of troop levels proceeds, a deal that considers the fate of only half the nation would not serve us all.
"Afghan women are now working in leadership roles in different sectors," Sidiqi said. "We have a greater measure of control over our destiny now. I am hopeful that our efforts of the past decades will not be wasted, and we will continue to have the opportunity to move forward." For the sake of our collective security, let us hope she is right.


msnbc--2020-10-22--DNI Ratcliffe message in classified briefing different from public remarks: Schumer

James Carville : Biden has to win by more than five points

Senator Chuck Schumer points out to Rachel Maddow that even though DNI John Ratcliffe said at his press conference that Iran was trying to damage Donald Trump, that was not conveyed in the classified briefing he received, which emphasized a goal of general chaos.Oct. 22, 2020


msnbc--2020-10-22--Obama stumps for Biden as Trump ignores Covid risk at huge rally

Joe Biden spent the last day before the final presidential debate preparing for his face-to-face with Trump while Barack Obama hit the trail. Meanwhile, Trump held yet another huge rally ignoring the risk to his supporters from Covid-19.Oct. 22, 2020


msnbc--2020-10-22--Trump skips debate prep, reveals no plan for a second term

With less than two weeks until election day, the president has not laid out a clear plan for a potential second term. He also is not attending debate prep, opting instead to hold huge rallies defying Covid-19 guidance. Annie Karni reacts.Oct. 22, 2020


msnbc--2020-10-22--Intel director issues high-drama, low-clarity warning on Iran, Russia election operations

Rachel Maddow reports on a last minute press announcement by DNI John Ratcliffe, attended by other security officials, in which he cautioned, without specificity, that Iran and Russia are using voter information to undermine confidence in the 2020 election.Oct. 22, 2020


msnbc--2020-10-22--Steve Kornacki breaks down possible election scenarios

MSNBC's Steve Kornacki looks to the election map to game out different scenarios for the race between President Trump and Joe Biden and the paths to victory for each.Oct. 22, 2020


msnbc--2020-10-21--Obama: Fox News would have called me ‘Beijing Barry’ if I had a secret Chinese bank account

During a campaign speech in Philadelphia, Pa., former President Obama slammed President Trump for the New York Times’ reporting that he had a secret Chinese bank account. Obama joked that if he himself had been in such a controversy, Fox News would have called him “Beijing Barry.”Oct. 21, 2020


msnbc--2020-10-22--Bernie: Americans want a president who won’t argue with Leslie Stahl or Dr. Fauci

“What the American people want is a president who is not going to create hysteria every single day, not going to be firing people, not going to be attacking people, not going to be arguing with Leslie Stahl or Dr. Fauci,” says Sen. Sanders. “They would like a President who would maybe focus on their needs.”Oct. 22, 2020