theintercept--2020-06-08--The Coronavirus Stimulus Discourages Aid to Small Business Owners With a Criminal Record

started Wolfpack Promotionals , which creates advertising and promotional materials , in Minneapolis six years ago in part to help others .
He saw that smaller businesses needed to advertise their services but couldn ’ t afford some of the larger firms .
“ We realized we could do that at a [ fairer ] price and make it look just as good , if not better , ” he said .
“ It was something that I ’ m good at that I like , and we realized we could make a business out of it.
” Becoming an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ avenues open to him .
He was convicted of a felony in 1993 and spent 18 years in prison .
With that history , “ unfortunately , finding a job is not the easiest thing in the world to do , ” he said .
A criminal background can make it nearly impossible to secure employment : a 2011 study found that many employers simply bar people from applying , part of why men with criminal backgrounds make up a third of all nonworking men in their prime .
Instead , Brown was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least doubling his sales every year , and hire six employees .
And then the pandemic hit .
His sales dropped by over 90 percent in March .
“ We haven ’ t even bothered looking lately .
It ’ s probably worse , ” he said in May , defeat in his voice .
Customers don ’ t have the money to pay for advertising .
He has projects in his shop ready for pickup that no one has come to claim and pay for .
“ It ’ s hurt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad.
” He ’ s furloughed all of his employees .
So Brown decided to apply for the Paycheck Protection Program , created by Congress through the CARES Act , which offers small business owners forgivable loans to cover their payroll and other costs .
During the first round of funding , he went to his bank and “ we were essentially laughed out of the place , ” he said .
Undeterred , he filled out the application to get money from the second round .
But as he made his way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the last questions stopped him in his tracks : “ Within the last 5 years , for any felony , has the Applicant ( if an individual ) or any owner of the Applicant 1 ) been convicted ; 2 ) pleaded guilty ; 3 ) pleaded nolo contendere ; 4 ) been placed on pretrial diversion ; or 5 ) been placed on any form of parole or probation ( including probation before judgment ) ?
” The Small Business Administration , as Brown found out , has outright excluded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a felony within the past five years from getting a PPP loan , as well as those who have simply been charged and put in pretrial diversion , parole , or probation without yet being convicted or spending any time in prison .
It has also excluded anyone who is presently incarcerated or on probation or parole .
“ I don ’ t understand why the question is there in the first place , ” Brown said .
A felony charge , he argued , “ should not be an economic death sentence.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be a sentence placed not just on him , but the employees who rely on him for their paychecks .
Technically , Brown shouldn ’ t be disqualified from the program given that his conviction was nearly three decades ago .
But at the end of May , a month since he applied , he still hadn ’ t gotten any PPP funding .
He ’ s worried that his lender has thought twice about approving him for the money with a felony in his background .
Putting such a question on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exclude those who are banned , but deter others who might otherwise qualify .
“ Most employers heard them loud and clear , ” said Breon Wells , president of the Daniel Initiative , a lobbying firm that advocates on criminal justice issues .
Applying and later finding out you ’ re disqualified , he said , “ is tantamount to potentially being put back into the system.
” The treatment of individuals with criminal histories stands in stark contrast with corporations that have had brushes with the law .
The New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have gotten $ 45 million in PPP loans total despite recent legal action against them .
Biopharmaceutical company MiMedx Group got $ 10 million after agreeing to pay the Justice Department $ 6.5 million just weeks before to resolve allegations that it violated federal law .
U.S. Auto Parts Network received $ 4.1 million despite being in a “ heated dispute , ” the Times reporters write , in recent years with Customers and Border Protection , including the seizure of some of its products under the allegation that they are counterfeit .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ million even though its chief financial officer resigned in February after it disclosed major accounting problems .
Meanwhile , the SBA ’ s other loan programs don ’ t outright bar people with felonies , but instead subject them to an individual “ good character ” evaluation , giving the applicant “ the ability to explain yourself , explain the circumstances around the felony , ” Wells said .
When Congress passed the CARES Act , “ it was silent on the issue , ” said Sarah Crozier , senior communications manager at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ network .
So it was up to the SBA to issue its own guidelines .
The SBA went much further than its prior guidance with the PPP .
“ That was quite shocking , ” Crozier said .
She pointed out that someone who hasn ’ t been convicted of anything is still presumed innocent in the justice system , and yet is still disqualified from getting a PPP loan .
Crozier worries that lenders may decide to reject applications from people with criminal backgrounds but who should technically qualify out of an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happening with Brown .
“ You get people stuck in this limbo when you have the question ” on the application , she said .
“ Even if they ’ re technically eligible , it ’ s up to the lender at the end of the day.
” Plus , a leaked SBA PowerPoint reported by Entrepreneur instructs SBA administrators to deny applicants for Economic Injury Disaster Loans from any small business owners who have been arrested for a felony or were arrested for a misdemeanor within the last 10 years .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ request for comment from The Intercept .
“ It ’ s frustrating to constantly have something hanging over your head from many , many moons ago , ” Brown said .
Many small business owners with criminal backgrounds are likely just opting out of the PPP .
At first there was a crush of demand for PPP loans , and in the melee , many larger firms won out while smaller ones got sidelined .
“ If you ’ re a small business , you already feel like the deck is stacked against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you ’ re a small business owner of color , and one with a criminal history , it has the impact of making it seem not only improbable , but even inconceivable and impossible that you could get a loan.
” Courtney Stewart hasn ’ t applied for a PPP loan , despite the fact that he had to lay off two of the five employees at his nonprofit and reduce hours and pay for the others .
“ We ’ re the last on anybody ’ s agenda , and we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cut , ” he said .
“ It ’ s just a state of emergency for organizations like mine.
” Stewart runs the National Reentry Network for Returning Citizens , which offers mentoring , counseling , and other services to help people leaving jails and prisons .
His services are in even more demand now that some jails and prisons are releasing people due to coronavirus .
He doesn ’ t have the resources to meet that need .
Yet he doesn ’ t think he could get a PPP loan .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a criminal background , ” he noted .
He doesn ’ t understand why that should disqualify him from receiving aid .
After all , he pointed out , his donors are able to trust him with their money .
The SBA , he argued , should be able to exercise the same oversight .
“ The Paycheck Protection Program , in principle , it sounds great , ” he said .
“ But there are too many things that are discouraging.
” He ’ s also worried about the impact it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reenter society and become financially stable by running their own businesses .
Many like him are likely going to be scared away from the program .
They “ already see the federal government as a monster , ” he said .
“ This is the reason we don ’ t get involved with a lot of these processes , because we already feel like we ’ re excluded and we don ’ t have a shot at any of it.
” The criminal history question may be playing a role in the PPP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a recent survey , over 40 percent of black and Hispanic business owners didn ’ t get any of the federal relief they applied for , while another 21 percent are still waiting to hear back .
As of 2010 , a third of black men had felony convictions on their records , compared to 8 percent of the general population .
There is some appetite to lift the criminal background rule .
In the HEROES Act passed in the House , only those who are currently incarcerated or who were previously convicted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deception would be barred from the PPP .
The bill also says that the SBA can ’ t issue any further restrictions .
So far Republicans in the Senate haven ’ t indicated a willingness to pass the legislation , and the legislation they passed to fix aspects of the PPP didn ’ t include anything about criminal histories .
But there is some bipartisan concern about the problem .
On June 4 , Republican Sens .
Rob Portman and James Lankford teamed up with Democratic Sens .
Ben Cardin and Cory Booker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ban on applicants with felony convictions .
Wells is confident that there will at least be a “ conversation ” about changing the rule in the Senate .
“ Conservatives see this as a right-to-work issue , ” he said .
“ This is about people who have done their time coming out and being able to combat recidivism rates by accessing this money.
” Brown can ’ t afford to wait much longer .
He ’ s not sure what the future of his business will hold .
“ Things look bad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ We ’ re not sure how things are going to turn out.
” There ’ s a chance Wolfpack Promotionals will never reopen .

KB Brown started Wolfpack Promotionals, which creates advertising and promotional materials, in Minneapolis six years ago in part to help others. He saw that smaller businesses needed to advertise their services but couldn’t afford some of the larger firms. “We realized we could do that at a [fairer] price and make it look just as good, if not better,” he said. “It was something that I’m good at that I like, and we realized we could make a business out of it.”
Becoming an entrepreneur was also one of the few avenues open to him. He was convicted of a felony in 1993 and spent 18 years in prison. With that history, “unfortunately, finding a job is not the easiest thing in the world to do,” he said. A criminal background can make it nearly impossible to secure employment: a 2011 study found that many employers simply bar people from applying, part of why men with criminal backgrounds make up a third of all nonworking men in their prime. Instead, Brown was able to build a booming business, at least doubling his sales every year, and hire six employees.
And then the pandemic hit. His sales dropped by over 90 percent in March. “We haven’t even bothered looking lately. It’s probably worse,” he said in May, defeat in his voice. Customers don’t have the money to pay for advertising. He has projects in his shop ready for pickup that no one has come to claim and pay for. “It’s hurt us. It’s hurt us bad.” He’s furloughed all of his employees.
So Brown decided to apply for the Paycheck Protection Program, created by Congress through the CARES Act, which offers small business owners forgivable loans to cover their payroll and other costs. During the first round of funding, he went to his bank and “we were essentially laughed out of the place,” he said. Undeterred, he filled out the application to get money from the second round. But as he made his way to the end of the form, one of the last questions stopped him in his tracks: “Within the last 5 years, for any felony, has the Applicant (if an individual) or any owner of the Applicant 1) been convicted; 2) pleaded guilty; 3) pleaded nolo contendere; 4) been placed on pretrial diversion; or 5) been placed on any form of parole or probation (including probation before judgment)?”
The Small Business Administration, as Brown found out, has outright excluded any business owner who was convicted of a felony within the past five years from getting a PPP loan, as well as those who have simply been charged and put in pretrial diversion, parole, or probation without yet being convicted or spending any time in prison. It has also excluded anyone who is presently incarcerated or on probation or parole.
“I don’t understand why the question is there in the first place,” Brown said. A felony charge, he argued, “should not be an economic death sentence.” And in this case, it could be a sentence placed not just on him, but the employees who rely on him for their paychecks. Technically, Brown shouldn’t be disqualified from the program given that his conviction was nearly three decades ago. But at the end of May, a month since he applied, he still hadn’t gotten any PPP funding. He’s worried that his lender has thought twice about approving him for the money with a felony in his background.
Putting such a question on the application form won’t just exclude those who are banned, but deter others who might otherwise qualify. “Most employers heard them loud and clear,” said Breon Wells, president of the Daniel Initiative, a lobbying firm that advocates on criminal justice issues. Applying and later finding out you’re disqualified, he said, “is tantamount to potentially being put back into the system.”
Read Our Complete Coverage The Coronavirus Crisis
The treatment of individuals with criminal histories stands in stark contrast with corporations that have had brushes with the law. The New York Times identified at least seven companies that have gotten $45 million in PPP loans total despite recent legal action against them. Biopharmaceutical company MiMedx Group got $10 million after agreeing to pay the Justice Department $6.5 million just weeks before to resolve allegations that it violated federal law. U.S. Auto Parts Network received $4.1 million despite being in a “heated dispute,” the Times reporters write, in recent years with Customers and Border Protection, including the seizure of some of its products under the allegation that they are counterfeit. Aerospace manufacturer CPI Aerostructures got $4.8 million even though its chief financial officer resigned in February after it disclosed major accounting problems.
Meanwhile, the SBA’s other loan programs don’t outright bar people with felonies, but instead subject them to an individual “good character” evaluation, giving the applicant “the ability to explain yourself, explain the circumstances around the felony,” Wells said. When Congress passed the CARES Act, “it was silent on the issue,” said Sarah Crozier, senior communications manager at Main Street Alliance, a small business network. So it was up to the SBA to issue its own guidelines.
“Even if they’re technically eligible, it’s up to the lender at the end of the day.”
The SBA went much further than its prior guidance with the PPP. “That was quite shocking,” Crozier said. She pointed out that someone who hasn’t been convicted of anything is still presumed innocent in the justice system, and yet is still disqualified from getting a PPP loan.
Crozier worries that lenders may decide to reject applications from people with criminal backgrounds but who should technically qualify out of an overabundance of caution, as may be happening with Brown. “You get people stuck in this limbo when you have the question” on the application, she said. “Even if they’re technically eligible, it’s up to the lender at the end of the day.” Plus, a leaked SBA PowerPoint reported by Entrepreneur instructs SBA administrators to deny applicants for Economic Injury Disaster Loans from any small business owners who have been arrested for a felony or were arrested for a misdemeanor within the last 10 years.
The SBA didn’t respond to a request for comment from The Intercept.
“It’s frustrating to constantly have something hanging over your head from many, many moons ago,” Brown said.
Many small business owners with criminal backgrounds are likely just opting out of the PPP. At first there was a crush of demand for PPP loans, and in the melee, many larger firms won out while smaller ones got sidelined. “If you’re a small business, you already feel like the deck is stacked against you,” Wells said. “If you’re a small business owner of color, and one with a criminal history, it has the impact of making it seem not only improbable, but even inconceivable and impossible that you could get a loan.”
“We’re the last on anybody’s agenda, and we are the first to get the funding cut.”
Courtney Stewart hasn’t applied for a PPP loan, despite the fact that he had to lay off two of the five employees at his nonprofit and reduce hours and pay for the others. “We’re the last on anybody’s agenda, and we are the first to get the funding cut,” he said. “It’s just a state of emergency for organizations like mine.”
Stewart runs the National Reentry Network for Returning Citizens, which offers mentoring, counseling, and other services to help people leaving jails and prisons. His services are in even more demand now that some jails and prisons are releasing people due to coronavirus. He doesn’t have the resources to meet that need.
Yet he doesn’t think he could get a PPP loan. “Everybody that works for the organization has a criminal background,” he noted. He doesn’t understand why that should disqualify him from receiving aid. After all, he pointed out, his donors are able to trust him with their money. The SBA, he argued, should be able to exercise the same oversight. “The Paycheck Protection Program, in principle, it sounds great,” he said. “But there are too many things that are discouraging.”
Do you have a coronavirus story you want to share? Email us at coronavirus@theintercept.com or use one of these secure methods to contact a reporter.
He’s also worried about the impact it will have on others who are trying to reenter society and become financially stable by running their own businesses. Many like him are likely going to be scared away from the program. They “already see the federal government as a monster,” he said. “This is the reason we don’t get involved with a lot of these processes, because we already feel like we’re excluded and we don’t have a shot at any of it.”
The criminal history question may be playing a role in the PPP’s racial disparities. According to a recent survey, over 40 percent of black and Hispanic business owners didn’t get any of the federal relief they applied for, while another 21 percent are still waiting to hear back. As of 2010, a third of black men had felony convictions on their records, compared to 8 percent of the general population.
There is some appetite to lift the criminal background rule. In the HEROES Act passed in the House, only those who are currently incarcerated or who were previously convicted of a felony for financial fraud or deception would be barred from the PPP. The bill also says that the SBA can’t issue any further restrictions. So far Republicans in the Senate haven’t indicated a willingness to pass the legislation, and the legislation they passed to fix aspects of the PPP didn’t include anything about criminal histories. But there is some bipartisan concern about the problem. On June 4, Republican Sens. Rob Portman and James Lankford teamed up with Democratic Sens. Ben Cardin and Cory Booker to introduce legislation that would remove the ban on applicants with felony convictions.
Wells is confident that there will at least be a “conversation” about changing the rule in the Senate. “Conservatives see this as a right-to-work issue,” he said. “This is about people who have done their time coming out and being able to combat recidivism rates by accessing this money.”
Brown can’t afford to wait much longer. He’s not sure what the future of his business will hold. “Things look bad for us right now,” he said. “We’re not sure how things are going to turn out.” There’s a chance Wolfpack Promotionals will never reopen.


theintercept--2020-06-08--The NYT Admits Key Falsehoods That Drove Last Year's Coup in Bolivia: Falsehoods Peddled by the U.S.

The NYT Admits Key Falsehoods That Drove Last Year's Coup in Bolivia: Falsehoods Peddled by the U.S., its Media, and the NYT

Bolivia ’ s three-term left-wing President , Evo Morales , was forced by the country ’ s military and police forces to flee to Mexico after Morales , the prior month , had been officially certified as the winner of his fourth consecutive presidential election .
It was unsurprising that Morales won .
As the Associated Press noted in 2014 , his governance was successful by almost every key metric , and he was thus “ widely popular at home for a pragmatic economic stewardship that spread Bolivia ’ s natural gas and mineral wealth among the masses.
” While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his 2014 landslide victory , he was still the most popular politician in the country .
On the night of the October 21 , 2019 , vote , Bolivia ’ s election board certified that Morales ’ margin of victory against the second-place candidate exceeded the ten percent threshold required under Bolivian law to avoid a run-off , thus earning him a fourth term .
But allegations of election fraud were quickly voiced by Morales ’ right-wing opponents , leading to his expulsion from the country on November 11 .
The central tool @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their U.S. government allies to justify the invalidation of Morales ’ 10-point election victory were two election audits by the regional group Organization of American States — one a preliminary report issued on November 10 , the day before Moraels was forced from the country , and then its final report issued the next month — which asserted widespread , deliberate election fraud .
“ Given all the irregularities observed , it is impossible to guarantee the integrity of the data and certify the accuracy of the results , ” the OAS announced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in turmoil over the election .
The next day , Morales , under the threat of force to him and his family , boarded a plane to Mexico , where he was granted asylum .
The final OAS report in December claimed that “ the audit team has detected willful manipulation ” of the results based on “ incontrovertible evidence of an electoral process marred by grave irregularities.
” But on Sunday , the New York Times published an article strongly suggesting that it was the OAS audit , not the Bolivian election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ irregularities , ” making it “ impossible to guarantee the integrity of the data and certify the accuracy of the ” OAS ’ claims .
The paper of record summarized its reporting this way : “ A close look at Bolivian election data suggests an initial analysis by the OAS that raised questions of vote-rigging — and helped force out a president — was flawed.
” To cast serious doubt on the integrity of these critical OAS reports , the Times ’ relies upon a new independent study from three scholars at U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the NYT — examined “ data obtained by the New York Times from the Bolivian electoral authorities.
” That study , said the NYT , “ has found that the Organization of American States ’ statistical analysis was itself flawed.
” That study documented that the key “ irregularity ” cited by OAS “ was actually an artifact of the analysts ’ error.
” It further explained that with regard to “ the patterns that the observers deemed ‘ inexplicable , ’ ” the new data analysis shows that “ we can explain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new study focuses solely on the OAS ’ s data claims and does not purport to decree the Bolivian election entirely free of fraud — virtually no election , including in the U.S. , is entirely free of irregularities — the NYT explains that “ the authors of the new study said they were unable to replicate the OAS ’ s findings using its likely techniques ” and that “ the difference is significant ” in assessing the overall validity of the OAS ’ s claims .
” In sum , ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a different interpretation of the quantitative evidence that led the OAS and other researchers to question the integrity of the Bolivian election.
“ Specifically , “ we find that we do not require fraud in order to explain the quantitative patterns used to help indict Evo Morales.
” The scholars ’ bottom line : “ we can not replicate the OAS results.
” to overstate the importance of the OAS accusations in driving Morales from his own country and , with no democratic mandate , shifting power in lithium-rich Bolivia to the white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ critics had also accused Morales of improperly seeking a fourth term despite constitutional term limits , Bolivia ’ s duly constituted court had invalidated those term limits ( much the way that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg induced the City Council to overturn a term limit referendum so he could seek a third term ) , leaving anti-Morales outside agitators , such as the OAS and U.S. officials , to rely instead on claims of election fraud .
On the day the preliminary OAS report was released , U.S. Secretary of State Mike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the official State Department website to demand new elections : Pompeo , in January of this year , visited OAS ’ Washington office and heaped praise on the organization for the role its audit played in forcing Morales from the country — a move which Pompeo heralded by invoking the long Orwellian U.S. tradition of depicting pro-U.S. military coups as “ pro-democracy ” : More recently , the OAS honored the former Bolivian government ’ s request to conduct an audit of the disputed election results .
The probe conducted uncovered proof @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helped end the violence that had broken out over the election dispute .
It helped the Bolivian Congress unanimously establish a date and conditions for a new election .
And it honored – importantly , it honored the Bolivian people ’ s courageous demand for a free and fair election , and for democracy .
U.S. media outlets and foreign policy commentators dutifully echoed the U.S. State Department ’ s line , as they typically do , by depicting the violent military coup as an advancement of freedom and democracy for the Bolivian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had just voted for Morales to be their President ) .
As a Washington Post op-ed in February by two MIT scholars noted : “ The media has largely reported the allegations of fraud [ from the OAS ] as fact.
” Two days before Morales was forced to flee Bolivia , Johns Hopkins Professor Yascha Mounk , who also covers foreign policy for The Atlantic , praised the coup leaders as “ bravely standing up for democracy against a wannabe dictator , ” and then , the following day , cited the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election was fraudulent : On November 11 , the day after Morales was forced to flee , Mounk wrote in The Atlantic that Morales got what he deserved , claiming , among other things , that he rigged the election : “ The strong circumstantial evidence of vote tampering succeeded in inspiring what years of more subtle attacks on democratic institutions had failed to do : Millions of Bolivians went out into the streets to demand a fair election.
” One point Mounk got right : the OAS report was decisive .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Organization of American States published its audit of the election yesterday , the game was finally up , ” he wrote .
( Mounk , knowing that there are never consequences for serving as a puppet for U.S foreign policy , has said not a word about the new study debunking the OAS claims ) .
Former Obama foreign policy official and current Stanford Professor Michael McFaul also cited the OAS report to cheer Morales ’ fleeing as some sort of “ excellent ” blow for freedom and democracy , only subsequently to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , acknowledging that he lacked the necessary information to form judgments : The Post editorial decreed : “ there could be little doubt who was ultimately responsible for the chaos : newly resigned president Evo Morales.
” How could the victim of a coup — who had just been elected President — be at fault for the resulting chaos ?
Because , explained the Post ’ s editors , “ an audit released by the Organization of American States reported massive irregularities in the vote count and called for a fresh election.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hyped the OAS report as proof that Morales ’ victory was illegitimate and the coup therefore democratic .
“ An independent international audit of Bolivia ’ s disputed election concluded that former President Evo Morales ’ s officials resorted to lies , manipulation and forgery to ensure his victory , ” its news article claimed , without a syllable of critical pushback until the penultimate paragraph , where it noted that “ some economists and statisticians in the United States ” had pointed to flaws in the OAS ’ data analysis .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such reservations , pronouncing Morales ’ victory the by-product of “ a flawed election , ” noting that “ early suspicions of fraud by the Organization of American States helped fuel the protests and provided cover for the military to ‘ suggest ’ that Mr. Morales leave office.
” The Times ’ Editorial then cited the final OAS report — which the paper yesterday called into question — as “ substantiating those suspicions ” by proving “ ‘ a series of malicious operations aimed at altering the will expressed at the polls ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when it came to the 2019 Bolivian coup , the U.S. media played its decades-old , standard role whenever the U.S. wants to depict a military coup against a government it dislikes as a victory for democracy : namely , it blindly and dutifully adopted the State Department ’ s view and uncritically waved the flag .
As documented in his great , new book on the CIA ’ s Cold War tactics , “ The Jakarta Method , ” journalist Vincent Bevins — whom I recently interviewed for SYSTEM UPDATE — recounts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. media served as a key propaganda arm of the U.S. government by reliably depicting overthrows of adverse regimes as a joyous advancement for democracy .
As but one example , Bevins described how the CIA prevailed on the New York Times to suppress reporting about the savagery of the agency-supported coup-plotters in Guatemala and instead glorify them as “ rebels ” who were nobly fighting for democracy : Exactly the same formula was used by the New York Times and the bulk of the U.S. media when a U.S.-supported coup attempt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the democratically elected President Hugo Chávez .
In an extraordinary paragraph , the Times heralded the U.S.-favored coup-leaders in Caracas as the guardians and saviors of democracy , while the democratically elected President was somehow the “ dictator ” : With yesterday ’ s resignation of President Hugo Chávez , Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator .
Mr. Chávez , a ruinous demagogue , stepped down after the military intervened and handed power to a respected business leader , Pedro Carmona .
The Times similarly lamented the dangers posed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the result of Morales ’ landslide victory at the polls .
To the Times and the U.S. media at large , democracy is imperiled when a candidate disliked by the U.S. wins at the polls ; conversely , democracy can be saved only when such elected leaders are overthrown and replaced by force with a U.S.-backed puppet .
The NYT Editors , while conceding in 2014 that “ it is easy to see why many Bolivians would want to see Mr. Morales , the country ’ s first president with Indigenous roots , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ during his tenure , the economy of the country , one of the least developed in the hemisphere , grew at a healthy rate , the level of inequality shrank and the number of people living in poverty dropped significantly ” — nonetheless insisted that Morales should be regarded as an enemy of democracy because “ the pattern of prolonged terms in power is unhealthy for the region ” [ notably , the NYT would never suggest that Angela Merkel ’ s “ prolonged term in power ” as German chancellor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Benjamin Netanyahu ’ s 4-terms-and-counting-in-power as Israeli prime minister pose a similar threat to democracy .
This is a “ concern ” reserved by the U.S. media only for Latin American leaders disliked by the U.S. State Department ] .
At the end of its 2014 editorial on Bolivia and Latin America , the Times inadvertently revealed the real reason it disliked these elected leaders .
Concern for democracy is the pretext .
The real reason it wants those elected leaders gone was revealed by this candid sentence : “ This regional dynamic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ influence in the region.
” As U.S. media coverage of last year ’ s coup in Bolivia demonstrates , little has changed since the Cold War when it comes to media fealty to the State Department and the CIA .
Because the U.S. government preferred the right-wing coup-plotters to the left-wing Morales , the U.S. media deliberately inverted the entire narrative to describe the elected leader ( Morales ) as the tyrant and the violent military coup leaders as the saviors of democracy .
And they peddled this false narrative only by relying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the NYT is now forced to admit was , at best , deeply flawed .
That the OAS report was dubious is not , contrary to the subtext of the NYT ’ s new article , something that was only recently discovered .
That has been clear from ample evidence from the start — evidence that the jingoistic U.S. media rarely saw fit to mention .
Shortly after the preliminary OAS report was issued , the Center for Economic and Policy Research ( CEPR ) , on November 8 , issued its own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called “ unsubstantiated doubts cast upon the vote count by the OAS mission.
” Explaining that OAS claims of election irregularities were made “ without evidence , ” the report detailed that “ neither the OAS mission nor any other party has demonstrated that there were widespread or systematic irregularities in the elections of October 20 , 2019.
” In March , the CEPR issued an even more comprehensive analysis , an 82-page report that concluded : “ the OAS ’ s observation activities in Bolivia ’ s 2019 general elections are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mission whose dishonest , biased , and unprofessional conduct has caused serious damage to the country ’ s democracy.
” It added that “ while the fraud narrative that the OAS helped promote contributed to Evo Morales , the country ’ s democratically elected president , fleeing the country , ” the OAS Report “ does not provide any evidence that those irregularities altered the outcome of the election , or were part of an actual attempt to do so.
” In February — with Morales now in exile in Argentina — the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scholars from MIT .
They summarized their argument this way : The media has largely reported the [ OAS ’ s ] allegations of fraud as fact .
And many commentators have justified the coup as a response to electoral fraud by MAS-IPSP .
However , as specialists in election integrity , we find that the statistical evidence does not support the claim of fraud in Bolivia ’ s October election .
In sum , the authors concluded , after setting forth their statistical findings in detail : “ there is not any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find — the trends in the preliminary count , the lack of any big jump in support for Morales after the halt , and the size of Morales ’ s margin all appear legitimate .
All in all , the OAS ’ s statistical analysis and conclusions would appear deeply flawed.
” That the OAS is a subservient tool of the U.S. State Department is something that is widely known in Latin America .
Yet it is a claim that virtually never appears in mainstream accounts from U.S. news outlets , which — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group as some sort of neutral , authoritative arbiter of political disputes .
Shortly after Morales was exiled from Bolivia and received asylum in Mexico , I traveled to Mexico City to interview him .
I asked Morales about the OAS , and this is what he said : All along , there was ample reason to seriously doubt , if not outright reject , the OAS accusations of election irregularities and voter fraud .
As CEPR ’ s Jake Johnston said today in response to the New York Times article : For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election , there was never any doubt that the OAS ’ claims of fraud were bogus .
Just days after the election , a high-level official inside the OAS privately acknowledged to me that there had been no “ inexplicable ” change in the trend , yet the organization continued to repeat its false assertions for many months with little to no pushback or accountability .
Yet those reasons for doubting the OAS accusations were barely ever even mentioned , let alone vested with credibility , by the U.S. media or its leading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the MIT scholars wrote in the Washington Post , “ the media largely reported the allegations of fraud as fact.
” That ’ s because whenever it comes to changing a foreign country ’ s government that is disliked by the U.S. , the U.S. media reflexively sides with the U.S. State Department and ceases to report and instead engages in pro-government propaganda .
In this case , Bolivia lost its most successful president in its modern history , and is consequently now ruled by an unelected military junta , all cheered on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relying on an OAS report which even the New York Times is now forced to acknowledge is , at best , deeply flawed .
Thus did the U.S. government and its media , yet again , help destroy a thriving Latin American democracy .

AP
In November 2019, Bolivia’s three-term left-wing president, Evo Morales, was forced by the country’s military and police forces to flee to Mexico after Morales, the prior month, had been officially certified as the winner of his fourth consecutive presidential election. It was unsurprising that Morales won. As the Associated Press noted in 2014, his governance was successful by almost every key metric, and he was thus “widely popular at home for a pragmatic economic stewardship that spread Bolivia’s natural gas and mineral wealth among the masses.”
While Morales’s popularity had marginally waned since his 2014 landslide victory, he was still the most popular politician in the country. On the night of the October 21, 2019, vote, Bolivia’s election board certified that Morales’s margin of victory against the second-place candidate exceeded the ten percent threshold required under Bolivian law to avoid a runoff, thus earning him a fourth term. But allegations of election fraud were quickly voiced by Morales’s right-wing opponents, leading to his expulsion from the country on November 11.
Once he fled, Bolivia’s first-ever president from the country’s Indigenous population was replaced by a little-known, white, far-right senator, Jeanine Áñez, from the country’s minority European-descendent, Christian, wealthy region. Her new, unelected government promptly massacred dozens of Indigenous protesters and then vested the responsible soldiers with immunity. Seven months later, Áñez predictably continues to rule Bolivia as “interim president” despite never having run for president, let alone having been democratically elected.
AP
The central tool used by both the Bolivian right and their U.S. government allies to justify the invalidation of Morales’s 10-point election victory were two election audits by the regional group Organization of American States — one a preliminary report issued on November 10, the day before Morales was forced from the country, and then its final report issued the next month — which asserted widespread, deliberate election fraud.
“Given all the irregularities observed, it is impossible to guarantee the integrity of the data and certify the accuracy of the results,” the OAS announced on November 10 as the country was in turmoil over the election. The next day, Morales, under the threat of force to him and his family, boarded a plane to Mexico, where he was granted asylum. The final OAS report in December claimed that “the audit team has detected willful manipulation” of the results based on “incontrovertible evidence of an electoral process marred by grave irregularities.”
But on Sunday, the New York Times published an article strongly suggesting that it was the OAS audit, not the Bolivian election, that was “marred by grave irregularities,” making it “impossible to guarantee the integrity of the data and certify the accuracy of the” OAS claims. The paper of record summarized its reporting this way: “A close look at Bolivian election data suggests an initial analysis by the OAS that raised questions of vote-rigging — and helped force out a president — was flawed.”
To cast serious doubt on the integrity of these critical OAS reports, the Times relies upon a new independent study from three scholars at U.S. universities which — in the words of the NYT — examined “data obtained by the New York Times from the Bolivian electoral authorities.” That study, said the NYT, “has found that the Organization of American States’ statistical analysis was itself flawed.”
That study documented that the key “irregularity” cited by OAS “was actually an artifact of the analysts’ error.” It further explained that with regard to “the patterns that the observers deemed ‘inexplicable,’” the new data analysis shows that “we can explain them without invoking fraud.”
While this new study focuses solely on the OAS’s data claims and does not purport to decree the Bolivian election entirely free of fraud — virtually no election, including in the U.S., is entirely free of irregularities — the NYT explains that “the authors of the new study said they were unable to replicate the OAS’s findings using its likely techniques” and that “the difference is significant” in assessing the overall validity of the OAS’s claims.
”In sum,” the new report concludes, “we offer a different interpretation of the quantitative evidence that led the OAS and other researchers to question the integrity of the Bolivian election.“ Specifically, “we find that we do not require fraud in order to explain the quantitative patterns used to help indict Evo Morales.” The scholars’ bottom line: “we cannot replicate the OAS results.”
It is virtually impossible to overstate the importance of the OAS accusations in driving Morales from his own country and, with no democratic mandate, shifting power in lithium-rich Bolivia to the white, Christian, U.S.-subservient right. While critics had also accused Morales of improperly seeking a fourth term despite constitutional term limits, Bolivia’s duly constituted court had invalidated those term limits (much the way that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg induced the City Council to overturn a term limit referendum so he could seek a third term), leaving anti-Morales outside agitators, such as the OAS and U.S. officials, to rely instead on claims of election fraud.
On the day the preliminary OAS report was released, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo cited it both on Twitter and on the official State Department website to demand new elections:
Fully support the findings of the @OAS_official report recommending new elections in #Bolivia to ensure a truly democratic process representative of the people’s will. The credibility of the electoral system must be restored. — Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) November 10, 2019
Pompeo, in January of this year, visited OAS’s Washington office and heaped praise on the organization for the role its audit played in forcing Morales from the country — a move which Pompeo heralded by invoking the long Orwellian U.S. tradition of depicting pro-U.S. military coups as “pro-democracy”:
More recently, the OAS honored the former Bolivian government’s request to conduct an audit of the disputed election results. The probe conducted uncovered proof of massive and systemic fraud. It helped end the violence that had broken out over the election dispute. It helped the Bolivian Congress unanimously establish a date and conditions for a new election. And it honored – importantly, it honored the Bolivian people’s courageous demand for a free and fair election, and for democracy.
U.S. media outlets and foreign policy commentators dutifully echoed the U.S. State Department’s line, as they typically do, by depicting the violent military coup as an advancement of freedom and democracy for the Bolivian people (the same Bolivian people who had just voted for Morales to be their president). As a Washington Post op-ed in February by two MIT scholars noted: “The media has largely reported the allegations of fraud [from the OAS] as fact.”
Two days before Morales was forced to flee Bolivia, Johns Hopkins professor Yascha Mounk, who also covers foreign policy for The Atlantic, praised the coup leaders as “bravely standing up for democracy against a wannabe dictator,” and then, the following day, cited the preliminary OAS study as proof that the election was fraudulent:
The Bolivian people are bravely standing up for democracy against a wannabe dictator, and the world is paying virtually no attention. [Short thread.] — Yascha Mounk (@Yascha_Mounk) November 9, 2019
Wonderful news: Election monitors from the Organization of American States found that there were "clear manipulations" of the voting results, calling for new elections. It looks as though Evo Morales has reluctantly agreed to them. El Pueblo Unido…https://t.co/oULqwIuBcy — Yascha Mounk (@Yascha_Mounk) November 10, 2019
No, Evo Morales' resignation is not a coup; it is one of the few big victories democracy has won in recent years. Both leftist dictators, like Venezuela's Maduro, and far-right populists, like Hungary’s Orbán, should be terrified by it. Me @TheAtlantic.https://t.co/yWsIfXdBM4 — Yascha Mounk (@Yascha_Mounk) November 11, 2019
On November 11, the day after Morales was forced to flee, Mounk wrote in The Atlantic that Morales got what he deserved, claiming, among other things, that he rigged the election: “The strong circumstantial evidence of vote tampering succeeded in inspiring what years of more subtle attacks on democratic institutions had failed to do: Millions of Bolivians went out into the streets to demand a fair election.” One point Mounk got right: The OAS report was decisive. “When an independent observer mission from the Organization of American States published its audit of the election yesterday, the game was finally up,” he wrote.
(Mounk, knowing that there are never consequences for serving as a puppet for U.S foreign policy, has said not a word about the new study debunking the OAS claims).
Former Obama foreign policy official and current Stanford professor Michael McFaul also cited the OAS report to cheer Morales’s fleeing as some sort of “excellent” blow for freedom and democracy, only subsequently to delete his tweet when it prompted criticism, acknowledging that he lacked the necessary information to form judgments:
I called Morales departure excellent, in line with OAS criticism of election. But then deleted the tweet after not wanting to come to judgement about the causes of his departure. Getting out of this Bolivia debate now; there's no space for rational discourse in it. — Michael McFaul (@McFaul) November 11, 2019
The editor-in-chief of the ostensibly progressive journal Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery, had never previously evinced the slightest interest in or knowledge about Bolivia, yet somehow decided she was able to credibly snap into line behind the State Department by claiming that it was Morales — rather than the coup-plotters — who had “taken several end runs around a democratic process”:
Dicey times in Bolivia. Morales had taken several end runs around a democratic process but let’s hope it is a democratic process that succeeds him https://t.co/UIFf639orU — Clara Jeffery (@ClaraJeffery) November 11, 2019
It likely goes without saying that the reliably pro-western-coup magazine, The Economist, was also among those leading the way in echoing the U.S. State Department and cheering the coup as a victory for democracy. “The armed forces spoke up for democracy and the constitution against an attempt at dictatorship,” announced the magazine during the week Morales was forced into exile. The Economist also posted more than a dozen tweets during that week claiming it was Morales who posed the threat to Bolivian democracy by virtue of the OAS findings of fraud:
Evo Morales was a casualty of a counter-revolution aimed at defending democracy against electoral fraud and his own illegal candidacy https://t.co/wmi68iRCrO — The Economist (@TheEconomist) November 14, 2019
Evo Morales has resigned as Bolivia’s president, following election irregularities. @sarahmaslin tells “The Intelligence” that it’s not clear who is in charge now https://t.co/KQM7qUUBIJ — The Economist (@TheEconomist) November 11, 2019
But as usual, the two news outlets most influential in disseminating and ratifying false anti-democratic claims from the U.S. government were the Washington Post and — though they neglected to mention it in their article yesterday on the debunked OAS findings — the New York Times itself. The Post, in its article the day after Morales was forced to leave, ratified the election fraud accusation in its headline: “Bolivia’s Morales resigns amid scathing election report, rising protests.” The article heralded the findings of what it called “the multilateral organization,” noting that the OAS found Morales’s victory “was marred by profound irregularities.”
A Post editorial from the same day proclaimed in its headline: “Bolivia is in danger of slipping into anarchy. It’s Evo Morales’s fault.”
The Post editorial decreed: “there could be little doubt who was ultimately responsible for the chaos: newly resigned president Evo Morales.” How could the victim of a coup — who had just been elected President — be at fault for the resulting chaos? Because, explained the Post’s editors, “an audit released by the Organization of American States reported massive irregularities in the vote count and called for a fresh election.”
The New York Times similarly and repeatedly hyped the OAS report as proof that Morales’s victory was illegitimate and the coup therefore democratic. “An independent international audit of Bolivia’s disputed election concluded that former President Evo Morales’s officials resorted to lies, manipulation and forgery to ensure his victory,” its news article claimed, without a syllable of critical pushback until the penultimate paragraph, where it noted that “some economists and statisticians in the United States” had pointed to flaws in the OAS’s data analysis.
But the paper’s editorial contained no such reservations, pronouncing Morales’s victory the byproduct of “a flawed election,” noting that “early suspicions of fraud by the Organization of American States helped fuel the protests and provided cover for the military to ‘suggest’ that Mr. Morales leave office.” The Times’s editorial then cited the final OAS report — which the paper yesterday called into question — as “substantiating those suspicions” by proving “‘a series of malicious operations aimed at altering the will expressed at the polls’ on Oct. 20.”
In sum, when it came to the 2019 Bolivian coup, the U.S. media played its decades-old, standard role whenever the U.S. wants to depict a military coup against a government it dislikes as a victory for democracy: Namely, it blindly and dutifully adopted the State Department’s view and uncritically waved the flag.
As documented in his great, new book on the CIA’s Cold War tactics, “The Jakarta Method,” journalist Vincent Bevins — whom I recently interviewed for SYSTEM UPDATE — recounts how, throughout the Cold War, the U.S. media served as a key propaganda arm of the U.S. government by reliably depicting overthrows of adverse regimes as a joyous advancement for democracy. As but one example, Bevins described how the CIA prevailed on the New York Times to suppress reporting about the savagery of the agency-supported coup-plotters in Guatemala and instead glorify them as “rebels” who were nobly fighting for democracy:
Exactly the same formula was used by the New York Times and the bulk of the U.S. media when a U.S.-supported coup attempt in Venezuela failed in 2002 to depose the democratically elected President Hugo Chávez. In an extraordinary paragraph, the Times heralded the U.S.-favored coup-leaders in Caracas as the guardians and saviors of democracy, while the democratically elected president was somehow the “dictator”:
With yesterday’s resignation of President Hugo Chávez, Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator. Mr. Chávez, a ruinous demagogue, stepped down after the military intervened and handed power to a respected business leader, Pedro Carmona.
The Times similarly lamented the dangers posed to Bolivian democracy back in 2014 as the result of Morales’s landslide victory at the polls. To the Times and the U.S. media at large, democracy is imperiled when a candidate disliked by the U.S. wins at the polls; conversely, democracy can be saved only when such elected leaders are overthrown and replaced by force with a U.S.-backed puppet.
The NYT editors, while conceding in 2014 that “it is easy to see why many Bolivians would want to see Mr. Morales, the country’s first president with Indigenous roots, remain at the helm” — namely, “during his tenure, the economy of the country, one of the least developed in the hemisphere, grew at a healthy rate, the level of inequality shrank and the number of people living in poverty dropped significantly” — nonetheless insisted that Morales should be regarded as an enemy of democracy because “the pattern of prolonged terms in power is unhealthy for the region” [notably, the NYT would never suggest that Angela Merkel’s “prolonged term in power” as German chancellor (15 years and counting) or Benjamin Netanyahu’s 4-terms-and-counting-in-power as Israeli prime minister pose a similar threat to democracy. This is a “concern” reserved by the U.S. media only for Latin American leaders disliked by the U.S. State Department].
At the end of its 2014 editorial on Bolivia and Latin America, the Times inadvertently revealed the real reason it disliked these elected leaders. Concern for democracy is the pretext. The real reason it wants those elected leaders gone was revealed by this candid sentence: “This regional dynamic has been dismal for Washington’s influence in the region.”
As U.S. media coverage of last year’s coup in Bolivia demonstrates, little has changed since the Cold War when it comes to media fealty to the State Department and the CIA. Because the U.S. government preferred the right-wing coup-plotters to the left-wing Morales, the U.S. media deliberately inverted the entire narrative to describe the elected leader (Morales) as the tyrant and the violent military coup leaders as the saviors of democracy. And they peddled this false narrative only by relying heavily on an OAS report that even the NYT is now forced to admit was, at best, deeply flawed.
That the OAS report was dubious is not, contrary to the subtext of the NYT’s new article, something that was only recently discovered. That has been clear from ample evidence from the start — evidence that the jingoistic U.S. media rarely saw fit to mention.
Shortly after the preliminary OAS report was issued, the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), on November 8, issued its own report highlighting numerous flaws in what it called “unsubstantiated doubts cast upon the vote count by the OAS mission.” Explaining that OAS claims of election irregularities were made “without evidence,” the report detailed that “neither the OAS mission nor any other party has demonstrated that there were widespread or systematic irregularities in the elections of October 20, 2019.”
In March, the CEPR issued an even more comprehensive analysis, an 82-page report that concluded: “the OAS’s observation activities in Bolivia’s 2019 general elections are the latest example of a deeply problematic observation mission whose dishonest, biased, and unprofessional conduct has caused serious damage to the country’s democracy.” It added that “while the fraud narrative that the OAS helped promote contributed to Evo Morales, the country’s democratically elected president, fleeing the country,” the OAS Report “does not provide any evidence that those irregularities altered the outcome of the election, or were part of an actual attempt to do so.”
In February — with Morales now in exile in Argentina — the Washington Post published an op-ed by two scholars from MIT. They summarized their argument this way:
In sum, the authors concluded, after setting forth their statistical findings in detail: “there is not any statistical evidence of fraud that we can find — the trends in the preliminary count, the lack of any big jump in support for Morales after the halt, and the size of Morales’s margin all appear legitimate. All in all, the OAS’s statistical analysis and conclusions would appear deeply flawed.”
That the OAS is a subservient tool of the U.S. State Department is something that is widely known in Latin America. Yet it is a claim that virtually never appears in mainstream accounts from U.S. news outlets, which — as they did here — treat the group as some sort of neutral, authoritative arbiter of political disputes.
Shortly after Morales was exiled from Bolivia and received asylum in Mexico, I traveled to Mexico City to interview him. I asked Morales about the OAS, and this is what he said:
All along, there was ample reason to seriously doubt, if not outright reject, the OAS accusations of election irregularities and voter fraud. As CEPR’s Jake Johnston said today in response to the New York Times article:
For those paying close attention to the 2019 election, there was never any doubt that the OAS’ claims of fraud were bogus. Just days after the election, a high-level official inside the OAS privately acknowledged to me that there had been no “inexplicable” change in the trend, yet the organization continued to repeat its false assertions for many months with little to no pushback or accountability.
Yet those reasons for doubting the OAS accusations were barely ever even mentioned, let alone vested with credibility, by the U.S. media or its leading foreign policy commentators. Instead, as the MIT scholars wrote in the Washington Post, “the media largely reported the allegations of fraud as fact.” That’s because whenever it comes to changing a foreign country’s government that is disliked by the U.S., the U.S. media reflexively sides with the U.S. State Department and ceases to report and instead engages in pro-government propaganda.
In this case, Bolivia lost its most successful president in its modern history, and is consequently now ruled by an unelected military junta, all cheered on by the U.S. and its media, relying on an OAS report which even the New York Times is now forced to acknowledge is, at best, deeply flawed. Thus did the U.S. government and its media, yet again, help destroy a thriving Latin American democracy.


theintercept--2020-06-08--Amid Protests, Phoenix Police Swept Up Immigrants on Mistaken Charges. Now They Face Deportation.

was downtown in Phoenix , Arizona , as demonstrators took to the streets on the night of May 30 decrying the police killings of George Floyd and other black people across the country .
But he wasn ’ t protesting , according to his girlfriend , Corina Paez .
They were on a date .
Twenty-six-year-old Orona Prieto was playing it safe , Paez said .
Having fled death threats from a gang in his home state of Chihuahua , Mexico , he didn ’ t need any extra trouble .
He rode in the passenger seat that night , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make sure seat belts were buckled and speed limits followed .
But that didn ’ t matter to Phoenix police , who swept Orona Prieto up in a wave of mass arrests that night and slapped him with felony rioting charges .
Within 24 hours , he landed in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement .
Orona Prieto is one of four undocumented people who were turned over to ICE after they were arrested last Saturday .
The other three were brought to the U.S. as children and have protected immigration status @ @ @ @ @ @ @ program .
Because of the new arrests , they risk losing their DACA status and could be deported .
Orona Prieto , who lacks DACA protection , is set to face removal proceedings imminently .
He currently awaits his fate in an ICE detention center in southern Arizona that is undergoing a Covid-19 outbreak .
According to Paez , who was arrested with him , the couple was pulled over on their way home from dinner downtown .
Phoenix police say he was arrested in connection with the demonstration .
“ They didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just told us to get out of the car , ” Paez said .
“ They handcuffed us and didn ’ t read us our rights .
I didn ’ t even know that there was a protest , and suddenly we are getting arrested for no reason — for being downtown at the wrong time , wrong day ?
” Phoenix police arrested 114 people in total in connection with the protests , in what the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona called a violation of “ civil rights en masse.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ County Superior Court judges would repeatedly order the release of many protesters — and those swept up in the fray — after finding that the police arrested them without probable cause .
The Phoenix Police Department admitted that the four undocumented people were labeled with the wrong charges when they were booked into the central jail .
“ We have learned that , initially , there was some confusion on the paperwork process , ” said Mercedes Fortune , spokesperson at the Phoenix Police Department .
“ Originally , the paperwork associated with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ listed the charge they were arrested for as a Class Five Felony .
The correct charge should have been a Class One Misdemeanor for Unlawful Assembly .
Those corrections have been made.
” Nonetheless , the arrests set in motion Arizona ’ s notorious arrest-to-deportation pipeline .
The erroneous felony charges almost certainly drew ICE ’ s attention .
“ This is a prime example of why local law enforcement should not have any interaction with ICE — because cops make mistakes , ” said Ray Ybarra Maldonado , an attorney representing one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make mistakes all the time .
And a mistake of a police officer should not result in someone being put in removal proceedings.
” across the country last week , undocumented people faced added risk .
Many had attended demonstrations before , but few anticipated such sweeping arrests .
“ We knew that Phoenix police were going to respond violently , just from the long period that we ’ ve been doing this work , ” said Sandra Solis , a community organizer with Puente Human Rights Movement , a local migrant advocacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen an excessive use of nonlethal force by them , we ’ ve never seen them go into cars to pluck people out and chase people into neighborhoods to arrest them.
” May 30 was the third night of demonstrations against police brutality and for black lives in Arizona ’ s largest city .
Hundreds of people were gathered in downtown Phoenix for what began as a peaceful protest , condemning the deaths of Dion Johnson , Breonna Taylor , George Floyd , Tony McDade , and others who have been killed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that night , but police declared the protest an unlawful assembly around 10:30 p.m. Officers in riot gear began firing tear gas and rubber bullets at protesters .
And then the mass arrests began .
Máxima Guerrero , a longtime community organizer for immigrant justice with Puente , was acting as a legal observer at the protests when she was arrested .
Phoenix Council Member Carlos Garcia has said she called his office from jail on Sunday and said she was leaving the protest in her car when Phoenix police stopped her .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ separated at the time of their arrests .
Police walked up to their car at a red light and ordered them to leave the vehicle .
She hasn ’ t seen him since .
It ’ s unclear when the other two DACA recipients , Roberto Cortes and Johan Montes-Cuevas , were arrested .
But all of them were brought to the central jail for booking , where they were screened by ICE .
Despite the ousting of notorious anti-immigration hard-liner Joe Arpaio in 2016 , the current Maricopa County sheriff , Democrat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to operate within county jails .
Immigration agents thus screen every person arrested and booked into a local facility .
When an undocumented person is released from the sheriff ’ s custody , ICE is often waiting for them .
So it was with Guerrero and the others — she was released from a downtown jail around 2:15 a.m. on Monday , according to sheriff ’ s office records , only to be picked up by ICE when she stepped outside .
She was then transferred to a local ICE facility .
Her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as local organizers galvanized the community to call , email , and tweet at local officials for her release .
“ Everybody has the right to peaceably assemble and express their views , whether they are undocumented or documented , ” said Solis of Puente .
“ Immigrant communities who are constantly profiled might not have the exact same struggle as African Americans do , but they are able to understand what contact with police could mean.
” “ Now is the time to fight for racial justice , ” Solis added .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t protest [ because of the risk ] — I think they ’ re very far removed , personally.
” Later that same Monday morning , as Guerrero ’ s case garnered national attention , ICE officials let her go .
She was greeted by a crowd of about 40 supporters outside the federal immigration building .
The two other Dreamers , as DACA recipients are often called , were also released from ICE custody on Monday .
expose Guerrero and the others to possible deportation .
According to Yasmeen Pitts O @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the three Dreamers signed paperwork committing to appear for future immigration court appearances ; their cases “ remain pending , ” she said .
“ All of them have ankle monitors , all of them have to go back to ICE — they ’ re pretty much in the same situation where deportation ’ s a big risk , ” said Ybarra Maldonado , Guerrero ’ s attorney , noting that she and Cortes Mondragon have already received dates for removal proceedings .
“ We need to be very clear about this : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re not in custody , but it ’ s far from over.
” Dreamers can not be deported unless U.S .
Citizenship and Immigration Services decides to remove their DACA status .
But ICE can request it be removed as part of deportation proceedings , and “ USCIS could still terminate your DACA , even if you ’ re not disqualified , for ‘ discretionary reasons ’ — including arrests or charges , ” said Katrina Eiland , senior attorney for ACLU ’ s Immigrants ’ Rights Project .
“ The DACA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to terminate somebody for any sort of low-level infraction , but it has happened in a number of cases , ” she added .
Orona Prieto has a previous deportation on his record , and his odds of being allowed to stay in the country do not look good .
He is now awaiting his removal hearing within Florence Correctional Center , a private prison run by CoreCivic .
The facility houses immigrant detainees on behalf of ICE and currently has a Covid-19 outbreak , with five active cases and 15 confirmed cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ His girlfriend , Paez , spoke to him for the first time on Wednesday .
Through tears , she told him the news : She ’ d been pregnant but suffered a miscarriage on Monday , shortly after her release from the local jail .
“ He sounded like he was about to cry , ” Paez said .
“ I told him , ‘ Just keep your head up .
We ’ re still together , we ’ re gon na do this together.
’ ” Orona Prieto doesn ’ t have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She ’ s trying to raise money for his legal support , though she said it ’ s difficult — she lost her job at a local photo shop after the arrest .
“ He doesn ’ t have any family in the country , ” said Paez .
“ I ’ m the only one who ’ s here for him.
” Correction , June 8 , 1:20 p.m. EDT : This article previously misspelled the last name of Corina Paez .

Jesus Manuel Orona Prieto was downtown in Phoenix, Arizona, as demonstrators took to the streets on the night of May 30 decrying the police killings of George Floyd and other black people across the country. But he wasn’t protesting, according to his girlfriend, Corina Paez. They were on a date.
Twenty-six-year-old Orona Prieto was playing it safe, Paez said. Having fled death threats from a gang in his home state of Chihuahua, Mexico, he didn’t need any extra trouble. He rode in the passenger seat that night, as always, and took care to make sure seat belts were buckled and speed limits followed.
But that didn’t matter to Phoenix police, who swept Orona Prieto up in a wave of mass arrests that night and slapped him with felony rioting charges. Within 24 hours, he landed in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Orona Prieto is one of four undocumented people who were turned over to ICE after they were arrested last Saturday. The other three were brought to the U.S. as children and have protected immigration status under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Because of the new arrests, they risk losing their DACA status and could be deported.
“This is a prime example of why local law enforcement should not have any interaction with ICE — because cops make mistakes.”
Orona Prieto, who lacks DACA protection, is set to face removal proceedings imminently. He currently awaits his fate in an ICE detention center in southern Arizona that is undergoing a Covid-19 outbreak. According to Paez, who was arrested with him, the couple was pulled over on their way home from dinner downtown. Phoenix police say he was arrested in connection with the demonstration.
“They didn’t tell us anything. They just told us to get out of the car,” Paez said. “They handcuffed us and didn’t read us our rights. I didn’t even know that there was a protest, and suddenly we are getting arrested for no reason — for being downtown at the wrong time, wrong day?”
Phoenix police arrested 114 people in total in connection with the protests, in what the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona called a violation of “civil rights en masse.” Over the next two days, Maricopa County Superior Court judges would repeatedly order the release of many protesters — and those swept up in the fray — after finding that the police arrested them without probable cause.
The Phoenix Police Department admitted that the four undocumented people were labeled with the wrong charges when they were booked into the central jail.
“We have learned that, initially, there was some confusion on the paperwork process,” said Mercedes Fortune, spokesperson at the Phoenix Police Department. “Originally, the paperwork associated with the arrests of [the individuals] listed the charge they were arrested for as a Class Five Felony. The correct charge should have been a Class One Misdemeanor for Unlawful Assembly. Those corrections have been made.”
Nonetheless, the arrests set in motion Arizona’s notorious arrest-to-deportation pipeline. The erroneous felony charges almost certainly drew ICE’s attention.
“This is a prime example of why local law enforcement should not have any interaction with ICE — because cops make mistakes,” said Ray Ybarra Maldonado, an attorney representing one of the DACA recipients. “They make mistakes all the time. And a mistake of a police officer should not result in someone being put in removal proceedings.”
As uprisings spread across the country last week, undocumented people faced added risk. Many had attended demonstrations before, but few anticipated such sweeping arrests.
“We knew that Phoenix police were going to respond violently, just from the long period that we’ve been doing this work,” said Sandra Solis, a community organizer with Puente Human Rights Movement, a local migrant advocacy organization. “While we’ve seen an excessive use of nonlethal force by them, we’ve never seen them go into cars to pluck people out and chase people into neighborhoods to arrest them.”
May 30 was the third night of demonstrations against police brutality and for black lives in Arizona’s largest city. Hundreds of people were gathered in downtown Phoenix for what began as a peaceful protest, condemning the deaths of Dion Johnson, Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, Tony McDade, and others who have been killed by law enforcement.
There was no curfew that night, but police declared the protest an unlawful assembly around 10:30 p.m. Officers in riot gear began firing tear gas and rubber bullets at protesters. And then the mass arrests began.
“We’ve never seen them go into cars to pluck people out and chase people into neighborhoods to arrest them.”
Máxima Guerrero, a longtime community organizer for immigrant justice with Puente, was acting as a legal observer at the protests when she was arrested. Phoenix Council Member Carlos Garcia has said she called his office from jail on Sunday and said she was leaving the protest in her car when Phoenix police stopped her.
Paez said she and Orona Prieto were separated at the time of their arrests. Police walked up to their car at a red light and ordered them to leave the vehicle. She hasn’t seen him since.
It’s unclear when the other two DACA recipients, Roberto Cortes and Johan Montes-Cuevas, were arrested. But all of them were brought to the central jail for booking, where they were screened by ICE.
Despite the ousting of notorious anti-immigration hard-liner Joe Arpaio in 2016, the current Maricopa County sheriff, Democrat Paul Penzone, continues to allow ICE to operate within county jails. Immigration agents thus screen every person arrested and booked into a local facility. When an undocumented person is released from the sheriff’s custody, ICE is often waiting for them.
So it was with Guerrero and the others — she was released from a downtown jail around 2:15 a.m. on Monday, according to sheriff’s office records, only to be picked up by ICE when she stepped outside. She was then transferred to a local ICE facility.
Read Our Complete Coverage The War on Immigrants
Her arrest and detention drew public outcry, as local organizers galvanized the community to call, email, and tweet at local officials for her release.
“Everybody has the right to peaceably assemble and express their views, whether they are undocumented or documented,” said Solis of Puente. “Immigrant communities who are constantly profiled might not have the exact same struggle as African Americans do, but they are able to understand what contact with police could mean.”
“Now is the time to fight for racial justice,” Solis added. “People who say undocumented people shouldn’t protest [because of the risk] — I think they’re very far removed, personally.”
Later that same Monday morning, as Guerrero’s case garnered national attention, ICE officials let her go. She was greeted by a crowd of about 40 supporters outside the federal immigration building.
The two other Dreamers, as DACA recipients are often called, were also released from ICE custody on Monday.
The arrests still expose Guerrero and the others to possible deportation.
According to Yasmeen Pitts O’Keefe, an ICE spokesperson, the three Dreamers signed paperwork committing to appear for future immigration court appearances; their cases “remain pending,” she said.
“All of them have ankle monitors, all of them have to go back to ICE — they’re pretty much in the same situation where deportation’s a big risk,” said Ybarra Maldonado, Guerrero’s attorney, noting that she and Cortes Mondragon have already received dates for removal proceedings. “We need to be very clear about this: This is a temporary victory. They’re not in custody, but it’s far from over.”
Dreamers cannot be deported unless U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services decides to remove their DACA status. But ICE can request it be removed as part of deportation proceedings, and “USCIS could still terminate your DACA, even if you’re not disqualified, for ‘discretionary reasons’ — including arrests or charges,” said Katrina Eiland, senior attorney for ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project.
“The DACA program wasn’t designed for USCIS to terminate somebody for any sort of low-level infraction, but it has happened in a number of cases,” she added.
Orona Prieto has a previous deportation on his record, and his odds of being allowed to stay in the country do not look good. He is now awaiting his removal hearing within Florence Correctional Center, a private prison run by CoreCivic. The facility houses immigrant detainees on behalf of ICE and currently has a Covid-19 outbreak, with five active cases and 15 confirmed cases of prisoners and staff to date.
His girlfriend, Paez, spoke to him for the first time on Wednesday. Through tears, she told him the news: She’d been pregnant but suffered a miscarriage on Monday, shortly after her release from the local jail. “He sounded like he was about to cry,” Paez said. “I told him, ‘Just keep your head up. We’re still together, we’re gonna do this together.’”
Orona Prieto doesn’t have a lawyer, according to Paez. She’s trying to raise money for his legal support, though she said it’s difficult — she lost her job at a local photo shop after the arrest.
“He doesn’t have any family in the country,” said Paez. “I’m the only one who’s here for him.”
Correction, June 8, 1:20 p.m. EDT:
This article previously misspelled the last name of Corina Paez.


theintercept--2020-06-09--With His Latest Lunacy, Trump Has Moved Into Nixon Territory — and Perhaps Beyond

This appears to be based on a segment on One America News Network , the cable channel for people who find Fox News unbearably liberal .
The segment is narrated by OANN reporter Kristian Rouz , a Russian who speaks in a delightful , heavy accent ; Martin Gugino , he says , was “ show-vd ” by the police .
Rouz goes on to declare that Gugino “ has been referred to as an agitator ” and “ now reports say police departments across the nations must not repeat the mistakes of the Buffalo PD , falling for far-left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dive into the details to demonstrate that the president of the United States was wrong to claim the sky is green .
But it may be more useful to ask what this says about Trump ’ s current psychological state , and how it compares to other Americans who ’ ve wielded the power of life and death .
On June 8 , 1972 , South Vietnamese troops dropped napalm on the village of Trang Bang .
As Phan Thi Kim Phuc , a 9-year-old girl , fled naked down a road — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2,000-degree jellied gasoline — an Associated Press photographer took a picture .
The photograph went around the world , and immediately became a symbol of the war ’ s berserk cruelty .
Four days later , on June 12 , President Richard Nixon mused about the picture in a conversation captured by his Oval Office taping system .
“ I wonder if that was a fix , ” he said to his chief of staff H.R .
Haldeman .
“ Could have been , ” Haldeman replied .
“ Because they got @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any clothes … Napalm bothers people.
” What we see here is the people at the summit of power as they actually are — not supervillains delighting in their barbarism , but regular human beings who , like many , can ’ t bear to face the reality of what they do to others .
So the immediate instinct of Nixon was to escape into a fantasy world .
William Westmoreland , a general who ’ d served as the U.S. commander in Vietnam , displayed the same predilection for psychological self-preservation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he learnedly explained that “ an investigation determined that Kim Phuc had been burned in an accident involving a hibachi.
” No such investigation ever occurred .
It wasn ’ t just Vietnam , of course .
In 2011 , U.S. Apache gunships staged an attack in Afghanistan ’ s Ghaziabad District .
The administration of Hamid Karzai , then the Afghan president , received reports that 50 civilians had been killed , including numerous women and children , and many children had survived with burns .
In a meeting with Afghan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commander in Afghanistan , shocked them by suggesting that the children had been burned by their own parents , in order to pressure the U.S. and its allies to cease operations in the area .
And this behavior is obviously not unique to American officials .
During Saddam Hussein ’ s interrogation by the FBI , he was repeatedly shown evidence of his brutal actions .
He generally did not attempt to justify what he ’ d done ; instead , he simply refused to accept that he ’ d done it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” about Iraq ’ s treatment of Kuwaiti POWs after the 1991 Gulf War , he said .
When the FBI screened a documentary about his suppression of the post-Gulf War insurrection , he declared it to be a “ propaganda film.
” But the connection leaders have to reality can wax and wane .
According to Haldeman ’ s diaries , Nixon called him on Easter in 1973 to commiserate about the metastasizing Watergate scandal .
“ Just remember you ’ re doing the right thing , ” Nixon told him .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to think when I killed some innocent children in Hanoi.
” In other words , at this point Nixon was not telling himself fairy tales about his enemies hurting children to make him look bad .
Instead , he took the more psychological healthy route of believing that he was responsible for mass murder , but that it was necessary .
Kim Phuc suffered grievous third-degree burns across her body .
When the AP photographer took her to a Saigon hospital , doctors did not expect her to survive .
She did live @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Martin Gugino will .
Like Gugino , she has spent her life as a peace activist .
So it ’ s no surprise that Trump is desperately grasping for any explanation that his “ side ” does not casually hurt people like this .
As the poet T.S .
Eliot said , “ human kind can not bear very much reality.
” Those who run the world can bear the least .

It’s tough to determine the most bizarre thing President Donald Trump has ever said. But what he tweeted on Tuesday morning is definitely in the running:
Buffalo protester shoved by Police could be an ANTIFA provocateur. 75 year old Martin Gugino was pushed away after appearing to scan police communications in order to black out the equipment. @OANN I watched, he fell harder than was pushed. Was aiming scanner. Could be a set up? — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 9, 2020
This appears to be based on a segment on One America News Network, the cable channel for people who find Fox News unbearably liberal. The segment is narrated by OANN reporter Kristian Rouz, a Russian who speaks in a delightful, heavy accent; Martin Gugino, he says, was “show-vd” by the police.
Rouz goes on to declare that Gugino “has been referred to as an agitator” and “now reports say police departments across the nations must not repeat the mistakes of the Buffalo PD, falling for far-left tricks.”
Here's the first half of the batshit OANN segment Trump just tweeted. It alleges the 75 year old man assaulted by Buffalo police officers was an antifa operative, based on a report from Conservative Treehouse. pic.twitter.com/CeMVyJcoh8 — Matthew Gertz (@MattGertz) June 9, 2020
It’s tempting to dive into the details to demonstrate that the president of the United States was wrong to claim the sky is green. But it may be more useful to ask what this says about Trump’s current psychological state, and how it compares to other Americans who’ve wielded the power of life and death.
On June 8, 1972, South Vietnamese troops dropped napalm on the village of Trang Bang. As Phan Thi Kim Phuc, a 9-year-old girl, fled naked down a road — her clothes had been burned off by the 2,000-degree jellied gasoline — an Associated Press photographer took a picture. The photograph went around the world, and immediately became a symbol of the war’s berserk cruelty.
Four days later, on June 12, President Richard Nixon mused about the picture in a conversation captured by his Oval Office taping system. “I wonder if that was a fix,” he said to his chief of staff H.R. Haldeman. “Could have been,” Haldeman replied. “Because they got that picture of the little girl without any clothes … Napalm bothers people.”
What we see here is the people at the summit of power as they actually are — not supervillains delighting in their barbarism, but regular human beings who, like many, can’t bear to face the reality of what they do to others. So the immediate instinct of Nixon was to escape into a fantasy world.
William Westmoreland, a general who’d served as the U.S. commander in Vietnam, displayed the same predilection for psychological self-preservation. In a 1986 speech to Florida businesspeople, he learnedly explained that “an investigation determined that Kim Phuc had been burned in an accident involving a hibachi.” No such investigation ever occurred.
It wasn’t just Vietnam, of course. In 2011, U.S. Apache gunships staged an attack in Afghanistan’s Ghaziabad District. The administration of Hamid Karzai, then the Afghan president, received reports that 50 civilians had been killed, including numerous women and children, and many children had survived with burns. In a meeting with Afghan officials, David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, shocked them by suggesting that the children had been burned by their own parents, in order to pressure the U.S. and its allies to cease operations in the area.
Related Buffalo Police Said Protester With Head Wound “Tripped and Fell.” Video Shows They Lied.
And this behavior is obviously not unique to American officials. During Saddam Hussein’s interrogation by the FBI, he was repeatedly shown evidence of his brutal actions. He generally did not attempt to justify what he’d done; instead, he simply refused to accept that he’d done it. “Stories and tales have been woven” about Iraq’s treatment of Kuwaiti prisoners of wars after the 1991 Gulf War, he said. When the FBI screened a documentary about his suppression of the post-Gulf War insurrection, he declared it to be a “propaganda film.”
But the connection leaders have to reality can wax and wane. According to Haldeman’s diaries, Nixon called him on Easter in 1973 to commiserate about the metastasizing Watergate scandal. “Just remember you’re doing the right thing,” Nixon told him. “That’s what I used to think when I killed some innocent children in Hanoi.” In other words, at this point Nixon was not telling himself fairy tales about his enemies hurting children to make him look bad. Instead, he took the more psychological healthy route of believing that he was responsible for mass murder, but that it was necessary.
Kim Phuc suffered grievous third-degree burns across her body. When the AP photographer took her to a Saigon hospital, doctors did not expect her to survive. She did live, however — and it appears that Martin Gugino will. Like Gugino, she has spent her life as a peace activist. So it’s no surprise that Trump is desperately grasping for any explanation that his “side” does not casually hurt people like this. As the poet T.S. Eliot said, “human kind cannot bear very much reality.” Those who run the world can bear the least.