theintercept--2020-06-09--New Poll Shows Political Risks of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Bailout of Corporate Lobbyists

soon find that Americans , it turns out , aren ’ t terribly excited about bailing out Beltway oil and bank lobbyists .
Last month , House Democrats passed the HEROES Act , the slow-moving next phase of the coronavirus economic relief efforts to provide sweeping consumer protections and funds to extend unemployment benefits , shore up local governments , and to provide extra pay for frontline workers , along with an additional $ 1,200 stimulus check for individuals .
It includes a provision , pushed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , that extends small business bailout funds to corporate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But the bill , which awaits Senate action , may fuel political blowback .
New polling conducted by Data for Progress for the Democratic Policy Center reveals there is little public appetite for the advocacy fund sections of the bill .
The survey , released on Tuesday , shows 48 percent of Americans strongly or somewhat strongly oppose any legislative effort to reward corporate lobbying groups with coronavirus stimulus money , versus 34 percent who support the measure .
The poll also asked respondents what types of stimulus efforts should be prioritized , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to making lobby groups a major focus on economic relief .
The survey suggests opposition to the provision cuts across independents , Democrats , and Republican voters .
“ The growing momentum in Congress to bail out virtually all corporate lobbying groups has been absurdly justified on the grounds that local chambers of commerce need assistance , ” said Adam Eichen , campaign manager for the Democratic Policy Center .
revises the Paycheck Protection Program , the fund that provides up to $ 10 million in forgivable loans to small businesses , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) trade associations and other 501 ( c ) ( 4 ) political advocacy groups may apply for the money .
Originally , the program only extended to certain 501 ( c ) ( 3 ) charitable and non-profit organizations .
( Some Democratic lawmakers pushed to include 501 ( c ) ( 5 ) labor unions as part of the expansion of the PPP program , but were rebuffed .
The House version of the bill does not include labor union support . )
As The Intercept first reported , the professional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawmakers to obtain access to bailout funds .
The American Society of Association Executives , which represents trade group leadership , mobilized over 100 nonprofit advocacy groups to pressure Congress to shift the criteria for the program .
The Senate , which is expected to take up the legislation in coming weeks , has not yet provided clarity on where it stands on the lobbyist money .
Sen. Ted Cruz , R-Tex.
, according to The Hill , has drafted his own effort that mirrors House Democrats ’ bill to extend PPP money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including Democratic Virginia Sens .
Mark Warner and Tim Kaine , have issued statements in support , arguing that expanding the PPP program trade groups serve as “ valuable partners in helping small business owners get up-to-date information about the assistance programs under the CARES ACT ” and that “ law enforcement associations here in Virginia ” would benefit from money that could be spent on training .
Few lawmakers have explicitly called for bailout funds to lobbyists , often cloaking the program as a broad effort designed to support a range of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boon to local chambers of commerce , the shift is likely to benefit representatives of the most powerful corporations in America .
The largest influence peddlers are organized as 501 ( c ) ( 6 ) trade groups , including the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America , which represents the world ’ s largest drugmakers , and Airlines for America , which represents the airline industry .
A manager ’ s amendment to the HEROES Act has attempted to clarify that the PPP expansion should not go to federally registered lobbyists .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ many trade association lobbyists do not register under the federal system .
In addition , federal courts have since ruled against the restrictions on lobbying as a violation of the First Amendment .
The initial PPP fund , passed in March as part of the CARES Act , contained restrictions on funds spent on explicit lobbying efforts as part of broad guidelines set by the Small Business Administration , which administers the fund .
Last month , the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned restrictions on PPP money based on a range of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firms , by taking an expansive interpretation of the CARES Act as intended to support “ any business concern.
” But the court declined to issue a national injunction , only applying its ruling to the plaintiffs and intervenors in the case , which originated in Michigan .
The Democrats ’ HEROES Act still includes many provisions that enjoy broad levels of public support , according to the poll , which also asked respondents a series of questions about other forms of economic stimulus .
The survey found strong or somewhat support providing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 89 percent , small businesses at 87 percent , and cities and states at 82 percent .
The legislation establishes a $ 200 billion fund “ Heroes Fund ” to provide a $ 13-an-hour hazard pay raise to essential workers .
Families earning up to $ 150,000 in household income would be eligible for up to $ 6,000 in a new round of direct stimulus checks .
The fund extends additional unemployment benefits to ensure laid off workers , including gig workers , would continue to receive as much as $ 600 a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also provides a range of student loan relief , mortgage and rental relief , and an influx of funding to help state governments .
“ This polling shows that Americans oppose the efforts in Congress to let corporate lobbying groups benefit from coronavirus relief funding , even if the measures would help local chambers , too , ” said Eichen .
“ If members of Congress want to do something that the American people support , they should prioritize offering more direct funding to individuals and families , which is overwhelmingly popular .
@

Lawmakers may soon find that Americans, it turns out, aren’t terribly excited about bailing out Beltway oil and bank lobbyists.
Last month, House Democrats passed the HEROES Act, the slow-moving next phase of the coronavirus economic relief efforts to provide sweeping consumer protections and funds to extend unemployment benefits, shore up local governments, and to provide extra pay for frontline workers, along with an additional $1,200 stimulus check for individuals. It includes a provision, pushed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, that extends small business bailout funds to corporate lobbyists and other political advocacy groups.
But the bill, which awaits Senate action, may fuel political blowback. New polling conducted by Data for Progress for the Democratic Policy Center reveals there is little public appetite for the advocacy fund sections of the bill.
The survey, released on Tuesday, shows 48 percent of Americans strongly or somewhat strongly oppose any legislative effort to reward corporate lobbying groups with coronavirus stimulus money, versus 34 percent who support the measure.
The poll also asked respondents what types of stimulus efforts should be prioritized, with 70 percent of Americans expressing opposition to making lobby groups a major focus on economic relief. The survey suggests opposition to the provision cuts across independents, Democrats, and Republican voters.
“The growing momentum in Congress to bail out virtually all corporate lobbying groups has been absurdly justified on the grounds that local chambers of commerce need assistance,” said Adam Eichen, campaign manager for the Democratic Policy Center.
The HEROES bill revises the Paycheck Protection Program, the fund that provides up to $10 million in forgivable loans to small businesses, so that 501(c)(6) trade associations and other 501(c)(4) political advocacy groups may apply for the money. Originally, the program only extended to certain 501(c)(3) charitable and non-profit organizations. (Some Democratic lawmakers pushed to include 501(c)(5) labor unions as part of the expansion of the PPP program, but were rebuffed. The House version of the bill does not include labor union support.)
As The Intercept first reported, the professional advocacy industry has leveraged its relationships with lawmakers to obtain access to bailout funds. The American Society of Association Executives, which represents trade group leadership, mobilized over 100 nonprofit advocacy groups to pressure Congress to shift the criteria for the program.
The Senate, which is expected to take up the legislation in coming weeks, has not yet provided clarity on where it stands on the lobbyist money. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Tex., according to The Hill, has drafted his own effort that mirrors House Democrats’ bill to extend PPP money to trade associations.
Several others, including Democratic Virginia Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, have issued statements in support, arguing that expanding the PPP program trade groups serve as “valuable partners in helping small business owners get up-to-date information about the assistance programs under the CARES ACT” and that “law enforcement associations here in Virginia” would benefit from money that could be spent on training.
Few lawmakers have explicitly called for bailout funds to lobbyists, often cloaking the program as a broad effort designed to support a range of local nonprofits. Though touted as a boon to local chambers of commerce, the shift is likely to benefit representatives of the most powerful corporations in America. The largest influence peddlers are organized as 501(c)(6) trade groups, including the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, which represents the world’s largest drugmakers, and Airlines for America, which represents the airline industry.
A manager’s amendment to the HEROES Act has attempted to clarify that the PPP expansion should not go to federally registered lobbyists. That prohibition may have limited impact since many trade association lobbyists do not register under the federal system.
In addition, federal courts have since ruled against the restrictions on lobbying as a violation of the First Amendment. The initial PPP fund, passed in March as part of the CARES Act, contained restrictions on funds spent on explicit lobbying efforts as part of broad guidelines set by the Small Business Administration, which administers the fund.
Last month, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned restrictions on PPP money based on a range of criteria, including strip clubs and lobbying firms, by taking an expansive interpretation of the CARES Act as intended to support “any business concern.” But the court declined to issue a national injunction, only applying its ruling to the plaintiffs and intervenors in the case, which originated in Michigan.
The Democrats’ HEROES Act still includes many provisions that enjoy broad levels of public support, according to the poll, which also asked respondents a series of questions about other forms of economic stimulus. The survey found strong or somewhat support providing relief funds to families and individuals at 89 percent, small businesses at 87 percent, and cities and states at 82 percent.
The legislation establishes a $200 billion fund “Heroes Fund” to provide a $13-an-hour hazard pay raise to essential workers. Families earning up to $150,000 in household income would be eligible for up to $6,000 in a new round of direct stimulus checks. The fund extends additional unemployment benefits to ensure laid off workers, including gig workers, would continue to receive as much as $600 a week. And the $2 trillion also provides a range of student loan relief, mortgage and rental relief, and an influx of funding to help state governments.
“This polling shows that Americans oppose the efforts in Congress to let corporate lobbying groups benefit from coronavirus relief funding, even if the measures would help local chambers, too,” said Eichen. “If members of Congress want to do something that the American people support, they should prioritize offering more direct funding to individuals and families, which is overwhelmingly popular.”


theintercept--2020-06-09--He Tweeted That He Was the Leader of Antifa. Then the FBI Asked Him to Be an Informant.

with a tweet .
Chandler Wirostek , of Charlotte , North Carolina , was reading the news last Monday when he saw that the attorney general had declared that the leaderless anti-fascist movement known as antifa was engaged in domestic terrorism .
The 24-year-old found the notion absurd , so he decided to say something .
Addressing himself to the FBI ’ s main Twitter account and the bureau ’ s Charlotte office , Wirostek wrote : “ Hi , I am the leader of Charlotte , NC Antifa .
DM me for my address , or I can turn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happy to let you test your bullshit terrorism statute in a U.S. court .
Anyone who thinks antifascists are the bad guys are fascists.
” Wirostek signed the tweet , “ # IAMAntifa.
” Two days later , the bureau came calling .
“ First , they called my mom , ” Wirostek told The Intercept .
When the FBI finally reached him , Wirostek was in his kitchen .
With his phone on speaker , a friend filmed a portion of the conversation , which Wirostek shared with The Intercept .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ re the leader of antifa in Charlotte ?
” the agent on the other end of the line asked .
Wirostek explained that he was not , in fact , the local leader of antifa , and that the tweet “ was just a statement of solidarity.
” By that point , his friend had stopped filming the call , but according to Wirostek , the agent told him that ’ s what he suspected and that he was simply following a supervisor ’ s orders .
He asked Wirostek if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any information about the movement ’ s structure .
After a bit of small talk , the agent asked the young man if he would be interested in becoming an informant for the FBI .
While he did not mention antifa directly , Wirostek felt that the agent ’ s previous questions about the anti-fascist movement made the bureau ’ s interests abundantly clear .
“ Sure , ” Wirostek told him .
“ Just send me the information.
” Shelley Lynch , a public affairs specialist at the FBI ’ s Charlotte @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was simply the result of run-of-the-mill police work .
“ While I can not comment on any specific social media post , I can say the FBI receives information from the public in a variety of ways including online/email , via phone , or as a walk-in to one of our local offices , ” Lynch said in an email to The Intercept .
“ The same way we would return a phone call from a citizen , it is not [ un ] usual for us to reach out to someone directly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media to see if they need assistance.
” The Intercept also contacted the FBI ’ s headquarters in Washington , D.C. to see if the bureau has augmented its approach to social media posts concerning antifa in light of the attorney general ’ s recent statement , which reported that the Department of Justice had activated all 56 Joint Terrorism Task Forces — bodies that coordinate between federal investigators and local law enforcement — in a hunt to “ identify criminal organizers and instigators ” affiliated with the anti-fascist movement .
The FBI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that did not address the question .
“ The FBI is supporting our state , local , and federal law enforcement partners with maintaining public safety in the communities we serve , ” a spokesperson at FBI headquarters said in a statement .
“ Our efforts are focused on identifying , investigating , and disrupting individuals that are inciting violence and engaging in criminal activity .
We are not focused on peaceful protests.
” police brutality sweeping the country , the Trump administration and the political right have seized on antifa as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the nationwide uprising against police violence and unaccountability has been infiltrated and co-opted by a sophisticated network of left-wing radicals .
“ Buffalo protester shoved by Police could be an ANTIFA provocateur , ” the president tweeted Tuesday morning .
He was referring to a viral video showing riot police in New York , shoving 75-year-old Martin Gugino to the ground and splitting his head open .
Trump went on to baselessly claim that Gugino , a longtime activist with nonviolent protest movements such as the Plowshares and the Catholic worker , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s words were the latest example of a steadily expanding antifa paranoia that has infected both American citizens and law enforcement .
In Klamath Falls , Oregon , a wave of Facebook-assisted conspiracy theories spread word that antifa was coming to town by the busloads , prompting local residents to take up arms and flood the streets .
The New York Police Department , meanwhile , has turned over residents arrested for curfew violations to FBI agents for interrogations about their political beliefs .
Michael German , a fellow at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agent , said Wirostek ’ s experience had the signs of a rank-and-file agent being given an assignment that he knew to be meritless , and going through the motions to satisfy his boss .
That said , the fact that at least some FBI supervisors are apparently directing their subordinates to run-down low-level , antifa-related information suggested a deeper problem .
“ Based on the reporting coming out of New York that FBI agents are interrogating detainees that are arrested at protests , whether they ’ re involved in some kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for antifa information is a dangerous sign , ” German told The Intercept .
“ It appears that the FBI is trying to make President Trump ’ s tantrum come true , and willing to use questionable methods in order for that to happen.
” Recently , the FBI ’ s Charlotte office notified the public of a pattern of spoofers making calls pretending to be special agents , so late last week , Wirostek called the office back to confirm that the person who reached to him did in fact work for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to an operator , Wirostek received another call from the agent he spoke to earlier , who identified himself as Newsome .
He did not give his first name .
Wirostek told The Intercept that he had no intention of actually helping the FBI , though he was interested in what the on-boarding process for a federal snitch might look like .
“ I just kind of wanted to get that information , ” he explained .
With a degree in political science , Wirostek works in the anti-money laundering department of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the war on terror , he developed a deep concern regarding the “ coercive power of the state , ” he explained , particularly as it pertains to the expression of political views that challenge or question that power .
With plans to go to law school in the fall , Wirostek has avoided physically joining the protests out of concern that he might be arrested .
He described his tweet as his way of speaking out against an inexcusable attempt to criminalize anti-fascist dissent .
“ I ’ m not involved with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explained .
“ But I do support them and don ’ t really want them to be labeled a terrorist organization.
” Online , Wirostek ’ s Twitter avatar is a Japanese ad for the movie “ Point Break ” featuring Keanu Reeves .
The image has its own page on the website “ Know Your Meme.
” Anyone with basic familiarity with the internet , or anti-fascism , for that matter , could see that Wirostek ’ s post was not grounded in reality — so why did the country ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choose to follow up ?
It ’ s possible that despite seeing itself as a cutting-edge army of investigators , the FBI remains largely internet illiterate — agent Newsome , after all , repeatedly referred to Wirostek ’ s tweet as an “ email.
” Wirostek is not so sure : “ It seems like obviously that ’ s not a real lead to follow up on.
” Alternatively , it could be the case that the bureau knew the claim was untrue , and that the purpose of the call was not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but to send a message to those who would show support for a movement that the Trump administration has deemed an enemy .
If that ’ s the case , Wirostek said , then the bureau had a degree of success .
“ I ’ m definitely thinking and being hesitant before I say anything online , ” he explained , “ which could be the intention of those types of calls , to kind of chill speech.
” While he was not the subject of direct surveillance , Wirostek recognizes that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his placement on one of the many opaque and often invasive watch lists that U.S. law enforcement maintains .
That kind of surveillance , he argued , which the United States has embraced with historic vigor in the years following the September 11 attacks : “ definitely chills political discourse , even if it ’ s not explicit.
” Update : June 9 , 2020 , 1:11 p.m .
ET This story has been updated to include a response from FBI headquarters received after publication .

It all began with a tweet. Chandler Wirostek, of Charlotte, North Carolina, was reading the news last Monday when he saw that the attorney general had declared that the leaderless anti-fascist movement known as antifa was engaged in domestic terrorism. The 24-year-old found the notion absurd, so he decided to say something.
Addressing himself to the FBI’s main Twitter account and the bureau’s Charlotte office, Wirostek wrote: “Hi, I am the leader of Charlotte, NC Antifa. DM me for my address, or I can turn myself in. I’d be happy to let you test your bullshit terrorism statute in a U.S. court. Anyone who thinks antifascists are the bad guys are fascists.” Wirostek signed the tweet, “#IAMAntifa.”
“What makes you email the FBI saying you’re the leader of antifa in Charlotte?”
Two days later, the bureau came calling. “First, they called my mom,” Wirostek told The Intercept. When the FBI finally reached him, Wirostek was in his kitchen. With his phone on speaker, a friend filmed a portion of the conversation, which Wirostek shared with The Intercept.
“What makes you email the FBI saying you’re the leader of antifa in Charlotte?” the agent on the other end of the line asked.
Wirostek explained that he was not, in fact, the local leader of antifa, and that the tweet “was just a statement of solidarity.” By that point, his friend had stopped filming the call, but according to Wirostek, the agent told him that’s what he suspected and that he was simply following a supervisor’s orders. He asked Wirostek if he knew any antifa members or had any information about the movement’s structure. After a bit of small talk, the agent asked the young man if he would be interested in becoming an informant for the FBI.
While he did not mention antifa directly, Wirostek felt that the agent’s previous questions about the anti-fascist movement made the bureau’s interests abundantly clear.
“Sure,” Wirostek told him. “Just send me the information.”
Shelley Lynch, a public affairs specialist at the FBI’s Charlotte office, said Wirostek’s experience was simply the result of run-of-the-mill police work. “While I cannot comment on any specific social media post, I can say the FBI receives information from the public in a variety of ways including online/email, via phone, or as a walk-in to one of our local offices,” Lynch said in an email to The Intercept. “The same way we would return a phone call from a citizen, it is not [un]usual for us to reach out to someone directly who tried to contact us via social media to see if they need assistance.”
The Intercept also contacted the FBI’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. to see if the bureau has augmented its approach to social media posts concerning antifa in light of the attorney general’s recent statement, which reported that the Department of Justice had activated all 56 Joint Terrorism Task Forces — bodies that coordinate between federal investigators and local law enforcement — in a hunt to “identify criminal organizers and instigators” affiliated with the anti-fascist movement.
The FBI responded to the inquiry with a statement that did not address the question. “The FBI is supporting our state, local, and federal law enforcement partners with maintaining public safety in the communities we serve,” a spokesperson at FBI headquarters said in a statement. “Our efforts are focused on identifying, investigating, and disrupting individuals that are inciting violence and engaging in criminal activity. We are not focused on peaceful protests.”
With protests against police brutality sweeping the country, the Trump administration and the political right have seized on antifa as a buzzword and boogeyman, projecting a notion that the nationwide uprising against police violence and unaccountability has been infiltrated and co-opted by a sophisticated network of left-wing radicals.
“Buffalo protester shoved by Police could be an ANTIFA provocateur,” the president tweeted Tuesday morning. He was referring to a viral video showing riot police in New York, shoving 75-year-old Martin Gugino to the ground and splitting his head open. Trump went on to baselessly claim that Gugino, a longtime activist with nonviolent protest movements such as the Plowshares and the Catholic worker, “fell harder than was pushed.”
“Could be a set up?” the president wrote.
Trump’s words were the latest example of a steadily expanding antifa paranoia that has infected both American citizens and law enforcement. In Klamath Falls, Oregon, a wave of Facebook-assisted conspiracy theories spread word that antifa was coming to town by the busloads, prompting local residents to take up arms and flood the streets. The New York Police Department, meanwhile, has turned over residents arrested for curfew violations to FBI agents for interrogations about their political beliefs.
Michael German, a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice and former FBI agent, said Wirostek’s experience had the signs of a rank-and-file agent being given an assignment that he knew to be meritless, and going through the motions to satisfy his boss. That said, the fact that at least some FBI supervisors are apparently directing their subordinates to run-down low-level, antifa-related information suggested a deeper problem.
“Based on the reporting coming out of New York that FBI agents are interrogating detainees that are arrested at protests, whether they’re involved in some kind of misconduct or just out after curfew, for antifa information is a dangerous sign,” German told The Intercept. “It appears that the FBI is trying to make President Trump’s tantrum come true, and willing to use questionable methods in order for that to happen.”
Recently, the FBI’s Charlotte office notified the public of a pattern of spoofers making calls pretending to be special agents, so late last week, Wirostek called the office back to confirm that the person who reached to him did in fact work for the bureau. After explaining his experience to an operator, Wirostek received another call from the agent he spoke to earlier, who identified himself as Newsome. He did not give his first name.
Wirostek told The Intercept that he had no intention of actually helping the FBI, though he was interested in what the on-boarding process for a federal snitch might look like. “I just kind of wanted to get that information,” he explained.
With a degree in political science, Wirostek works in the anti-money laundering department of a bank. Having come of age during the war on terror, he developed a deep concern regarding the “coercive power of the state,” he explained, particularly as it pertains to the expression of political views that challenge or question that power. With plans to go to law school in the fall, Wirostek has avoided physically joining the protests out of concern that he might be arrested. He described his tweet as his way of speaking out against an inexcusable attempt to criminalize anti-fascist dissent.
“I’m definitely thinking and being hesitant before I say anything online, which could be the intention of those types of calls, to kind of chill speech.”
“I’m not involved with it in any way,” he explained. “But I do support them and don’t really want them to be labeled a terrorist organization.”
Online, Wirostek’s Twitter avatar is a Japanese ad for the movie “Point Break” featuring Keanu Reeves. The image has its own page on the website “Know Your Meme.” Anyone with basic familiarity with the internet, or anti-fascism, for that matter, could see that Wirostek’s post was not grounded in reality — so why did the country’s premiere domestic intelligence and law enforcement agency choose to follow up?
It’s possible that despite seeing itself as a cutting-edge army of investigators, the FBI remains largely internet illiterate — agent Newsome, after all, repeatedly referred to Wirostek’s tweet as an “email.” Wirostek is not so sure: “It seems like obviously that’s not a real lead to follow up on.” Alternatively, it could be the case that the bureau knew the claim was untrue, and that the purpose of the call was not to investigate the substance of the tweet, but to send a message to those who would show support for a movement that the Trump administration has deemed an enemy.
If that’s the case, Wirostek said, then the bureau had a degree of success. “I’m definitely thinking and being hesitant before I say anything online,” he explained, “which could be the intention of those types of calls, to kind of chill speech.”
While he was not the subject of direct surveillance, Wirostek recognizes that his interaction with the FBI could result in his placement on one of the many opaque and often invasive watch lists that U.S. law enforcement maintains. That kind of surveillance, he argued, which the United States has embraced with historic vigor in the years following the September 11 attacks: “definitely chills political discourse, even if it’s not explicit.”
Update: June 9, 2020, 1:11 p.m. ET
This story has been updated to include a response from FBI headquarters received after publication.


theintercept--2020-06-08--The New York Times Admits Key Falsehoods That Drove Last Year's Coup in Bolivia: Falsehoods Peddled

The New York Times Admits Key Falsehoods That Drove Last Year's Coup in Bolivia: Falsehoods Peddled by the U.S., Its Media, and the Times

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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter and on the official State Department website to demand new elections : 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proof that 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when it prompted criticism , 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — the Washington Post published an op-ed by two 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

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--2020-06-10--How the Far-Right Boogaloo Movement Is Trying to Hijack Anti-Racist Protests for a Race War

right .
The anti-racism protests that have convulsed cities across the United States are also being used as cover , to quote the president , for “ acts of domestic terror.
” In late May , for example , three Nevada men were “ arrested on terrorism-related charges in what authorities say was a conspiracy to spark violence during recent protests in Las Vegas , ” reported the Associated Press .
Federal prosecutors say the men had molotov cocktails in glass bottles and were headed downtown , according to a copy of the criminal complaint obtained by AP .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” said Nicholas Trutanich , the U.S. attorney in Nevada .
“ These men are agitators and instigators .
Their point was to hijack the protests into violence.
” But here ’ s the thing : None of these three men were members of antifa , the left-wing , anti-fascist protest movement that has been blamed both by the president and his attorney-general Bill Barr for recent violence .
They were all self-identified members of the so-called boogaloo movement , aka “ boogaloo bois ” aka “ boojahideen ” — perhaps the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past week or so , most Americans had never heard of .
The complaint filed in Nevada last month described “ boogaloo ” as “ a term used by extremists to signify coming civil war and/or fall of civilization.
” According to Cynthia Miller-Idris , an expert on domestic extremist groups at American University , members of the boogaloo movement “ are all united by the idea that they are fighting against government ‘ tyranny ’ and want to launch a violent insurrection against the government and bring about a second civil war.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I kid you not !
— the much-mocked 1984 movie “ Breakin ’ 2 : Electric Boogaloo , ” a sequel to , and near-copy of , the original “ Breakin ’ .
” starring Ice T. “ Boogaloo boys style the forthcoming war as a repeat of the American civil war , ” explained the Economist in May .
“ The Hawaiian shirts that dot the crowds are a reference to ‘ the big luau ’ , another name for the ‘ boogaloo ’ , which celebrates pig ( police ) roasts.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ though , there ’ s nothing silly or funny about them .
The Anti-Defamation League , while documenting how white supremacists have “ adopted the boogaloo concept , ” also referred to the boogaloo movement ’ s “ casual acceptance of future mass violence ” as “ disturbing.
” But antifa , on the other hand ?
“ The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization , ” declaimed the president on Twitter on May 31 — despite the glaring lack of evidence connecting antifa elements to any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You know who has been linked to it ?
The armed guys in the Hawaiian shirts .
And not just the trio with molotov cocktails in Nevada .
In South Carolina , a 22-year-old man , who the local sheriff ’ s department accused of being a supporter of boogaloo , was charged “ with inciting a riot and aggravated breach of peace.
” In Denver , police seized assault rifles and gas masks from a 20-year-old protester who “ identifies with the ‘ boogaloo ’ movement.
” In Georgia , “ self-identified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and handguns ” were spotted among protesters in downtown Athens .
In a memo , the Athens police chief called the boogaloo movement an “ extremist organization ” that aims in part “ to instigate race wars across America.
” Let ’ s be clear : Far-right extremists are hijacking nationwide protests against racism to push for … a race war !
While the boogaloo “ might have elements that are closer to libertarians … 90 percent of the boogaloo material is racist , ” Mia Bloom , an expert on online extremism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
According to Bloom , therefore , “ we can expect a lot more violence in the lead up to the 2020 election.
” Miller-Idris of American University agrees .
“ I think we should be very concerned about the violent potential of these groups , ” she told me .
“ There have always been fringe seditionist and anti-government militia groups but this phenomenon represents a more rapid growth in both online and offline space than we have seen before.
” The president and his attorney general , then , have stumbled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a domestic terror threat in the United States .
We need to recognize it in order to protect against it .
But here ’ s what Trump and Barr won ’ t say : That terror threat comes not from anti-fascists in black masks , but from actual fascists in Hawaiian shirts .

Photo: Eli Hartman/Odessa American via AP
Donald Trump is right. The anti-racism protests that have convulsed cities across the United States are also being used as cover, to quote the president, for “acts of domestic terror.”
In late May, for example, three Nevada men were “arrested on terrorism-related charges in what authorities say was a conspiracy to spark violence during recent protests in Las Vegas,” reported the Associated Press. Federal prosecutors say the men had molotov cocktails in glass bottles and were headed downtown, according to a copy of the criminal complaint obtained by AP.
“People have a right to peacefully protest,” said Nicholas Trutanich, the U.S. attorney in Nevada. “These men are agitators and instigators. Their point was to hijack the protests into violence.”
But here’s the thing: None of these three men were members of antifa, the left-wing, anti-fascist protest movement that has been blamed both by the president and his attorney-general Bill Barr for recent violence. They were all self-identified members of the so-called boogaloo movement, aka “boogaloo bois” aka “boojahideen” — perhaps the most dangerous group that, until the past week or so, most Americans had never heard of.
The complaint filed in Nevada last month described “boogaloo” as “a term used by extremists to signify coming civil war and/or fall of civilization.” According to Cynthia Miller-Idris, an expert on domestic extremist groups at American University, members of the boogaloo movement “are all united by the idea that they are fighting against government ‘tyranny’ and want to launch a violent insurrection against the government and bring about a second civil war.”
Their weird name comes from — I kid you not! — the much-mocked 1984 movie “Breakin’ 2: Electric Boogaloo,” a sequel to, and near-copy of, the original “Breakin’,” starring Ice T. “Boogaloo boys style the forthcoming war as a repeat of the American civil war,” explained the Economist in May. “The Hawaiian shirts that dot the crowds are a reference to ‘the big luau’, another name for the ‘boogaloo’, which celebrates pig (police) roasts.”
Name and dress sense aside, though, there’s nothing silly or funny about them. The Anti-Defamation League, while documenting how white supremacists have “adopted the boogaloo concept,” also referred to the boogaloo movement’s “casual acceptance of future mass violence” as “disturbing.”
These are heavily armed men, many of them with military training, looking for new and greater opportunities for violent protest.
Remember: These are heavily armed men, many of them with military training, looking for new and greater opportunities for violent protest. Miller-Idris told me that the boogaloo bois have mobilized “over the past six months in three separate waves of protests” — against attempts by state legislatures to reform gun laws; against the coronavirus lockdowns and shelter-in-place orders; and now as part of the demonstrations and marches against police brutality and racism, in the wake of the George Floyd killing.
Worryingly, their movement is growing online at breakneck speed. As Reuters reported last week, citing a study from the Tech Transparency Project, “tens of thousands of people joined boogaloo-related Facebook groups over a 30-day period in March and April as stay-at-home orders took effect across the United States. … Project researchers found discussions about tactical strategies, weapons and creating explosives in some boogaloo Facebook groups.”
In March, Timothy Wilson, a 36-year-old Missouri man with neo-Nazi ties, was shot and killed by the FBI after plotting to bomb a hospital in the Kansas City area on the first day of the lockdown. Wilson had told an undercover FBI agent that he had wanted “to create enough chaos to kick start a revolution” and referred to his planned attack as “operation boogaloo.”
In April, Aaron Swenson, a 36-year-old Arkansas man, was arrested after he threatened to kill a police officer on a Facebook Live video. “I feel like hunting the hunters,” he wrote on Facebook, where he also made “boogaloo” references, according to the police.
The boogaloo bois don’t operate in a vacuum. Their goals, methods, and personnel overlap with a number of far-right, anti-government groups that also pose a significant threat to law, order, and race relations, from the Proud Boys, to the Oath Keepers, to the Three Percenters, to the Sovereign Citizens. Don’t forget the Ku Klux Klan either: The Virginia man arrested for driving his truck into a crowd of Black Lives Matter protesters over the weekend is head of a local KKK chapter.
Some of us have been trying to sound the alarm for several years now. In 2015, a survey of law enforcement agencies found the vast majority of respondents ranked “the threat of violence from anti-government extremists higher than the threat from radicalized Muslims.” In February, prior to both the coronavirus lockdowns and the George Floyd protests, Trump’s handpicked FBI director Christopher Wray told Congress that the bureau had raised its assessment of the threat posed by racially motivated violent extremists in the U.S. to a “national threat priority,” and revealed how extremists motivated by racial or religious hatred made up a “huge chunk” of the FBI’s domestic terrorism investigations. (Of course as my Intercept colleague Alice Speri has previously reported, a considerable amount of the FBI’s domestic terror investigations focused on individuals and groups it labeled “black separatist extremists,” a phenomenon that does not actually exist.)
Yet Trump, of course, isn’t interested in terrorists of the far-right variety — no matter how many Americans they kill or maim. He refused to apply the label of “domestic terrorism” to the white supremacists who murdered Jews at synagogues in Pennsylvania and California. He refused to apply it to a supporter of his who sent pipe bombs to a number of high-profile Democratic politicians and donors. After a Coast Guard lieutenant was arrested on suspicion of plotting to commit an act of white nationalist terrorism, Trump simply said it was a “shame” and a “very sad thing.” After the massacre of 51 Muslims at two mosques in New Zealand, Trump denied white nationalist terrorists were a growing problem and dismissed them as “a small group of people.”
Trump, of course, isn’t interested in terrorists of the far-right variety — no matter how many Americans they kill or maim.
But antifa, on the other hand? “The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization,” declaimed the president on Twitter on May 31 — despite the glaring lack of evidence connecting antifa elements to any of the recent violence or looting.
You know who has been linked to it? The armed guys in the Hawaiian shirts. And not just the trio with molotov cocktails in Nevada. In South Carolina, a 22-year-old man, who the local sheriff’s department accused of being a supporter of boogaloo, was charged “with inciting a riot and aggravated breach of peace.” In Denver, police seized assault rifles and gas masks from a 20-year-old protester who “identifies with the ‘boogaloo’ movement.” In Georgia, “self-identified” boogaloo supporters “armed with rifles and handguns” were spotted among protesters in downtown Athens. In a memo, the Athens police chief called the boogaloo movement an “extremist organization” that aims in part “to instigate race wars across America.”
Let’s be clear: Far-right extremists are hijacking nationwide protests against racism to push for … a race war! While the boogaloo “might have elements that are closer to libertarians … 90 percent of the boogaloo material is racist,” Mia Bloom, an expert on online extremism at Georgia State University, told me. According to Bloom, therefore, “we can expect a lot more violence in the lead up to the 2020 election.” Miller-Idris of American University agrees. “I think we should be very concerned about the violent potential of these groups,” she told me. “There have always been fringe seditionist and anti-government militia groups but this phenomenon represents a more rapid growth in both online and offline space than we have seen before.”
The president and his attorney general, then, have stumbled on an undeniable truth: There is a domestic terror threat in the United States. We need to recognize it in order to protect against it. But here’s what Trump and Barr won’t say: That terror threat comes not from anti-fascists in black masks, but from actual fascists in Hawaiian shirts.
Update: June 10, 2020
This story has been updated to note that the FBI devoted considerable resources to investigating “black separatist extremists,” a phenomenon that does not actually exist.