theintercept--2020-08-11--What If Trump Won’t Leave?

What If Trump Won’t Leave?

, and Lafayette Square , and Portland have shown the country that President Donald Trump is prepared to do whatever it takes to keep power , including embracing militant white supremacists and using federal troops to tear gas and arrest peaceful protesters .
His noxious proposal to postpone the elections is not the real threat to democracy .
He has openly declared that he may not abide by the election results in a nationally televised interview on Fox News .
Trump has a lot of tools at his disposal to steal the election if he loses , many of which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Can he be stopped ?
We believe that he can be , but only if most Americans are willing to put their trust in people power — rather than courts , norms , and elites — to save democracy .
The evidence of the risk we face is impossible to ignore .
Trump is questioning the legitimacy of an election that will rely on mail-in ballots , even though he himself has often voted absentee .
He has threatened to withhold funding from states that are trying to make it easier for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undermining the U.S .
Postal Service , both of which are essential , especially in a pandemic .
His Republican allies around the country have been passing voter ID laws , purging voter rolls , and cutting the number of polling places in urban areas , forcing people to stand in line for hours to exercise their right to vote .
This is a war on voters who lean Democratic , specifically Black people , Latinos , Asian Americans , Native Americans , naturalized immigrants , poor people , and young people .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Wisconsin how these tactics play out on Election Day .
Trump ’ s administration has downplayed foreign interference in the elections that benefit him .
He has given succor to white nationalist groups , and the Republican Party has deputized 50,000 “ poll watchers ” to intimidate minority voters on Election Day .
This will be the first election since 1980 during which the Republican National Committee will not be bound by a federal consent decree that prohibited “ ballot security ” efforts whose real purpose was to intimidate and disenfranchise minority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Trump and the Republicans are already trying to steal the election .
If all that chicanery fails and Trump still loses , most people assume that his only option is to concede defeat and leave — especially if he loses by a big margin .
But let ’ s picture what things could look like after Election Day .
The new voting procedures implemented in response to Covid-19 will make this election feel different to many voters , and will also delay the counting of ballots well past November 3 .
New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month after its June 23 primary election .
Most people expect a “ blue shift ” — meaning that Trump may be ahead in the count of votes cast on Election Day ballots but that mailed ballots will skew Democratic .
Trump is already crying fraud with absolutely no proof and could use the days after the election to stoke hysteria , rage , and violence among his supporters .
To steal the election , we suspect he will adapt the standard playbook of authoritarians everywhere : cast doubt on the election results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal and state investigations , including into foreign interference ; call on militia groups to intimidate election officials and instigate violence ; rely on fringe social media to generate untraceable rumors , and on Fox News to amplify these messages as fact ; and create a climate of confusion and chaos .
He might ask the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security — which he has now weaponized against democracy — to deploy to big cities in swing states to stop the vote count or seize ballots .
If he does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be able to put soldiers on the streets , inflame his base , and convince millions of people that the election is being stolen from him .
This would create the predicate for overturning the will of the voters .
What ’ s his end game ?
Under the Constitution , state legislatures decide how to appoint electors .
They have all chosen to rely on the popular vote .
But could they create a false justification to claw back this power ?
The legislatures in all of the closely contested states this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Arizona , Florida , and North Carolina — are controlled by Republicans .
Trump could argue that mail-in ballots should not be counted and ask state legislatures to appoint electors different than the ones chosen by voters .
This would be undemocratic and illegal ; it ’ s hard to conceive how you justify changing the rules for appointing electors after the election .
But they have contemplated it before : Florida ’ s Republican legislature seriously considered doing just that in 2000 before the Supreme Court ultimately stepped in .
All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from casting their ballots as required on December 14 or allow Trump to get a competing slate of electors sent to Congress from the states .
Either way , he will have pushed our election into January when the new Congress meets to decide the outcome .
At this point , the rules about how to resolve disputes are unclear , and could be governed by a badly worded law passed in 1887 .
If neither candidate receives a majority of the Electoral College votes , the Constitution ’ s 12th Amendment allows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president .
You might think that ’ s good news — but the rules in this case give each state delegation one vote , so the lone Republican congresswoman from Wyoming has the same power as the 52 members of the overwhelmingly Democratic California delegation .
Right now , Republicans control a majority of the state delegations even though the Democrats control the chamber .
This is far from an exhaustive list of what could go wrong in the 78 fraught days between Election Day and inauguration .
Experts have considered the mechanisms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would-be autocrat could use to defy the will of the people and the provisions that might restrain the usurpation .
It turns out that our democracy rests on a set of shaky norms more than on ironclad rules .
The possibilities for malign mischief are legion .
What must we be prepared to do if Trump questions the legitimacy of the electoral results and won ’ t concede defeat ?
We can learn what not to do from the disastrous 2000 election in which George W. Bush lost Florida and therefore the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House anyway .
Republicans famously mobilized a “ Brooks Brothers riot ” of young white male campaign staffers , many flown in from D.C. , to protest the recount and create an atmosphere of intimidation and chaos .
Democrats dithered , mobilized no one , and played by Marquess of Queensberry rules .
They naively relied on the courts and local election officials to validate Gore ’ s victory .
The ultimate result of this pathetic Democratic strategy was not only a Bush victory but the Iraq War , the racist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and trillions of dollars of tax cuts for the rich .
Exactly the same dilemma will face us this time if Trump won ’ t accept defeat .
Joe Biden ’ s campaign is recruiting lawyers , not organizers , and Biden himself has expressed misplaced confidence that the military “ will escort [ Trump ] from the White House with great dispatch ” on Inauguration Day .
Democratic Party operatives , good-government types , an army of constitutional lawyers , and other self-appointed experts will urge us not to “ politicize ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talk about the “ rule of law , ” to not “ prejudge the results ” — to trust the process and the courts , to stay home and let the smart boys in D.C. work things out on our behalf .
We need to ignore such advice and take to the streets .
We have been through four horrendous years in which our vaunted institutions have failed to hold Trump to account — most notably with the failure to convict him in the Senate after the House impeached him .
The Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from both the formal rules and the unwritten norms that constrained unaccountable executive behavior .
During the public health crisis , the president and many Republican leaders have shown contempt for truth and a willingness to fan the flames of outlandish conspiracy theories .
There ’ s no reason to believe that there are any norms that will constrain this president , who likely faces criminal prosecution when he leaves office .
His fellow Republicans have had four years to reign him in and have chosen not to .
And if you think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ save us , think again : For all the attention given to a few unexpected victories for liberals , the Court ruled four separate times this term against voting rights .
While institutions , norms , and elites have failed us , there is abundant evidence that mass protest produces change .
We are living in a golden age of social movements .
Most recently , the Movement for Black Lives changed how white people think about policing in America , put bold new demands on the agenda , and is producing substantial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in policies .
The immigrant rights movement responded to the Muslim ban and the caging of children at the border with mass protest that forced a national reckoning with these cruel policies .
Workers , often outside of union structures , have taken to the streets in extraordinary numbers – from the Fight for 15 to strikes by teachers and mobilizations by Amazon employees and essential workers .
They have won big increases in wages and improved working conditions .
The Occupy movement reintroduced the problem of economic oligarchy into the political debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warren ’ s presidential candidacies were powered by this movement vision and pushed the Democratic Party to the left .
And the “ resistance ” groups that mobilized early in the Trump years — the Women ’ s March , Indivisible , and others — have built muscle memory among millions of people of what it ’ s like to engage in sustained activism .
Most encouraging , these movements have recruited millions of new supporters .
These groups together provide a powerful social base from which to contest the president ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movements have substantial leverage in two decisive arenas : politics and the economy .
In politics , the Democratic Party relies on voters allied with these movements .
If the party decides to play hardball , it can stop Trump from stealing the election .
Right now , Democrats can insist on funding for a free and fair election as well as the Postal Service , and ensure that local election systems have the resources and systems in place to accommodate the surge of mail-in ballots .
And when Trump tries to steal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will control governors ’ mansions in Michigan , North Carolina , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin .
If the Republican legislatures in these states try to overrule the will of the people , governors can push back and send a legitimate electoral vote tally to Congress .
Likewise , after the election , Democratic House and Senate members will have leverage of their own .
Getting Democrats to use the full extent of their power will not be easy .
It will take a mass movement on a scale we have not yet seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be sustained for weeks and possibly months .
Intense pressure from millions of people — that rivals the intensity of the Trump base — will be needed to stiffen the spines of national and state Democratic leaders .
The professional communicators , technocrats , and lawyers in much of the mainstream Democratic Party and some in the media will be horrified by this call for a mass nonviolent uprising in response to the theft of an election .
Culturally , the professional , middle-class people in these roles believe that expertise and good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the goods .
They have learned in their own lives that rational debate , rule-following , and conflict avoidance help them climb the ladder .
Unfortunately , these traits and behaviors don ’ t work against autocrats .
Politically , the Democratic Party has , for 30 years , triangulated , dodged , and capitulated to its ruthless opponents , and since its leaders are from that earlier generation schooled to cower , they will not adapt quickly now .
The liberal establishment inside the Beltway will argue for sober analysis , moderate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ above all … for waiting .
We must prepare to defy those milquetoast nostrums just as much as we prepare for Trump ’ s planned theft of the election .
Overcoming complacency , rampant incredulity that “ it could happen here , ” and misplaced faith in norms , courts and elites may be our biggest challenges .
Another key movement objective should be to force corporate and Republican elites to break with Trump .
Doing so will require pushing them to answer a simple question : Is the price of keeping Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowing Biden to take over as president ?
Truth be told , Biden should not scare the elite .
He has been sympathetic to their agenda on everything from bankruptcy to trade , and has resisted policies like Medicare for All .
But Trump has delivered deregulation , tax cuts , and huge numbers of judges for the right ’ s core constituencies .
He has , until perhaps recently , been good for their bottom line .
So the protests will need to be not only boisterous and performative but also to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan for and encourage forms of mass action such as work stoppages , consumer boycotts , and rent strikes that target the corporate class .
The message from us to them needs to be clear : If you stand by and allow Trump to steal the election , we will threaten your profit .
The only thing that would compel corporate titans and their political lackeys in the Republican Party to abandon Trump would be a crisis — not a crisis of conscience but of profitability .
If Trump steals the election , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make the country ungovernable and the reigning regime illegitimate , despite the risks involved .
We can take lessons and heart from other countries around the world where autocrats have sought to steal elections .
We can pull off a peaceful Orange Revolution of our own .
To do so , we will need to encourage mass civil disobedience — and dare the authorities to arrest hundreds of thousands of people day after day .
If an illegitimate election gives rise to civil disorder that can not be easily suppressed , corporate and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to protect their interests .
To prevent Trump from stealing the election , we must act now .
Movement leaders should discuss these scenarios with their members and plan for action immediately on election night and beyond .
We can also reach beyond progressive bubbles and talk to other people of good will , local elected officials , civil servants , members of security forces , and faith and civic leaders who will likely be willing to take risks they have never previously considered if they are engaged about the stakes and respectfully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be trained in the methods of nonviolent civil disobedience ; this would be the right way to honor and carry forward the tradition of the late John Lewis , who famously enjoined us to make “ good trouble , necessary trouble ” in response to injustice .
Organizations should create bail funds and recruit lawyers .
Everyone working to defeat Trump should redouble their efforts , with a focus on mobilizing voters of color — a landslide weakens Trump ’ s hand — and also be prepared to keep staff and volunteers going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups in key states should be supported with extra human and financial resources , since all of us are depending on them to be able to keep up the fight past Election Day .
Everyday people can make plans as workers , tenants , and consumers to organize and prepare to use their economic leverage in the days and weeks after Election Day to cut off the source of profits for Trump ’ s corporate enablers .
We can also organize mutual aid , building on the explosion of such effort during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such risks , many of whom already face great hardship .
We hope that the worst does not unfold this fall .
If the establishment concludes Trump is a menace to them as well as to the rest of us , they may yet rally to find a path to ease Trump out of the way and get him to abide by the results .
But we should not make the fatal mistake of underestimating Trump or , more importantly , his supporters and the vast infrastructure aligned behind him .
Trump did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; there are millions of people who are driving this authoritarian turn , and they are independent actors unlikely to stand down .
If they don ’ t believe in Covid-19 or in wearing masks , and do believe in unproven drugs , what makes anyone think they ’ ll believe Trump lost the election ?
Fox News and the right-wing social media apparatus are formidable vehicles for mobilization and coordination .
Perhaps most ominously , some of local law enforcement has proved to be in cahoots with the right-wing machine .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ psychologically and strategically — to something akin to a coup .
These are dark but plausible scenarios , and we ’ d be better off facing than avoiding them .
The worst of all possible outcomes would be for a broad united front of anti-Trump forces to be caught flatfooted in the 72 hours after Election Day , stunned by his brazenness and gathering its wits .
We must lay the groundwork now for the kind of mass action that defends democracy and evicts this despicable , racist , wannabe authoritarian from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we will remind ourselves that American democracy is not a set of institutions or rules or an event that happens once every four years ; it is what everyday people do to participate in and shape the life of our country .

Illustration: Daniel Greenfeld for The Intercept
Events in Charlottesville,
Lafayette Square , and Portland have shown the country that President Donald Trump is prepared to do whatever it takes to keep power, including embracing militant white supremacists and using federal troops to tear gas and arrest peaceful protesters. His noxious proposal to postpone the elections is not the real threat to democracy. He has openly declared that he may not abide by the election results in a nationally televised interview on Fox News. Trump has a lot of tools at his disposal to steal the election if he loses, many of which he’s already putting into motion. Can he be stopped? We believe that he can be, but only if most Americans are willing to put their trust in people power — rather than courts, norms, and elites — to save democracy.
The evidence of the risk we face is impossible to ignore. Trump is questioning the legitimacy of an election that will rely on mail-in ballots, even though he himself has often voted absentee. He has threatened to withhold funding from states that are trying to make it easier for people to vote, and he is undermining the U.S. Postal Service, both of which are essential, especially in a pandemic. His Republican allies around the country have been passing voter ID laws, purging voter rolls, and cutting the number of polling places in urban areas, forcing people to stand in line for hours to exercise their right to vote. This is a war on voters who lean Democratic, specifically Black people, Latinos, Asian Americans, Native Americans, naturalized immigrants, poor people, and young people. We’ve already seen in Georgia and Wisconsin how these tactics play out on Election Day.
Trump’s administration has downplayed foreign interference in the elections that benefit him. He has given succor to white nationalist groups, and the Republican Party has deputized 50,000 “poll watchers” to intimidate minority voters on Election Day. This will be the first election since 1980 during which the Republican National Committee will not be bound by a federal consent decree that prohibited “ballot security” efforts whose real purpose was to intimidate and disenfranchise minority voters. Let’s be clear: Trump and the Republicans are already trying to steal the election.
Trump is already crying fraud with absolutely no proof and could use the days after the election to stoke hysteria, rage, and violence among his supporters.
If all that chicanery fails and Trump still loses, most people assume that his only option is to concede defeat and leave — especially if he loses by a big margin. But let’s picture what things could look like after Election Day. The new voting procedures implemented in response to Covid-19 will make this election feel different to many voters, and will also delay the counting of ballots well past November 3. New York was still counting ballots over a month after its June 23 primary election. Most people expect a “blue shift” — meaning that Trump may be ahead in the count of votes cast on Election Day ballots but that mailed ballots will skew Democratic. Trump is already crying fraud with absolutely no proof and could use the days after the election to stoke hysteria, rage, and violence among his supporters.
To steal the election, we suspect he will adapt the standard playbook of authoritarians everywhere: cast doubt on the election results by filing numerous lawsuits and launching coordinated federal and state investigations, including into foreign interference; call on militia groups to intimidate election officials and instigate violence; rely on fringe social media to generate untraceable rumors, and on Fox News to amplify these messages as fact; and create a climate of confusion and chaos. He might ask the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security — which he has now weaponized against democracy — to deploy to big cities in swing states to stop the vote count or seize ballots. If he does all this right, he’ll be able to put soldiers on the streets, inflame his base, and convince millions of people that the election is being stolen from him. This would create the predicate for overturning the will of the voters.
What’s his end game? Under the Constitution, state legislatures decide how to appoint electors. They have all chosen to rely on the popular vote. But could they create a false justification to claw back this power? The legislatures in all of the closely contested states this fall — Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Florida, and North Carolina — are controlled by Republicans. Trump could argue that mail-in ballots should not be counted and ask state legislatures to appoint electors different than the ones chosen by voters. This would be undemocratic and illegal; it’s hard to conceive how you justify changing the rules for appointing electors after the election. But they have contemplated it before: Florida’s Republican legislature seriously considered doing just that in 2000 before the Supreme Court ultimately stepped in.
All this orchestrated chaos could prevent the electors from casting their ballots as required on December 14 or allow Trump to get a competing slate of electors sent to Congress from the states. Either way, he will have pushed our election into January when the new Congress meets to decide the outcome. At this point, the rules about how to resolve disputes are unclear, and could be governed by a badly worded law passed in 1887. If neither candidate receives a majority of the Electoral College votes, the Constitution’s 12th Amendment allows the House of Representatives to choose the president. You might think that’s good news — but the rules in this case give each state delegation one vote, so the lone Republican congresswoman from Wyoming has the same power as the 52 members of the overwhelmingly Democratic California delegation. Right now, Republicans control a majority of the state delegations even though the Democrats control the chamber.
This is far from an exhaustive list of what could go wrong in the 78 fraught days between Election Day and inauguration. Experts have considered the mechanisms in our rickety constitutional order that a would-be autocrat could use to defy the will of the people and the provisions that might restrain the usurpation. It turns out that our democracy rests on a set of shaky norms more than on ironclad rules. The possibilities for malign mischief are legion.
We will be urged not to “politicize” the process, to wait patiently and to not “prejudge the results.” We need to ignore such advice and take to the streets.
What must we be prepared to do if Trump questions the legitimacy of the electoral results and won’t concede defeat? We can learn what not to do from the disastrous 2000 election in which George W. Bush lost Florida and therefore the election to Al Gore but ended up taking the White House anyway. Republicans famously mobilized a “Brooks Brothers riot” of young white male campaign staffers, many flown in from D.C., to protest the recount and create an atmosphere of intimidation and chaos. Democrats dithered, mobilized no one, and played by Marquess of Queensberry rules. They naively relied on the courts and local election officials to validate Gore’s victory. The ultimate result of this pathetic Democratic strategy was not only a Bush victory but the Iraq War, the racist and inept response to Hurricane Katrina, and trillions of dollars of tax cuts for the rich.
Exactly the same dilemma will face us this time if Trump won’t accept defeat. Joe Biden’s campaign is recruiting lawyers, not organizers, and Biden himself has expressed misplaced confidence that the military “will escort [Trump] from the White House with great dispatch” on Inauguration Day. Democratic Party operatives, good-government types, an army of constitutional lawyers, and other self-appointed experts will urge us not to “politicize” the process, to wait patiently and talk about the “rule of law,” to not “prejudge the results” — to trust the process and the courts, to stay home and let the smart boys in D.C. work things out on our behalf.
We need to ignore such advice and take to the streets. We have been through four horrendous years in which our vaunted institutions have failed to hold Trump to account — most notably with the failure to convict him in the Senate after the House impeached him. The Republican Party and Fox News have divorced themselves from both the formal rules and the unwritten norms that constrained unaccountable executive behavior. During the public health crisis, the president and many Republican leaders have shown contempt for truth and a willingness to fan the flames of outlandish conspiracy theories. There’s no reason to believe that there are any norms that will constrain this president, who likely faces criminal prosecution when he leaves office. His fellow Republicans have had four years to reign him in and have chosen not to. And if you think John Roberts’s Supreme Court will save us, think again: For all the attention given to a few unexpected victories for liberals, the Court ruled four separate times this term against voting rights.
While institutions, norms, and elites have failed us, there is abundant evidence that mass protest produces change. We are living in a golden age of social movements. Most recently, the Movement for Black Lives changed how white people think about policing in America, put bold new demands on the agenda, and is producing substantial, albeit thus far insufficient, changes in policies. The immigrant rights movement responded to the Muslim ban and the caging of children at the border with mass protest that forced a national reckoning with these cruel policies. Workers, often outside of union structures, have taken to the streets in extraordinary numbers – from the Fight for 15 to strikes by teachers and mobilizations by Amazon employees and essential workers. They have won big increases in wages and improved working conditions. The Occupy movement reintroduced the problem of economic oligarchy into the political debate. Bernie Sanders’s and Elizabeth Warren’s presidential candidacies were powered by this movement vision and pushed the Democratic Party to the left. And the “resistance” groups that mobilized early in the Trump years — the Women’s March, Indivisible, and others — have built muscle memory among millions of people of what it’s like to engage in sustained activism. Most encouraging, these movements have recruited millions of new supporters. These groups together provide a powerful social base from which to contest the president’s planned usurpation of power.
And the movements have substantial leverage in two decisive arenas: politics and the economy. In politics, the Democratic Party relies on voters allied with these movements. If the party decides to play hardball, it can stop Trump from stealing the election. Right now, Democrats can insist on funding for a free and fair election as well as the Postal Service, and ensure that local election systems have the resources and systems in place to accommodate the surge of mail-in ballots. And when Trump tries to steal the election after November 3, Democrats will control governors’ mansions in Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. If the Republican legislatures in these states try to overrule the will of the people, governors can push back and send a legitimate electoral vote tally to Congress. Likewise, after the election, Democratic House and Senate members will have leverage of their own.
Getting Democrats to use the full extent of their power will not be easy. It will take a mass movement on a scale we have not yet seen, and the mobilization will need to be sustained for weeks and possibly months. Intense pressure from millions of people — that rivals the intensity of the Trump base — will be needed to stiffen the spines of national and state Democratic leaders.
The professional communicators, technocrats, and lawyers in much of the mainstream Democratic Party and some in the media will be horrified by this call for a mass nonviolent uprising in response to the theft of an election. Culturally, the professional, middle-class people in these roles believe that expertise and good judgment, not mass protest, deliver the goods. They have learned in their own lives that rational debate, rule-following, and conflict avoidance help them climb the ladder. Unfortunately, these traits and behaviors don’t work against autocrats. Politically, the Democratic Party has, for 30 years, triangulated, dodged, and capitulated to its ruthless opponents, and since its leaders are from that earlier generation schooled to cower, they will not adapt quickly now. The liberal establishment inside the Beltway will argue for sober analysis, moderate messages, following procedures, and, above all … for waiting. We must prepare to defy those milquetoast nostrums just as much as we prepare for Trump’s planned theft of the election. Overcoming complacency, rampant incredulity that “it could happen here,” and misplaced faith in norms, courts and elites may be our biggest challenges.
Unfortunately, rational debate, rule-following, and conflict avoidance don’t work against autocrats.
Another key movement objective should be to force corporate and Republican elites to break with Trump. Doing so will require pushing them to answer a simple question: Is the price of keeping Trump in power greater than the price of allowing Biden to take over as president? Truth be told, Biden should not scare the elite. He has been sympathetic to their agenda on everything from bankruptcy to trade, and has resisted policies like Medicare for All. But Trump has delivered deregulation, tax cuts, and huge numbers of judges for the right’s core constituencies. He has, until perhaps recently, been good for their bottom line. So the protests will need to be not only boisterous and performative but also to put profits at risk. We should plan for and encourage forms of mass action such as work stoppages, consumer boycotts, and rent strikes that target the corporate class. The message from us to them needs to be clear: If you stand by and allow Trump to steal the election, we will threaten your profit. The only thing that would compel corporate titans and their political lackeys in the Republican Party to abandon Trump would be a crisis — not a crisis of conscience but of profitability.
Illustration: Daniel Greenfeld for The Intercept
If Trump steals the election, a broad united front will have to make the country ungovernable and the reigning regime illegitimate, despite the risks involved. We can take lessons and heart from other countries around the world where autocrats have sought to steal elections. We can pull off a peaceful Orange Revolution of our own. To do so, we will need to encourage mass civil disobedience — and dare the authorities to arrest hundreds of thousands of people day after day. If an illegitimate election gives rise to civil disorder that cannot be easily suppressed, corporate and political elites will move to dump Trump to protect their interests.
To prevent Trump from stealing the election, we must act now. Movement leaders should discuss these scenarios with their members and plan for action immediately on election night and beyond. We can also reach beyond progressive bubbles and talk to other people of good will, local elected officials, civil servants, members of security forces, and faith and civic leaders who will likely be willing to take risks they have never previously considered if they are engaged about the stakes and respectfully invited in. Thousands more people should be trained in the methods of nonviolent civil disobedience; this would be the right way to honor and carry forward the tradition of the late John Lewis, who famously enjoined us to make “good trouble, necessary trouble” in response to injustice. Organizations should create bail funds and recruit lawyers. Everyone working to defeat Trump should redouble their efforts, with a focus on mobilizing voters of color — a landslide weakens Trump’s hand — and also be prepared to keep staff and volunteers going until noon on January 20. Grassroots groups in key states should be supported with extra human and financial resources, since all of us are depending on them to be able to keep up the fight past Election Day. Everyday people can make plans as workers, tenants, and consumers to organize and prepare to use their economic leverage in the days and weeks after Election Day to cut off the source of profits for Trump’s corporate enablers. We can also organize mutual aid, building on the explosion of such effort during the pandemic, to support people who take such risks, many of whom already face great hardship.
We hope that the worst does not unfold this fall. If the establishment concludes Trump is a menace to them as well as to the rest of us, they may yet rally to find a path to ease Trump out of the way and get him to abide by the results. But we should not make the fatal mistake of underestimating Trump or, more importantly, his supporters and the vast infrastructure aligned behind him. Trump did not beam into America from another planet; there are millions of people who are driving this authoritarian turn, and they are independent actors unlikely to stand down. If they don’t believe in Covid-19 or in wearing masks, and do believe in unproven drugs, what makes anyone think they’ll believe Trump lost the election? Fox News and the right-wing social media apparatus are formidable vehicles for mobilization and coordination. Perhaps most ominously, some of local law enforcement has proved to be in cahoots with the right-wing machine.
So we should prepare now to respond — psychologically and strategically — to something akin to a coup. These are dark but plausible scenarios, and we’d be better off facing than avoiding them. The worst of all possible outcomes would be for a broad united front of anti-Trump forces to be caught flatfooted in the 72 hours after Election Day, stunned by his brazenness and gathering its wits. We must lay the groundwork now for the kind of mass action that defends democracy and evicts this despicable, racist, wannabe authoritarian from the White House. In so doing, we will remind ourselves that American democracy is not a set of institutions or rules or an event that happens once every four years; it is what everyday people do to participate in and shape the life of our country.


theintercept--2020-08-12--The Junk Science Cops Use to Decide You’re Lying

was billed as “ cutting edge , ” and dozens of law enforcement professionals signed up to learn about “ New Tools for Detecting Deception ” from a human lie detector who calls herself “ Eyes for Lies.
” Her real name is Renee Ellory , and she claims that she ’ s one of just 50 people identified by scientists as having the ability to spot deception “ with exceptional accuracy.
” A flyer for the event , hosted by Wisconsin ’ s High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area — a federal program that supports law enforcement drug interdiction work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law enforcement documents that were hacked and posted online in June under the title BlueLeaks .
The promo copy leans heavily into Ellory ’ s skill at ferreting out deception in others .
She is “ exceptional at pinpointing a liar and can tell you why she doesn ’ t trust someone on the spot , ” it reads .
Training participants would learn how to “ identify anger , contempt , and disgust before words are even spoken.
” Course objectives were broad : Learn to differentiate between “ real ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recognize hidden emotions ” ; identify the “ ways our subconscious brain leaks information when we lie ” ; “ analyze body language that indicates deception ” ; gain tips to use when interviewing a psychopath ; “ identify the key features of expressions that reveal danger for you !
” Participants spanned the law enforcement spectrum and included the chief of a small police department , corrections officers , university cops , state troopers , various members of the Milwaukee Police Department as well as individuals from the U.S .
Probation Office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out after the training , which took place in November 2015 , the common complaint was that there weren ’ t enough structured breaks ; as one participant put it , “ the mind can only absorb what the buttocks can tolerate.
” But otherwise , a majority of the 82 respondents gave the training high marks .
Participants wrote that they would incorporate what they ’ d learned into their police work .
A number of them said the most valuable thing they learned was “ the seven universal facial expressions that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a good indicator ” of lying , as one trainee put it .
It might seem reassuring that so many law enforcement officers found a skills training so valuable .
But not in this case .
That ’ s because Ellory ’ s lie detection training is based what many psychologists say are largely discredited theories , if not simply junk science .
“ It ’ s completely bogus , ” said Jeff Kukucka , an assistant professor of psychology and law at Towson University who studies forensic confirmation bias , interrogations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what ’ s maybe more alarming about it … is that this isn ’ t new .
We ’ ve known for quite a while that this stuff doesn ’ t work , but it ’ s still being peddled as if it does.
” The BlueLeaks documents contain numerous flyers for trainings offered to police agencies across the country .
Many of them promote methods of interviewing and interrogation , lie detection , and detecting “ danger , ” such as Ellory ’ s , that rest on unsteady scientific ground and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrongful convictions .
The documents offer a window into how various training methods perpetuate myths — subjective , hunch-based approaches to interpreting human behavior that are unreliable and have been discredited by leading psychologists — that police are then encouraged to use in crime solving .
The search for a foolproof method of lie detection has a “ long history , ” said Richard Leo , a professor of law and psychology at the University of San Francisco School of Law and an expert on interrogation practices .
“ The search for some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ language , demeanor , vocal pitch , gestures and then infer with a high degree of accuracy whether someone is telling the truth.
” It just doesn ’ t exist , he said .
He likens many of the claims about human lie detection to claims of psychic ability .
“ This reminds me of psychics and the lottery .
If there was a psychic and they could see what the lottery numbers are , that would just be gold , right ?
Why wouldn ’ t they win $ 400 million when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As the country has become increasingly focused on police reform in the wake of George Floyd ’ s killing by Minneapolis cops , experts say the movement should include reforms to the way police are trained to interview and interrogate suspects , witnesses , and victims to ensure they ’ re grounded in best practices supported by science .
“ Part of the distrust that you see between law enforcement and minority communities stems from the way that suspects , witnesses , victims , and family members are treated by detectives during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Steven Drizin , co-director of the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University ’ s Pritzker School of Law , who studies false confessions .
Law enforcement training that isn ’ t based in science “ just furthers the deterioration of the relationship between case officers and people in the community.
” In addition to Wisconsin ’ s HIDTA , police agencies in California , Georgia , Nevada , and Texas have promoted Ellory ’ s trainings , according to flyers found within the BlueLeaks files .
One flyer boasts that Ellory has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. cities , ” including “ New York City , Los Angeles , Chicago , Houston , San Antonio , Washington , D.C. , Atlanta , Honolulu , Las Vegas , Reno , Key West — just to name a few.
” In an email to The Intercept , Ellory said she has been training as Eyes for Lies since 2009 and estimates she ’ s reached between 2,500 and 3,000 law enforcement officers .
The problem is that what she ’ s teaching them has been widely discredited — an assertion Ellory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she was one of 50 individuals identified as an “ expert in deception ” as part of the so-called Wizards Project , run by researchers associated with Paul Ekman , a professor at the University of California , San Francisco .
The researchers studied thousands of people — from CIA and Secret Service agents to regular folks — to see who could best detect behavior associated with deception , a practice that relies heavily on the idea of universal facial expressions and so-called microexpressions that last mere fractions of a second .
Ellory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of both concepts .
While the theory of universal expressions dates back to Charles Darwin , research has been mixed , and Ekman ’ s work in this area has been repeatedly challenged by scientists in recent years as unreliable , in part because of methodological issues .
Where microexpressions are concerned — also an area of Ekman ’ s studies — subsequent research has found them “ rare and nondiagnostic , ” Kukucka said , and that training individuals to see them doesn ’ t actually work .
Ultimately , Kukucka said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human lie detectors were simply a result of chance .
With the Wizards Project , the idea was to test thousands of people to identify those who scored “ unusually ” high on a lie detection test , Kukucka said .
Out of 15,000 people , “ they found 50 who were unusually good .
And they thought maybe from those people ’ s knowledge they could reverse engineer — OK , well , what are these people doing that ’ s working ?
And then use that to figure out what actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The problem with that is , it ’ s a total artifact of just having a bunch of people and how probability works .
If you flip 15,000 coins 10 times , you ’ re going to get a couple that come up heads all 10 times , but there ’ s really nothing different about those coins than any of the other coins , just dumb luck.
” Indeed , years of research has demonstrated that behavioral cues — like eye-blinking , arm-crossing , a voice rising or dropping in pitch — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ A lot of ‘ police science ’ is really pseudoscience , ” Drizin said .
“ Police officers do believe that they ’ re able to detect liars from truth-tellers at much higher rates that you and I are .
And that ’ s just been proven not to be the case.
” In fact , research has found that the odds of a person detecting deception in another are really no better than chance , and that while those who ’ ve been trained to do so feel more confident @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no more competent .
“ When police are trained in this false and misleading stuff , they become more confident , so they become more prone to error , ” said Leo .
“ It ’ s just this loop , this dangerous loop.
” In an email exchange , Ellory first wrote that she wouldn ’ t have time to explain things to me unless I took one of her courses — her “ master class ” is currently priced at $ 1,950 per person — but then noted that she ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right now .
In a subsequent email , she defended her trainings as being rooted in science but wrote that as a “ rare expert , ” she ’ s used to people not understanding that .
“ I find at times with my gift , it ’ s akin to seeing color in a world where other people live in a colorblind world .
Seeing color is ‘ real ’ but trying to convince a color blind person color exists is nearly impossible , ” she wrote .
“ I tell people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be common knowledge in 100 years , but we are still in the dark ages when it comes to understanding human behavior and deception , ” she continued .
“ At a point , I learned , I can ’ t change the world alone .
But I can educate those who are open to learning and they have thanked me endlessly.
” When asked whether it is appropriate to be training law enforcement officers who have power over individual liberty to use scientifically unproven techniques , Ellory retorted that she was “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ research .
“ I don ’ t need to reprove it to anyone.
” “ You are saying that I shouldn ’ t teach because I can ’ t make people like me ?
Does that mean that Nobel prize winners , acclaimed scientists and researchers who achieve great things shouldn ’ t teach other people because other people may not reach the same success ?
” she asked .
“ Like Lance Armstrong should never coach because he could sustain a heart of 32 beats per minute and consume freakishly low oxygen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so it ’ s useless ?
” “ I don ’ t get that reasoning on any level , ” she wrote .
“ I have insight into human behavior that most people have never considered , don ’ t understand and when I share it with them through demonstration and example it changes their world for the better .
I don ’ t teach interrogation techniques .
I teach people how to seek and find the truth.
” Kukucka called Ellory ’ s response bizarre .
“ They ’ re selling snake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s be honest , ” he said .
“ They ’ re raking in money by selling snake oil to , unfortunately , people who have a lot of clout.
” Ellory ’ s is not the only training program found among the BlueLeaks documents that sells questionable science to law enforcement .
There ’ s a California-based group that has provided training in neurolinguistic programming , which teaches that deception can be detected by tracking eye movements , a theory that has been widely discredited .
And there ’ s a suite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Institute and Spotting Lies , outfits headed by Steven Rhoads — a former police chief , current sheriff ’ s department investigator , and retired Christian rodeo clown .
The leaked documents indicate that Rhoads ’ s group has provided a number of trainings over the last decade for law enforcement across the country , including individuals from the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement .
The trainings feature lessons in how body language — including “ facial gestures and human emotions , ” “ eye movement and gaze behavior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ torso ” — can be used in interrogations and reveals not only deception but danger for officers .
“ As a very general rule of thumb the left side of the body is more apt to reveal known deception than is the right side of the body , ” reads material for a 2018 training called “ Subconscious Communication for Detecting Danger , ” found in files connected to the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center .
Leo says the subconscious communication training is disturbing .
“ I mean , anything can be said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ So the cops can just make it up .
It ’ s not based on any research.
” And Kukucka finds the documents related to detecting danger particularly troubling .
“ I would be very concerned that the context of those trainings would just exacerbate the implicit , especially racial , biases that already exist , ” he said .
“ We know from very clever shooting simulation research that people already hold an implicit bias where their reaction time in shooting unarmed black individuals is faster .
So I would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cues that they ’ re teaching people to look for are those same cues perceived as threatening in black individuals and not in white individuals , for example.
” Rhoads says he ’ s been teaching interrogation techniques for more than four decades .
“ I ’ m still a police officer and use it regularly , ” he said .
“ The techniques I ’ m teaching work extremely well.
” That includes focusing on behavioral cues — including eye movements , like the ones used in neurolinguistic programming .
Rhoads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science , said he was one of the “ original researchers ” into eye movements back in the ’ 70s , which he ’ s been able to prove are “ 98 percent accurate in determining deception.
” But he agrees that researchers are correct to say that you can ’ t just go into an interview and immediately rely on nonverbal cues to determine deception .
Rather , he said , you first have to establish a “ baseline ” for a person before you can infer deception from their behavior or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this with high accuracy , usually after asking no more than 20 questions .
Rhoads dismissed the idea that things in a person ’ s life that an interrogator wouldn ’ t know — like their cultural norms or past interactions with law enforcement — might influence their behavior during an interview or interrogation .
He said his approach for establishing a baseline is similar to what a polygrapher does by measuring physiological responses .
“ It ’ s the same science that the polygraph is based on except this is strictly based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ factors.
” Of course , polygraph results are generally inadmissible in court precisely because they ’ re unreliable .
The approaches that seem to work better to determine whether a person is being deceptive , Kuckuka said , “ are the ones where the interviewer takes the initiative to be an active participant in the interview and questions a person in a way that draws out things that are diagnostic.
” Kuckuka said he ’ d love to see the research that demonstrates Rhoads ’ s claim of over 90 percent accuracy with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just “ astronomically higher than anything that any study has ever found.
” In the end , he said , resolving the conflicting claims between trainers like Rhoads and Ellory and researchers like himself should be easy .
“ If you can do this , prove it .
That ’ s really what it boils down to , ” he said .
“ If you can get 98 percent accuracy with whatever technique you ’ re using , and you can prove to the scientific community that you can actually do this : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money at you , and B , we will all gladly be the first to say , ‘ You know what ?
We were wrong , you were right.
’ ” Although there are dozens of documents related to deception detection and interrogation trainings by Ellory , Rhoads , and others , the single largest number of documents on the topic that The Intercept identified are for trainings by John E. Reid and Associates , purveyors of the so-called Reid technique .
Essentially the granddaddy of interrogation methods , the Reid technique replaced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not employ physical torture , it is nonetheless controversial in its approach , which scholars agree has led to false confessions — a persistent problem in the criminal justice system .
Roughly 12 percent of the 2,654 exonerations since 1989 involved a false confession , according to the National Registry of Exonerations .
Of those who were wrongly convicted of murder and later cleared by DNA , 62 percent had confessed , reports the Innocence Project .
The Reid technique is guilt-presumptive , confrontational , and includes an emphasis on nonverbal behaviors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a confrontation , ” Drizin said .
“ The police officers have conducted an investigation , and there ’ s no question in their mind that you were the person who committed the crime.
” Interrogators will often lie about evidence linking a person to the crime .
“ Props are used : big , thick files filled with paper .
Claims of DNA or other evidence .
Every time the suspect asserts their innocence … they are interrupted and redirected to the idea that they ’ re guilty.
” Reid interrogators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the crime in a way that makes a confession more likely — offering sympathy , downplaying the severity of the offense , or offering an excuse for it , like you didn ’ t know what you were doing because you were drunk .
It ’ s “ a justification or an excuse that operates as an implied promise of leniency , ” said Drizin .
“ Over time , the message that resistance is futile begins to carry more weight .
And then the suspects will agree to confess.
” Joseph Buckley @ @ @ @ @ @ @ takes exception to the criticisms heaped on the technique by academics and lawyers and insists that it is supported by science .
In response to a series of emailed questions , Buckley directed me to the company ’ s YouTube channel and a paper he wrote that seeks to clarify what the company calls “ misrepresentations ” about the practice , though many of them read like distinctions without a difference .
Consider the clarification regarding nonverbal cues .
Like Rhoads , Buckley says they shouldn ’ t be used on their own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in context .
He offers an example .
Say a suspect is asked if he ’ s ever stolen from his employer .
Yes , the suspect says , as he “ crosses his legs , looks down at the floor , and dusts his shirt sleeve , ” a couple years ago he stole from the hardware store where he worked .
But what if a suspect is asked directly , did you steal that missing $ 2,500 ?
His response — as he crosses his legs , looks at the floor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No , I did not.
” “ These two subjects displayed identical paralinguistic and nonverbal behaviors during their responses , ” Buckley wrote .
“ However , the interpretation of the behaviors is completely different.
” In the first example , the guy is “ telling the truth , but he feels embarrassed and possibly even threatened in revealing his prior theft.
” But in the second example , the “ verbal content … does not explain the accompanying nonverbal behaviors , so the investigator should consider these behaviors as reflecting possible fear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be considered appropriate from a truthful subject.
” A 2018 flyer for a four-day Reid training in Austin , Texas , specifically talks about teaching investigators to read behavioral cues — “ the verbal and nonverbal behavior symptoms that are displayed by a person who is telling the truth during a non-accusatory interview , as well as those displayed by a person who is withholding or fabricating relevant information , ” including “ posture changes , ” “ grooming , ” and “ eye contact.
” On days three and four , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ beginning with how to initiate the confrontation ; develop the interrogational theme ; stop denials ; overcome objections ” and ask questions to “ stimulate the admission.
” Though Reid still dominates the market , there are encouraging signs that may be changing .
In 2017 , the police-training equivalent of a bomb dropped when Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates , one of the country ’ s leading law enforcement training organizations , announced that it would no longer teach the Reid technique because of the risk of false confessions .
“ Confrontation is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information , ” Shane Sturman , the company ’ s president and CEO , told the Marshall Project .
“ This was a big move for us , but it ’ s a decision that ’ s been coming for quite some time .
More and more of our law enforcement clients have asked us to remove it from their training based on all the academic research showing other interrogation styles to be much less risky.
” While science doesn ’ t support the efficacy of subconscious communication techniques , lie detection , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is ample research to support a different approach : one that is decidedly nonconfrontational , encourages open conversation , and emphasizes rapport-building .
Support for this approach in the U.S. comes in part through the work of the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group , a federally funded interagency effort created by the Obama administration as a means of “ advancing the science and practice of interrogation ” — and to end Bush-era torture practices against terrorism suspects .
The group , known as the HIG , also funded research to develop the science of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found that police in the U.S. regularly employ poor interview techniques that either reduce the amount of information elicited or entice subjects … to provide incorrect information , ” reads a 2016 HIG report .
( The HIG was basically abandoned by the Trump administration . )
Increased research in the field , including what has come out of the HIG , “ has been paramount , ” said Dave Thompson , partner and vice president of operations at Wicklander-Zulawski .
Actually , he says , the research has always been there , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ embraced by practitioners .
“ We ’ ve got a lot of these companies that are teaching police practices , regardless of what they are , but they ’ re teaching it off of being police officers for 30 years .
And then you have a lot of academics who are running studies and coming up with great research results but have never been in a practitioner environment .
So , I think the really important revolution we ’ ve had the last few years is the practitioner and the academic working together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ applying research in a practical setting.
” Thompson says that ’ s what his company is trying to do in moving away from what he calls “ traditional ” interrogation methods .
If the practices that research finds are effective aren ’ t being incorporated “ into what law enforcement ’ s being trained , ” said Thompson , “ then we ’ re headed in the wrong direction.
” There is some suggestion within the BlueLeaks files that newer methods of interrogation might be seeping in , albeit slowly .
The documents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a modern way of interviewing suspects , victims and witnesses that is highly effective and in harmony with the latest research.
” The training was organized by the San Mateo County , California , Sheriff ’ s Office in March .
“ You might have heard those ‘ old-school ’ interview techniques have been shown to cause false confessions ( Yikes ! )
, ” it reads .
“ You ’ ve probably been frustrated and thought there ought to be a better way .
Well , now there is .
”

The training session was billed as “cutting edge,” and dozens of law enforcement professionals signed up to learn about “New Tools for Detecting Deception” from a human lie detector who calls herself “Eyes for Lies.” Her real name is Renee Ellory, and she claims that she’s one of just 50 people identified by scientists as having the ability to spot deception “with exceptional accuracy.”
A flyer for the event, hosted by Wisconsin’s High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area — a federal program that supports law enforcement drug interdiction work — was included among a trove of law enforcement documents that were hacked and posted online in June under the title BlueLeaks. The promo copy leans heavily into Ellory’s skill at ferreting out deception in others. She is “exceptional at pinpointing a liar and can tell you why she doesn’t trust someone on the spot,” it reads. Training participants would learn how to “identify anger, contempt, and disgust before words are even spoken.” Course objectives were broad: Learn to differentiate between “real” and “fake emotional displays”; “recognize hidden emotions”; identify the “ways our subconscious brain leaks information when we lie”; “analyze body language that indicates deception”; gain tips to use when interviewing a psychopath; “identify the key features of expressions that reveal danger for you!”
Participants spanned the law enforcement spectrum and included the chief of a small police department, corrections officers, university cops, state troopers, various members of the Milwaukee Police Department as well as individuals from the U.S. Probation Office and the FBI. In surveys filled out after the training, which took place in November 2015, the common complaint was that there weren’t enough structured breaks; as one participant put it, “the mind can only absorb what the buttocks can tolerate.” But otherwise, a majority of the 82 respondents gave the training high marks. Participants wrote that they would incorporate what they’d learned into their police work. A number of them said the most valuable thing they learned was “the seven universal facial expressions that all people have all over the world as a good indicator” of lying, as one trainee put it.
It might seem reassuring that so many law enforcement officers found a skills training so valuable. But not in this case. That’s because Ellory’s lie detection training is based what many psychologists say are largely discredited theories, if not simply junk science. “It’s completely bogus,” said Jeff Kukucka, an assistant professor of psychology and law at Towson University who studies forensic confirmation bias, interrogations, and false confessions. “And what’s maybe more alarming about it … is that this isn’t new. We’ve known for quite a while that this stuff doesn’t work, but it’s still being peddled as if it does.”
The BlueLeaks documents contain numerous flyers for trainings offered to police agencies across the country. Many of them promote methods of interviewing and interrogation, lie detection, and detecting “danger,” such as Ellory’s, that rest on unsteady scientific ground and have been linked to false confessions and wrongful convictions. The documents offer a window into how various training methods perpetuate myths — subjective, hunch-based approaches to interpreting human behavior that are unreliable and have been discredited by leading psychologists — that police are then encouraged to use in crime solving.
The documents offer a window into how various training methods perpetuate myths that police are then encouraged to use in crime solving.
The search for a foolproof method of lie detection has a “long history,” said Richard Leo, a professor of law and psychology at the University of San Francisco School of Law and an expert on interrogation practices. “The search for some way to be able to read body language, demeanor, vocal pitch, gestures and then infer with a high degree of accuracy whether someone is telling the truth.” It just doesn’t exist, he said. He likens many of the claims about human lie detection to claims of psychic ability. “This reminds me of psychics and the lottery. If there was a psychic and they could see what the lottery numbers are, that would just be gold, right? Why wouldn’t they win $400 million when the Powerball is up there?”
As the country has become increasingly focused on police reform in the wake of George Floyd’s killing by Minneapolis cops, experts say the movement should include reforms to the way police are trained to interview and interrogate suspects, witnesses, and victims to ensure they’re grounded in best practices supported by science. “Part of the distrust that you see between law enforcement and minority communities stems from the way that suspects, witnesses, victims, and family members are treated by detectives during the course of an investigation,” said Steven Drizin, co-director of the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law, who studies false confessions. Law enforcement training that isn’t based in science “just furthers the deterioration of the relationship between case officers and people in the community.”
Photo illustration: The Intercept, Getty Images
Dumb Luck
In addition to Wisconsin’s HIDTA, police agencies in California, Georgia, Nevada, and Texas have promoted Ellory’s trainings, according to flyers found within the BlueLeaks files. One flyer boasts that Ellory has trained law enforcement in the “largest U.S. cities,” including “New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, San Antonio, Washington, D.C., Atlanta, Honolulu, Las Vegas, Reno, Key West — just to name a few.” In an email to The Intercept, Ellory said she has been training as Eyes for Lies since 2009 and estimates she’s reached between 2,500 and 3,000 law enforcement officers.
The problem is that what she’s teaching them has been widely discredited — an assertion Ellory vehemently denies. According to Ellory, she was one of 50 individuals identified as an “expert in deception” as part of the so-called Wizards Project, run by researchers associated with Paul Ekman, a professor at the University of California, San Francisco. The researchers studied thousands of people — from CIA and Secret Service agents to regular folks — to see who could best detect behavior associated with deception, a practice that relies heavily on the idea of universal facial expressions and so-called microexpressions that last mere fractions of a second. Ellory’s trainings rely on the validity of both concepts.
While the theory of universal expressions dates back to Charles Darwin, research has been mixed, and Ekman’s work in this area has been repeatedly challenged by scientists in recent years as unreliable, in part because of methodological issues.
Where microexpressions are concerned — also an area of Ekman’s studies — subsequent research has found them “rare and nondiagnostic,” Kukucka said, and that training individuals to see them doesn’t actually work.
Ultimately, Kukucka said, the individuals Ekman identified as exceptional human lie detectors were simply a result of chance. With the Wizards Project, the idea was to test thousands of people to identify those who scored “unusually” high on a lie detection test, Kukucka said. Out of 15,000 people, “they found 50 who were unusually good. And they thought maybe from those people’s knowledge they could reverse engineer — OK, well, what are these people doing that’s working? And then use that to figure out what actually works,” he explained. “The problem with that is, it’s a total artifact of just having a bunch of people and how probability works. If you flip 15,000 coins 10 times, you’re going to get a couple that come up heads all 10 times, but there’s really nothing different about those coins than any of the other coins, just dumb luck.”
Indeed, years of research has demonstrated that behavioral cues — like eye-blinking, arm-crossing, a voice rising or dropping in pitch — are simply not reliable indicators of deception. “A lot of ‘police science’ is really pseudoscience,” Drizin said. “Police officers do believe that they’re able to detect liars from truth-tellers at much higher rates that you and I are. And that’s just been proven not to be the case.” In fact, research has found that the odds of a person detecting deception in another are really no better than chance, and that while those who’ve been trained to do so feel more confident in their conclusions, they’re no more competent. “When police are trained in this false and misleading stuff, they become more confident, so they become more prone to error,” said Leo. “It’s just this loop, this dangerous loop.”
In an email exchange, Ellory first wrote that she wouldn’t have time to explain things to me unless I took one of her courses — her “master class” is currently priced at $1,950 per person — but then noted that she’s not “actively doing” classes right now.
In a subsequent email, she defended her trainings as being rooted in science but wrote that as a “rare expert,” she’s used to people not understanding that. “I find at times with my gift, it’s akin to seeing color in a world where other people live in a colorblind world. Seeing color is ‘real’ but trying to convince a color blind person color exists is nearly impossible,” she wrote. “I tell people in my classes what I teach will be common knowledge in 100 years, but we are still in the dark ages when it comes to understanding human behavior and deception,” she continued. “At a point, I learned, I can’t change the world alone. But I can educate those who are open to learning and they have thanked me endlessly.”
When asked whether it is appropriate to be training law enforcement officers who have power over individual liberty to use scientifically unproven techniques, Ellory retorted that she was “scientifically validated” by Ekman’s research. “I don’t need to reprove it to anyone.”
“You are saying that I shouldn’t teach because I can’t make people like me? Does that mean that Nobel prize winners, acclaimed scientists and researchers who achieve great things shouldn’t teach other people because other people may not reach the same success?” she asked. “Like Lance Armstrong should never coach because he could sustain a heart of 32 beats per minute and consume freakishly low oxygen, but others can’t — so it’s useless?”
“I don’t get that reasoning on any level,” she wrote. “I have insight into human behavior that most people have never considered, don’t understand and when I share it with them through demonstration and example it changes their world for the better. I don’t teach interrogation techniques. I teach people how to seek and find the truth.”
Kukucka called Ellory’s response bizarre. “They’re selling snake oil. I mean, let’s be honest,” he said. “They’re raking in money by selling snake oil to, unfortunately, people who have a lot of clout.”
Ellory’s is not the only training program found among the BlueLeaks documents that sells questionable science to law enforcement. There’s a California-based group that has provided training in neurolinguistic programming, which teaches that deception can be detected by tracking eye movements, a theory that has been widely discredited. And there’s a suite of programs from the Subconscious Communication Training Institute and Spotting Lies, outfits headed by Steven Rhoads — a former police chief, current sheriff’s department investigator, and retired Christian rodeo clown.
The leaked documents indicate that Rhoads’s group has provided a number of trainings over the last decade for law enforcement across the country, including individuals from the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The trainings feature lessons in how body language — including “facial gestures and human emotions,” “eye movement and gaze behavior,” and “gestures involving the torso” — can be used in interrogations and reveals not only deception but danger for officers. “As a very general rule of thumb the left side of the body is more apt to reveal known deception than is the right side of the body,” reads material for a 2018 training called “Subconscious Communication for Detecting Danger,” found in files connected to the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center.
Leo says the subconscious communication training is disturbing. “I mean, anything can be said to be subconscious,” he said. “So the cops can just make it up. It’s not based on any research.”
And Kukucka finds the documents related to detecting danger particularly troubling. “I would be very concerned that the context of those trainings would just exacerbate the implicit, especially racial, biases that already exist,” he said. “We know from very clever shooting simulation research that people already hold an implicit bias where their reaction time in shooting unarmed black individuals is faster. So I would wonder from a training like that, the cues that they’re teaching people to look for are those same cues perceived as threatening in black individuals and not in white individuals, for example.”
Rhoads says he’s been teaching interrogation techniques for more than four decades. “I’m still a police officer and use it regularly,” he said. “The techniques I’m teaching work extremely well.” That includes focusing on behavioral cues — including eye movements, like the ones used in neurolinguistic programming. Rhoads, who has a doctorate in behavioral science, said he was one of the “original researchers” into eye movements back in the ’70s, which he’s been able to prove are “98 percent accurate in determining deception.”
But he agrees that researchers are correct to say that you can’t just go into an interview and immediately rely on nonverbal cues to determine deception. Rather, he said, you first have to establish a “baseline” for a person before you can infer deception from their behavior or speech. He says he can do this with high accuracy, usually after asking no more than 20 questions.
Rhoads dismissed the idea that things in a person’s life that an interrogator wouldn’t know — like their cultural norms or past interactions with law enforcement — might influence their behavior during an interview or interrogation. He said his approach for establishing a baseline is similar to what a polygrapher does by measuring physiological responses. “It’s the same science that the polygraph is based on except this is strictly based on verbal and nonverbal leakage versus physiological factors.” Of course, polygraph results are generally inadmissible in court precisely because they’re unreliable.
The approaches that seem to work better to determine whether a person is being deceptive, Kukucka said, “are the ones where the interviewer takes the initiative to be an active participant in the interview and questions a person in a way that draws out things that are diagnostic.” Kukucka said he’d love to see the research that demonstrates Rhoads’s claim of over 90 percent accuracy with his techniques, which he says is just “astronomically higher than anything that any study has ever found.”
In the end, he said, resolving the conflicting claims between trainers like Rhoads and Ellory and researchers like himself should be easy. “If you can do this, prove it. That’s really what it boils down to,” he said. “If you can get 98 percent accuracy with whatever technique you’re using, and you can prove to the scientific community that you can actually do this: A, people are going to throw money at you, and B, we will all gladly be the first to say, ‘You know what? We were wrong, you were right.’”
Photo illustration: The Intercept, Getty Images
Resistance Is Futile
Although there are dozens of documents related to deception detection and interrogation trainings by Ellory, Rhoads, and others, the single largest number of documents on the topic that The Intercept identified are for trainings by John E. Reid and Associates, purveyors of the so-called Reid technique. Essentially the granddaddy of interrogation methods, the Reid technique replaced the third degree, and while it does not employ physical torture, it is nonetheless controversial in its approach, which scholars agree has led to false confessions — a persistent problem in the criminal justice system. Roughly 12 percent of the 2,654 exonerations since 1989 involved a false confession, according to the National Registry of Exonerations. Of those who were wrongly convicted of murder and later cleared by DNA, 62 percent had confessed, reports the Innocence Project.
The Reid technique is guilt-presumptive, confrontational, and includes an emphasis on nonverbal behaviors. “It begins with an accusation, a confrontation,” Drizin said. “The police officers have conducted an investigation, and there’s no question in their mind that you were the person who committed the crime.” Interrogators will often lie about evidence linking a person to the crime. “Props are used: big, thick files filled with paper. Claims of DNA or other evidence. Every time the suspect asserts their innocence … they are interrupted and redirected to the idea that they’re guilty.” Reid interrogators also use “themes,” minimizing the crime in a way that makes a confession more likely — offering sympathy, downplaying the severity of the offense, or offering an excuse for it, like you didn’t know what you were doing because you were drunk. It’s “a justification or an excuse that operates as an implied promise of leniency,” said Drizin. “Over time, the message that resistance is futile begins to carry more weight. And then the suspects will agree to confess.”
“Over time, the message that resistance is futile begins to carry more weight. And then the suspects will agree to confess.”
Joseph Buckley, president of Reid and Associates, takes exception to the criticisms heaped on the technique by academics and lawyers and insists that it is supported by science. In response to a series of emailed questions, Buckley directed me to the company’s YouTube channel and a paper he wrote that seeks to clarify what the company calls “misrepresentations” about the practice, though many of them read like distinctions without a difference.
Consider the clarification regarding nonverbal cues. Like Rhoads, Buckley says they shouldn’t be used on their own as an indication of deception, only in context. He offers an example. Say a suspect is asked if he’s ever stolen from his employer. Yes, the suspect says, as he “crosses his legs, looks down at the floor, and dusts his shirt sleeve,” a couple years ago he stole from the hardware store where he worked. But what if a suspect is asked directly, did you steal that missing $2,500? His response — as he crosses his legs, looks at the floor, and dusts his sleeve: “No, I did not.”
“These two subjects displayed identical paralinguistic and nonverbal behaviors during their responses,” Buckley wrote. “However, the interpretation of the behaviors is completely different.” In the first example, the guy is “telling the truth, but he feels embarrassed and possibly even threatened in revealing his prior theft.” But in the second example, the “verbal content … does not explain the accompanying nonverbal behaviors, so the investigator should consider these behaviors as reflecting possible fear or conflict — emotional states that would not be considered appropriate from a truthful subject.”
A 2018 flyer for a four-day Reid training in Austin, Texas, specifically talks about teaching investigators to read behavioral cues — “the verbal and nonverbal behavior symptoms that are displayed by a person who is telling the truth during a non-accusatory interview, as well as those displayed by a person who is withholding or fabricating relevant information,” including “posture changes,” “grooming,” and “eye contact.” On days three and four, the training covers the interrogation process, “beginning with how to initiate the confrontation; develop the interrogational theme; stop denials; overcome objections” and ask questions to “stimulate the admission.”
Building Rapport
Though Reid still dominates the market, there are encouraging signs that may be changing. In 2017, the police-training equivalent of a bomb dropped when Wicklander-Zulawski & Associates, one of the country’s leading law enforcement training organizations, announced that it would no longer teach the Reid technique because of the risk of false confessions. “Confrontation is not an effective way of getting truthful information,” Shane Sturman, the company’s president and CEO, told the Marshall Project. “This was a big move for us, but it’s a decision that’s been coming for quite some time. More and more of our law enforcement clients have asked us to remove it from their training based on all the academic research showing other interrogation styles to be much less risky.”
While science doesn’t support the efficacy of subconscious communication techniques, lie detection, or even the Reid technique, there is ample research to support a different approach: one that is decidedly nonconfrontational, encourages open conversation, and emphasizes rapport-building. Support for this approach in the U.S. comes in part through the work of the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, a federally funded interagency effort created by the Obama administration as a means of “advancing the science and practice of interrogation” — and to end Bush-era torture practices against terrorism suspects. The group, known as the HIG, also funded research to develop the science of police interrogation. “Empirical observations have found that police in the U.S. regularly employ poor interview techniques that either reduce the amount of information elicited or entice subjects … to provide incorrect information,” reads a 2016 HIG report. (The HIG was basically abandoned by the Trump administration.)
Increased research in the field, including what has come out of the HIG, “has been paramount,” said Dave Thompson, partner and vice president of operations at Wicklander-Zulawski. Actually, he says, the research has always been there, it just hasn’t always been embraced by practitioners. “We’ve got a lot of these companies that are teaching police practices, regardless of what they are, but they’re teaching it off of being police officers for 30 years. And then you have a lot of academics who are running studies and coming up with great research results but have never been in a practitioner environment. So, I think the really important revolution we’ve had the last few years is the practitioner and the academic working together to make sure that we’re applying research in a practical setting.” Thompson says that’s what his company is trying to do in moving away from what he calls “traditional” interrogation methods.
If the practices that research finds are effective aren’t being incorporated “into what law enforcement’s being trained,” said Thompson, “then we’re headed in the wrong direction.”
There is some suggestion within the BlueLeaks files that newer methods of interrogation might be seeping in, albeit slowly. The documents include at least one flyer from the Savage Training Group advertising “a modern way of interviewing suspects, victims and witnesses that is highly effective and in harmony with the latest research.” The training was organized by the San Mateo County, California, Sheriff’s Office in March. “You might have heard those ‘old-school’ interview techniques have been shown to cause false confessions (Yikes!),” it reads. “You’ve probably been frustrated and thought there ought to be a better way. Well, now there is.”


theintercept--2020-08-12--Trump’s CFPB Deploys Predatory Lenders as First Responders to Pandemic

Kathy Kraninger was being called to account for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ’ s failure to protect consumers during the coronavirus pandemic .
In separate House and Senate hearings , committee members levied their sharpest criticisms against the agency ’ s plan to deregulate small-dollar lending by repealing key consumer protections on predatory products like payday and auto title loans .
The final rule decided on by the agency tore out the heart of the policy by rescinding provisions that required lenders to assess a borrower ’ s ability to repay their loan .
On July 30 , Chair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Financial Services hearing with a frustrate and ominous message : “ I would like to welcome Director Kraninger to what I hope will be her last appearance before this committee as CFPB director.
” Small-dollar lenders , such as Speedy Cash and TitleMax , intentionally design high-cost , low-quality products to make it almost impossible for borrowers to repay their loans under the original terms .
Finance fees and average annual interest rates of 400 percent prevent most borrowers from repaying payday loans in full , with borrowers ending up in debt five @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was deceptively marketed as a two-week loan .
Other loans within this industry are just as harmful .
Ninety percent of auto title loans are re-borrowed , and 20 percent of borrowers have their vehicles repossessed .
This rule makes it easier for lenders to trap borrowers in cycles of debt .
Payday lenders are well known for taking advantage of the precarious conditions experienced by working-class and poor people — and which disproportionately affect Black and brown people .
The average loan amount borrowed from a storefront payday lender is about $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lenders profit primarily from unpredictable crises such as a pay cut or medical emergency , a majority of borrowers — 69 percent — rely on payday loans to cover recurring expenses .
People use these higher-cost loans to live day-to-day : buying groceries , paying bills , and making their rent or mortgage payments .
The CFPB ’ s rule makes this form of racial capitalism even more punishing by paving the way for predatory lenders to prey on marginalized borrowers and extract lucrative profits .
The economic stimulus payments that Congress approved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people make it through the early months of the pandemic , and new applications for small-dollar loans declined during March and April .
Now , with Congress ’ s failure to extend benefits , loan applications are rising steadily along with eviction fears , job losses , and coronavirus infection and death rates .
In one survey , 36 percent of lower-income households applied for some type of small-dollar loan in June and July .
Black and brown households applied for these loans at a rate three times higher than did white households @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Committee on Financial Services hearing , Illinois Rep. Jesús “ Chuy ” García described CFPB ’ s final rule as a scary example of how the agency is working on behalf of predatory lenders instead of consumers .
“ I represent a working-class , immigrant district .
There are a lot of payday lenders in my district , ” said García .
“ My community was hit hard by the last crisis and many people never recovered .
… That ’ s why the CFPB was established during the last crisis to give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chicago , their own voice .
… But that ’ s not what we see from watching the bureau today.
” first revealed its proposed rule to regulate the small-dollar lending industry at a 2016 field hearing in Kansas City , Missouri .
Up to that point , regulators had allowed the industry to escape federal oversight .
Then-Director Richard Cordray , an Obama appointee , had led the agency in conducting extensive research on the industry ’ s harms to borrowers .
The CFPB ’ s decision to reveal its proposed rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Kansas City and its white , wealthy suburbs were swimming with payday and other small-dollar lenders hungry for people ’ s money .
Lenders sold payday loans with 1,000-percent interest rates nationwide out of their call center based in Overland Park , and local investors helped bankroll these lenders .
A multibillion-dollar payday lending enterprise overseen by a man named Scott Tucker was located just a few miles away in Leawood , with businesses that had names like Cash Advance and OneClickCash .
Tucker put together the seed funding for his payday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same time as the industry ’ s rapid nationwide expansion .
By his early 30s , he had already developed several financial schemes and defrauded investors out of $ 100,000 — credentials he used to pitch investors .
Tucker grew his payday lending business into a nationwide enterprise over the next few decades .
He worked hard to keep his illegal enterprise under the radar , including paying off local officials through campaign donations , creating a near-impenetrable multistate maze of shell companies , using the internet to expand his business , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
His relationships with payday lenders were hard to pin down .
Tucker had succeeded in keeping his name out of states ’ earlier lawsuits against the payday lenders from which he was profiting , including in Colorado , Kansas , Nevada , North Carolina , Oklahoma , and Washington .

On July 30, Chair Maxine Waters opened the House Committee on Financial Services hearing with a frustrated and ominous message: “I would like to welcome Director Kraninger to what I hope will be her last appearance before this committee as CFPB director.”
Kathy Kraninger was being called to account for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s failure to protect consumers during the coronavirus pandemic. In separate House and Senate hearings, committee members levied their sharpest criticisms against the agency’s plan to deregulate small-dollar lending by repealing key consumer protections on predatory products like payday and auto title loans. The final rule decided on by the agency tore out the heart of the policy by rescinding provisions that required lenders to assess a borrower’s ability to repay their loan.
Small-dollar lenders, such as Speedy Cash and TitleMax, intentionally design high-cost, low-quality products to make it almost impossible for borrowers to repay their loans under the original terms. Finance fees and average annual interest rates of 400 percent prevent most borrowers from repaying payday loans in full, with borrowers ending up in debt five months out of the year for what was deceptively marketed as a two-week loan. Other loans within this industry are just as harmful. Ninety percent of auto title loans are re-borrowed, and 20 percent of borrowers have their vehicles repossessed. This rule makes it easier for lenders to trap borrowers in cycles of debt.
Payday lenders are well known for taking advantage of the precarious conditions experienced by working-class and poor people — and which disproportionately affect Black and brown people. The average loan amount borrowed from a storefront payday lender is about $1,000. Contradicting the assumption that these lenders profit primarily from unpredictable crises such as a pay cut or medical emergency, a majority of borrowers — 69 percent — rely on payday loans to cover recurring expenses. People use these higher-cost loans to live day-to-day: buying groceries, paying bills, and making their rent or mortgage payments.
The CFPB’s rule makes this form of racial capitalism even more punishing by paving the way for predatory lenders to prey on marginalized borrowers and extract lucrative profits. The economic stimulus payments that Congress approved under the CARES Act appeared to help people make it through the early months of the pandemic, and new applications for small-dollar loans declined during March and April. Now, with Congress’s failure to extend benefits, loan applications are rising steadily along with eviction fears, job losses, and coronavirus infection and death rates. In one survey, 36 percent of lower-income households applied for some type of small-dollar loan in June and July. Black and brown households applied for these loans at a rate three times higher than did white households.
Near the end of the House Committee on Financial Services hearing, Illinois Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García described CFPB’s final rule as a scary example of how the agency is working on behalf of predatory lenders instead of consumers. “I represent a working-class, immigrant district. There are a lot of payday lenders in my district,” said García. “My community was hit hard by the last crisis and many people never recovered. … That’s why the CFPB was established during the last crisis to give ordinary people, like my neighbors in Chicago, their own voice. … But that’s not what we see from watching the bureau today.”
The CFPB first revealed its proposed rule to regulate the small-dollar lending industry at a 2016 field hearing in Kansas City, Missouri. Up to that point, regulators had allowed the industry to escape federal oversight. Then-Director Richard Cordray, an Obama appointee, had led the agency in conducting extensive research on the industry’s harms to borrowers.
The CFPB’s decision to reveal its proposed rule in Kansas City was far from random. Kansas City and its white, wealthy suburbs were swimming with payday and other small-dollar lenders hungry for people’s money. Lenders sold payday loans with 1,000-percent interest rates nationwide out of their call center based in Overland Park, and local investors helped bankroll these lenders.
A multibillion-dollar payday lending enterprise overseen by a man named Scott Tucker was located just a few miles away in Leawood, with businesses that had names like Cash Advance and OneClickCash. Tucker put together the seed funding for his payday lending business in the 1990s, about the same time as the industry’s rapid nationwide expansion. By his early 30s, he had already developed several financial schemes and defrauded investors out of $100,000 — credentials he used to pitch investors.
Tucker grew his payday lending business into a nationwide enterprise over the next few decades. He worked hard to keep his illegal enterprise under the radar, including paying off local officials through campaign donations, creating a near-impenetrable multistate maze of shell companies, using the internet to expand his business, and exploiting Native tribes for sovereign immunity. His relationships with payday lenders were hard to pin down. Tucker had succeeded in keeping his name out of states’ earlier lawsuits against the payday lenders from which he was profiting, including in Colorado, Kansas, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Washington.
A 2011 investigative report revealed the sources of Tucker’s wealth, publicly chaining him to the payday lenders whose affiliations he had worked so hard to suppress. The Federal Trade Commission filed suit against Tucker in 2012, and Tucker and his attorney were arrested on racketeering and other charges in 2016. Tucker was sentenced to 16 years in prison, and the FTC won their largest penalty at the time with a judgment for $1.3 billion in 2018. The FTC returned $505 million to the people Tucker had defrauded. The judge presiding over the decision estimated that Tucker had victimized 1 percent of the U.S. population through predatory loans and fraudulent activity.
Tucker wasn’t even the only person from Kansas City running a payday loan enterprise. Numerous Kansas City-area moguls have been sued in recent years, including Timothy Coppinger, Frampton T. Rowland, Richard Moseley Sr., Richard Moseley Jr., and Josh Landy. The initial rule stopped them from abusive practices, such as charging unaffordable payments that forced repeat borrowing and created debt traps.
Photo: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Trump was elected to the presidency a few months after the Kansas City field hearing. Since that time, his appointees, Interim Director Mick Mulvaney and current Director Kathy Kraninger, have hacked away at rule-making and used bureaucratic malaise to whittle away at the agency’s commitments to oversight and enforcement. One of Mulvaney’s first actions as interim director was to announce that the agency would reconsider the small-dollar lending rule. The Trump appointees even manipulated the agency’s research to make payday lenders appear less harmful. When the CFPB announced its final rule in July of this year, it hammered a nail into the coffin of the Cordray-era rule-making that steadfastly sought justice for borrowers defrauded by lenders like Tucker.
The CFPB announced the rule’s final fate as eviction moratoriums and expanded unemployment benefits were expiring — along with any remaining hope that America could rally the collective spirit needed to fight the coronavirus. Other federal regulators followed in lock step with the CFPB. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation subsequently announced proposed rules that would allow payday lenders to circumvent state interest rate caps. Moreover, Trump’s executive orders on payroll taxes and student loans defer payments instead of canceling them. By extending these payments into the future, Trump’s executive orders actually operate a lot like payday loans: taking advantage of people’s precarious conditions by offering immediate relief while their debts accumulate with no way of repaying them. Mutually reinforcing policy decisions effectively deploy predatory lenders and their 400-percent interest rates as first responders to the pandemic. Not willing to throw out life vests, Trump’s government encourages people to drown in debt.
Congress must act with urgency to protect borrowers from predatory lenders and to stave the flow of Black and brown income into white pockets, like Tucker’s. The Democrats’ HEROES Act, if passed, would initiate another round of economic stimulus payments that would likely reduce reliance on payday loans by giving people the money they need to live. Some states are stepping up in the CFPB’s absence. Policymakers in Virginia recently passed legislation to cap interest rates at 36 percent and ensure that borrowers can repay their loans. Wisconsin issued emergency guidance warning payday lenders not to raise interest rates and threatening to revoke licenses.
The House and Senate hearings provided a necessary public accounting of the CPFB. However, without federal intervention, people will have little choice but to rely on predatory lenders and their high-cost debt for surviving the pandemic. And they’ll have fewer protections, thanks to the CFPB’s final rule that promises to widen racial economic inequality during a pandemic instead of narrowing it.