JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
The Rise of White Nationalism in America
Opinion Editorial
By Erika Shannon
The recent attack on America’s Capitol has certainly confirmed what many have worried for a long time – that white supremacy is on the rise here in the U.S. With recent events, it can be seen that this is a fast-growing problem. These far-right extremists are often disillusioned Trump supporters who want nothing more than to create chaos and for Trump to remain in office, even though he lost the election fair and square. One of the problems is that we live in a world of social media heresy, where people are able to get others worked up with a few keystrokes and the click of a button. In fact, Facebook in particular is often used by right-wing extremists as a way to recruit, and sometimes train, new members. While social media websites attempt to take down groups or pages with white supremacist or extremist views for fear that they may be used to incite violence, it is impossible to make sure that people with these views do not find their way onto social media and share their hate-filled opinions. There are people who feel that occurrences like this are indicative of a free speech violation; however, it is legally up to websites to create their terms of use and handle violations as such. One thing that’s clear is that when people are given a platform to express hate, other like-minded individuals will find them; because of this, something must be done to ensure that they are unable to recruit new members or incite violence.
Trump Issues Pardons and Creates Nuisances for the Biden/Harris Team on his Way Out the Door
Brief #2—U.S. Resist Blog
By Sean Gray
Trump’s last days were marked by chaos, scandal and general ineptitude. Donald Trump’s swan song as a one term president has been unlike any before him. Self dealing and empty bombast have been the cornerstone of Trump’s political brand. With his tenure at an end, those chickens have come home to roost. Trump faces a second impeachment trial for his inciting role in the siege at the Capital.
Progress in Policing in 2020
Brief #4—Social Justice
By Laura Plummer
Two-thousand and twenty was a year defined by unprecedented hardship. A deadly global pandemic ravaged the country and crippled whole sectors of the economy. A contentious presidential election divided the nation, and killings of black and brown people by police officers sparked yearlong protests against police brutality.
The Black Lives Matter movement gained popular support last year as it exposed the systemic racism inherent in American policing. More than any previous year, communities started organizing to demand comprehensive police reform and to hold their leaders and elected officials accountable. The following list explores the progress achieved in policing in 2020 at the federal and state levels.
The Covid-era Classroom
Brief #52—Education
By Emily Carty
The “traditional” classroom is facing an identity crisis. As teachers throughout the country have turned to remote learning or modified in-person learning, the classroom as we know it is changing. With distancing in the classroom, learning on electronic devices, and everyone in masks, the physical attributes of a modern classroom will certainly be different at least until the pandemic subsides.
Damage Assessment Continues One Month After Massive Cyber Attack
Brief #31—Technology
By Charles A Rubin
In December 2020 Solarwinds, a major provider of computer network monitoring software, revealed that several of its servers that were used to distribute software updates to customers had been compromised. The servers had been routinely delivering altered code to computer networks throughout the US government and corporations that gave nefarious actors unfettered access to communications and internal systems. The malware created multiple “backdoors” that could be exploited in the future. Further, this compromise had gone undetected for several months. One month later the full extent of the intrusion is still not fully understood and the amount of information that has been exposed has not been completely assessed.
Retired Military Veteran, A “Shy Voter”
Brief #2—Americans on America
By Linda F Hersey
A rigged system that favored Democrat Joe Biden unseated President Donald Trump. That is the blunt assessment of Election 2020 by a Trump supporter so timid about candidly expressing views that he declined to give his name or other identifying information during an hour-long interview with U.S. Resist News about America’s values that quickly veered into politics.
Biden’s Plan for an Ailing Country
Brief #104—Economic
By Rosalind Gottfried
President elect Joe Biden’s 1.9 trillion dollar stimulus plan provides a comprehensive assault on what ails America and reinstates some of the controversial elements rejected by Republicans in the $900 billion December plan. Most notable is a reinstatement of 350 billion dollars to bolster state and local budgets suffering shortfalls largely attributable to the pandemic crisis. It also includes 400 billion dollars of pandemic aid to vaccinate Americans and open schools. Biden set a goal to vaccinate 100 million Americans in his first 100 days in office.
The Public Health System in the US: Does it Work?
Brief #91—Health & Gender
By Justin Lee
Newly inaugurated President Biden nominated Xavier Becerra to lead and be the next Secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The HHS is comprised of various public health and human services agencies and offices that provide guidance, oversee and regulate operations, and establish laws and regulations. Agencies like the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps (lead by the Surgeon General) all branch within the HHS.
Fixation on Fixtures; The Showerhead Rollbacks
Brief #106—Environment
By Shannon Q Elliot
President Trump has rolled back the Department of Energy’s (DOE) standards for consumer appliances.
Education in the time of Covid — Part 3 (Food and Nutrition)
America’s schools are first and foremost centers of education, but for millions of students and families they are much more. Schools are sources of nutritional foods, healthcare services, and many also act as a resource hub for various community support services. As the pandemic rages on educational centers are finding ways to maintain these functions despite a general strain on funding. Since the school year has commenced however, CARES Act, State, and local funding have been limited in their scope and ability to support the other functions of schools due to the budget measures that don’t account for decreased attendance or enrollment, and the challenges that come with the absence of in-person classes. This has left students and families unable to meet one of their most basic needs — nutritious and sufficient food.
The CARES Act offered funding for schools to provide lunch to all students throughout the summer, which had some success. Additionally, Bill H.R. 6201 (Families First Coronavirus Response Act), passed in March but previously set to expire September 30th, gave the USDA added flexibility for school lunch waiver programs — permitting meals to be picked up by parents, served outside the required group settings and times, allowing meals to be served at no cost to everyone, and waiving meal pattern requirements. Upon calls for an extension and a brief debate on who has authority to extend the waivers, the USDA has continued the flexible lunch waiver program until December 31st so that administrators have time to plan for the normal school-year food services whether they be back in the classroom or still remote. Once the new year begins however, the National School Lunch and Breakfast programs will revert to a less flexible model, which relies on students who pay for meals in full, requiring paperwork and eligibility to be verified, and having parents pick up meals from each student’s individual school, which can be a transportation burden for parents whose students are not attending school in-person. The logistics of planning school meal distribution outside of an entirely in-person school year take time, staff, and money, not to mention the time it takes to file paperwork, register eligible students and find new meals appropriate for grab-and-go systems.
In response to growing food insecurity for low-income families and the major burden schools face in addressing this alone, House Education and Labor Committee Chairman Robert C. “Bobby” Scott (D-Va.) proposed the Pandemic Child Hunger Prevention Act (Bill H.R. 7887) in late July. The bill states that all students get free meals for the entirety of the 20-21 school year. Similar to the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, this would extend the ability and funding for all public schools and non-profit educational centers to provide meals without determining eligibility or following the other Breakfast and Lunch program requirements. It would be critical in ensuring that the 30 million students who receive school food have easy access to meals whether or not they are going to classes in-person. With districts already strained due to fewer students paying for meals — in May, school food “program directors reported a median estimated loss of $200,000 per district…as much as $2.35 million in larger districts” — this bill would reduce administrative burdens and provide districts with more robust meal reimbursements so they can focus on instructional and reopening plans.
The extension of the USDA school food waiver program and the potential new legislature are good signs that our lawmakers are taking child hunger seriously. The current loss in meal reimbursement revenue and inability of districts to manage and pay for safety measures and Covid-compliant grab-and-go meals still leaves many behind. Districts across California are struggling to come up with funds for meals and staff to distribute or package them, despite there being a drop in demand. Many districts across the nation are now using state-allocated emergency funds, requesting money from FEMA, or calling on their city to distribute CARES Act discretionary funds to meal programs. While schools are scrambling to connect students with food, surveys indicate that families are still in need — about 17% of mothers with kids under 12 are cutting down on or skipping meals, and over 30% of families have cut spending for food due to lack of income.
Despite critics suggesting the universal free school meal programs are a drain on resources, they are a critical source of food for families out of work who just aren’t able to meet their needs through other aid programs. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) has provided families with increased benefits to account for the extra meals children are missing out on while they are distance learning. Nevertheless, the demand for grab-and-go meals and the survey results demonstrating that a large portion of families are not able to financially provide meals for their kids indicates that the SNAP programs and unemployment are not enough to keep kids full.
Until students are back in school and unemployment rates decrease, there will continue to be food insecurity for school-aged children, particularly affecting families of color. A more streamlined school meal distribution system, funding addressing school food, district collaboration with food banks or local non-profits, and multi-layered approaches to addressing food insecurities on the family and student level are key to keeping students adequately fed and their nutritional needs met so they have the best chances of succeeding in school.
Resistance Resources:
School Nutrition Association (SNA) Action Network — The SNA is a group of school nutrition professionals who advocate for policies and research topics related to school nutrition. Check out their Action Network website for a list of advocacy tools, from petitions to sign, to fill-in templates to send letters to your Congress Member, to resources for state school nutrition policy and grassroots organization.
Feeding America — An advocacy organization working to end hunger in America, Feeding America has an Action page that connects you to various resources to help end hunger for children and adults. See their page for fill-in templates to write to your congress people, petitions to sign, or food banks in your area to get connected with.
Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) — FRAC researches, analyzes and advocates for food security and healthy food for all. They have a breadth of research on the impact of school food and the National School Lunch Program. See their page to get connected with the agency that runs the program in your locality, connect with congress people, or get involved with their legislative action center.
Sources:
- Education Dive – Disagreement on USDA school meal waivers
- US GOV – USDA School Meal Reimbursement Rates
- Education Dive – Summer School Meals
- USDA – School Lunch Program Stats
- Hamilton Project – Covid School Food Stats
- The Hill – Universal School Meals Considerations
- US GOV – Families First Coronavirus Response Act
- Ed Source – California Struggles with Meal Funding
- Urban Institute – Covid Hunger Survey
- US GOV – Extending Free Meal Funding
Swing-State Races
As we continue to look back at key races in swing states we return to Florida, where we initially looked at a potential upset race in district 16. Democrat Margaret Good was facing a large uphill battle against incumbent Vern Buchanan, who is well-known for being the fifth most wealthy member of the House. Good has been pursuing a grassroots campaign that hasn’t been able to stand up to the large financial backing of Buchanan. In addition to this, district 16 has been known as a Republican county, so it isn’t remarkably surprising to see Buchanan take a strong polling lead. We expect Buchanan to regain this seat but for Florida to go blue in the presidential race.
Back in Michigan, the senate race between Democrat Gary Peters and Republican John James is just about decided, with Peters taking a strong lead in the past several months. FiveThirtyEight says that Peters will most likely win, with their recent data suggesting that Peters would win 81% of the time. Michigan is likely to go blue this election cycle, which is just proven with Peters’ likely win. We also think Joe Biden will win Michigan, albeit by a slightly closer margin than the senate race. Polling data says that Biden has an 8 point lead in the state, but we expect this to shrink to about 5 on election day. Regardless, it seems as though Michigan is on track to continue their blue wave.
In Pennsylvania, the Presidency is the main focus, as no senate races are being contested this year. The Presidency is a toss-up in Pennsylvania, which was one of the key states of last election, and many experts expect mail-in voting to be a large factor. Several counties in the state are already experiencing backlogs of mail-in ballot requests. Governor Tom Wolf signed an executive order in June that extended no-excuse mail-in balloting through the presidential election, and clearly PA residents are a fan, with a large number of ballot requests coming in from around the state, especially in cities like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. We think that Biden will narrowly win PA, given his recent surge in the polls. Although Trump surprisingly took PA last election, we expect that Biden will hold onto his close lead and take the state.
Wisconsin is another state that, although not having a senate race, is a key state in the Presidential battle. Recent polling suggests that Biden should eke out a narrow victory, but Trump has been known to have large support in rural and suburban areas, which Wisconsin is full of. A poll from August, conducted by OnMessage Inc, had the candidates even. However, since then, many polls have been released that give Biden a narrow lead, including several with double digit leads for Biden. We think the race will be closer than that, but not by much, as we expect a 6-10 point win for Biden in the hotly contested battleground.
We will continue battleground coverage leading up to the election as we now face the most important senate and presidential race in years, given the recent vacancy on the Supreme Court. Here at USResistNews we will continue to follow all these races and more.
Trump’s Obsession with TikTok – A Prelude to a Wider Crackdown?
Policy Summary
In an Executive Order issued on August 6, 2020, President Trump effectively ordered the sale or shutdown of US operations for the wildly popular video sharing site Tik Tok. Invoking national security concerns the President cited as rationale for this action:
TikTok automatically captures vast swaths of information from its users, including Internet and other network activity information such as location data and browsing and search histories. This data collection threatens to allow the Chinese Communist Party access to Americans’ personal and proprietary information — potentially allowing China to track the locations of Federal employees and contractors, build dossiers of personal information for blackmail, and conduct corporate espionage.
The executive order placed a deadline of September 20, 2020 for the sale. Microsoft, Oracle and Walmart were early players vying for the ownership of Tik Tok’s lucrative US operations. At the 11th hour, with regulators on both sides raising objections, a consortium of Walmart and Oracle, with the President’s approval, has emerged as the dominant player and the deadline for finalizing a deal has been extended. The changing scenario has left the millions of users who enjoy and rely on the service in limbo. The app, with over 200 million US users and over a billion participants worldwide,is one of the most popular smartphone apps of all time.
Analysis
For the uninitiated, Tik Tok is a smartphone based video sharing app that is most commonly known for sharing dance videos, music, instructional content and comedy among younger digital natives. Like all social media, however, it has been adopted for political organizing, educationall video and community building by all demographics. It was widely used for organizing in the recent Black Lives Matter demonstrations.
What makes Tik Tok different and places it on the Trump radar is that it is owned by the Chinese firm ByteDance Ltd. and Administration supporters claim the organization has close ties with the Chinese Communist Party. In this respect it is unique among the social media giants in that it is not a US based organization in the mold of Facebook, Twitter or Instagram – Trump’s favored platforms.
In reaction ByteDance has sued in the US to block the executive order arguing that putting it out of business without adequate notice and a fair chance to respond deprives it of its due-process rights in violation of the Constitution. Tik Tok has also denied its app represents a security threat and said that all US data is stored on US based servers and data is not shared with China. A potential deal with Oracle, which supplies database and cloud services could allay many security concerns.
Trump may have a particular animus towards this social media platform – it is widely credited as a prime factor in the poor turnout at Trump’s June campaign reboot rally in Tulsa.
To affect the banning of Tik Tok as well as the Chinese messaging app WeChat, the Trump Administration has convinced Apple and Google to remove the apps from their App stores. For Apple users this will effectively cut them off from access to new users and all upgrades to existing users. For owners of phones with the Android operating system,the application can still be installed and updated through other means. Administration pressure to ban a particular application sets a dangerous precedent and raises free speech concerns.
It should be noted that Larry Ellison, Oracle’s Chairman and cofounder is an ardent supporter of Trump and has raised money for the president. It’s Chief Executive Safra Catz served on Trump’s 2016 transition team.
“There is serious reason to believe that the executive orders concerning TikTok and WeChat are motivated at least in part by a desire to censor and not simply to preserve national security,” says entertainment and media litigator John-Paul Jassy in The Hollywood Reporter. Perhaps attacking Tik Tok is an opening salvo in a wider war on social media since the President can use his trade war with China as a smoke screen. Certainly the same concerns about data privacy and tracking can be levelled against the other major social media players.
Resistance Resources
- The Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) has filed a friend of the court brief in favor of Tik Tok
- Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor School of Law’s First Amendment Clinic is treating this case as a Freedom of Speech issue.
- The American Civil Liberties Union are opposed to the banning of Tik Tok and the Chinese messaging app WeChat
- The Brookings Institute has an extensive discussion of the administration of the ongoing trade tensions that this confrontation plays to.
The President moves to ban offshore drilling in parts of the Atlantic
Policy
Since 2016, President Donald Trump has made quite clear his intention to increase the amount of oil and gas drilling operations along the Atlantic and Arctic coastlines. He vowed upon his election to overturn the Obama era moratorium that has protected these waters and the tourism and fishing industries they support. In 2017, Trump ordered the Department of the Interior to lift restrictions the Obama administration had placed on drilling in the Atlantic and Arctic oceans, and to develop a plan to begin leasing out drilling rights in those waters to oil and gas companies. The following year, the Interior Department proposed a draft plan to begin selling offshore drilling leases in “90 percent of US coastal waterways.”
Several coastal states resisted the proposal, including Florida’s Governor at the time, republican Rick Scott. Later that year, in an unexpected change of heart, the Trump administration allowed Florida to opt out of the leasing plan, but none of the other states, which included New Jersey, Washington, and California (all considered Democratic strongholds). It is worth noting that this was a big win for Governor Scott who was running for a Senate seat that year against the Democratic incumbent, Bill Nelson; Scott narrowly defeated Nelson, landing another Republican in the Senate.
Earlier this month, on September 8, eight weeks before election day, President Donald Trump signed a memorandum to ban the sale of any new offshore drilling leases off the coasts of Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. This memorandum expands the protections of the already existing Obama era moratorium on new drilling leases in the Gulf of Mexico and extends the protections for ten years — July 1, 2022, to June 20, 2032. Drilling off the Atlantic coast has been a significant political issue for several states in the region, who fear the negative impact on their tourism and fishing industries, as well as other environmental threats. The new moratorium does not protect the coastlines of Virginia and North Carolina, both of which contain significant oil deposits, and both of which have democratic governors. Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina all have republican governors. Florida and Georgia are both key swing states in this year’s general election. Republican Senator of South Carolina, Lindsey Graham is also up for reelection, and is said to have helped draft the new moratorium.
Analysis
The President has taken the opportunity to praise himself as an environmental steward, proclaiming the title “the great environmentalist.” He spoke at an event in Jupiter, Florida, telling the people, “This protects your beautiful gulf and your beautiful ocean, and it will for a long time to come.” Environmental groups, however, are skeptical. The League of Conservation Voters, an environmental advocacy group, said in a statement, “If this was more than an election year ploy for Trump, we’d have seen a permanent ban on offshore drilling in his first four years.” Jaclyn Lopez, Director for the Florida chapter of the Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund, wrote in a statement, “Voters shouldn’t be duped by this cheap, last-minute maneuver. It can’t even begin to make up for the aggressive efforts to expand dirty offshore drilling since Trump’s been in office.”
Since Trump took office in 2016, he has rolled back numerous regulations that have been protecting our environment for years. He has sought to weaken or eliminate laws that limit the amount of pollution automobiles, pipelines, and power plants release into the air and water. The Environmental Protection Agency, under Trump’s direction, has removed federal protections for millions of acres of streams and wetlands across the country. Trump has shortened the amount of time allowed for studying the potential environmental damage from new highway and pipeline construction projects and has opened lands and waters to drilling and commercial fishing, that have been considered too fragile and too critical to the survival of biodiversity on this planet to be disturbed. The President even withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord, a global agreement to address the emission of heat-trapping greenhouse gases and strengthen the ability of countries to deal with the impacts of climate change.
Given Donald Trump’s track record on environment and climate policy, it is hard to believe that this is not a political move to appeal to swing voters in Florida and Georgia, and to boost Senator Lindsey Graham’s chances of reelection in November. The fact that only Republican-led states see any protections from this moratorium, further heightens this suspicion. Jamie Williams, President of the Wilderness Society, spoke of Donald Trump and his environmental stewardship, saying, “Trump is the worst President for the environment in our history. No amount of spin from this administration can hide its legacy of abuse, neglect and corruption that threatens our health and the health of our environment.”
Democratic Presidential Nominee Joe Biden has called out Trump for making an election-year flip-flop, writing, “Just months ago, Donald Trump was planning to allow oil and gas drilling off the coast of Florida. Now, with 56 days until the election, he conveniently says that he changed his mind. Unbelievable. You don’t have to guess where I stand: I oppose new offshore drilling.”
Resistance Resources
The Wilderness Society
- an American non-profit land conservation organization that is dedicated to protecting natural areas and federal public lands in the United States. They advocate for the designation of federal wilderness areas and other protective designations, such as for national monuments. https://www.wilderness.org/#
League of Conservation Voters
- Founded in 1970 by environmentalist Marion Edey (LCV) is an American environmental advocacy group that “advocates for sound environmental laws and policies, holds elected officials accountable for their votes and actions, and elects pro-environment candidates.” The organization pursues its goals through voter education, voter mobilization, and direct contributions to political candidates. https://www.lcv.org/
Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund
- The Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund is an affiliated, but separate, organization from the Center for Biological Diversity, a 501(c)(3) non-profit charity. As a 501(c)(4) social welfare non-profit organization, the Action Fund engages in advocacy and political activities that the Center for Biological Diversity cannot participate in. https://centeractionfund.org/
Sources Cited
Miller, Z., & Superville, D., Associated Press. (2020, September 09). Trump expands ban on new offshore drilling sites in Atlantic. Retrieved September 17, 2020, from https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Trump-claims-environmental-progress-but-he-s-15550171.php
Teirstein, Z. (2020, September 13). “No one knows where this came from”-Trump bans offshore drilling. Retrieved September 17, 2020, from https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2020/09/no-one-knows-where-this-came-from-trump-bans-offshore-drilling/
The Wilderness Society Blog. (2019, July 8). The facts on Trump’s terrible environmental record. Retrieved September 17, 2020, from https://www.wilderness.org/articles/blog/facts-trumps-terrible-environmental-record
Judge Issues Ruling On Use of Ballot Drop Boxes In Ohio’s Eighty – Eight Counties
Policy Summary: On September 15, 2020 Judge Richard A. Frey of the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, Ohio issued an opinion in the case Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose. That case was brought in response to the use of “ballot drop boxes” in each Ohio county.
Frank LaRose is the Ohio Secretary of State which puts him in charge of the conduct of elections in the State of Ohio. According to state law each Ohio county is required to provide one secure receptacle for the receipt of absentee ballots in each county. The ballot boxes are designed to only receive ballots and not other pieces of mail. The law also requires that the ballot boxes be monitored 24/7 and that ballots are to be retrieved jointly with at least one Republican and one Democratic board of elections member daily. With this framework of state law in place, Secretary of State LaRose issued Directive 2020-16 on August 12, 2020. The Directive was sent to every Ohio county board of elections and included a statement that read, “Boards of elections are prohibited from installing a drop box at any other location other than the board of elections.” The result of this directive was that each county in Ohio was limited to only having one ballot drop box per county. After the issuance of the directive the Ohio Democratic Party and a coalition of voting rights groups sued Secretary LaRose to challenge his directive that limited each county to only one ballot drop box. In his opinion Judge Frey struck down Directive 2020-16 and called the order limiting each county to one ballot drop box “arbitrary and unreasonable.” LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: The situation in Ohio is yet another feature in the ongoing national discussion about the use of absentee ballots to vote in the November 2020 election. While the discussion on the use of absentee ballots had been focused on claims of fraud, the accepted legal excuse to vote absentee and the technical requirements for a valid absentee ballot (use of affidavits, residency requirements for college students) this case is one that is focusing on the use of ballot drop boxes.
One argument on having more ballot drop boxes installed is because Ohio’s eighty – eight counties are different and only having one ballot drop box per county does not take into consideration population differences and distances that might have to be traveled just to reach the one ballot drop box. A rural county could probably handle having only one ballot drop box but larger urban areas might need more than one to handle absentee ballots that might come close to numbering in the millions. This is a very real possibility in the midst of an ongoing pandemic where people have been sheltering at home. And having only one ballot drop box might require some voters to commute as long as two hours just to drop their ballot in the designated drop box. By not installing more ballot drop boxes, Secretary LaRose’s Directive has made it burdensome and onerous for some voters to vote with their absentee ballot.
Voting should not be so cumbersome or complex but unfortunately this situation came down to partisan politics. Ohio has been and will likely be a swing state this November and that partisan divide was exposed over the issue of ballot drop boxes. Secretary LaRose is a Republican and his actions have been seen as voter suppression tactics despite claiming otherwise in a number of public pronouncements. He has claimed to not have legal authority to add additional boxes. Yet when the Attorney General of Ohio did not take a side on the state law the Secretary decided to stay with one ballot box per county when he could have issued the order for more ballot drop boxes. When the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections tried to install six more ballot boxes on their own in their county Secretary LaRose decided to step in and ordered the county to cease installing more ballot boxes. These actions gave the impression of a partisan motivation to help Republicans and their candidates in the state rather than helping all voters cast their ballots regardless of their political preference. With the issuance of Judge Frey’s order in the case it seems likely that Ohio can now proceed and help voters have their absentee ballots counted come November 2020. Although the issue might not be over as a lawsuit in federal district court in Pennsylvania has been placed on hold and a case in federal district court in Ohio is also ongoing. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
NPR’s 2020 Election: Secure Your Vote Series – latest article on usage of ballot drop boxes from National Public Radio’s special 2020 Voting Rights series.
Election Assistance Commission (EAC) – infopage on guidelines the Election Assistance Commission recommends on the use of ballot drop boxes.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
US Relations with Latin American and The 2019 Bolivian Coup d’État
Summary:
US intervention in Latin American politics extends back almost to the founding of this country, predating even the Monroe Doctrine. Overt interventions in the 19th and early 20th centuries included the Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, Banana Wars, and many others. These interventions evolved into slightly more covert but equally, if not more, violent interventions during the Cold War and post-Cold War eras. This has included countless US-backed coups, training and support for right-wing paramilitaries, an over half-century long effort to destabilize Cuba, and innumerable other cases. It is in this context that we must evaluate the American relationship with Bolivia, particularly in light of the coup d’état that occurred in that country last year.
Bolivia serves as an especially interesting case because, in the space of days, the country transitioned (non-democratically) from a left-leaning, socially-democratic, Indigenous-led government to a far-right, overtly Christian one. This rapid change was only mildly and briefly noted in most of the US press, despite the clear undemocratic nature of the shift and the violent repression in the country that accompanied it.
The immediate situation went as follows: in October 2019, Evo Morales ran for a fourth term as President of Bolivia. Morales was the first Indigenous leader of the majority-Indigenous nation and his years in power were characterized by broad economic advancement for the poorest citizens of the country (among many notable statistics, the proportion of Bolivians living in extreme poverty went from 36% to 17% during Morales’ time in office). Morales was one of a handful of left-leaning leaders elected in Latin America in the 2000s, including Luis Inacio Lula da Silva in Brazil and Rafael Correa in Ecuador. Despite some criticism for standing for a fourth term, Morales remained broadly popular and was the favorite to win last year’s election.
Indeed, as votes were being tabulated, it became clear Morales would win and the only question was by how much (Bolivian law requires a 10% margin of victory, plus winning over 40% of the vote, to avoid a second-round run-off). Before the election had been called, however, the Organization of American States, who was monitoring the election, alleged with little evidence that there were counting irregularities and declared the vote fraudulent. The Trump administration and prominent Republicans like Marco Rubio (and numerous Democrats) came out against Morales. Despite his agreeing to new elections, on November 10, the military publicly demanded Morales’ resignation, and he fled the country. After his ouster, right-wing, white Christian Senator Jeanine Añez appointed herself interim president. Meanwhile, mass protests by the Morales’ base, following the coup, triggered a brutal state crackdown, in which at least several dozen of his supporters have been killed.
Despite a lack of procedural legitimacy, Añez remains president today, and new elections have thus far been postponed twice. Notably, a study earlier this year by MIT’s Election Data and Science Lab determined that last year’s election was indeed fair.
Analysis:
How does the US fit in amidst this? Clearly, its early denouncement of Morales and support for the OAS lent confidence to the right-wing political and military forces that ultimately initiated the coup d’état. The OAS has a long history of domination by Washington, and specifically, in intervening in elections seen as unfavorable to the United States (Haiti in 2000 and 2010 are two recent examples). The US press also played a supportive role by downplaying the military’s role in overthrowing Morales and over-emphasizing perceived antidemocratic tendencies by Morales himself. Perhaps above all, like other left-wing Latin American leaders, Morales had long been a thorn in Washington’s side, and there was clearly an eagerness among US leaders to see him go.
It is too early to know with any certainty whether Washington had inside knowledge of or involvement with the acute effort to remove Morales, but it has been widely suggested that Bolivia’s vast lithium reserves—essential to electric car batteries—lent significant impetus to Western support for a change in government. Indeed, Morales had cancelled a contract with a German lithium mining company, ACISA, only a week before the coup took place, after mass protests from local residents.
Despite Trump’s “America First” isolationist bluster, the United States continues to remain a violently destabilizing actor around the world. The administration’s actions in relation to countries as far-flung as Iran, Yemen, Venezuela—and here, Bolivia—have served to exacerbate regional tensions and, in many cases, intensify American involvement in the affairs of these nations. In this case, it is the people of Bolivia who will suffer most.
Learn More
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/20/bolivia-el-alto-violence-death-protest
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/bolivia-election-oas/
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/28/world/americas/bolivia-election-fraud.html
Resistance Resources
https://www.codepink.org — “CODEPINK is a women-led grassroots organization working to end U.S. wars and militarism, support peace and human rights initiatives, and redirect our tax dollars into healthcare, education, green jobs and other life-affirming programs.”
https://amazonwatch.org/about — “Amazon Watch is a nonprofit organization founded in 1996 to protect the rainforest and advance the rights of Indigenous peoples in the Amazon Basin. We partner with Indigenous and environmental organizations in campaigns for human rights, corporate accountability and the preservation of the Amazon’s ecological systems.”
https://www.internationalpolicy.org — “The Center for International Policy (CIP) works to make a peaceful, just and sustainable world the central pursuit of U.S. foreign policy. We promote cooperation, transparency and accountability in the international relations of the United States. Through research and advocacy, our programs offer common sense solutions to address the most urgent threats to our planet: war, corruption, inequality and climate change.”
In Past Weeks, Ongoing Protests Met with Violence as Both Sides Clash
The protests that have been going on in recent weeks are nothing new here in the U.S. since police-involved shootings have been prompting people to gather an protest for change. However, incidents involving these protests are becoming increasingly violent. We still see ongoing protests in cities like Kenosha, Portland, Rochester, and Lancaster. In the past few weeks, we have seen incidents where Trump supporters clash with protesters, as well as protesters clashing with counter-protesters. The protesters are trying to get across a point: systemic racism is real, and the police target minority groups. The Black Lives Matter movement exists to further gain equality for black people in America; however, the right sees it as a movement to dismantle and destroy our democracy.
A few weeks ago, 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse, a Trump supporter, shot three protesters in Kenosha. Two of them were killed, while the other was injured. This is an act of vigilante-like justice by somebody who is underage, and we are seeing a lot of these acts coming from Trump supporters as of late. There was an instance in Portland where a pick-up truck full of Trump supporters drove into a crowd of protesters, firing paintballs and pepper spray. On August 29th, Aaron J. Danielson, an alleged counter-protester and member of right-wing group “Patriot Prayer,” was shot and killed at a protest in Portland when a caravan of Trump supporters clashed with protesters. The “Trump 2020 Cruise Rally” was involved in some back and forth with the counter-protesters, and when it escalated Michael Forest Reinoehl, a self-proclaimed ANTIFA member, reportedly shot and killed Danielson. Later, Reinoehl was killed when law enforcement attempted to apprehend him in Olympia, Washington. Reinoehl allegedly emerged with a firearm when the U.S. Marshals arrived, and the federal task force shot and killed him.
It seems that the protests have been mostly peaceful during the daytime. When night falls, that is when we tend to see things get out of hand. While there have been instances where both sides are the agitators, there are also outside forces at play. Counter-protesters often arrive, and in some cases, make matters worse for everyone involved; we saw this with the tragic shooting of Danielson, and subsequent death of Reinoehl by federal law enforcement. One of the problems is that people who do not live in these cities, and who are often times not associated with Black Lives Matter, come to these cities to get people riled up. They come to the sites of the protests to antagonize and incite violence. Another problem that lends to protests turning violent is the presence of federal law enforcement. While they claim to be there to protect federal property, they often end up provoking protesters with the use of tear gas, and the threat of violence. While the Black Lives Matter protests are supposed to be helping to make a change for the better, outside factors often intervene and attention gets strayed away from their central message: to ensure fair treatment of black people by the state and negate the world of any bigoted, anti-black sentiments.
Resistance Resources
- To find out more about the organization’s mission, donate, or get involved, visit the Black Lives Matter website.
- For tips on how to stay safe during protests, visit this PDF published by Amnesty International.
- The National Lawyers Guild has a mass defense program for those who have been arrested or held during protests and need legal support.
Renaming US Military Bases
Conversations Across the Aisle Blog Post
Conversations Across the Aisle is a new Blog Post created by USRN Reporter Brandon Mooney. The Post describes conversations between Brandon and a conservative colleague focused on today’s leading political issues.
I recently had a debate with a conservative about whether U.S. military bases bearing the names of Confederate generals should be renamed. It gave me a lot of perspective on how those on the right see the issue and why it is critical as a liberal-minded audience to have a concerted argument rather than a “righteous” opinion that suffers from a lack of facts and overall clarity. Therefore, I had the idea to write out the assertion that was presented to me and break it down into digestible segments that can be reasoned against. I hope that this exercise can help those presented with the same contention and be applied to other arguments as well.
The Civil War was about state’s rights, not slavery, so the names are not rooted in racism
This is an argument that I hear all the time from conservative pundits. “The Civil War was about state rights, not slavery.” It was what I was taught in American History class in high school. However, this feel-good, whitewashing fantasy needs to be put to bed because it is absolutely false.
The Constitution of the Confederate States mentions slavery five times. First, it maintains the notorious Three-Fifths Compromise from the U.S. Constitution. Second, it forbids the importation of “negroes of the African race” from foreign countries while specifically calling the Confederacy “the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America.” Third, it gives the Confederate Congress the power to stop the introduction of slavery into states outside of the original signing states. Fourth, it prohibits escaped or transported slaves from being freed and demands that any slave be returned to their owner upon capture. Fifth, it requires that in any territory admitted into the Confederacy that “the institution of negro slavery” be protected and recognized as legitimate. This is the supreme law of the land enshrining and entrenching the enslavement of African Americans. Sure, the states of the Confederacy seceded over state’s rights, but it was specifically the right to own slaves. You can’t dissect the two.
Just to hammer that point home, here are a few quotes from the so-called Cornerstone Speech given by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens. He says outright that “the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution” (i.e. the Confederacy) is the “proper status of the negro” (i.e. slavery). He goes on to say that U.S. Constitution “[rests] upon the [fundamentally wrong] assumption of the equality of races.” By comparison, the Confederacy was founded “upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.” Where are your state’s rights now?
Many American’s ancestors fought for the Confederacy, and it would be disrespectful to their memories to change the names
First of all, the idea that we shouldn’t rename things because it might hurt people’s feelings is rather rich coming from a political movement that regularly bashes so-called “snowflakes” and uplifts slogans such as “facts don’t care about your feelings.” But putting that aside, how does some Americans having Confederate ancestors mean that U.S. military bases should be named after high-ranking Confederate generals? This line of reasoning makes little sense to me. Just because your grandfather fought for something 159 years ago does not entitle you to a named military base. Acts of violence in the past are not deserving of exaltation based upon their existence alone.
Second, your ancestor fighting for what they believed in does not excuse or supersede the fact that it was fighting to maintain the enslavement of African Americans. It may be a hard pill to swallow, but sometimes people fight for things that are wrong. The Nazis fought for what they believed in; the Khmer Rouge fought for what they believed in. Belief alone does not entitle you anything.
In addition, we don’t name military bases or cities or what have you willy-nilly. We name them to highlight, venerate, honor. I would argue that there is no need to do any of this for these men. They fought to maintain an economic, social, and political system based upon a racial hierarchy that enshrined the white race as being superior to all others. It does not matter if your Confederate ancestor owned slaves themselves or what have you. They were fighting to maintain slavery. That’s it. I say again: there is no reason to highlight, venerate, and honor these men. By all means, remember them as your great-great-great grandfathers, but never forget that what they fought for was wrong. End of story.
It would depend on the time period and reasoning for the naming of each base
I would first like to say that naming a military base after someone that didn’t want to be an American is argument enough in my book. They were traitors. Plain and simple. But I will entertain the argument that the time period and reasoning for naming should affect the decision to rename a base.
So, let’s look back at the nine active U.S. military installations named after Confederate generals. All were built between 1909 and 1942. In fact, six of them were built in either 1941 or 1942. All are in states that were part of the Confederacy. Most of the Confederate generals were either military failures or architects of the Jim Crow era. Fort Hood’s namesake was known for his aggressive and overly reckless tactics that would lead to his command’s ultimate defeat. Fort Pickett’s namesake lead the infamous “Pickett’s Charge” at Gettysburg and hung deserters. Fort Polk’s namesake had no prior combat experience and lost almost every battle he was a part of. Fort Gordon’s namesake is believed to have been the head of the KKK in Georgia. Both Fort Benning’s and Fort A.P. Hill’s namesakes publicly said that they would rather die than see African Americans be equal citizens. Fort Bragg’s namesake went down in history as one of the worst generals in the Confederacy and was widely hated by his men. Why were these men chosen?
Well, I would argue it came down to the time period. Although the second manifestation of the KKK had largely died out by the 1940s, in the mid-1920s it claimed to have 4 – 5 million members (or 15% of the nation’s eligible men). These racist sentiments don’t simply die out. Jim Crow laws were still entrenched and wouldn’t be challenged for another decade. The U.S. military needed Southern support for recruitment and the war effort during World War I and II. Organizations such as United Confederate Veterans had long ago realized, in the words of a report by the Grand Camp of the Confederate Veterans of Virginia, that emphasizing the rebellion’s connection to slavery would “hold [Confederate veterans] degraded rather than worthy of honor.” The Confederate cause was re-formed around an idea of state’s rights, Southern pride, fighting in defense of one’s homeland, and honor on the battlefield. Talk of being rebels, traitors, and slavery was shoved under the carpet.
In short, the U.S. military symbolically agreed to this narrative in order to gain support. It needed the South to go along with the war, and the military knew very well that playing into the emerging hero cult around the Confederacy and racism would ensure that. So, they chose some generals and named the bases after them. And that, in my opinion, is not a good enough reason to not rename a base.
The names are a part of American history and therefore should not be erased
The argument that always came back up was that the base names were a part of our history, and that renaming them would be equivalent to erasing it. I find that this is an all-to-common clapback by conservatives to liberal audiences demanding the removal of names or statues or what have you. However, I believe that it holds little actual weight, and is in fact easily picked apart.
How does renaming a military base somehow equate to “erasing history,” exactly? It’s not as though we as a nation will somehow forget that the Civil War happened. Or that these men participated in it and fought for the cause of slavery. You don’t need to name a military base after a Confederate general to remember the Confederacy. Robert E. Lee and others like him will not suddenly vanish into the annals of history, never to be seen again.
I would argue that conservatives don’t actually believe that renaming the bases is equivalent to erasing history itself but erasing the feel-good Confederate narrative that we have discussed above. Renaming the bases means that we as a nation are symbolically stripping away any credence or belief in the story of brave Southern men charging into battle for state’s rights, regional autonomy, and the honor of Antebellum life. It means accepting that these previously hallowed men will be judged at their whole, as deeply flawed, racist traitors that fought for the enslavement of their fellow man. It means a step towards addressing major systematic racial inequalities that have persisted throughout American history. It means examining prejudices, admitting to wrongs, and grappling with a history that many white audiences would rather ignore.
The bottom line is that renaming something isn’t equivalent to forgetting or erasing. Children will still be taught, academics will still study, and layfolk will continue to debate the legacies left behind by these men. It simply means that the old story isn’t being accepted anymore. We as a nation have a responsibility, a debt, and a pressing need to address the wrongs of the past. The past few months have proven nothing if not that. And nothing will come of it if we continue to memorialize, venerate, and ultimately fetishize Confederate men and the values that some would have preferred them to have fought for.
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Sides With Florida Republican Lawmakers In Restoration of Vote To Felons Case
Policy Summary: The Twenty – Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in Section One:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
On November 6, 2018 voters in the State of Florida approved the ballot initiative known as Amendment 4. The initiative would permit Florida felons to be restored with the right to vote after they had completed all the terms of their sentence. Florida voters approved Amendment 4 overwhelmingly with 64.55% voting in favor while 35.45% voted against the measure. In 2019, due to Republican opposition to Amendment 4, Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill that added an additional requirement before the right to vote was restored. SB 7066 required that felons must also pay all fines and fees associated with their sentence.
The battle then moved to the court system. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that the law was constitutional. However, another suit was brought in federal district court in Florida which ruled that the additional requirements of SB 7066 violated the U.S. Constitution and therefore the court issued an injunction blocking implementation of SB 7066. That ruling was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which just ruled to uphold the injunction of the law issued by the federal district court. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: While this decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is a win for voting rights advocates it is certainly not the end of the case. The injunction initially issued by U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle was only an order to prevent the law from going into effect until the issue can be decided on the merits at a full trial. With the injunction upheld by the appeals court the law remains frozen pending the non – jury trial that had been scheduled.
Additionally, Governor De Santis’ has indicated that he was disappointed with the ruling and intends to appeal the decision. An appeal would likely take several months to be resolved and might not be resolved in time for the November 2020 elections. However, a number of academics have calculated that the number of felons who would have their voting rights restored is 1.4 million which can certainly sway an election or an initiative on the ballot. This explains why both parties are going to extreme lengths to fight for the future of this issue. Republicans had initially opposed Amendment 4 and suffered an unexpected defeat when voters overwhelmingly approved it. In turn, Democrats have accused Republicans of trying to oppose the popular will of voters by adding additional requirements that would blunt the move to add 1.4 million more voters to the state rolls. And if the case moves up through the appeals process and eventually to the U.S. Supreme Court that will also likely bring up the constitutional poll tax issue which was outlawed with the 24th Amendment in 1964. The stakes are certainly high and while many would have liked to have had this issue resolved in time for the November 2020 elections it seems up in the air whether 1.4 million former felons in Florida will have their voting rights restored by the end of the year. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Update: On July 16, 2020 the Supreme Court of the United States issued an order in the case Raysor v. De Santis. After a long, complex and winding road through the Florida judiciary and then the federal judiciary the case reached the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The federal district court had issued a permanent injunction barring full implementation of the law and with a number of remedies crafted by the trial court. Judge Robert Hinkle allowed felons to rebut the presumption that they were unable to pay as determined by the State, allowed felons to seek how much they owed in order to vote (this was likely a rebuke to Florida due to the state’s admission at trial that they did not keep accurate records nor had a workable database as to what felons owe the state in terms of fines and fees) and ordered the state to let felons register to vote without being prosecuted for a violation of the law. But when the case was appealed the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued an order without an opinion that did not allow the remedies from the trial court to go into effect. That move essentially did not permit felons to have their voting rights restored, for the moment. The case was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the Eleventh Circuit court order which in effect leaves 1.4 million Florida felons without the right to cast a ballot in upcoming state and federal elections in Florida for the foreseeable future. The case will proceed on the merits at a later date but the emergency application to have the law reinstated immediately has been denied.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a dissent to the Supreme Court order and she brings up the Purcell Principle, which has played a leading role in a number of Supreme Court decisions regarding voting rights this term. The Purcell Principle, which comes from the 2006 Supreme Court case Purcell v. Gonzalez, cautions against making voting changes so close to election day in order to not confuse and burden voters who might not be up to date on the new changes. As Justice Sotomayor sees it, by blocking the law from going into effect the court is creating more confusion for felons as they now cannot rely on a law to figure out whether they are eligible to vote. If the goal is to create a stable voting atmosphere devoid of last minute voting rules changes, then why did the Supreme Court choose a path that makes a number of last minute voting changes that causes a felon to be unsure whether they are eligible to vote or not? Justice Sotomayor’s dissent is a pointed rebuke to the reasoning and rationale the Court has charted this term with regard to voting rights. It as a disappointing moment for the issue of vote restoration for felons but the case still remains to be played out as a hearing on the merits of the issue (as well as the application of the Twenty – Fourth Amendment) is scheduled for August 2020 in the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Update # 2: The current poll tax situation and the restoration of the right to vote to Florida felons has had a long and convoluted procedural history through both the Florida and federal court systems but it looks like a definitive answer has been issued from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Eleventh Circuit issued on September 11, 2020 its opinion in Jones v. Governor of Florida and the appeals court sided with the Republican Governor and Republican lawmakers in the state in a 6 – 4 decision.
In the case the court interpreted the term “all terms of a sentence” to include not just serving the complete term of incarceration but all other requirements that were imposed as part of the sentence. This includes any outstanding fees, fines and other financial obligations that could still be outstanding even though the person may have completed a prison sentence. The majority opinion addressed the issue of Florida’s requirements and if it could be consistent with the U.S. Constitution’s Twenty – Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against poll taxes as a requirement to vote. Chief Judge William Pryor wrote that the financial obligations required in Florida’s laws does not violate the Twenty – Fourth Amendment because the fines and fees in this case are not a “tax.” The key distinction Chief Judge Pryor made was that the court costs and fees are penalties for actions undertaken by the defendant and so are properly classified as a penalty rather than a tax. While this is a significant legal point the majority opinion struggles to address a significant feature of this entire saga – that the ballot initiative to restore voting to rights to felons was overwhelmingly approved by Florida voters by a nearly two to one (2 – 1) margin. The only reason Amendment 4 was challenged in the Florida and federal courts was because Republican lawmakers in the state wanted to suppress the nearly 1,000,000 votes that were not likely to vote Republican. With a history of razor thin margins in elections, having nearly 1,000,000 new voters could have tipped the upcoming 2020 elections further to the left. Now, because of their political considerations and their decision to ignore the will of the Florida electorate Republicans with this disappointing Circuit Court of Appeals decision have succeeded in suppressing a significant number of votes for the 2020 election. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- Brennan Center for Justice – non – profit group’s Voting Rights Restoration project.
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – statement on appeals court decision regarding voter restoration to felons in Florida.
- More Than A Vote – non – profit group fighting against Black voter suppression and raising money to pay for fees and fines that felons are unable to pay for themselves.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
The Corruption of William Barr Part 3
Donald Trump is a documented philanderer. Both of his first two marriages ended in divorce, as a result of infidelities on his part. Payments were made to pornographic actress, Stormy Daniels were made during his 2016 campaign, in exchange for her silence on the affair. If half of the 23 accusations of sexual misconduct against him have merit, his dalliances have often veered into the criminal realm. One such claim, by writer E. Jean Carroll, who alleges Trump raped her in an NYC department store in the mid-1990’s, is currently on the docket of a New York state court. A judge recently rule that the suit may proceed while Trump holds office. In an obscene instance of corruption, the Department of Justice, headed by Trump lackey William Barr, has filed a motion to take over the case from the president’s personal lawyers.
Carroll was a nationally syndicated columnist, best known for her long-running ‘’Ask Jean’’ column in Elle magazine. According to her lawsuit, in the fall of ’95 or spring of ’96, Trump followed her into the dressing room of a Manhattan department store and forced himself on her. She remained silent for over two decades, revealing the incident in her 2019 memoir, What Do We Need Men For: A Modest Proposal. The criminal and civil statutes of limitation had expired by the time she came forward with the allegation. When confronted with the story, Trump vehemently denied the assault and hurled a barrage of crude barbs her way. He also denied having ever met her despite photographic evidence of the two together.
In calling Carroll a liar, Trump, she contends, defamed her. Trump’s response and its consequences are the crux of the civil suit against him. The suit contends Trump’s denials and attacks were defamatory, per se, and Carroll has suffered direct harm as a result. Her advice column was dependent on a high volume of compelling letters from readers from which to choose to respond. When the most powerful man on the planet branded her a liar, it damaged her credibility and adversely effected her readership. In February (well after the suit was filed), Elle magazine severed ties with her altogether. Carroll is seeking to have Trump publicly retract the inflammatory statements against her in addition to monetary damages to be decided in court.
Trump’s lawyers, as they have done often in his presidency, made broad claims of immunity in attempting to quash the lawsuit. His defense team had previously argued that a president is absolutely immune from any criminal inquiry in fighting subpoenas for his tax records. The judge in that case rejected the argument and allowed the subpoenas to be enforced. The judge presiding over this case cited the decision in allowing the lawsuit against Trump to proceed. After the case was allowed to move forward, Trump likely would have been compelled to produce relevant documents and subjected to a deposition. It is also probable that he would have been forced to submit a sample of his DNA, to compare to the semen stains on Carroll’s unlaundered dress from the night of the assault.
As the deadline to appeal the ruling approached, the White House asked the Department of Justice to intervene in the case. The Federal Tort Claims Act provides federal employees with immunity from civil liabilities related to their official duties. Utilizing the FTCA, the Justice Department has filed a motion to replace Trump’s lawyers on the case. It is the position of Attorney General William Barr that when Trump denied the rape accusation and insulted Carroll’s physical attractiveness, it was in his official capacity as president. If their motion is successful, it would substitute the US government for Trump as the defendant in the case. It would also make the American taxpayer liable for any damages should Carroll win her case. The move also has the potential to kill the lawsuit and muzzle Trump’s accuser before she has her day in court. Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the federal government must consent to be sued, which it has not done in this instance. It should be noted that this corrupt hail mary has been chucked out in the last week, while Carroll filed suit more than ten months ago. The legal maneuver is likely to fail as it requires a judge to accept that demeaning a woman who has leveled an accusation is part of a president’s official duties. However it does have the real potential to delay the case, and thus, and further discovery until after November’s election.
Barr, in textbook fashion, offered a sober legal explanation for his machination. The AG said this week that the FTCA provides an exclusive remedy in this case and that his application of the law is normal. No precedent exists for a president utilizing the DOJ to take his place in the firing line; the statue typically pertains to cases involving more mundane federal employees, such as a postal worker running over a pedestrian on his mail route. The argument is made even more dubious considering the Justice Department has made the exact opposite argument to allow Trump to block his critics on Twitter. In a case relating to the president’s use of the social media site, the department argued Trump is free to block who he likes as his feed constitutes private speech outside his official duties. The Justice Department’s independence from the Executive Branch is hardly debatable at this point when it will argue political messaging from Trump’s cyber bully pulpit are as a private citizen, but when he denigrates a woman who accused him of rape in the mid-’90’s it is within the scope of his office.
If Barr’s intervention in this case were a one-off, it would raise an eyebrow and smack of political favoritism. Regrettably, it is part of an increasingly audacious pattern of perverting his office to his boss’ benefit. He preempted the Mueller report by downplaying the seriousness of its findings just before its release. He irregularly intervened in the criminal cases of Trump associates Michael Flynn and Roger Stone, dropping the case against Flynn after two guilty pleas and inexplicably reducing Stone’s sentence before Trump granted him clemency. These are but the most high-profile of his betrayals. By all accounts Barr is a sharp legal mind and a highly competent lawyer. He is also an ideologue who believes in almost absolute executive power. Those convictions have been on full display in his time as AG, bending over backwards to enable Trump’s most heinous behavior.