Republicans

Subterms

    More stories

    • 213 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Rightwing cases built on made-up stories keep making it to the US supreme court | Moira Donegan

      by

      The first of many lies at the center of Moore v United States, the major tax case that the supreme court decided on Thursday, was that the issue at stake was an existing tax law.Conservative movement lawyers had taken up the cause of Charles and Kathleen Moore, a Washington state couple who own a substantial stake in an India-based company that manufactures farm equipment. The Moores were given a one-time, $15,000 tax bill for their stake in the company under 2017’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the law colloquially known as the Trump tax cut. To pay for the steep cuts to federal revenue, that bill included a tax on foreign assets held by American shareholders – hence the bill that the Moores received from the IRS.The Moores were nominally arguing that this provision was unconstitutional under the 16th amendment. But their argument was not confined to a narrow argument about that specific tax, because the case wasn’t really about the 2017 law at all. Rather, the Moores’ lawyers sought to use their case to drastically limit the scope of Congress’s taxation power, with an eye toward pre-emptively banning the wealth tax that has been proposed by the senator Elizabeth Warren.The 2017 provision, then, was a mere pretext: the case that came before the court was a much broader project, one that, by some estimates, would have unraveled as much as a third of the federal tax code.Ultimately, the court ruled 7-2 to uphold the tax, thereby preserving both the theoretical possibility of a future wealth tax and also much of the federal government’s funding structure. The majority opinion was authored by Brett Kavanaugh. Clarence Thomas, joined by Neil Gorsuch, dissented, and would have thrown out the tax, narrowing congressional taxation power only to “realized income”. That interpretation has not carried the day – not yet.But the fact that the case came before the supreme court at all reflects a troubling trend in the conservative legal movement, aided by Republican-controlled lower courts: the advancement of cases that promise to promote rightwing policy priorities even when the alleged facts are demonstrably untrue. Because Moore v United States was based on another lie, too: the lie that the Moores have not received income from their investment in the Indian company. They have.The Moores’ case relies on the notion that the tax they faced is unconstitutional because they were minority shareholders without a major role in the operation of the company, who had not yet profited from their investment. Such are the facts as alleged by their lawyers. But these are not the facts in reality.In truth, the Moores invested much more money in the company than they initially claimed; Charles Moore, the husband, served as the director of its board for years. He traveled repeatedly to India to oversee it, and was reimbursed for that travel; he lent the company almost a quarter-million dollars and earned back interest. He seems to have worked closely with the founder of the company, a friend of his, to lower his stake in the company, so as to avoid the 2017 tax liability – and, perhaps, so as to make himself a more plausible plaintiff for a conservative movement legal vehicle.These lies did not persuade the court in this case. But Moore v United States is one of a growing number of high-profile, high-stakes lawsuits brought before the supreme court by the conservative legal movement that have turned out to be based on inaccuracies, falsehoods and outright deceptions as to the underlying facts that are presented by rightwing lawyers in their briefings.Some of these lie-based cases have had dramatic policy implications. In 303 Creative v Elenis, a case challenging a Colorado civil rights law that required companies to provide equal service to gay people, a website creator alleged that her religious freedom had been violated by the prospect of having to design wedding websites for same-sex couples, and cited a request for such a website she had received from a man named Stewart, who was planning to marry his partner, Mike.Only Stewart never asked for a wedding website: when the New Republic’s Melissa Gira Grant contacted him, she discovered that the “Stewart” whose supposed request was at the center of the case was a straight man living in San Francisco, who had long been married to a woman; he was never going to marry a man named “Mike” let alone ask a bigoted religious extremist to make him a website in the process.“Somebody’s using false information in a supreme court filing document,” Stewart told Grant. No matter: the supreme court ruled in favor of the website designer anyway, thus dramatically limiting public accommodation non-discrimination protections in civil rights law.At times, the blatant disregard for facts on the part of the conservative legal movement – and the willingness to concoct stories of imaginary injuries in order to further cases that have conservative policy implications – has seemed to baffle and frustrate the court’s liberals. In her dissent in Kennedy v Bremerton, the so-called praying coach case, the justice Sonia Sotomayor included multiple photographs of the incidents in question – in which a Washington state high school football coach’s prayers before games were clearly public, coercive and made into a spectacle – to contradict the majority’s bold misrepresentation of the prayers as private and silent.The fabricated-facts trend has already appeared before the court once so far this term: in the mifepristone case. In a challenge to the FDA’s regulation of access to the abortion drug, a group of anti-choice doctors fabricated far-fetched claims of their own injury, based on scientifically illegitimate studies that have since been retracted, in order to try to take the drug away from abortion seekers. That case didn’t work, either: the court unanimously threw it out on standing grounds.But the fact that the case got all the way to the supreme court, with district and appellate judges either credulous of the false claims or indifferent to their veracity, says a lot about how far the conservative legal movement is willing to divorce its briefings from reality.It might be notable that this term, two cases based on fabricated claims were both thrown out in opinions authored by Kavanaugh. For figures so powerful and unaccountable as supreme court justices, psychologizing becomes necessary in imputing their motives, and Kavanaugh, perhaps more than any other justice in the conservative majority, is a deeply insecure man: he is aware of the stench of scandal and malfeasance that has attached to him since his confirmation, aware of the public perception that he is not the intellectual equal of some of his colleagues. His public statements evidence a deep and anxious desire to be liked.Perhaps this is why, though he doubtless shares the conservative legal movement’s policy agenda, he has been less willing to cooperate with their most transparent lies. He possesses, at least in some small degree, the only force that seems able to check the conservative justices’ impulses: shame.
      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 238 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Supreme court to release more decisions Friday after upholding Trump-era tax rule on foreign income – as it happened

      by

      The first case is Moore v United States, which deals with whether a one-time tax on Americans who hold shares in foreign corporations is legal.The tax was created under the 2017 tax code overhaul enacted under Donald Trump. In a 7-2 vote, the court held that it is legal.The supreme court put out a batch of new opinions this morning, none of which dealt with hotly anticipated cases on emergency abortions, Donald Trump’s immunity petition, or federal regulations that the conservative-dominated body has pending before it, though the justices did allow a Trump-era tax provision on foreign investments to stand. However, we’re not done hearing from the court this week: the justices will release more opinions on Friday. Meanwhile, the contours of next Thursday’s presidential debate are shaping up, with Trump opting to get the last word, and Biden the podium of his choosing. Robert F Kennedy Jr won’t be on the debate stage, and is not happy about it.Here’s what else happened today:
      Trump has the edge over Biden in several swing states, and is tied with him in Democratic stronghold Minnesota, a new poll found. However, the results are in the margin of error, and the survey also found support slipping for the former president among crucial independents.
      Democrats are seeking to focus the public’s attention on the consequences of Roe v Wade’s downfall, two years after the supreme court’s conservatives overturned the precedent and allowed states to ban abortion.
      Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, will make a joint address to Congress on 24 July at 2pm, Republican House speaker Mike Johnson announced.
      Jeff Landry, the Republican governor of Louisiana, signed legislation mandating that the Ten Commandments be displayed in public classrooms.
      Two colleagues of Aileen Cannon, the Florida judge handling Trump’s classified documents case, privately suggested she step aside, the New York Times reported. Cannon refused.
      The Senate has left town until 8 July, with only pro forma sessions scheduled until then:The Democratic-led body will be back and confirming judges by the second week of July.Lauren Ventrella, a state lawmaker in Louisiana who co-authored the bill mandating the Ten Commandments be displayed in classrooms, gave a combative interview to CNN, where she defended the legislation.She starts off by squabbling with anchor Boris Sanchez:Then blows off public school students who do not adhere to her religious views:Hot on the heels of another worrying poll for Joe Biden’s re-election aspirations, Axios reports some Democrats in contact with his campaign worry about its strategy.“It is unclear to many of us watching from the outside whether the president and his core team realize how dire the situation is right now, and whether they even have a plan to fix it. That is scary,” a Democratic strategist in touch with the campaign tells the outlet.From a person Axios describes as “in Biden’s orbit”:
      Even for those close to the center, there is a hesitance to raise skepticism or doubt about the current path, for fear of being viewed as disloyal.
      The person added: “There is not a discussion that a change of course is needed.”Make of that what you will.Democratic senator Tina Smith will seek passage of a bill to repeal the Comstock Act, a 19th-century law that Democrats fear could be utilized by a second Trump administration to ban abortions nationwide, the Guardian’s Carter Sherman reports:Democrats will introduce legislation on Thursday to repeal a 19th-century anti-obscenity law that bans mailing abortion-related materials, amid growing worries that anti-abortion activists will use the law to implement a federal abortion ban.The bill to repeal the Comstock Act is set to be introduced by the Minnesota Democratic senator Tina Smith, whose office provided a draft copy of the legislation to the Guardian. The Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren and Nevada senator Catherine Cortez Masto will also back the bill, according to the Washington Post, which first reported the news of Smith’s plans. Companion legislation will be introduced in the House.“We have to see that these anti-choice extremists are intending to misapply the Comstock Act,” Smith said in an interview. “And so our job is to draw attention to that, and to do everything that we can to stop them.”Passed in 1873, the Comstock Act is named after the anti-vice crusader Anthony Comstock and, in its original iteration, broadly banned people from using the mail to send anything “obscene, lewd or lascivious”, including “any article or thing designed or intended for the prevention of conception or procuring an abortion”. In the 151 years since its enactment, legal rulings and congressional action narrowed the scope of the Comstock Act. For years, legal experts regarded it as a dead letter, especially when Roe v Wade established the constitutional right to an abortion.Melinda Gates, the billionaire co-founder of the Gates Foundation nonprofit, announced she has endorsed Joe Biden’s re-election:Gates was formerly married to Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, and has in the past been critical of Donald Trump.The judge handling Donald Trump’s classified documents case rejected suggestions from two more experienced colleagues to step aside from the case, according to a report.Florida federal district judge Aileen M Cannon, a Trump appointee, was approached by two federal judges in Florida, including Cecilia M Altonaga, the chief judge in the Southern District of Florida, the New York Times reported.Each asked her “to consider whether it would be better if she were to decline the high-profile case, allowing it to go to another judge,” the report said, citing sources. Cannon “wanted to keep the case and refused the judges’ entreaties”, it said.Since taking on Trump’s classified documents case last year, Cannon has repeatedly issued rulings that have reduced the chance of the case coming to trial before November’s presidential election, in which he is the Republicans’ presumptive nominee.Congresswoman Suzan DelBene of Washington, who chairs House Democrats’ campaign arm, pointed to the party’s strong performance in recent special elections as evidence of how their stance on abortion is resonating with voters.“The public knows only Democrats are standing up for women and standing up to protect access to safe, critical reproductive care,” DelBene said on a press call today.
      This election is fundamentally about our rights, our freedoms, our democracy, and our future. House Republicans have made it clear they’re willing to do anything to take those away.
      Democrats have failed to pass a federal bill protecting abortion access, as Republicans hold a narrow majority in the House, but they have vowed to do so if they regain control of Congress in November.Jaime Harrison, chair of the Democratic National Committee, told reporters:
      We can’t risk another four years of Donald Trump in the White House. And that’s why we will campaign on this issue and we will win on this issue. And when Democrats win, we will restore access to safe, legal abortion nationwide.
      On Monday, the US will mark two years since the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade, and Democrats plan to make their support for abortion access a central focus of their pitch to voters in November.“When Dobbs overturned Roe, millions of women across the country lost their right to have a choice in their healthcare, a say in their safety and a voice in their own destiny,” Jaime Harrison, chair of the Democratic National Committee, said on a press call ahead of the anniversary.
      And Trump and his extreme MAGA [’Make America Great Again’] Republicans, regardless if they’re in Washington or statehouses, will not stop until they institute a national abortion ban.
      Senator Tina Smith of Minnesota, the vice chair of Senate Democrats’ campaign arm, described abortion access as “a defining issue in the 2024 Senate elections”. She said:
      It shows so clearly the contrast between Democrats and Republicans on this fundamental and core issue of whether or not people in this country can have the freedom to control their own bodies and their own lives. That is what is at stake in this election.
      US civil liberties groups have sued Louisiana for what they called its “blatantly unconstitutional” new law requiring all state-funded schools to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms.The state’s rightwing Republican governor, Jeff Landry, who succeeded the former Democratic governor John Bel Edwards in January, provocatively declared after signing the statute on Wednesday: “I can’t wait to be sued.”The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) joined with its Louisiana affiliate and two other bodies – Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Freedom of Religion Foundation – to immediately take him up on his challenge by announcing they were doing precisely that.In a joint statement, the ACLU and its allies said the law, HB 71, amounted to religious coercion. They also said it violated Louisiana state law, longstanding precedent established by the US supreme court and the first amendment of the US constitution, which guarantees separation of church and state.The White House has hit back again against accusations by Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, that the US is holding back weapons and ammunition from Israel in its war in Gaza.The Israeli leader made the claims of a supposedly deliberate weapons delay in a video posted on social media in which he implied that Israel’s ability to prevail in the nine-month war with Hamas was being hampered as a result. Netanyahu said:
      I said it’s inconceivable that in the past few months the administration has been withholding weapons and ammunitions to Israel – Israel, America’s closest ally, fighting for its life, fighting against Iran and our other common enemies.
      The White House’s spokesperson John Kirby, speaking to reporters today, said he had “no idea” what Netanyahu’s motivation was in making the statement.
      We didn’t know that video was coming. It was perplexing to say the least.
      Kirby described Netanyahu’s comments as “deeply disappointing and vexing”, adding:
      [There’s] no other country that’s done more or will continue to do more than the United States to help Israel defend itself.
      The supreme court put out a batch of new opinions this morning, none of which dealt with hotly anticipated cases on emergency abortions, Donald Trump’s immunity petition, or federal regulations that the conservative-dominated body has pending before it, though the justices did allow a Trump-era tax provision on foreign investments to stand. However, we’re not done hearing from the court this week: the justices will release more opinions on Friday. Meanwhile, the contours of next Thursday’s presidential debate are shaping up, with Trump opting to get the last word, and Biden the podium of his choosing. Robert F Kennedy Jr won’t be on the debate stage, and is not happy about it.Here’s what else has happened today so far:
      Trump has the edge over Biden in several swing states, and is tied with him in Democratic stronghold Minnesota, a new poll found. However, the results are in the margin of error, and the survey also found support slipping for the former president among crucial independents.
      Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, will make a joint address to Congress on 24 July at 2pm, Republican House speaker Mike Johnson announced.
      Jeff Landry, the Republican governor of Louisiana, signed legislation mandating that the Ten Commandments be displayed in public classrooms.
      Robert F Kennedy Jr has hit out at both Donald Trump and Joe Biden, after the independent presidential candidate failed to qualify for the first presidential debate, to be hosted by CNN next Thursday.The network said only Trump and Biden met their criteria for the debate. But in a statement, Kennedy blamed the two leading presidential contenders for keeping him off the debate stage:
      Presidents Biden and Trump do not want me on the debate stage and CNN illegally agreed to their demand. My exclusion by Presidents Biden and Trump from the debate is undemocratic, un-American, and cowardly. Americans want an independent leader who will break apart the two-party duopoly. They want a President who will heal the divide, restore the middle class, unwind the war machine, and end the chronic disease epidemic.
      Here’s what CNN said about their qualifications to make the debate:
      In order to qualify for participation, candidates had to satisfy the requirements outlined in Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution to serve as president, as well as file a formal statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission.
      According to parameters set by CNN in May, all participating debaters had to appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to reach the 270 electoral vote threshold to win the presidency and receive at least 15% in four separate national polls of registered or likely voters that meet CNN’s standards for reporting.
      Polls that meet those standards are those sponsored by CNN, ABC News, CBS News, Fox News, Marquette University Law School, Monmouth University, NBC News, The New York Times/Siena College, NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist College, Quinnipiac University, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post.
      Biden and Trump were the only candidates to meet those requirements.
      A new poll of swing states shows Donald Trump with the edge over Joe Biden, and tied with the president in Minnesota, which has not supported a Republican presidential candidate in 52 years.The poll was conducted by Emerson College, and lines up with other surveys that have indicated Biden faces uphill battle for re-election in November:Spencer Kimball, the executive director of Emerson College Polling, said the data indicates little movement in overall support for the two candidates since Trump was convicted of felony business fraud last month.However, Kimball noted that “results fall within the poll’s margin of error,” and that there have been signs of Trump’s support declining with independent voters, who may play the deciding role in this election:
      In Arizona, Trump’s support among independents dropped five points, from 48% to 43%. In Michigan, Trump’s support dropped three, from 44% to 41%, and in Pennsylvania, Trump dropped eight points, from 49% to 41%. Biden lost support among independents in Georgia, by six points, 42% to 36% and Nevada, by five, 37% to 32%.
      The Trump and Biden campaigns flipped a coin to sort out some of the lingering issues ahead of next Thursday’s first presidential debate, and CNN has announced the results.Joe Biden won the coin flip, and opted to choose a specific podium. That left Donald Trump to specify if he would have the last word of the debate, or leave that to Biden.Here’s what the two candidates chose, from CNN:
      The coin landed on the Biden campaign’s pick – tails – which meant his campaign got to choose whether it wanted to select the president’s podium position or the order of closing statements.
      Biden’s campaign chose to select the right podium position, which means the Democratic president will be on the right side of television viewers’ screens and his Republican rival will be on viewers’ left.
      Trump’s campaign then chose for the former president to deliver the last closing statement, which means Biden will go first at the conclusion of the debate.
      Republican speaker of the House Mike Johnson has announced that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu will address a joint session of Congress on 24 July.Netanyahu’s 2pm address will take place in the House chamber, and comes amid tensions with the Biden administration and some Democrats over the Israeli leader’s handling of the invasion of Gaza. Earlier this year, Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senate majority leader, called for Israel to hold new elections, and said Netanyahu “has lost his way”.Here’s more on Netanyahu’s planned speech: More

    • 175 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s dangerous attacks on rule of law have US historical precedents | Corey Brettschneider

      by

      Donald Trump’s threats to democracy – including his promise to govern as a dictator on “day one” and his refusal to abide by the norm of a peaceful transition of power – are often called unprecedented. While commentators and journalists are rightly focused on the danger of the moment, there are precedents for what we face today. Three examples, far from minimizing the current danger, show both how fragile American democracy has always been and how American citizens can fight successfully to save it.The first example of a presidential threat to democracy came close to the founding. The second US president, John Adams, criminalized dissent and sought to prosecute his critics. The number of these prosecutions was vast. The most recent research on the subject identifies 126 individuals who were prosecuted. These cases were not just based on the hurt feelings of a thin-skinned president (although they were partly that). They came in response to reports that Adams’s party was attempting a kind of self-coup, not unlike the events of January 6.Specifically, when a newspaper editor published a plan that Adams’s Federalist party had developed to refuse to certify electoral votes for their opponents, Adams signed a retaliatory law that allowed for the punishment of critics of the president. The law was drafted with its targets in mind. It made criticism of the president a crime but held no such penalty for critics of the vice-president, Thomas Jefferson, a leader of the opposition party. And the prosecutions were swift and harsh. Newspaper editors found themselves facing prison for their words.The second example came after the civil war. Andrew Johnson’s presidency was devoted to defending white supremacy and ensuring that the end of slavery did not mean equality for Black Americans. It was also marked by threats against his perceived enemies, including a notorious speech in which he called for violence against his pro-Reconstruction opponents in Congress.The third example came more recently. Like Adams, Richard Nixon sought to silence his enemies, but not by signing a questionable law – by engaging in a criminal conspiracy. We know now that his plans included crimes well beyond those of Watergate, even potentially firebombing the Brookings Institution. Nixon believed that a safe at Brookings held documents damaging to him. When his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, told him that such documents should be retrieved by a legal process, he retorted: “I want it implemented on a thievery basis. Goddamn it, get in and get those files. Blow the safe and get it.”One major target of Nixon’s criminal schemes was Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers. In an an interview shortly before his death, Ellsberg told me that, as recently released evidence suggests, Nixon sought to “incapacitate” him.The danger of presidencies like Adams’s, Johnson’s and Nixon’s consisted not just of their attacks on legal and democratic norms. It also lay in the way they read the constitution to support an authoritarian vision of the presidency. Adams saw analogies between monarchs and presidents. Johnson compared himself to Moses. Nixon spoke of his vast domestic powers that were the result of what he saw as an ongoing civil war with student protesters – a view that led him to famously proclaim, in his interview with David Frost, that “when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal”.In each of these three dangerous moments, however, American democracy fought back. During the Adams administration, the newspaper editors standing trial published stories about their own prosecutions to highlight Adams’s authoritarianism and to demand a right to dissent under the first amendment. They also turned the outrage at Adams into a major issue in the 1800 election, resulting in the election of Jefferson. When Jefferson proclaimed in his first inaugural “We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists,” he sent a clear signal that the Sedition Act, the Adams administration’s tool for prosecuting opponents, would be allowed to expire.As for Johnson, the House impeached him, and though he survived his Senate trial, he was so discredited that he failed to receive his own party’s presidential nomination in 1868. The general election in that year saw pro-Reconstruction citizens elect Ulysses S Grant with the aim of putting down Klan violence and protecting equal citizenship, promises partially realized with the passage of the Ku Klux Klan Act and the indictments of more than 3,000 white supremacist terrorists. Pro-Reconstruction Americans rallied around the cause of equal citizenship championed by Frederick Douglass, who opposed Johnson in a White House confrontation and in his public speeches.In the case of Nixon, Ellsberg, rather than allowing himself to be silenced, only grew bolder in criticizing the president. In fact, he used his own trial to expose Nixon’s abuses, just as newspaper editors had done under Adams. Ultimately the judge in his trial dismissed the case. Finally, the unknown citizens of Grand Jury One, convened in the Watergate trial, fought to gather the evidence of Nixon crimes, handing over information to Congress that led to his resignation.In stark contrast to Nixon’s authoritarian understanding of the constitution, these citizens emphasized the idea that no person, not even a president, was above the law.These three examples demonstrate that the danger to American democracy has always lain partly in the power of the presidency itself. At the founding, Anti-Federalists argued against ratifying the constitution on the grounds that presidential power was too vast and dangerous. The behavior of Adams, Johnson and Nixon shows clearly that the Anti-Federalists’ worries were well founded – and that presidential threats to democracy are not unique to today’s moment.Despite these precedents, however, there is one sense in which the current moment is uniquely dangerous. In these past examples, authoritarian presidents were cast into the dustbin of history, lacking the political power to continue their constitutional abuses. This time, a president who threatened democracy is doubling down, and we risk seeing him take office once again.The current threat is also unique in that Trump has learned from his previous term where the choke points of American democracy lie. Unlike Adams, Johnson and Nixon, he threatens to recapture the presidency with a clear roadmap for toppling the traditional checks on the office.Trump understands, for instance, that with a loyalist attorney general, he might never face accountability for his crimes. He would certainly see to it that such an AG fired special prosecutor Jack Smith, currently pursuing two cases against him. Thanks in part to sympathetic justices he appointed, he might also be immunized by the supreme court for any future crimes committed in office as long as these crimes are construed as “official acts”. While Nixon eventually resigned under threat of impeachment and indictment, Trump withstood two impeachments with no hint of even remotely backing down. Unlike Nixon, Trump not only shamelessly refused to resign but has continued his assault on democracy.So, what can we learn about the threat of the moment from these historical examples? One lesson is clear: we the people are ultimately responsible for rescuing democracy and our democratic constitution. We should find inspiration from those figures who opposed Adams, Johnson and Nixon as we demand accountability in two senses.First, we should demand the legal accountability Nixon escaped. The jury in Trump’s New York case has made the first step here. And that legal accountability should continue in the other cases against the president.Second, and most importantly, the American people need to seek accountability at the ballot box. This election, just like the elections in 1800 and 1868, is a referendum on the future of self-government. In those past moments, the American people rejected authoritarianism and voted for presidents who sought to restore fundamental pillars of American democracy that were under threat.Today, we must persuade our fellow Americans to do the same.
      Corey Brettschneider is professor of political science at Brown University and the author of The Presidents and the People: Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It More

    • 200 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Deluge of ‘pink slime’ websites threaten to drown out truth with fake news in US election

      by

      Political groups on the right and left are using fake news websites designed to look like reliable sources of information to fill the void left by the demise of local newspapers, raising fears of the impact that they might have during the United States’ bitterly fought 2024 election.Some media experts are concerned that the so-called pink slime websites, often funded domestically, could prove at least as harmful to political discourse and voters’ faith in media and democracy as foreign disinformation efforts in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections.According to a recent report from NewsGuard, a company that aims to counter misinformation by studying and rating news websites, the websites are so prolific that “the odds are now better than 50-50 that if you see a news website purporting to cover local news, it’s fake.”NewsGuard estimates that there are a staggering 1,265 such fake local news websites in the US – 4% more than the websites of 1,213 daily newspapers left operating in the country.“Actors on both sides of the political spectrum” feel “that what they are doing isn’t bad because all media is really biased against their side or that that they know actors on the other side are using these tactics and so they feel they need to,” said Matt Skibinski, general manager of NewsGuard, which determined that such sites now outnumber legitimate local news organizations. “It’s definitely contributed to partisanship and the erosion of trust in media; it’s also a symptom of those things.”Pink slime websites, named after a meat byproduct, started at least as early as 2004 when Brian Timpone, a former television reporter who described himself as a “biased guy” and a Republican, started funding websites featuring names of cities, towns and regions like the Philly Leader and the South Alabama Times.Timpone’s company, Metric Media, now operates more than 1,000 such websites and his private equity company receives funding from conservative political action committees, according to NewsGuard.The Leader recently ran a story with the headline, “Rep Evans votes to count illegal aliens towards seats in Congress.”In actuality, Representative Dwight Evans, a Democrat, did not vote to start counting undocumented immigrants in the 2030 census but rather against legislation that would have changed the way the country has conducted apportionment since 1790.That sort of story is “standard practice for these outlets”, according to Tim Franklin, who leads Northwestern University’s Local News Initiative, which researches the industry.“They will take something that maybe has just a morsel of truth to it and then twist it with their own partisan or ideological spin,” Franklin said. “They also tend to do it on issues like immigration or hot-button topics that they think will elicit an emotional response.”A story published this month on the NW Arkansas News site had a headline on the front page that reported that the unemployment rate in 2021 in Madison county was 5.1% – even though there is much more recent data available. In April 2024, the local unemployment rate was 2.5%.“Another tactic that we have seen across many of this category of sites is taking a news story that happened at some point and presenting it as if it just happened now, in a way that is misleading,” Skibinski said.The left has also created websites designed to look like legitimate news organizations but actually shaped by Democratic supporters.The liberal Courier Newsroom network operates websites in Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Michigan and Nevada, among other states, that – like the conservative pink slime sites – have innocuous sounding names like the Copper Courier and Up North News. The Courier has runs stories like “Gov Ducey Is Now the Most Unpopular Governor in America,” referring to Doug Ducy, the former Republican Arizona governor.“In contrast, coverage of Democrats, including US President Joe Biden, Democratic Arizona Gov Katie Hobbs, and US Sen Mark Kelly of Arizona, is nearly always laudatory,” NewsGuard stated in a report about Courier coverage.Tara McGowan, a Democratic strategist who founded the Courier Newsroom has received funding from liberal donors like Reid Hoffman and George Soros, as well as groups associated with political action committees, according to NewsGuard.“There are pink slime operations on both the right and the left. To me, the key is disclosure and transparency about ownership,” said Franklin.In a statement, a spokesperson for the Courier said comparisons between its operations and rightwing pink slime groups were unfair and criticized NewsGuard’s methodology in comparing the two.“Courier publishes award-winning, factual local news by talented journalists who live in the communities we cover, and our reporting is often cited by legacy media outlets. This is in stark contrast to the pink slime networks that pretend to have a local presence but crank out low-quality fake news with no bylines and no accountability. Courier is proudly transparent about our pro-democracy values, and we carry on the respected American tradition of advocacy journalism,” the spokesperson said.While both the left and the right have invested in the pink slime websites, there are differences in the owners’ approaches, according to Skibinski.The right-wing networks have created more sites “that are probably getting less attention per site, and on the left, there is a smaller number of sites, but they are more strategic about getting attention to those sites on Facebook and elsewhere”, Skibinski said. “I don’t know that we can quantify whether one is more impactful than the other.”Artificial intelligence could also help site operators quickly generate stories and create fake images.“The technology underlying artificial intelligence is now becoming more accessible to malign actors,” said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a University of Pennsylvania communications professor and director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, which publishes Factcheck.org. “The capacity to create false images is very high, but also there is a capacity to detect the images that is emerging very rapidly. The question is, will it emerge rapidly with enough capacity?”Still, it’s not clear whether these websites are effective. Stanford University reported in a 2023 study that engagement with pink slime websites was “relatively low” and little evidence that living “in a news desert made people more likely to consume pink slime”.The Philly Leader and the NW Arkansas News both only have links to Facebook accounts on their websites and have less than 450 followers on each. Meanwhile, the Copper Courier and Up North News have accounts on all the major platforms and a total of about 150,000 followers on Facebook.Franklin said he thinks that a lot of people don’t actually click links on social media posts to visit the website.“The goal of some of these operators is not to get traffic directly to their site, but it’s to go viral on social media,” he said.Republican lawmakers and leaders of the conservative news sites the Daily Wire and the Federalist have also filed a lawsuit and launched investigations accusing NewsGuard of helping the federal government censor right-leaning media. The defense department hired the company strictly to counter “disinformation efforts by Russian, Chinese and Iranian government-linked operations targeting Americans and our allies”, Gordon Crovitz, the former Wall Street Journal publisher who co-founded NewsGuard, told the Hill in response to a House oversight committee investigation. “We look forward to clarifying the misunderstanding by the committee about our work for the Defense Department.”To counter the flood of misinformation, social media companies must take a more active role in monitoring such content, according to Franklin and Skibinski.“The biggest solution to this kind of site would be for the social media platforms to take more responsibility in terms of showing context to the user about sources that could be their own context. It could be data from third parties, like what we do,” said Skibinski.Franklin would like to see a national media literacy campaign. States around the country have passed laws requiring such education in schools.Franklin also hopes that legitimate local news could rebound. The MacArthur Foundation and other donors last year pledged $500m to help local outlets.“I actually have more optimism now than I had a few years ago,” Franklin said. “We’re in the midst of historic changes in how people consume news and how it’s produced and how it’s distributed and how it’s paid for, but I think there’s still demand for local news, and that’s kind of where it all starts.” More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      The ‘weirdo progressive’ son of the Oath Keepers founder running for office in Montana

      by

      With his thick eyeliner, long blond hair and leather jacket, Dakota Adams does not look like a typical politician.The 27-year-old, who is running as a progressive Democrat in a deep-red, rural corner of Montana, doesn’t have a typical politician backstory either.Adams is the son of Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the far-right Oath Keepers militia group who last year was sentenced to 18 years in prison for his role in the January 6 insurrection. Adams grew up in what he describes as an environment of “extreme isolation and paranoia” – a situation he and his siblings escaped in 2018, when their mother left Rhodes.In the last few years, Adams has been focusing on building his life. He was educated at home while his father led the Oath Keepers, and while he was a voracious reader, other subjects were neglected – Adams was never taught his times tables until he studied for his GED as an adult.After six years out of the movement, he works in construction, takes college courses and rents space in an apartment in Eureka, a town of 1,400 people eight and a half miles from the Canadian border.He first took an active role in politics in 2022, when he began canvassing for other candidates. He noticed that in many county-level elections – as with the seat he’s running for in Lincoln county – there wasn’t even a Democratic candidate on the ballot.“The lack of candidates stepping up, especially in recent years, reinforces that perception that the Democratic party has turned away from rural America and given up the fight completely,” he says.Still, despite his unorthodox appearance, Adams has been well received when he goes door to door.“Montana elections happen at doorstep,” he said. “So far, my reception has been surprisingly positive at doors, [despite] canvassing dressed like Alice Cooper and openly admitting to being a progressive Democrat, or self-identifying even as a Democratic socialist when asked.“I attribute that to there being a Republican supermajority that’s been running the state – it leaves very little room for excuses.”Adams has come a long way from the days when he and his siblings lived with the Oath Keepers movement. His father, whom Adams refers to now as Stewart, founded the organization in 2009 in the wake of Barack Obama’s election.Under Rhodes’ leadership, the Oath Keepers pushed various anti-government conspiracy theories, and Rhodes was committed to the American redoubt movement: a proposal that thousands of conservative Americans and militia members relocate to Montana, Idaho and Wyoming to be free from government tyranny.Rhodes moved his own family to Montana in 2010, but even living 2,000 miles from Washington DC he was paranoid about the federal government, Adams says – a paranoia he passed on to the family. Adams and his family perpetually drilled for end-of-days events, and, he says, his family suffered due to Rhodes’ focus on survivalism and fear of government inspired by conspiracy theories.“Anybody could be a secret government informant, including other people inside the movement or inside Oath Keepers. Child Protective Services was the tool of the new world order that would be used to retaliate against Stewart for defying them, so we had to conceal educational and medical neglect,” Adams says.Adams visited a dentist once in his childhood, when he had “a ton of work done”. Rhodes had bartered the visit to the dentist, who was part of the movement, by offering “infantry tactical training” in return.That upbringing took its toll. Adams has spent time in therapy but still has anxiety, caused by a childhood spent living “in looming dread”, he says.“It’s something that still interferes with my daily life and holds me back. I wouldn’t have the mental bandwidth to attend school, or run for office, or anything if it were not for years of pretty extensive work,” he said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionRepublicans dominate Montana politics. The GOP controls the state legislature and state senate, and the governor, Greg Gianforte, is a Republican. But Adams believes that could be a positive.“Because they have such a strong majority and a trifecta in power, they really don’t have any excuse for the state of things,” he said.Adams says that if he is elected, he wants to actually do things, rather than engage in posturing; he says some state legislatures “have been spending all their time waging performative crusades, especially against queer people and environmental causes”.He discusses how taxes have increased for working-class and middle-class Montanans as wealthy people have moved into the state, driving up the cost of housing. He wants to diversify an economy that has become more and more reliant on tourism.“In recent years, more and more tourism dollars are not turning over multiple times inside the community and changing hands as they circulate,” he said.“[Tourists] are increasingly going to exclusive resorts and to properties and businesses owned by out-of-state corporations. So the profits are extracted directly back out of the state, without going through the local economy whatsoever.”Adams is realistic about his chances: Lincoln county voted for Trump over Biden by 74% to 24% in 2020. But his reception gives him hope.“I am in a long-shot race here. I’m in maybe the second-most-conservative voting area in the state, running as a weirdo progressive,” he said.“And if I’m getting shockingly positive feedback going door to door in the poorest parts of town and in the trailer parks, then I feel like the Republican supermajority in the state is in serious trouble.” More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Ethics committee investigating Matt Gaetz over alleged sexual misconduct

      by

      A bipartisan Capitol Hill committee is investigating Matt Gaetz, the far-right Republican congressman and vocal Donald Trump supporter, over longstanding allegations of sexual misconduct, illicit drug use and other alleged ethical breaches, it said on Tuesday.The announcement by the House ethics committee – which contains an equal number of Democrats and Republicans – reignited a swirl of scandal surrounding the outspoken Trump ally that had abated somewhat after an earlier criminal investigation into allegations against him was dropped.In a statement, the committee said it had spoken to dozens of witnesses, issued 25 subpoenas, and reviewed thousands of pages of documents as part of its long-running investigation into Gaetz’s conduct, which was initially opened in April 2021.As a result of that review, the committee said, certain allegations deserved further examination.“The committee is reviewing allegations … that Representative Gaetz may have: engaged in sexual misconduct and illicit drug use, accepted improper gifts, dispensed special privileges and favours to individuals with whom he had a personal relationship, and sought to obstruct government investigations of his conduct,” it said.The committee said other allegations made against Gaetz – specifically those of sharing inappropriate images or videos on the House floor, misusing state identification records, improper personal use of campaign funds and accepting a bribe – were no longer being investigated.The committee’s statement came a day after Gaetz issued what appeared to be a pre-emptive post on X in which he accused it of pursuing “frivolous investigations” into him and compared its tactics to the Soviet Union.“The House ethics committee has closed four probes into me, which emerged from lies intended solely to smear me,” he wrote. “Instead of working with me to ban congressional stock trading, the ethics committee is now opening new frivolous investigations. They are doing this to avoid the obvious fact that every investigation into me ends the same way: my exoneration.”He added: “This is Soviet. Kevin McCarthy showed them the man, and they are now trying to find the crime. I work for north-west Floridians who won’t be swayed by this nonsense, and McCarthy and his goons know it.”The latter comment referred to his antagonistic relationship with McCarthy, the former Republican House speaker who was toppled last October in an internal party coup that Gaetz spearheaded.McCarthy said Gaetz’s enmity towards him was fuelled by his refusal to shut down the House ethics committee inquiry. However, the inquiry has continued under McCarthy’s successor, Mike Johnson, who has forged a close alliance with Trump.In its statement, the committee acknowledged Gaetz’s denial of the allegations against him but suggested he had given less full cooperation, complaining of “difficulty in obtaining relevant information” from him and others.It added: “The committee notes that the mere fact of an investigation into these allegations does not itself indicate that any violation has occurred.”The committee’s investigation was opened after the New York Times reported in March 2021 Gaetz was being investigated by the Department of Justice over whether he had sex with a 17-year-old and paid for her to travel with him, thus violating federal sex-trafficking laws. The investigation had been opened in the latter stages of Trump’s presidency, under the then attorney general William Barr.It was eventually closed in 2023 without any charges being brought, enabling the committee – which had earlier stalled its inquiry in response to a request the DoJ – to reauthorise its investigation. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Vermont Republican secretly poured water into colleague’s bag over months

      by

      A Vermont lawmaker was compelled to apologize publicly after being caught on video pouring water into her colleague’s work bag multiple times across several months.The bizarre behavior is allegedly a part of a campaign of harassment that one legislator aimed at another who represents the same district in the Green Mountain state, independent outlet Seven Days first reported.The Republican representative, Mary Morrissey, 67, confessed to dumping water in the bag of the Democratic legislator Jim Carroll, 62. She later apologized during a Vermont state house session on Monday, Boston.com reported.“I am truly ashamed of my actions,” Morrissey said.Morrissey did not respond to the Guardian’s request for comment.She and Carroll both represent the city of Bennington, about 25 miles outside of Manchester. Morrissey has served 13 terms in the Vermont legislature while Carroll has served two.Carroll told the Guardian that Morrissey had poured cups of water into his bag since January.Carroll says he first suspected Morrissey as she had been “nasty” to him for several months despite the two knowing each other since childhood and even attending the same church.“[She] would say demeaning things in front of other legislators,” Carroll said.But Carroll had no evidence, so he decided to launch his own investigation. For weeks, Carroll secretly recorded footage of his backpack to catch the person in the act.In two videos Carroll captured, Morrissey is seen dumping a cup of liquid into Carroll’s green tote bag. Morrissey’s face was not captured in the video, but fellow lawmakers were able to identify her by her gray hair.Seven Days later used a public records request to obtain footage of Morrissey dumping water into Carroll’s bag. That was after the outlet initially reported on Morrissey’s behavior and an ethics investigation into her.Carroll initially refused to release the videos to Seven Days but ultimately changed his mind.“I have been very reluctant to disclose the video because I believe it will deeply embarrass Representative Morrissey,” Carroll wrote in a statement to the outlet. “However, it has become clear to me that the media are aware of the details of Representative Morrissey’s behavior and likely will continue to report on that behavior in the near future.”Carroll said when he first saw the video of Morrissey, he felt “sad”. “There was no good that was going to come out of this,” he said.Morrissey later apologized to Carroll during a subsequent meeting and claimed that she didn’t know the bag belonged to him.According to Carroll, Morrissey initially said that she “flicked” water on the bag because she saw a bug on it. But she later added that she didn’t know why she decided to dump water on Carroll’s bag for months on end.“At the end of the meeting, I looked at her and said, ‘You know, this has really fucked me up.’ There were weeks when I didn’t know who was doing this or why,” Carroll said.“I walked around this place, paranoid of my fellow legislators, racking my brain trying to think, ‘What could I have possibly said or done?’”Carroll said that he was still weighing whether he should pursue charges against Morrissey for the harassment.As for whether he forgives Morrissey, Carroll said: “I guess I would have to say yes in the spirit of forgiveness, reluctantly. But if I had to be a smartass, I’d say her apology holds about as much water as my canvas bag.” More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      JD Vance ‘disrespecting the dead’ with bump stock remarks, Nevada senator says

      by

      Political ripples from the supreme court’s decision to overturn a Trump White House-era ban on sales of “bump stocks” – a spring-loaded stock that uses recoil to in effect turn a semi-automatic firearm into a machine gun – continued to radiate on Monday when Jacky Rosen took exception to comments on the issue made by his Republican colleague JD Vance.Vance, the Ohio senator and potential vice-presidential pick as Trump seeks a second presidency in November had dismissed efforts by senior Democrats, including Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader, to pass legislation banning the devices as “a huge distraction”.Vance went further. “What is the real gun violence problem in this country, and are we legislating in a way that solves fake problems? Or solves real problems?” Vance said, before adding: “My very strong suspicion is that the Schumer legislation is aimed at a PR problem, not something that’s going to meaningfully reduce gun violence in this country.”Rosen, the Democratic senator, hit back, facing re-election this year in politically purple Nevada, the site of the 2017 Las Vegas concert shooting that killed 58 and prompted Trump to ban the rapid-fire device.“This is not a fake problem,” she told reporters. “Let him come to Las Vegas. Let him see the memorial for those people who died. Let him talk to those families. It’s not a fake problem. Those families are dead.”Rosen said Las Vegas, the gambling mecca and major source of Nevada’s revenue, had been “changed forever because of what the shooter did, and the bump stocks helped him”. She invited Vance to visit memorials to the victims as well as to talk to first responders. “Shame on him,” Rosen added, visibly enraged. “Shame on him for disrespecting the dead.”In its ruling last week, the conservative majority on the supreme court ruled that the executive branch of government did not have the power to use existing firearms laws to prohibit bump stocks. But the justices allowed legislators to pass new laws banning the accessory.Schumer and other senior Democrats have since said they would quickly move to do so.Outcry from Democrats mounted after Vance reasoned that a bill to ban bump stocks would “end up just inhibiting the rights of law-abiding Americans” and mused about how many people would still have been killed if the heavily armed video poker player Stephen Paddock had not outfitted his armory with the contested devices.“How many people would have been shot alternatively? And you have to ask yourself the question: will anyone actually not choose a bump stock because Chuck Schumer passes a piece of legislation?” Vance said.After Vance made his comments, Schumer retorted: “Talk to the people in Las Vegas who lost loved ones.”The supreme court ruling gives both sides of the gun issue red meat for the election campaign, though it is complicated by the initial ban coming from the Trump White House. Lindsey Graham, the Republican South Carolina senator, told NBC News he will block the Democrats’ measure. And Vance questioned Democrats’ legislative priorities.Chris Murphy, the Democratic Connecticut senator who has championed tougher gun laws after the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting in 2012, said Republicans in his chamber should have no problem voting for the measure banning bump stocks.“Is it good politics to make it easier for potential mass killers to get their hands on machine guns? Probably not,” Murphy said. “The idea is to try to make this attractive to Republicans. And we would be a lot better off if psychopaths couldn’t get their hands on machine guns.”Between Friday – when the supreme court’s ruling on bump stocks returned gun control to the top of the national discourse – and Monday, there were 17 mass shootings reported across the US, according to the Gun Violence Archive.Among those was a shooting Saturday in Rochester Hills, Michigan, in which nine people – including two children – were wounded at a city-run splash pad that families frequent to cool off in the summer. Police said the attack was carried out at random by a gunman who later died by suicide.Another shooting on Saturday in Round Rock, Texas, saw 14 people wounded and two killed. There, the shooting erupted after an altercation between two groups of people – the victims were uninvolved bystanders, police said.The non-partisan Gun Violence Archive defines a mass shooting as one in which four or more victims are wounded or killed.There have been at least 230 such shootings reported in the US so far this year, a high rate which has fueled public calls for more substantial gun control but which Congress for the most part has not heeded.
      Ramon Antonio Vargas contributed reporting More