Tuesday, June 29, 2021

RSN: FOCUS: Michael Wolff | Donald Trump's January 6 View From Inside the Oval Office

 

 

Reader Supported News
29 June 21

Trying to Stave Off Fundraising Disaster

It’s late in the month, very late, and we are looking at fundraising returns that again will not address the organization's operating costs.

Regardless of what any of us want, this will not work. We have to do better on donations.

We don’t need a windfall, we need a budget.

In earnest.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!

 

If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611

Update My Monthly Donation

 

Reader Supported News
29 June 21

Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News

2 DAYS TO GO, HELP WITH THIS FUNDRAISER! — We have two days to go in June, and we are really hurting for basic funding. Slow down, pull over, and help out. It really matters.
Marc Ash • Founder, Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!

 

'Like any megastar, Trump saw his fans from a far distance out.' (image: Mike McQuade/Getty Images)
FOCUS: Michael Wolff | Donald Trump's January 6 View From Inside the Oval Office
Michael Wolff, New York Magazine
Wolf writes: "'Seems like quite a few crazies,' said the president. A little more than three weeks before rioters and revelers stormed the Capitol on January 6, several thousand Trump fans and fanatics gathered in Washington, D.C. "

eems like quite a few crazies,” said the president.

A little more than three weeks before rioters and revelers stormed the Capitol on January 6, several thousand Trump fans and fanatics gathered in Washington, D.C. There were the Proud Boys in elaborate dress, ZZ Top beards, and tie-dyed kilts — Enrique Tarrio, a Proud Boy organizer, got in line and took a public tour of the White House — who seemed to have appointed themselves Trump’s protectors and vanguard, as the Hells Angels had once done for the Rolling Stones. There were Trump impersonators and a wide variety of other made-for-the-cameras MAGA costumes. There were veterans — or people in military gear trying to suggest patriotism and firepower. There were older men and women, too — more Las Vegas than Altamont. Virtually all without masks.

“It’s like Let’s Make a Deal,” said Trump the next day to a caller, referencing the long-running game show from the 1960s — many of his references have never left this psychic era — on which audience members dressed up in foolish costumes to get the attention of the host.

The speakers at the December 12 event were themselves a retinue of Trump attention seekers: Michael Flynn, the former general who had briefly served as Trump’s national security adviser before being rolled out of office for lying to the FBI, had, after pleading guilty, reversed himself and abjectly reaffirmed his Trump loyalty, finally getting his pardon just days before the rally. Sebastian Gorka, a figure of uncertain provenance and function in the Trump White House during its first months, was one of the early oddballs to be pushed out when John Kelly became chief of staff and had pursued a Trump-based media career ever since. Also speaking: MyPillow entrepreneur Mike Lindell, a former drug addict and a current fevered conspiracist.

Four people were stabbed and 33 arrested, most in the several-hour mêlée that took place after sundown. This was, in hindsight, a run-through. But it was also a pretty good insight into Trump’s relationship to his army of supporters. The president often expressed puzzlement over who these people were with their low-rent “trailer camp” bearing and their “get-ups,” once joking that he should have invested in a chain of tattoo parlors and shaking his head about “the great unwashed.”

The fan base had always been peculiar to him. For most politicians, vox populi is a pretty remote concept, one brought home only with polling, press, and elections. Trump’s regular and, during some periods, nearly constant performances at stadium rallies gave him a greater direct route and connection to his base than any politician in the modern television age. It was adulation on a par with that of a pop star — a massive pop star. (“The only man without a guitar who can fill a stadium,” he liked to say about himself in another of his 1960s-stuck references.) Stars like him needed fans, but this did not mean that a fan was not a strange thing to be. The more devoted the fan, the odder the fan. Like any megastar, Trump saw his fans from a far distance out. Certainly, there was no personal connection. A star could not assume responsibility for his fans, could he?

By dawn on January 6, the crowd of great unwashed was building, with the various organizers of the various events each pulling in larger-than-expected numbers. From the perspective of the White House, the protest was still just background noise, a tailgate party before the main event: Vice-President Mike Pence counting, and they hoped rejecting, the electors representing the final tally of the November vote. That would begin at 1 p.m.

The remaining group of aides around the president that morning in the White House was down to Mark Meadows, the chief of staff; Eric Herschmann, one of Trump’s on-call lawyers; and Dan Scavino, his social-media alter ego, with Jason Miller, Justin Clark, Alex Cannon, and Tim Murtaugh, the last employees from the campaign, either working from home or, in the case of Clark, heading to a Republican National Committee winter meeting in Florida. All of them had woken up with something close to the same thought: How is it going to play when the vice-president fails to make the move the president is counting on him to make? And make no mistake: Each fully understood Mike Pence was not going to make that move.

Just as relevant, none of the seven men had precisely told the president this. They, along with almost everyone else in the White House, as well as those who had slipped out, just wanted this to be over.

This was not an uncommon feeling in the final days of the Trump presidency. There was the world within shouting distance of the Oval Office — privy to the president’s monologues, his catalogue of resentments, agitation, desires, long-held notions, stray information, and sudden inspirations with little practical relationship to the workings of government — and then there was the more normal world beyond that. Early in Trump’s presidency, aides noted that a second-floor office, where the likes of Stephen Miller and Kellyanne Conway worked, meant a degree of exclusion but also protection: Trump would never climb the stairs (and, by the end of his term, he never had).

To the degree that Trump had, for four years, been running the government with scant idea of the rules and practices of running the government, he was now doing it virtually without anybody who did have some idea and desire to protect both him and themselves from embarrassment or legal peril. Jared Kushner was, to his own great relief, in the Middle East, wrapping up what he saw as his historic mission: his peace deals. The president had all but banished the White House counsel, Pat Cipollone (who was grateful to be banished), and was speaking instead to Herschmann. Herschmann, believing he understood how to move the president, tended to offer objections that sounded awfully like the plaudits of a yes-man. Kayleigh McEnany had been strategically missing in action for several weeks. The remaining campaign officials (Jason Miller, Clark, Cannon) tended to be merely on the receiving end of Trump’s calls and opinions. And everybody else was, effectively, cleared out. White House wags noted that Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin had fled as far as Sudan — where he was negotiating a good-behavior economic pact with the former terrorism-sponsor nation — to get distance from this last election gasp. The one person Trump did have at his side, Rudy Giuliani, was drinking heavily and in a constant state of excitation, often almost incoherent in his agitation and mania.

Almost everyone who remained around the president understood that he, along with Giuliani, did in fact actually believe that there was yet a decent chance of upsetting the electoral count and having Trump declared the Electoral College winner or, failing that, prolonging the election and returning the fight to the disputed states. The president’s aides (and family) understood, too, that he was the only one (along with Giuliani, which only made the situation more alarming) in any professional political sphere to believe this. Hence — although they did not call it such and tried to see it as more nuanced — derangement.

There had been hardly a waking hour in the past 48 during which he and Giuliani had not been on the phone in pent-up nervousness and excitement over the coming battle in Congress on January 6. They were two generals poring over a map of the battlefield. Both men, egged on by hypotheticals ever nearer to fantasy and after exhausting all other options, had come to take it as an article of faith that the vice-president could simply reject Biden electors in favor of Trump ones and thereby hand the election to Trump; or, falling short of that, that the vice-president could determine that a state legislature ought to give further consideration to possible discrepancies in the state’s vote and send back the questioned electors for a reconsideration of their certification.

“There is no question, none at all, that the VP can do this. That’s a fact. The Constitution gives him the authority not to certify. It goes back to the state legislatures,” said Giuliani, as though on a loop. He kept repeating this to the president and to the others who were part of the continual conversation on his cell phone. (“Yes … Yes … Yes … Here’s the thing … Hold on a second … Hey, let me get back to you …”)

The president, in his own loop, kept similarly repeating this back to Giuliani.

And they both similarly repeated this to everyone else with such insistent determination that it overrode any opportunity to disagree with them or even engage in the conversation. Throughout, they continued to weigh the odds that the vice-president would come along: sometimes 50-50, sometimes as much as 60-40, even somewhat more. At the grimmest, 30-70. But always a solid shot.

The rest of the president’s aides gave it essentially no chance. They weren’t putting much stock in the January 6 rally, which looked to those around Trump less like a way to keep the president in power than a way to make money afterward.

Here was the math: He was going to lose the White House; that was certain. But he was going to be left with enormous reach and sway and influence. As the great unwashed were gathering, on the evening of January 5, there was another gathering, at the Trump Hotel, of ranking Republicans, all primarily there to plan and to fund-raise for 2022. This included a circle of top-draw Trump celebrities, Don Jr., Flynn, and Corey Lewandowski among them, and presentations by groups such as the Republican Attorneys General Association.

The primary organizer was Caroline Wren, the most prodigious fund-raiser in the Republican Party. On the eve of a protest over the 2020 election, Wren had assembled 30 to 40 major Republican donors. The organizers of the rally where the president would speak included Amy Kremer and her daughter Kylie Jane Kremer, tea-party and pro-Trump super-PAC activists, organizers, and fund-raisers; Ali Alexander, another right-wing organizer and Trump fund-raiser; and Alex Jones, the conspiracist media personality — each of them with a direct financial interest in the day’s events and in future dealings with the Trump money machine.

Early in the morning, Jason Miller called Boris Epshteyn, the shuttle between the Giuliani camp and the Trump aides, for a reality check: “So … how exactly do we think this is going to go today?”

“Short answer: We have no idea.”

“How many states are teed up?” The number of states receiving House and Senate objections would determine how long and how pitched the day’s events would be.

“We’re still not sure.”

“And the chance of anything going anywhere? Really, ballpark me.”

“Zero.”

“And then what?”

“Then it’s over.”

When Miller spoke to the president at 8 a.m., he was looking for a reaction to the loss of the Senate in Georgia — counting from the day before was only just finishing. As per their usual routine, the president, who had seen that morning’s coverage, asked Miller to recap it. Who was getting blamed? But of course the president right away told Miller the answer to what he was asking.

“It’s all about the $2,000 — if Mitch had just cut those checks. Do people get this? The Dems’ closing ads were all about those checks,” the president said. He asked Miller what he thought Pence would do and then told Miller that Pence would do the right thing.

The family arrived at the White House shortly before 10 a.m. Don Jr. and Kimberly Guilfoyle, Eric and Lara, and Ivanka, on her own — Jared was on his way back from the Middle East. It was a good-feeling gathering, even a bit of a party. The president might still be dug in, but his family was moving on — and wanting to acknowledge this most remarkable four years they had experienced. No regrets. Come on — who would have expected any of this!

One curious point of consideration for the family that morning — prescient of the events that would shortly unfold — was a follow-up to a discussion initiated some months before by aides and family. Trump representatives, working with Trump-family members, had approached Parler, the social network backed by Bob Mercer and his daughter Rebekah, far-right exponents and large Trump contributors. They had floated a proposition that Trump, after he left office, become an active member of Parler, moving much of his social-media activity there from Twitter. In return, Trump would receive 40 percent of Parler’s gross revenues and the service would ban anyone who spoke negatively about him.

Parler was balking only at this last condition.

This was now being offered by the family as a carrot to entice the president out of the White House (it was also a potential future family revenue stream): Trump could do what he loved to do most and potentially make a fortune off it. It was a given in the Trump White House that he was one of social media’s most valuable assets and that he would like nothing better than to share, monetarily, in that value.

Giuliani left the Willard with John Eastman, a right-wing constitutional scholar whom Giuliani had recruited to argue the vice-president’s wide latitude in accepting or rejecting presidential electors; Bernie Kerik, the former New York City police commissioner who went to prison on federal tax-fraud charges and to whom, at Giuliani’s urging, Trump granted a full pardon; and Epshteyn at a little before 10 a.m. Giuliani was now in hyperdrive over Pence. To the president, Giuliani was still offering good odds that the vice-president would come through. To others, he was saying that Pence just didn’t have the balls to do what could be done.

On the evening of January 4, as both the president and the vice-president were returning from a campaign swing in the runoff Senate races in Georgia, Giuliani arranged yet another come-to-Jesus meeting for the president and vice-president on the subject of the VP’s ability to upset the election — this time with Eastman in attendance. Marc Short, the VP’s chief of staff, believed they had made it absolutely clear that the vice-president believed he had no discretion in the electoral count and was reluctant to reprise the discussion. He agreed now to the meeting only to avoid insulting the president — and only on the understanding that Giuliani, whom Short considered unhinged, would not be present.

The next day, the president again called Pence on the carpet — the meeting at which the president famously asked Pence, “Do you want to be a patriot or a pussy?” At other points, he was more politic. “You want to do the right thing,” said the president. “I very much want to do the right thing,” said the vice-president. “That’s all I want to do.”

Giuliani had spent weeks telling everyone that they knew exactly what was going to happen, that they could depend on Pence, no question at all about that.

Coming out of the Willard, Giuliani ran into Roger Stone in the lobby. When Giuliani asked if he was going to the rally, Stone said he hadn’t been invited. He didn’t even know who had organized it, he said.

The four men were let out of their car and had to walk across the grass to the Ellipse. They were already freezing by the time Giuliani went on at about 10:50.

At 11:45 a.m., the White House entourage, including Meadows, Herschmann, and Scavino, piled into the Beast, the presidential limo, and the follow-on vehicles for the two-minute ride to the rally-staging area (mostly the president liked to ride alone with the rest of the entourage following). The Trump family was already there. The greenroom tent was almost giddy. Nostalgia was beginning. Don Jr. had his phone out, filming the moment.

A few days before, rally organizers had amended their estimate of the crowd’s size from 5,000 to 30,000. Various media reports were now putting it at more than 10,000. The best estimate put the crowd somewhere between 30,000 and 60,000 — a righteous cold-weather turnout for a defeated president. During his speech, the president would pause to observe that he reckoned there were 250,000 people there. In days to come, he would raise his estimate to 1 million.

He came onstage to his standard anthem, “God Bless the U.S.A.,” but with less swagger than usual — slower, less sure, even. He was in a black overcoat and black gloves: a strongman look.

The speech, shortly on its way to becoming the most notorious of his presidency, and the key piece of evidence for his imminent second impeachment, was a B-grade delivery. Not long into it, Giuliani and his crew, with freezing toes, left and went back to the Willard. They had heard it all before.

At about 12:30 p.m., midway through Trump’s speech, the vice-president’s office released a two-and-a-half-page letter explaining that “after a careful” study, the vice-president had concluded that he was not able to reject votes unilaterally or, in effect, to do anything else, beyond playing his ceremonial role, that the president might want him to do.

“Oh, shit,” noted Miller at home, sending the statement to Giuliani, Epshteyn, and Scavino and leaving it to one of them to tell the president. Everybody else thought Oh, shit, too.

At the Ellipse, Trump’s delivery was more singsong than bombastic and explosive. He was rushing through it. Ordinarily, he’d have thrown some red meat out and waited for the reaction — always, clearly, the moments of his keenest enjoyment — but now he was just plunging forward. “After this, we’re going to walk down — and I’ll be there with you. We’re going to walk down. We’re going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women. We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.”

He had added that part: the walk. After this, we’re going to walk down — and I’ll be there with you. The walk wasn’t in the text. The entourage heard little else — the hundreds upon hundreds of hours of Trump rallies that they all had been subjected to blurred into the usual blah-blah, but they heard that line: the walk. He did not mean this, of course. Trump didn’t walk anywhere.

Meadows and Scavino had slipped out and weren’t listening to the speech. One of the Secret Service agents hurried to get Meadows aside and tell him the president said he was planning to march to the Capitol with the protesters.

“No. There’s no way we are going to the Capitol,” said Meadows.

Meadows confirmed this with the president as soon as he came off the stage at 1:11 p.m.

The president seemed unsure what Meadows was talking about.

“You said you were going to march with them to the Capitol.”

“Well — ”

“How would we do that? We can’t organize that. We can’t.”

“I didn’t mean it literally,” Trump said.

By 1:30, the president was back at the White House, his family returning with him. Lunch was waiting.

Don Jr. and Kimberly Guilfoyle and Eric and Lara Trump left, and Ivanka hung around.

Trump was back on the phone trying to get new information on Pence. The Joint Session had convened at 1 p.m. Arizona was the first objection.

The state had occupied a special place in the president’s paranoia ever since Election Night, when Fox News had called it for Biden much earlier than its competitors — and much earlier than Trump’s data team had believed was plausible.

The president was looking for coverage of the breakout sessions in Congress, when both the Senate and the House would return to their respective chambers and debate the challenges to the various states. But only C-SPAN seemed to be on it. Giuliani, calling from the Willard, where he had watched the remainder of the president’s speech and was just seeing the first mentions of disorder in the streets, gave him a breathless report on Pence but without any new information. That said, he was also promising that as many as six states would be contested, hence a volatile situation — We just didn’t know what’s going to happen (his breathlessness was only increasing). Meadows was in close touch with Jim Jordan. But the details Jordan was offering were unsatisfying. The president was, in theory, waging an extraordinary legislative fight, one with hardly any precedent — the culmination of a two-month battle in which he had considered little else and on which both his immediate future and his place in history depended. But other than via his own tweets and fulminations and his meeting the day before with the vice-president, nobody in the White House was much participating or even present.

There was nobody on the White House side whipping votes. There was nobody on the White House side who was particularly up-to-date on who might be with them or against them other than from public reports. To the extent that, as the media darkly warned, there was an extraordinary plot to hold on to power — an incipient coup, even — there really were only two plotters, with no one to back them up. Trump had no functioning political staff, the White House counsel’s office had been all but shut down (to the degree the office was still functioning, it was almost entirely focused on vetting pardon pleas), and the leadership of the Justice Department was in disarray.

All the same, the president and Giuliani, in their bubble, remained confident that success was there for them to grab.

At 1:49 p.m., the president retweeted a video of his Ellipse speech. At just about this time, rioters were breaching the Capitol door.

At two o’clock, the president and Giuliani — the president in the White House and Giuliani at the Willard — tried to find Tommy Tuberville, the recently seated senator from Alabama, but they instead mistakenly called Mike Lee, the Utah senator, on his cell phone. Lee, amid the increasing confusion as reports started to come in of mobs breaching the Capitol fences, found Tuberville and put him on the phone. The president and Giuliani seemed to have no idea what was occurring, and Tuberville was either unsuccessful in telling them or thought better of trying.

At about 2:15 p.m., Epshteyn, watching television in Giuliani’s suite at the Willard, was one of the first people in the greater Trump circle to start, with some sense of panic, to take note of what was happening. Epshteyn spoke to Miller, who called Meadows.

“I’m sure you’re tracking this,” Miller said.

“Yeah, I know. Some things are moving here that I can’t get into at the moment,” Meadows said.

Miller assumed the White House was mobilizing the National Guard. By 2:20 p.m., both the House and Senate had adjourned.

At 2:24 p.m., the president, having been informed that Mike Pence had not rejected the Arizona Biden electors, tweeted:

Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!

Reading the tweet in the Capitol bunker, the siege now in progress, Pence and Short, hardly for the first time, noted how far off the president could be from the page everyone else was on. That was the generous interpretation.

In part, the president seemed just not to be grasping the facts as they were coming through — mounting crowds, breached barricades, protesters entering the Capitol. Or maybe he was simply disagreeing with them: These people were protesting the election, he was still repeating as late as 2:30. The protesters wanted Pence to do the right thing. These were good protesters: his protesters.

Meadows, Herschmann, and Scavino began pressing the president to make some public acknowledgment of what was happening and to admonish the protesters, but his attention was elsewhere, still focused on the vice-president. Fourteen minutes after his tweet attacking Pence, at 2:38 p.m., the aides managed to get a tweet out from the president composed by Scavino: “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!”

Approaching 3 p.m., the pressure for the president to say something quickly mounted.

Ivanka Trump had been floating around the West Wing, chatting to a variety of people. Her children had gotten into private school in Florida, and she was pleased about this — an excited topic of conversation. She was pulled away from her discussion about schools to join the increasingly tense debate about how to respond to the news.

The president, though, was digging in his heels. He remained singularly focused on the electoral challenge and had blinders on to everything else — at least, that was how everybody was rationalizing something close to his total failure, willful or not, to understand what was going on. At the same time, no one in the White House was seeing this as the full-on assault on the Capitol and the nail in the coffin of the Trump administration that the world would shortly understand it to be; they were, for perhaps another 90 minutes or so, still treating this as “an optics issue,” as Ivanka was putting it.

It wasn’t until later in the three o’clock hour that Trump seemed to begin the transition from seeing the mob as people protesting the election — defending him so he would defend them — to seeing them as “not our people.” Therefore, he bore no responsibility for them.

Giuliani and Epshteyn were still watching television reports from the Willard. Giuliani was on the phone with the president, relating, with growing concern, what he was seeing on television, but both men were still talking about the vice-president and what might happen in the electoral count.

Ivanka wasn’t casting off the protesters entirely — here was the base. “American Patriots,” she addressed them directly in a tweet at 3:15, which she would shortly delete, “any security breach or disrespect to our law enforcement is unacceptable. The violence must stop immediately. Please be peaceful.”

The debate about putting the president out there to say something — something calming — continued for as much as an hour.

There were three views: that he must, as fast as possible, say something — it was getting serious (though no one yet was seeing this as the defining moment of his presidency); his own view, which was that he should say nothing — it was not his fault or responsibility, and he certainly didn’t want to give a speech that might imply it was; and, lastly, that anything he said, instead of helping to address the problem, might well make matters much worse, as it did when he was forced to make a speech condemning the racist protesters in Charlottesville.

Aides put in front of the president two suggested tweets, written in Trump’s voice, which they hoped he might accept:

Bad apples, like ANTIFA or other crazed leftists, infiltrated today’s peaceful protest over the fraudulent vote count. Violence is never acceptable! MAGA supporters embrace our police and the rule of law and should leave the Capitol now!

The fake news media who encouraged this summer’s violent and radical riots are now trying to blame peaceful and innocent MAGA supporters for violent actions. This isn’t who we are! Our people should head home and let the criminals suffer the consequences!

Trump either rejected them or ignored them (other than Dan Scavino, Trump didn’t like anyone else writing his tweets).

The challenge now became how to use Trump’s own arguments to convince him that he had to do something — what passed for the Socratic method in the Trump White House. He had often said what he needed to say, so just say it again: He and the Republican Party represented law and order, so how could he not speak out about lawlessness? He should urge his people, the good people, to go home and leave the bad people.

Still, he did not see the necessity of speaking out. It wasn’t as bad as the media were saying it was. People were saying it was bad just to blame it on him. It took 35 minutes from his “Stay Peaceful” tweet to get him to go further — with Scavino as the author:

I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order — respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!

The entire narrative of the election — and indeed the Trump presidency — was quickly being transformed: The Capitol was under siege; the “steal” was moot. But Trump remained fixed in his obsession: The election had been taken from him, and whatever happened, someone had to give it back; he could not see or think or imagine beyond this.

By 3:30 p.m., he was telling callers that, yes, he had decided to say something. He was going to speak. But he was still repeating that the election had been stolen and was seeking assurances from each caller that the protests were overblown — that it was mostly a peaceful protest, wasn’t it?

Every one of the people yet in the White House as well as those who had slipped out, along with the president’s large traveling retinue, his family, the many members of Congress seeking photo ops with him, and the legions of favor seekers, had all been at rally after rally and, over and over again, seen vivid demonstrations of the exotic, self-dramatizing, out-from-under-a-rock Trump fan base. But now, to a person, to a political professional, they were dumbfounded and awestruck — revulsion competing with incomprehension.

In part, the radically faithful had simply been concentrated. The merely eager party types, and the Las Vegas audience sorts, and the local business proprietors, and the family-outing Republicans, and the VFW-post members, and various church groups, the salt of the Republican earth, more or less in normal dress, all had mostly self-selected out, leaving what was generally, if abstractly, referred to in the Trump circle as the “hard core.” But no one had ever come so clearly face-to-face with this pure hard core as was happening now and would happen, in video footage and in indictments, in the weeks to come. Even Trump himself, the clearest channel through to this fan base, was growing confused.

As he went upstairs to the residence, he seemed, said some of the people talking to him there by phone, at a terrible loss. The monologue slowed and even paused, with a few people not even sure that this otherwise-unstoppable monologuist was still on the line.

At about this time, Scavino informed Trump that he had been booted off Twitter — still a temporary suspension. For more than four years, he’d been told that this was always a possibility, and every time, he’d responded that Twitter needed him more than he needed it.

The doubtless president was, at least for a moment, someone else. “I don’t know what to do here,” he said to one caller not long after 7 p.m. — as stark a sense of uncertainty and even crisis as the caller had ever heard the president express.

The notable thing is that he seemed to have finally recognized that the main event, the certification of the electoral votes, was now far from the main event. He may even have realized that after 64 days of struggle, it was over.

Jason Miller, at home in Arlington, was lying stupefied in bed with his wife, watching the video loops of the day over and over again and hoping there was a plan. But no one called. At 9 p.m., he got out of bed, opened his laptop, and started to write a statement. A statement — the considered language of politics, the true mandarin’s language — was an indication of ongoing business. This meant doing what Trump had refused for the past 64 days to do: acknowledge that Joe Biden would inevitably be the next president.

But there was not going to be an abject or contrite Trump or even a formally defeated one. It was necessary to skip over the fairness of the election and to skip over the Trump-told narrative — the election in his mind would remain stolen, forever stolen. This statement could certainly not be the official, belated concession — at least not to Trump — but it had to establish acceptance, a fait accompli, and put Trump’s stamp on the new, if disagreeable, reality.

Miller was trying to get the headline, the chyron roll: the message from Trump that something had changed.

Orderly transition.

Not exactly the torch passing, and hardly a round of applause for democracy in action.

That was as far as the president could be moved. He called Kushner and read him the draft.

“Will you call the president?” Kushner smoothly pushed Miller into the fray.

Miller called Meadows, still in the West Wing, and then the president. The president seemed eager to hear from Miller, eager to be on the phone. Most often for Trump, the phone was a one-way instrument: Callers listened.

“How bad is this?” Trump asked, a stark difference from his usual opener, “How are we doing?” — which was not, ordinarily, a question at all but a preface to Trump’s saying how well everything was going.

“Mr. President, today is literally going to change everything.”

“This looks terrible. This is really bad. Who are these people? These aren’t our people, these idiots with these outfits. They look like Democrats. Hold on, our great First Lady is here,” said Trump, switching to speakerphone.

“Jason,” said the great First Lady with a sharp note. “The media is trying to go and say this is who we are. We don’t support this.”

“That’s what we have to make clear,” said Miller, relieved that the president and First Lady were seeing the protesters as bad guys rather than good guys (and not a mix of the two). Pushing through, Miller told the president and First Lady that he had just gotten off the phone with Kushner and Meadows and that they had a proposal for later that evening if Biden reached an electoral majority. He went into reading the statement draft.

The president suggested “peaceful” transition instead of “orderly.” Miller said that that called attention to the fact that it wasn’t peaceful now and might not be peaceful. “Orderly,” Miller did not say, suggested not just an absence of disruption but that all the aspects of government would pass, as they should, to a new administration. “Peaceful” put it in someone else’s hand; “orderly” meant cooperation, too — the Trump White House would cooperate with the incoming Biden White House. It wasn’t just the protesters who needed to stop; Trump needed to extend himself, too. After all, it wasn’t just the recount effort and the election challenge behind the protests but Trump’s personal intransigence.

Trump seemed to appreciate this now, to walk back, even. “The media thinks I’m not going to leave,” said the president. “Do they really think that? That’s crazy.”

“We’ve never laid that out,” said Miller, with some deadpan. “I really can’t stress enough how much we have to make it clear that we’re fully onboard with an orderly transition.”

“We didn’t tell people to do something like this. We told people to be peaceful. I even said ‘peaceful’ and ‘patriotic’ in my speech!”

“I’ll work with Dan on getting this out,” Miller told the president. Saying this, Miller suddenly wondered if they would even have the tools and channels to get it out. Every call — to the wires, networks, and major dailies — yielded variations on the same question: When are we going to hear directly from the president? When is he going to come and talk about it? When is he going to stand in front of us and in front of the American people?

This is over, Miller thought. This is the end of the road. Of all the news outlets, only Fox had never gotten back to him. Even Fox, Miller accepted, was truly over Trump.

Scavino could use only his personal Twitter account to finally, at 3:49 a.m., get out the president’s statement.

If this was an attempted putsch, it had not only failed but shown its leader to be almost a random participant in it, without method or strategy. Disorder had always been his element, and it was now his followers’, too. But he was not so much with them as alone in his own rebellion and desires, a bubble of grievance that somehow floated apart from actual events, even events that were meant to make real the president’s own delusions.

\READ MORE

  

Contribute to RSN

Update My Monthly Donation

PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611




RSN: Bernie Sanders to Biden and Manchin: 'No Reconciliation Bill, No Deal'

 

 

Reader Supported News
29 June 21

2 Days to Go, Help With This Fundraiser!

We have two days to go in June, and we are really hurting for basic funding. Slow down, pull over, and help out.

It really matters.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!

 

If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611

Update My Monthly Donation


 

Reader Supported News
29 June 21

Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News

A REAL LIVE FUNDING EMERGENCY • We’re not getting enough donations. The response is far lower than we can normally depend on. It’s causing major problems. Today looks bad early. We will host 20K readers today. If 50 people donate we’ll be fine. Difficult to understand the problem.
Marc Ash • Founder, Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!

 

Bernie Sanders. (photo: Antonella Crescimbeni)
Bernie Sanders to Biden and Manchin: 'No Reconciliation Bill, No Deal'
Dominick Mastrangelo, The Hill
Excerpt: "'Let me be clear: There will not be a bipartisan infrastructure deal without a reconciliation bill that substantially improves the lives of working families and combats the existential threat of climate change,' Sanders said in a tweet on Sunday afternoon."

en. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is warning President Biden and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) that he will not support a bipartisan infrastructure bill that does not include a provision for reconciliation.

"Let me be clear: There will not be a bipartisan infrastructure deal without a reconciliation bill that substantially improves the lives of working families and combats the existential threat of climate change," Sanders said in a tweet on Sunday afternoon. "No reconciliation bill, no deal. We need transformative change NOW."

The demand from Sanders comes a day after Biden walked back remarks on Thursday suggesting he would only support signing a bipartisan bill if a larger reconciliation package was also passed.

"At a press conference after announcing the bipartisan agreement, I indicated that I would refuse to sign the infrastructure bill if it was sent to me without my Families Plan and other priorities, including clean energy," Biden in a statement on Saturday afternoon before saying his comments "also created the impression that I was issuing a veto threat on the very plan I had just agreed to, which was certainly not my intent."

On Sunday morning, several Republican senators said they accepted Biden's clarification and indicated they trusted the president to stick to his word.

“I recognize that he and his Democratic colleagues want more than that, they want other legislation as well," Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) said. "And we Republicans are saying absolutely no, we will not support a bill which is to be passed with a massive tax increase, and at the same time trillions of dollars in new spending. That is not something we will support."

Manchin, a moderate who represents a critical swing vote within the Democratic caucus and helped broker the deal between the White House and Senate Democrats, defended his position in Congress on Sunday.

“It’s the way I’ve basically been in public life, and I’m not changing. I’m sorry that this 50/50 worked out and people were unhappy with it, but it is what it is. And if they think that I’m going to change and be something that I’m not, I won’t. And I’ve been very clear,” Manchin said.

READ MORE

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. (photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. (photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)


Federal Judge Dismisses Antitrust Lawsuits Brought Against Facebook by the Federal Trade Commission
Michael Balsamo, Associated Press
Balsamo writes: "A federal judge on Monday dismissed antitrust lawsuits brought against Facebook by the Federal Trade Commission and a coalition of state attorneys general, dealing a significant blow to attempts by regulators to rein in tech giants."

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled Monday that the lawsuits were “legally insufficient” and didn’t provide enough evidence to prove that Facebook was a monopoly. The ruling dismisses the complaint but not the case, meaning the FTC could refile another complaint.

“These allegations — which do not even provide an estimated actual figure or range for Facebook’s market share at any point over the past ten years — ultimately fall short of plausibly establishing that Facebook holds market power,” he said.

The FTC said in a statement that it is “closely reviewing the opinion and assessing the best option forward.” The agency has 30 days in which to file a new complaint.

Boasberg closed that avenue for the states, however, in dismissing outright their separate complaint.

The U.S. government and 48 states and districts sued Facebook in December 2020, accusing the tech giant of abusing its market power in social networking to crush smaller competitors and seeking remedies that could include a forced spinoff of the social network’s Instagram and WhatsApp messaging services.

The FTC had alleged Facebook engaged in a “a systematic strategy” to eliminate its competition, including by purchasing smaller up-and-coming rivals like Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014. New York Attorney General Letitia James said when filing the suit that Facebook “used its monopoly power to crush smaller rivals and snuff out competition, all at the expense of everyday users.”

Facebook, in an e-mailed statement, said: “We are pleased that today’s decisions recognize the defects in the government complaints filed against Facebook. We compete fairly every day to earn people’s time and attention and will continue to deliver great products for the people and businesses that use our services.”

Richard Hamilton Jr., a former prosecutor and Justice Department antitrust attorney, said the judge, while finding the FTC’s arguments insufficient, gave the agency a sort of road map for how to bulk up its case in another round.

“Whether government or private entity, you still need to sufficiently plead the case,” Hamilton said. He noted that as Boasberg saw it, the FTC failed to demonstrate how it arrived at the claim that Facebook controls 60% of the market in social networking and how that market power is measured.

Alex Harman, competition policy advocate for Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group, said: “Courts really have a hard time with that market definition for some reason. It’s Exhibit A for why we need the laws changed.”

An ambitious package of legislation to overhaul the antitrust laws, which could point toward breaking up Facebook as well as Google, Amazon and Apple, was approved by the House Judiciary Committee last week and sent to the full U.S. House.

Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado, the chief Republican sponsor of the legislation, said in a statement that Monday’s ruling “shows that antitrust reform is urgently needed. Congress needs to provide additional tools and resources to our antitrust enforcers to go after Big Tech companies engaging in anticompetitive conduct.”

READ MORE

The aftermath of a U.S. airstrike in Iraq. (photo: Alaa Al-Marjani/Reuters)
The aftermath of a U.S. airstrike in Iraq. (photo: Alaa Al-Marjani/Reuters)


Jon Schwarz | Biden's Bombing Campaign Is a Trumpian Assertion of Presidential Power
Jon Schwarz, The Intercept
Schwarz writes: "According to Pentagon press secretary John Kirby, 'the President took this action pursuant to his Article II authority to protect U.S. personnel in Iraq.'"

Trump’s berserk recklessness opened a window to rein in presidential war powers. Biden’s actions show that window is now closed.


he Biden administration’s legal justification for the airstrikes it carried out Monday in Syria and Iraq was simple and straightforward: According to Pentagon press secretary John Kirby, “the President took this action pursuant to his Article II authority to protect U.S. personnel in Iraq.”

This is what is sometimes known as a “naked Article II” assertion of presidential power. That is, the executive branch is claiming the right to use armed force without reference to any authorization from Congress. Kirby made the same case in almost exactly the same words in February when Joe Biden bombed northeastern Syria. “The President took this action pursuant to his Article II authority to defend U.S. personnel,” he said at the time.

This may seem confusing, given that Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution declares that “the Congress shall have Power … To declare War.”

The rationale for this clause can be found in a famous 1793 polemic by James Madison, considered the father of the Constitution, which had been ratified just four years earlier. Madison argued the power to declare war must be “fully and exclusively vested” in Congress because history showed that “the executive is the department of power most distinguished by its propensity to war: hence it is the practice of all states, in proportion as they are free, to disarm this propensity of its influence.”

Madison therefore called for a “rigid adherence to the simple, the received and the fundamental doctrine of the constitution, that the power to declare war including the power of judging of the causes of war is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature: that the executive has no right, in any case to decide the question.”

This perspective constrained the executive branch to some limited extent through the end of World War II. Then, in 1950, President Harry Truman ordered hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops to Korea with no congressional authorization. His State Department instead issued a memo explaining why “the President’s authority to send the Armed Forces outside the country is not dependent on Congressional authority.” Why? Because “the President’s control over the Armed Forces of the United States is based on article 2, section 2 of the Constitution.” Article II, Section 2 states, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.”

The 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, passed under false pretenses, did provide some congressional authorization for the subsequent massive expansion of the Vietnam War, then already in progress. However, there was never any congressional support at all for America’s secret military campaign against Vietnam’s next door neighbor, Cambodia. The U.S. dropped about half a million tons of bombs on the poor peasant nation, about the same amount we used in the entire Pacific theater during World War II. The Nixon administration explained that this was fine and perfectly legal because the Korean War “stands as a precedent for executive action in committing United States armed forces to extensive hostilities without any formal declaration of war by Congress.” The U.S. had “in no sense gone to ‘war’ with Cambodia,” and Nixon didn’t need any authorization from Congress, given “the constitutional designation of the President as Commander in Chief.”

This perspective on presidential power has since become doctrine for Republicans and many Democrats. Congress authorized the Gulf War in 1991, but then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney felt this was unnecessary. “We had the Truman precedent from the Korean crisis of 1950,” Cheney said. “From a constitutional standpoint, we had all the authority we needed.”

The Justice Department provided Cheney and the rest of the George W. Bush administration with a legal justification for pure presidential power soon after the 9/11 attacks. Article II, it said, establishes that “the Founders entrusted the President with the primary responsibility, and therefore the power, to use military force in situations of emergency.” So the president did not need congressional authorization to attack “terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.”

That said, presidents have generally preferred to do a sort of legal two-step on this issue. They like to say they are acting “in accordance with” some kind of congressional authorization, even as they say Article II means they don’t need it. 2001’s Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed with a sole “no” vote after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, has proven particularly useful in this regard. According to a 2018 Congressional Research Service report, the 2001 AUMF had been cited by presidents 41 times: 18 by the Bush administration, 21 by Obama, and twice by Trump.

But even the 2001 AUMF couldn’t be stretched to cover the U.S. participation in the 2011 overthrow of Libya’s government. The Obama administration’s legal rationale for that was simply Article II. Then Trump bombed Syria on several occasions, explaining in a 22-page 2018 memo that “Article II provides the President with the authority to direct U.S. military forces in engagements necessary to advance American national interests abroad.”

After Washington officials witnessed Trump’s extraordinary recklessness — which during his first year in office could have genuinely led to nuclear war with North Korea, just on his sole decree — there was a brief window when it appeared the next administration might have limits placed on its war powers, either by itself or by Congress or both. But with Biden’s action since taking office, that window appears to have closed. It’s not surprising, but America’s continuing retreat from what Madison called “the practice of all states, in proportion as they are free,” is nonetheless extremely ominous.

READ MORE

Climate activists and Indigenous community members gather to protest construction of the Line 3 tar sands pipeline. (photo: Kerem Yucel/AFP/Getty Images)
Climate activists and Indigenous community members gather to protest construction of the Line 3 tar sands pipeline. (photo: Kerem Yucel/AFP/Getty Images)


Minnesota Sheriff Barricades Pipeline Resistance Camp's Driveway
Alleen Brown, The Intercept
Brown writes: "A Minnesota sheriff's office blocked access Monday morning to one of the protest encampments set up to resist the Enbridge Line 3 tar sands pipeline."

“This is an outrageous and unlawful effort to blockade people who are engaged in protected First Amendment activity.”


 Minnesota sheriff’s office blocked access Monday morning to one of the protest encampments set up to resist the Enbridge Line 3 tar sands pipeline.

In a notice delivered at 6 a.m. to pipeline opponents, who own the property, the Hubbard County Sheriff’s Office stated that it would no longer be allowing vehicular traffic on the small strip of county-owned land between the driveway and the road. Sheriff’s deputies arrived with trucks carrying building materials, a witness said.

“I was handed a notice that states the sheriff will be installing a physical barricade across the driveway to our private property,” said Tara Houska, an Anishinaabe co-founder of the anti-pipeline Giniw Collective, which organized the camp. “He’s saying that we have no right of access to our private property by vehicle.”

The pipeline opponents, also known as water protectors, plan to take legal action.

“This is quite simply nothing less than an overt political blockade,” said Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, an attorney for the pipeline opponents and director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund’s Center for Protest Law and Litigation. “This is an outrageous and unlawful effort to blockade people who are engaged in protected First Amendment activity and to punish them for their opposition to the Enbridge pipeline, where Enbridge is serving as the paymaster for Hubbard County sheriff.”

Verheyden-Hilliard was referring to an Enbridge-funded escrow account set up by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission to reimburse public safety agencies for activity related to Line 3. So far Enbridge has reimbursed Hubbard County $2,660 for riot helmet face shields and chest protectors as well as equipment related to removing pipeline opponents locked to construction infrastructure.

The Hubbard County Sheriff’s Office did not respond to a request for comment.

Water protectors have been using the trail unencumbered by restrictions for around three years, since the camp opened. The barricade was raised only after Line 3 construction ramped up and protest actions increased.

Water protectors see the road blockade as another example of local sheriff’s offices working to protect the interests of Enbridge, the Canadian tar sands pipeline company.

The Namewag camp has been used as a jumping-off point for water protectors conducting direct-action protests, sometimes involving demonstrators locking themselves to pipeline construction equipment or obstructing access to construction sites.

The water protectors oppose the tar sands oil pipeline based on its potential climate and environmental impacts, including the potential harm of a pipeline spill. They say the placement of the pipeline violates treaties signed between Ojibwe people and the U.S. government, because the route cuts through lands to which Ojibwe people have guaranteed access for hunting and gathering.

The Namewag property is bound on one side by county land and on another by land that Enbridge purchased the year after the camp was set up. Drones and helicopters regularly fly over the camp, and water protectors say the sheriff’s office has for months carefully monitored the comings and goings of cars. At one point, sheriff’s deputies even turned away a truck full of gravel they had purchased to manage the driveway’s spring mud.

The first 150 feet of the driveway leading to the Namewag camp are owned by the county. The notice states that the sheriff’s office is blocking the county trail “due to no easement for the current landowner.” It adds, “Vehicles driving on this county owned trail are in violation of the Hubbard County Land Ordinance and enforcement action will be taken.”

Although rules around property access can be complicated, the law favors allowing landowners entry to landlocked property. Blocking a property owner’s driveway with only a few hours notice is highly unusual.

“The state of Minnesota has already demonstrated a clear lack of understanding when it comes to the rights of Indigenous peoples,” Houska said, “and it appears there’s a loose grasp on the basics of U.S. property law as well.”

READ MORE


With the federal moratorium on evictions set to expire, the United States is on the verge of a massive housing crisis. (photo: John Moore/Getty Images)
With the federal moratorium on evictions set to expire, the United States is on the verge of a massive housing crisis. (photo: John Moore/Getty Images)


We Have to Act Now to Stop the Coming US Eviction Crisis
Fran Quigley, Jacobin
Quigley writes: "More than half of all renter households lost employment income between March 2020 and March of this year, causing one in five of those households to fall behind on rent."

A flood of evictions is about to slam the United States. But it doesn’t have to be this way. The federal government can stave off the crisis and fix the underlying injustices causing it. Here’s how.


he United States is on the precipice of a post-pandemic eviction crisis. More than half of all renter households lost employment income between March 2020 and March of this year, causing one in five of those households to fall behind on rent. For black renter households, fully 29 percent owe past-due rent.

Much of the fallout has been delayed by the eviction moratorium issued by the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC). But that moratorium is set to expire on July 31, and Americans struggling to keep a roof over their heads know what lurks around the corner. The US Census Bureau’s biweekly Household Pulse Survey issued on June 15 revealed that nearly 4.2 million people nationwide report that it is likely or somewhat likely that they will be evicted or foreclosed upon in the next two months.

It doesn’t have to be this way. There are multiple steps the federal government can and should take to stave off this crisis, and to fix the underlying injustices that are causing it.

In the short term, the Biden administration should extend the CDC moratorium to reflect the lingering economic struggles caused by the pandemic. If the CDC does not reconsider its indication that it would not extend the deadline past the end of July, states and local governments should extend their existing moratoriums or enact new ones. California lawmakers, for example, are not only considering an extended moratorium, they are making plans to use federal stimulus money to pay all of low-income renters’ back rent accumulated during the pandemic. Renters in the United States are still digging themselves out from COVID’s devastation, and our lawmakers need to act like it.

Lawmakers and courts should also require landlords to offer mediation to their tenants or take other informal steps before filing for a court order of eviction. A landlord should not be able to spend a few minutes completing a check-the-box form, plunk down as little as $87, and thereby inscribe a “Scarlet E” that will haunt a tenant for decades. Even when an eviction case is resolved with a settlement or in the tenants’ favor, future potential landlords often check court records, find a past eviction record, and then reject the applicants outright. Many Americans with eviction records thus become homeless or are forced to rely on expensive extended-stay motels.

For this same reason, lawmakers and judges should also restrict public access to eviction records, as has been done to varying degrees in Nevada, Oregon, California, and Washington, DC. Restricted access is already the rule for many other civil legal cases. Not allowing a past eviction to haunt a renter for decades on end is in keeping with the national trend toward expunging criminal records of past defendants, and a strong majority of voters support these policies.

“People with evictions on their records still need a place to live, but they are forced to pay the same amount of money for lesser-quality housing,” says judge Garland Graves, whose court handles eviction cases in Warren Township, Indiana. “It is a mark on their record that causes them real harm.”

Given the high stakes involved, tenants facing eviction should have a right to an attorney in eviction proceedings, where most landlords have counsel and very few tenants ever do. Nine cities have already enacted programs to provide counsel in eviction proceedings.

“There is a real imbalance of power between landlords and tenants in our current system,” says Alieza Durana of the Eviction Lab at Princeton University. “We need a tenants’ bill of rights that rectifies that imbalance, and that includes a right to counsel.”

The federal government should exercise its power to ban exclusionary zoning laws, especially those that prohibit multifamily housing and establish minimum lot sizes. Those zoning restrictions have a blatantly racist legacy. And we must rehabilitate the often substandard public housing in the United States, as called for in Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal for Public Housing Act.

Housing as a Human Right

These short-term fixes are urgently needed, but they should be just the first step in a full reorientation of our approach to housing. The current crisis provides an opportunity for a long-overdue national commitment to housing as a human right and a public good, rather than a commodity that is withheld from millions in order to guarantee unearned profits for a few.

The simple inability to pay monthly rent is far and away the top cause of Americans being forced from their homes. “In our court we constantly see a single mom with kids, trying to pay the rent on $10 per hour,” says Judge Graves. “All it takes is one hiccup like a car breakdown or a health issue, and the problems snowball from there.”

The first step in elevating people over property interests is to immediately remedy the shameful fact that only one in four eligible families receive federal rental assistance. As the National Low-Income Housing Coalition and other advocates have demanded, we must guarantee rental assistance to every eligible household. Given the very limited public-housing supply in the United States, the fastest way to achieve this is by making the housing choice voucher program universal. The government would provide a subsidy in the amount needed for low-income renters to afford market-rate housing without the undue hardship of paying more than 30 percent of their income in rent.

But a voucher expansion cannot be the long-term solution, since it perpetuates a core problem in the US approach to housing: we already make an enormous public investment in housing, but those dollars often end up in the pockets of wealthy individuals and for-profit developers and landlords.

Consider the mortgage interest deduction, which costs the federal government as much as $70 billion per year. That total is far higher than the entire budget for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and exceeds the Urban Institute’s estimated cost of providing a housing voucher to every eligible renter ($62 billion per year.) Most Americans get zero benefit from the mortgage interest deduction, but the wealthy do: 80 percent of its benefits are raked in by households in the richest 20 percent.

We generously subsidize corporate landlords, too. The Center for Popular Democracy has tallied $470 billion in government-provided benefits handed to those companies in the form of loopholes to avoid capital gains taxes and preferential tax treatment for limited liability corporations, real estate investment trusts, and corporations that invest in “opportunity zones,” which is often a vehicle for gentrification.

Even when the government programs are targeted at providing help for the poor, the wealthy win out. The housing choice voucher program is the largest low-income housing program in the country, with $19 billion per year spent providing rent support for tenants to pay private landlords. Data on who those landlords are is lacking, but it seems clear most are likely large for-profit companies. The other largest low-income housing programs, the low-income housing tax credit and project-based rental assistance programs, similarly direct government dollars into private, for-profit hands, with only some of the benefits accruing to people in need of housing.

The Poverty and Race Research Action Council, among other advocates, has outlined how the federal government could change those programs to invest instead in government and nonprofit housing. We should move our housing billions out of the private market and into social housing, built on a foundation of full public-sector ownership and management. In so doing, we will commit to democratic control of housing, which will minimize costs and include mechanisms to remedy race and income segregation.

Social housing is not a pipe dream concocted by a random think tank or tenant advocacy group: it is an approach with a proven track record in multiple European communities. For example, as Ryan Cooper and Saoirse Gowan have reported in Jacobinthe majority of Viennese live in municipal and cooperative housing, and three of every four Finns are eligible for publicly financed housing.

Like judges, advocates, and tenants across the country, Judge Graves in Indiana is bracing himself for a flood of evictions after the CDC moratorium expires. As worried as he is about protecting the rights of tenants in his court in the coming months, he is even more disturbed by what he sees on the more distant horizon: “If we don’t take some major action, I’m concerned we are just not going to have enough places for all of the people who need a place to live.”

The time for that major action is now.

READ MORE


The toppled statue in Toronto of Egerton Ryerson, one of the architects of the Indigenous boarding school system. (photo: Olivier Monnier/AFP/Getty Images)
The toppled statue in Toronto of Egerton Ryerson, one of the architects of the Indigenous boarding school system. (photo: Olivier Monnier/AFP/Getty Images)


Canada Has Lost Its Halo: We Must Confront Our Indigenous Genocide
Tara Sutton, Guardian UK
Sutton writes: "It's not often that Canadians have to apologize for their country."

Hundreds of unmarked graves, and testimonies of countless horrors, belie our angelic self-image


t’s not often that Canadians have to apologise for their country. I’ve travelled the world reporting on conflict and human rights and am always greeted positively when I say I’m Canadian. “It is a beautiful country,” I am told. “Your country cares for its citizens.” In Canada, people make sympathetic noises when I retell whatever tragic story I have been working on. “We are so lucky to live in Canada,” they say.

Canadians like the idea of a “good” country full of “good” people. There’s even a name for it: “the angel complex”. Look at all the immigrants and refugees we welcome here, goes the doctrine – we’re not like those American racists, or those European xenophobes. Canada see itself as proudly multicultural, tolerant, peace-loving and polite. A beacon of light to the world.

Except for the 5% of the population who were here first. For the Indigenous people of this land, the country’s existence has been the cause of centuries of suffering so severe that human rights tribunals have labelled it genocide.

It is dangerous to believe your own hype, to be convinced that you are the “good guys”. Since 1980, 2,000-4,000 Indigenous women have gone missing in Canada – disappearances rarely taken seriously by the police. The final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls came to the “inescapable conclusion” that Canada, from its precolonial past until today, had aimed to “destroy Indigenous people”.

The 2019 report explained how Canada’s policies qualified as genocide. What followed its publication was not a countrywide acknowledgment or a day of remembrance but quibbling among the chattering class about what really constituted genocide: Rwanda, Auschwitz – those were genocides! There was talk, too, of how damaging the term genocide would be to Canada’s international reputation. We’re mostly good, why let our actions over the past 200 years get in the way?

In 2015, four years before that report on the missing women, Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) completed its work. This had been a mammoth undertaking that included taking testimony from more than 6,500 survivors of the residential school system – obligatory boarding schools that the Canadian government paid Christian churches to run. Indigenous children were forced to attend. They were malnourished, often sexually and physically abused, and used as guinea pigs for medical experiments. After years of painstaking investigation the commission came up with 94 calls to action for the Canadian government. Until a few weeks ago the government had completed only 10 of those.

Last month, when the remains of 215 missing Indigenous children were found in unmarked graves at the site of a residential school near Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada’s dirty secret was exposed to the world. Thousands of Indigenous children had been going missing for almost two centuries: why did it take so long for them to be found? Every one was someone’s child, stolen from their parents, brutalised, neglected and buried in an unmarked grave. Parents and family members of those children had been saying for years that there were grave sites around the school. It took so long because no one who could do something believed them or cared.

Last week 751 more unmarked graves were found at the site of the Marieval Indian Residential school in Saskatchewan, which operated until 1997. That leaves 137 more residential school grounds to examine. It is fair to extrapolate that many more unmarked graves of children will be found. Yet the desire for obfuscation and denial is still strong. In a tweet after the Kamloops discovery, the prime minister, Justin Trudeau, referred to residential schools as “a dark chapter”, as if it was something long in the past.

Seven generations of Indigenous people passed through those “schools”. They were created to “take the Indian out of the child”, in the words of Canada’s first prime minister, John McDonald, to force assimilation through loss of language and culture.

The stories of the reality of life for children at these schools, as recounted in the TRC’s four volumes, including 6,500 testimonies of child survivors, contain horrors on an unbelievable scale. One man speaks of being raped so many times by the priest in charge that he hurled himself in front of a huge log being rolled downhill, breaking multiple bones to ensure he would be taken away.

Children frequently died trying to escape; some drowned, others were found frozen by the roadside. One girl made pregnant by yet another rapist priest was told her baby had been thrown in a furnace. Even the lucky child who escaped physical or sexual abuse would have been separated from their parents indefinitely, had their culture denigrated and their hair cut off, forbidden to speak their own language, given a number instead of a name, been underfed, ill-clothed and called racist names.

In the last month there has been a flurry of activity by a government suddenly eager to act. The calls to action made by the TRC in 2015 are suddenly top of the agenda. Why did it take the discovery of the children’s remains for Canada to finally believe that it committed genocide?

Violence and torture on this scale reminds me of reporting on life in Cambodia under Pol Pot. It has all the elements of the worst things I’ve seen anywhere – hunger, displacement, kidnapping, rape, disappearance, unmarked graves, genocide.

It is time for Canada to remove its halo and look in the mirror. It can no longer fall to the survivors of Canada’s genocide to educate us, to prove they suffered. If there is to be true reconciliation in Canada, these stories must be carried by all of us. The Kamloops unmarked graves make it impossible to say that we did not know.

READ MORE


A neighborhood in Baltimore, Maryland. (photo: Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)
A neighborhood in Baltimore, Maryland. (photo: Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)


Environmental Justice: Your City Is More Segregated Than It Was in 1990, New Study Shows
Adam Mahoney, Grist
Mahoney writes: "The study finds that, while residential segregation declined modestly from 1970 to 1990, it began increasing in 1990 and has been getting starker ever since."

The consequences for environmental justice are stark.


icture this: two babies born on the same day, maybe even within the same hour, at the Harlem Hospital Center in New York City. One baby, born to a Black mother, goes home to her family down the street in East Harlem. The second is taken home just a few blocks south to the Upper East Side by her white mother.

Fast forward to these babies’ adulthoods, and they’ve stayed close to the people and places they’ve grown to love — but their ability to access things like fresh foodquality pharmacieswell-resourced schoolsclean water, and even something as simple as the trees that shade their blocks are drastically different. The way their communities are policed and incarcerated is substantially different, too. As a result, the two people are expected to die roughly 19 years apart, despite living just a few blocks from one another.

new study and interactive map from researchers at the University of California Berkeley’s Othering & Belonging Institute, or OBI, demonstrate a comprehensive attempt to better understand residential racial segregation, the common phenomenon at root of these disparate inequalities, across the U.S. The study finds that, while residential segregation declined modestly from 1970 to 1990, it began increasing in 1990 and has been getting starker ever since. As a result, more than 150 large metropolitan regions in the U.S. — a whopping 81 percent of the total — are more segregated now than they were 30 years ago, according to the study.

“Segregation is the invisible undercarriage of every expression of systemic racism in this country,” Stephen Menendian, lead author and Director of Research at OBI, told Grist. “While segregation might not explain everything with inequality, it’s the sine qua non of racial inequality, which has a role in all injustices.”

The study’s sobering results are partially the result of careful methodological choices. Rather than relying on traditional measures of segregation like the so-called Dissimilarity Index, which measures how much movement it would take for two racial groups to become evenly distributed in a given locality, the researchers opt instead to use the Divergence Index, which measures the extent to which the demographics of a given geographic unit diverge from the broader whole of which it is a part: how the demographics of a census tract differ from those of its city, or how those of a city differ from those of a broader metropolitan area. The authors say that this better allows the study to account for America’s increasing diversity (which could lower dissimilarity scores even as segregation itself persists) as well as the increasingly regional nature of segregation.

This methodology finds that the one-time manufacturing hubs of the mid-Atlantic and Midwest’s “Rust Belt” disproportionately account for the country’s top 10 most segregated cities, with Detroit — the Blackest city in America — topping the list. Chicago, Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia are not far behind. When metropolitan areas, which include cities and their connecting suburbs, are considered as a whole, New York City reigns supreme. While segregation is worst in these places, it has increased all across the country. Since 1990, the metropolitan area of Fayetteville, Arkansas, has seen the greatest increase in segregation, while cities in the West, such as Salt Lake City, Utah, and Santa Cruz, California, have also become significantly more segregated.

Segregation may have picked back up in recent decades, but its roots stretch back much further.

“The real driving force behind segregation in the North and West,” Menendian explained, “was the real estate industry.” Real estate companies have historically propagated racist beliefs that Black residents negatively impacted property values, were undesirable neighbors, and posed existential risks to communities and neighborhoods. As the government got more involved in regulating housing in the early 20th century, these ideas made their way into official policy. With that came exclusionary single-family zoning policies in places like Berkeley, California; racially restrictive zoning ordinances in cities like Baltimore, Maryland; and the nationwide practice of redlining, which denied investment to communities of color from Chicago to Miami and everywhere in between.

Segregation’s hold on the country has led to Black and Latino communities’ disproportionate exposure to environmental pollutants, which when coupled with poor health care optionsunhealthy food options, as well as less access to green space and even safe jobs, culminates in a predisposition to premature death: Today Black Americans are expected to live six fewer years than white Americans.

Another new study by the conservation nonprofit American Forests found that segregation can even account for something as mundane as why affluent U.S. communities have 65 percent more trees than their poor counterparts. Closing that tree cover gap would support 4 million jobs, mitigate 57,000 tons of air pollution, and remove the equivalent amount of carbon from the atmosphere as taking 92 million cars off the road, according to the group. It would also improve health and safety outcomes in poor communities. (Tree cover has been shown to help lower blood pressure, reduce stress, and increase energy levels.)

However, Medendian and his co-authors Arthur Gailes and Samir Gambhir believe that fixes that focus on the symptoms of segregation, such as tree cover inequality, without addressing the deepening segregation itself won’t make any substantial differences in disparate life outcomes.

“In this particular moment of greater awareness of the extent and reality of systemic racism in the country, it’s important that we draw attention to what undergirds injustice,” Menendian said. “Segregation causes the inequalities that lead to police patrolling certain neighborhoods more aggressively, why life expectancies are lower in some neighborhoods than others, why frontline workers are disproportionately residing in certain neighborhoods, and why some people don’t have access to clean air or water.”

“If we’re going to actually make progress on these inequalities we need not continue focusing on the symptoms, but the causes,” he added.

READ MORE

 

Contribute to RSN

Update My Monthly Donation

PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611





The GOP just tried to kick hundreds of students off the voter rolls

    This year, MAGA GOP activists in Georgia attempted to disenfranchise hundreds of students by trying to kick them off the voter rolls. De...