Independent News

This post was originally published on this site

Congress is out this week for the Veterans Day holiday, which means a week of posturing and trying to poison the well for next week’s push on President Joe Biden’s family and climate change Build Back Better plan. It’s all about trying to wedge the conservative Democrats even further away from the majority of their colleagues. And in one case, it’s a Democrat doing it.

The Congressional Budget Office advised lawmakers Tuesday that it likely would not be able to provide a full score of the BBB bill by next week, when Speaker Pelosi has said the House will vote. The conservative hold-outs in the caucus had reached an agreement with progressives that if they helped pass the hard infrastructure bill last Friday (which they did), then the conservatives would vote for BBB provided they receive certain “fiscal information” from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Exactly what that information could consist of was not specified, but as of Wednesday, they are apparently not insisting that it be a full score and that they expect “there will likely be enough information available to alleviate“ their concerns.

A couple of Republicans, however, are trying to shoehorn themselves into the situation and make the CBO produce a score that doesn’t actually reflect the legislation. Republican Missouri Rep. Jason Smith (who calls himself a “leader” on his Twitter bio, even if he’s just another Republican no one has heard of) and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina have released a letter they sent to the CBO telling them to “produce a score that reflects the full price tag of @POTUS’s agenda.” By that, they mean scoring the key temporary components designed to help working families, as if all of them were going to be permanent. The bill as it stands is paid for, something the Joint Committee on Taxation has already confirmed.

The two Republicans are also demanding that the CBO provide this bogus score “no later than one day after transmittal of the CBO cost estimate for this legislation or 48 hours before the U.S. House of Representatives considers the FY 2022 reconciliation measure, whichever comes first.” That does two things—bogs down the CBO with extraneous work so that it could take them longer to come up with the score for the actual legislation, and thus potentially delay the vote, and come up with a much more expensive score they could point to, scream “but the deficit!” and make the conservative Democrats scared of having Republicans call them “tax-and-spend” Democrats in the next election. As if Republicans weren’t definitely going to do that anyway, no matter how they vote on this bill.

Progressive Democrats are giving their colleagues the benefit of the doubt, at least publicly, expecting that they will continue to act in good faith.

A Democrat definitely not acting in good faith, however, is Sen. Joe Manchin. Surprise, surprise. He’s been yammering on about the inflationary effects of the potential bill, not because he understands the economics in effect, but because it sounds like a thing smart people would say. He was back at it Wednesday.
 

That received a quick response in the form of subtweets from both President Biden and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.

They’ve got the backing of Moody’s Analytics on that one. The BBB would “strengthen long-term economic growth, the benefits of which would mostly accrue to lower- and middle-income Americans,” Moody’s analysts say. And answering one of Manchin’s regular excuses for not wanting to do it: “Concerns that the plan will ignite undesirably high inflation and an overheating economy are overdone.”

“The reconciliation package … meaningfully lifts economic growth and jobs and lowers unemployment,” the analysts conclude. “The economy performs best in the final scenario, in which both the bipartisan infrastructure deal and the reconciliation package become law.”

This post was originally published on this site

Congress is out this week for the Veterans Day holiday, which means a week of posturing and trying to poison the well for next week’s push on President Joe Biden’s family and climate change Build Back Better plan. It’s all about trying to wedge the conservative Democrats even further away from the majority of their colleagues. And in one case, it’s a Democrat doing it.

The Congressional Budget Office advised lawmakers Tuesday that it likely would not be able to provide a full score of the BBB bill by next week, when Speaker Pelosi has said the House will vote. The conservative hold-outs in the caucus had reached an agreement with progressives that if they helped pass the hard infrastructure bill last Friday (which they did), then the conservatives would vote for BBB provided they receive certain “fiscal information” from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Exactly what that information could consist of was not specified, but as of Wednesday, they are apparently not insisting that it be a full score and that they expect “there will likely be enough information available to alleviate“ their concerns.

A couple of Republicans, however, are trying to shoehorn themselves into the situation and make the CBO produce a score that doesn’t actually reflect the legislation. Republican Missouri Rep. Jason Smith (who calls himself a “leader” on his Twitter bio, even if he’s just another Republican no one has heard of) and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina have released a letter they sent to the CBO telling them to “produce a score that reflects the full price tag of @POTUS’s agenda.” By that, they mean scoring the key temporary components designed to help working families, as if all of them were going to be permanent. The bill as it stands is paid for, something the Joint Committee on Taxation has already confirmed.

The two Republicans are also demanding that the CBO provide this bogus score “no later than one day after transmittal of the CBO cost estimate for this legislation or 48 hours before the U.S. House of Representatives considers the FY 2022 reconciliation measure, whichever comes first.” That does two things—bogs down the CBO with extraneous work so that it could take them longer to come up with the score for the actual legislation, and thus potentially delay the vote, and come up with a much more expensive score they could point to, scream “but the deficit!” and make the conservative Democrats scared of having Republicans call them “tax-and-spend” Democrats in the next election. As if Republicans weren’t definitely going to do that anyway, no matter how they vote on this bill.

Progressive Democrats are giving their colleagues the benefit of the doubt, at least publicly, expecting that they will continue to act in good faith.

A Democrat definitely not acting in good faith, however, is Sen. Joe Manchin. Surprise, surprise. He’s been yammering on about the inflationary effects of the potential bill, not because he understands the economics in effect, but because it sounds like a thing smart people would say. He was back at it Wednesday.
 

That received a quick response in the form of subtweets from both President Biden and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.

They’ve got the backing of Moody’s Analytics on that one. The BBB would “strengthen long-term economic growth, the benefits of which would mostly accrue to lower- and middle-income Americans,” Moody’s analysts say. And answering one of Manchin’s regular excuses for not wanting to do it: “Concerns that the plan will ignite undesirably high inflation and an overheating economy are overdone.”

“The reconciliation package … meaningfully lifts economic growth and jobs and lowers unemployment,” the analysts conclude. “The economy performs best in the final scenario, in which both the bipartisan infrastructure deal and the reconciliation package become law.”

This post was originally published on this site

Let’s talk about newspapers, specifically the big-hitters in terms of circulation. Many consider newspapers the most dogged pursuers of truth and accuracy, the originators of journalism, tasked with bringing to light pressing societal issues like workplace inequity. But what few may realize about these media staples is that they often replicate the same destructive cycles in-house that they are quick to call out in other industries, namely inequity in their ranks.  

A study released last month by the nonprofit Women’s Media Center found that on average, top newspapers have tasked men with reporting the news more than twice as much as they have tasked women. Masculine bylines were featured 69% of the time compared to 31% for feminine bylines, the Women’s Media Center found. The narrowest gender gaps were at The New York Times, The Washington Post, and USA Today, where feminine bylines were spotted some 40% of the time while masculine bylines were spotted about 60% of the time. The most gaping gender gaps were at The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC), Newsday, and the Los Angeles Times.

At the AJC, a former employer of mine, women reported the news 16% of the time compared to 84% of the time for men. Newsday’s numbers were 18% to 82%, and the Los Angeles Times‘ stats were 19% to 81%. Formerly on a digital breaking news team, I left the AJC in 2018 after my four-month stint of working from home came to an end. My boss explained at the time that they just weren’t ready to allow remote work, and to do so for me presented a fairness issue. The argument was almost laughable considering the reporters on my team weren’t even given the respect and accompanying benefits of being classified as full-time employees, even though we worked 40-hour weeks. I was one of three female reporters on my team, and all of us have since parted ways with the company.

I left because I didn’t feel comfortable putting my 4-month-old son in daycare, and my salary didn’t justify it. My husband had the better-paying job with benefits, so leaving the AJC was an easy decision for me, though one that left me a bit bitter about my place in journalism now that I had become a mom. I’ve since learned, my story is far from unique.

Journalist Pat Mitchell wrote in Ms. Magazine:

“Newsrooms have always had a 24/7 culture which rewards those who can work long hours and can adjust their schedules on the fly when news breaks. Primary caregivers, who are mostly women, are forced to choose between child care responsibilities and career advancement. I faced this impossible choice many times as a single mother working in media companies at a time when we quite literally ‘hid’ photos of our children and suppressed the struggle. The struggle persists today and many women decide to leave the profession due to burnout.”

Julie Burton, president and chief executive officer of the Women’s Media Center, said in a news release that even “during this moment of newsroom reckoning, men still dominate when reporting the news.” The Women’s Media Center was founded by feminist activist Gloria Steinem, actress Jane Fonda, and poet Robin Morgan in 2005 “to raise the visibility, viability and decision-making power of women and girls in media,” according to the Center. 

“Women are more than half of the population, yet it’s men who are telling most of the stories,” Burton said. “As a result, the news media is missing out on major stories, readers, and viewers and important perspectives.”

Wesley Lowery, a Black Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter who left his position at The Washington Post for one at CBS News, wrote in a New York Times op-ed last year that the “views and inclinations of whiteness are accepted as the objective neutral.” “When black and brown reporters and editors challenge those conventions, it’s not uncommon for them to be pushed out, reprimanded or robbed of new opportunities,” Lowery wrote. 

If you’re a Black woman, your voice is often so ignored in newsrooms it’s practically nonexistent—so much so that the groundbreaking reporting on race we later celebrate has had to happen during reporters’ days off. Employers just haven’t seen the value when it’s a Black body lying face-down in a pool of blood on the street. Journalist Brittany Noble, a friend of mine, was off work but decided to jump into action to cover the Michael Brown shooting. In 2019, she wrote:

“I was hired at WJTV after breaking one of the biggest stories of the decade. The officer involved shooting death of a teen named Mike Brown in my Ferguson, Missouri neighborhood. His death sparked change and helped ignite the ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement that we know today. However, when I pitched stories about race in Mississippi, I was told the stories ‘are not for all people.’”

Noble also filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint after she was fired from her position with the Mississippi news station. She wrote:

“After having my son, I asked my news director if I could stop straightening my hair. A month after giving me the green light I was pulled back into his office. I was told ‘My natural hair is unprofessional and the equivalent to him throwing on a baseball cap to go to the grocery store. He said “Mississippi viewers needed to see a beauty queen.’ He even asked, ‘why my hair doesn’t lay flat.’ When I asked him how I should address the change on social media he told me to write ‘I was told to change my hair back to the way it was because that’s what looks best.’”

The Women’s Media Center wrote in its 2018 report on the status of women of color (WOC) in news media that WOC represent just 7.95% of print newsroom staff members and 12.6% of local TV news staff. “There are so many micro-aggressions that come with being a journalist and female and not White,” journalist Soledad O’Brien said in the report’s news release. “If you spend too much time seeing yourself — in terms of how they see you — as only those things, you will lose your mind. Because there are just a lot of slights.”

Two years later, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette banned two Black journalists from covering protests about the death of George Floyd, who was murdered by a white Minneapolis cop that kneeled on the Black father’s neck for more than nine minutes. According to the Newspaper Guild of Pittsburgh’s description, an existing clash between management and journalists at the newspaper seemed to have reached a boiling point when Alexis Johnson, a Black member of the guild and a reporter for the paper, posted a tweet May 31. It included photos of tailgating trash left behind after country singer Kenny Chesney’s concert and read: “Horrifying scenes and aftermath from selfish LOOTERS who don’t care about this city!!!!!…. oh wait sorry. No, these are pictures from a Kenny Chesney concert tailgate. Whoops.”

Soon after, management at the paper barred Johnson from protest-related coverage. Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer Michael Santiago, who MSNBC’s Joy Reid interviewed, said he was not given a reason when he was pulled off of protest coverage but he vowed that he would stand by Johnson. “There was no way that I was going to let this happen to her,” Santiago said. “I was going to protect her at any cost, and I told her I was going to ride or die for her, and that’s exactly what I did.”

With her tweet, Johnson offered exactly the kind of news analysis more media outlets could stand to learn from instead of simply continuing their one-dimensional framing of Black people in stories. But like all too many newspapers, the Post-Gazette was all too willing to punish Johnson rather than learn from her. And that, for many, is what it means to be a Black woman in journalism—hiding as much of yourself as you can stomach because the second you slip up and express your Blackness, you risk being laid out on the chopping block.  

RELATED: Pittsburgh union fights back when 2 Black journalists banned from covering George Floyd protests

RELATED: Pittsburgh newspaper editor defends banning 2 Black journalists from George Floyd protest coverage

RELATED: Want to be a better progressive? Actively avoid committing microaggressions

This post was originally published on this site

Let’s talk about newspapers, specifically the big-hitters in terms of circulation. Many consider newspapers the most dogged pursuers of truth and accuracy, the originators of journalism, tasked with bringing to light pressing societal issues like workplace inequity. But what few may realize about these media staples is that they often replicate the same destructive cycles in-house that they are quick to call out in other industries, namely inequity in their ranks.  

A study released last month by the nonprofit Women’s Media Center found that on average, top newspapers have tasked men with reporting the news more than twice as much as they have tasked women. Masculine bylines were featured 69% of the time compared to 31% for feminine bylines, the Women’s Media Center found. The narrowest gender gaps were at The New York Times, The Washington Post, and USA Today, where feminine bylines were spotted some 40% of the time while masculine bylines were spotted about 60% of the time. The most gaping gender gaps were at The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC), Newsday, and the Los Angeles Times.

At the AJC, a former employer of mine, women reported the news 16% of the time compared to 84% of the time for men. Newsday’s numbers were 18% to 82%, and the Los Angeles Times‘ stats were 19% to 81%. Formerly on a digital breaking news team, I left the AJC in 2018 after my four-month stint of working from home came to an end. My boss explained at the time that they just weren’t ready to allow remote work, and to do so for me presented a fairness issue. The argument was almost laughable considering the reporters on my team weren’t even given the respect and accompanying benefits of being classified as full-time employees, even though we worked 40-hour weeks. I was one of three female reporters on my team, and all of us have since parted ways with the company.

I left because I didn’t feel comfortable putting my 4-month-old son in daycare, and my salary didn’t justify it. My husband had the better-paying job with benefits, so leaving the AJC was an easy decision for me, though one that left me a bit bitter about my place in journalism now that I had become a mom. I’ve since learned, my story is far from unique.

Journalist Pat Mitchell wrote in Ms. Magazine:

“Newsrooms have always had a 24/7 culture which rewards those who can work long hours and can adjust their schedules on the fly when news breaks. Primary caregivers, who are mostly women, are forced to choose between child care responsibilities and career advancement. I faced this impossible choice many times as a single mother working in media companies at a time when we quite literally ‘hid’ photos of our children and suppressed the struggle. The struggle persists today and many women decide to leave the profession due to burnout.”

Julie Burton, president and chief executive officer of the Women’s Media Center, said in a news release that even “during this moment of newsroom reckoning, men still dominate when reporting the news.” The Women’s Media Center was founded by feminist activist Gloria Steinem, actress Jane Fonda, and poet Robin Morgan in 2005 “to raise the visibility, viability and decision-making power of women and girls in media,” according to the Center. 

“Women are more than half of the population, yet it’s men who are telling most of the stories,” Burton said. “As a result, the news media is missing out on major stories, readers, and viewers and important perspectives.”

Wesley Lowery, a Black Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter who left his position at The Washington Post for one at CBS News, wrote in a New York Times op-ed last year that the “views and inclinations of whiteness are accepted as the objective neutral.” “When black and brown reporters and editors challenge those conventions, it’s not uncommon for them to be pushed out, reprimanded or robbed of new opportunities,” Lowery wrote. 

If you’re a Black woman, your voice is often so ignored in newsrooms it’s practically nonexistent—so much so that the groundbreaking reporting on race we later celebrate has had to happen during reporters’ days off. Employers just haven’t seen the value when it’s a Black body lying face-down in a pool of blood on the street. Journalist Brittany Noble, a friend of mine, was off work but decided to jump into action to cover the Michael Brown shooting. In 2019, she wrote:

“I was hired at WJTV after breaking one of the biggest stories of the decade. The officer involved shooting death of a teen named Mike Brown in my Ferguson, Missouri neighborhood. His death sparked change and helped ignite the ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement that we know today. However, when I pitched stories about race in Mississippi, I was told the stories ‘are not for all people.’”

Noble also filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint after she was fired from her position with the Mississippi news station. She wrote:

“After having my son, I asked my news director if I could stop straightening my hair. A month after giving me the green light I was pulled back into his office. I was told ‘My natural hair is unprofessional and the equivalent to him throwing on a baseball cap to go to the grocery store. He said “Mississippi viewers needed to see a beauty queen.’ He even asked, ‘why my hair doesn’t lay flat.’ When I asked him how I should address the change on social media he told me to write ‘I was told to change my hair back to the way it was because that’s what looks best.’”

The Women’s Media Center wrote in its 2018 report on the status of women of color (WOC) in news media that WOC represent just 7.95% of print newsroom staff members and 12.6% of local TV news staff. “There are so many micro-aggressions that come with being a journalist and female and not White,” journalist Soledad O’Brien said in the report’s news release. “If you spend too much time seeing yourself — in terms of how they see you — as only those things, you will lose your mind. Because there are just a lot of slights.”

Two years later, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette banned two Black journalists from covering protests about the death of George Floyd, who was murdered by a white Minneapolis cop that kneeled on the Black father’s neck for more than nine minutes. According to the Newspaper Guild of Pittsburgh’s description, an existing clash between management and journalists at the newspaper seemed to have reached a boiling point when Alexis Johnson, a Black member of the guild and a reporter for the paper, posted a tweet May 31. It included photos of tailgating trash left behind after country singer Kenny Chesney’s concert and read: “Horrifying scenes and aftermath from selfish LOOTERS who don’t care about this city!!!!!…. oh wait sorry. No, these are pictures from a Kenny Chesney concert tailgate. Whoops.”

Soon after, management at the paper barred Johnson from protest-related coverage. Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer Michael Santiago, who MSNBC’s Joy Reid interviewed, said he was not given a reason when he was pulled off of protest coverage but he vowed that he would stand by Johnson. “There was no way that I was going to let this happen to her,” Santiago said. “I was going to protect her at any cost, and I told her I was going to ride or die for her, and that’s exactly what I did.”

With her tweet, Johnson offered exactly the kind of news analysis more media outlets could stand to learn from instead of simply continuing their one-dimensional framing of Black people in stories. But like all too many newspapers, the Post-Gazette was all too willing to punish Johnson rather than learn from her. And that, for many, is what it means to be a Black woman in journalism—hiding as much of yourself as you can stomach because the second you slip up and express your Blackness, you risk being laid out on the chopping block.  

RELATED: Pittsburgh union fights back when 2 Black journalists banned from covering George Floyd protests

RELATED: Pittsburgh newspaper editor defends banning 2 Black journalists from George Floyd protest coverage

RELATED: Want to be a better progressive? Actively avoid committing microaggressions

This post was originally published on this site

New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu dealt a serious blow to Senate Republicans Tuesday when he took a pass on running for Senate against one of the GOP’s top targets—Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire.

But Sununu is no exception to the rule, and he could very well be the canary in the coal mine for Senate Republicans. While Republicans had been eyeing New Hampshire as a serious pick-up opportunity, they had also dabbled with the idea of making Democrats at least squander some resources on playing defense in blue states like Vermont and Maryland. But as NBC News points out, that GOP aspiration is contingent on one of those state’s popular Republican governors showing any interest at all in signing on to be part of the Senate GOP caucus.

“Vermont Gov. Phil Scott won re-election by 15 percentage points in 2018, the same year his famously progressive state overwhelmingly handed independent Sen. Bernie Sanders a third term,” writes NBC. But Scott—really the only Vermont Republican who could pull off an upset against incumbent Sen. Patrick Leahy—didn’t even vote for Trump and has no interest in running for Senate.

Maryland’s Republican Gov. Larry Hogan is in the same boat—popular but uninterested in running.

In short, it appears no moderate, sane-ish Republicans are jumping at the chance to join Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s caucus, particularly because Trump is so clearly calling the shots. Sununu’s very public rejection of the Senate GOP also isn’t going to make joining the caucus seem any more appealing to the kinds of candidates who would likely fare better in a general election.

So as moderate Republicans decline to run while fringe GOP candidates dominate the field, the entire Republican line up is getting more extreme.

That has Brian Walsh, a former Senate GOP campaign operative, hearing “echoes of 2010,” when Senate Republicans failed to seize a majority despite the pro-Republican political environment.

“Arguably, Republicans lost five seats between 2010 and 2012 because of bad general election candidates,” Walsh told NBC. “I’m not saying that’s necessarily going to happen here. We don’t know that yet. But broadly, candidates matter.”

Here’s the GOP scorecard so far:

In New Hampshire, which Republicans had slated as a top target for a pick up, they’re now scrambling for a candidate.

In Georgia, another GOP pick-up opportunity, Republicans will likely be saddled with Trump pick Herschel Walker, who has a violent and allegedly abusive history.

In Nevada, which Republicans also hope to flip, the state party is in the midst of an epic meltdown. At the same time, they appear to be rallying around former state Attorney General Adam Laxalt, who made stoking Trump’s Big Lie his life’s mission.

Laxalt sued to stop the ballot counting in the state’s largest county (which Trump lost), sued to overturn Biden’s victory, baselessly claimed votes of dead people had been counted, baselessly claimed votes from undocumented immigrants had tipped the state to Biden, and again filed a post-certification lawsuit alleging the GOP secretary of state had allowed non-citizens to vote.

In Arizona, another GOP flip opportunity, the four-person primary is headed hard right and nasty negative as state Attorney General Mark Brnovich, energy executive Jim Lamon, retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Mick McGuire and Blake Masters duke it out. Brnovich (aka nunchuck guy) likely has the highest statewide name recognition outside of GOP Gov. Doug Ducey (who Trump hates and has declined to run). But Masters runs billionaire Peter Thiel’s investment firm and just this week Trump announced a fundraiser for him (because Trump also faults Brnovich for failing to overturn the state’s 2020 results).

In Pennsylvania, one of Democrats’ best pick-up opportunities, the GOP primary for the open seat has turned downright embarrassing. Trump endorsed Army vet Sean Parnell, who is embroiled in an ugly custody battle in which his estranged wife testified that Parnell abused her and one of their children. Senate Republicans are dodging questions about the race as Parnell’s candidacy spirals.

In North Carolina, which also has an open Senate seat, Trump complicated the race with an early endorsement of a lesser-known GOP congressman, Rep. Ted Budd, while former Gov. Pat McCrory has a higher profile and a likely edge among Republican voters. If McCrory triumphs, it remains to be seen whether he can win over Trump voters in the general election.

Other potential Democratic pick ups include Florida and Wisconsin, with incumbent Sens. Marco Rubio and Ron Johnson, and on the outside edge, open seats in Ohio and Missouri, where Republicans just might manage to put the seats in play despite their considerable advantages in each state.

Notably, Trump is playing key role in nearly every one of those Senate contests. In almost every state, Trump has done at least one of several things: repelled a top-tier candidate, made an endorsement, radicalized the GOP field, or become a complicating factor by incessantly pushing his election fraud lies and demanding absolute fealty. 

This post was originally published on this site

New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu dealt a serious blow to Senate Republicans Tuesday when he took a pass on running for Senate against one of the GOP’s top targets—Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire.

But Sununu is no exception to the rule, and he could very well be the canary in the coal mine for Senate Republicans. While Republicans had been eyeing New Hampshire as a serious pick-up opportunity, they had also dabbled with the idea of making Democrats at least squander some resources on playing defense in blue states like Vermont and Maryland. But as NBC News points out, that GOP aspiration is contingent on one of those state’s popular Republican governors showing any interest at all in signing on to be part of the Senate GOP caucus.

“Vermont Gov. Phil Scott won re-election by 15 percentage points in 2018, the same year his famously progressive state overwhelmingly handed independent Sen. Bernie Sanders a third term,” writes NBC. But Scott—really the only Vermont Republican who could pull off an upset against incumbent Sen. Patrick Leahy—didn’t even vote for Trump and has no interest in running for Senate.

Maryland’s Republican Gov. Larry Hogan is in the same boat—popular but uninterested in running.

In short, it appears no moderate, sane-ish Republicans are jumping at the chance to join Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s caucus, particularly because Trump is so clearly calling the shots. Sununu’s very public rejection of the Senate GOP also isn’t going to make joining the caucus seem any more appealing to the kinds of candidates who would likely fare better in a general election.

So as moderate Republicans decline to run while fringe GOP candidates dominate the field, the entire Republican line up is getting more extreme.

That has Brian Walsh, a former Senate GOP campaign operative, hearing “echoes of 2010,” when Senate Republicans failed to seize a majority despite the pro-Republican political environment.

“Arguably, Republicans lost five seats between 2010 and 2012 because of bad general election candidates,” Walsh told NBC. “I’m not saying that’s necessarily going to happen here. We don’t know that yet. But broadly, candidates matter.”

Here’s the GOP scorecard so far:

In New Hampshire, which Republicans had slated as a top target for a pick up, they’re now scrambling for a candidate.

In Georgia, another GOP pick-up opportunity, Republicans will likely be saddled with Trump pick Herschel Walker, who has a violent and allegedly abusive history.

In Nevada, which Republicans also hope to flip, the state party is in the midst of an epic meltdown. At the same time, they appear to be rallying around former state Attorney General Adam Laxalt, who made stoking Trump’s Big Lie his life’s mission.

Laxalt sued to stop the ballot counting in the state’s largest county (which Trump lost), sued to overturn Biden’s victory, baselessly claimed votes of dead people had been counted, baselessly claimed votes from undocumented immigrants had tipped the state to Biden, and again filed a post-certification lawsuit alleging the GOP secretary of state had allowed non-citizens to vote.

In Arizona, another GOP flip opportunity, the four-person primary is headed hard right and nasty negative as state Attorney General Mark Brnovich, energy executive Jim Lamon, retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Mick McGuire and Blake Masters duke it out. Brnovich (aka nunchuck guy) likely has the highest statewide name recognition outside of GOP Gov. Doug Ducey (who Trump hates and has declined to run). But Masters runs billionaire Peter Thiel’s investment firm and just this week Trump announced a fundraiser for him (because Trump also faults Brnovich for failing to overturn the state’s 2020 results).

In Pennsylvania, one of Democrats’ best pick-up opportunities, the GOP primary for the open seat has turned downright embarrassing. Trump endorsed Army vet Sean Parnell, who is embroiled in an ugly custody battle in which his estranged wife testified that Parnell abused her and one of their children. Senate Republicans are dodging questions about the race as Parnell’s candidacy spirals.

In North Carolina, which also has an open Senate seat, Trump complicated the race with an early endorsement of a lesser-known GOP congressman, Rep. Ted Budd, while former Gov. Pat McCrory has a higher profile and a likely edge among Republican voters. If McCrory triumphs, it remains to be seen whether he can win over Trump voters in the general election.

Other potential Democratic pick ups include Florida and Wisconsin, with incumbent Sens. Marco Rubio and Ron Johnson, and on the outside edge, open seats in Ohio and Missouri, where Republicans just might manage to put the seats in play despite their considerable advantages in each state.

Notably, Trump is playing key role in nearly every one of those Senate contests. In almost every state, Trump has done at least one of several things: repelled a top-tier candidate, made an endorsement, radicalized the GOP field, or become a complicating factor by incessantly pushing his election fraud lies and demanding absolute fealty. 

This post was originally published on this site

Things are not looking good for the prosecution in the case of vigilante shooter Kyle Rittenhouse. The teen, accused of murdering two and trying to kill a third during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin last year, took the stand Wednesday to defend himself. 

According to the Daily Beast, the 18-year-old was on the offensive immediately, accusing Joseph Rosenbaum, the 36-year-old that Rittenhouse fatally shot, of everything from setting a port-a-potty on fire to threatening him to tipping over a trailer. 

And then, the darling of the white supremacists began to sob uncontrollably as he described himself as the victim, causing his mother to weep. And by the time the judge ordered a break, the jury appeared to look on in sympathy. 

Rittenhouse was 17 when he drove himself from his home in Antioch, Illinois, to Kenosha on Aug. 25, 2020. In his mind, he went to patrol the city and protect businesses during protests that followed the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a Black man who was shot seven times by a white police officer, leaving him paralyzed from the waist down.

Videos from the night of the shooting show that several protesters attempted to disarm Rittenhouse, who fatally shot Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, then Anthony Huber, 26, and seconds later shot Gaige Grosskreutz, 27, who was wounded but survived.

Today on the stand, Rittenhouse alleged that Rosenbaum threatened him with a chain, yelling, “If I catch any of you fuckers alone, I’m going to kill you.” He added that Rosenbaum then screamed, “’I’m going to cut your fucking hearts out,’ and I’m not going to repeat the second word but ‘kill you n-words.’”

“Don’t get brazen with me! You know very well that an attorney can’t go into these types of areas when the judge has already ruled, without asking outside the presence of the jury to do so. So don’t give me that!” Schroeder yelled at Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger during a brief sidebar without the jury present, Daily Beast reports. 

It’s difficult not to examine this trial without mentioning the often odd behavior of Schroeder. He has proven himself to be overly invested in everything from what’s being said about him on CNN, to using the bible to prove his point, to refusing to allow the prosecution to call the three men Rittenhouse shot “victims.” Or the latest, while hearing the defense team argue that the prosecution is planning for a mistrial, Schroeder allows his phone to ring. 

Schroeder prefers “decedents” or “complaining witnesses” to “victims,” according to The Washington Post.

“It seems like he’s [Judge Schroeder] aiming to let this man out of this courthouse scot-free and we’re not going to let that happen,” Justin Blake, Jacob Blake’s uncle tells the Post.  “If it happens, we’re not going to be quiet about it.”

Let’s not forget, a year ago, right-wing nutcase attorney Lin Wood formed the FightBack Foundation in order to raise bail money for Rittenhouse—$2 million in bail was posted. Wood vehemently defended Trump in his ludicrous claim of a stolen election.

Six counts remain against Rittenhouse, including first-degree reckless homicide, first-degree intentional homicide, and attempted first-degree intentional homicide. If convicted, he faces life in prison.

Again… as this trial comes to a close, things are not looking good for the prosecutors.

This post was originally published on this site

Things are not looking good for the prosecution in the case of vigilante shooter Kyle Rittenhouse. The teen, accused of murdering two and trying to kill a third during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin last year, took the stand Wednesday to defend himself. 

According to the Daily Beast, the 18-year-old was on the offensive immediately, accusing Joseph Rosenbaum, the 36-year-old that Rittenhouse fatally shot, of everything from setting a port-a-potty on fire to threatening him to tipping over a trailer. 

And then, the darling of the white supremacists began to sob uncontrollably as he described himself as the victim, causing his mother to weep. And by the time the judge ordered a break, the jury appeared to look on in sympathy. 

Rittenhouse was 17 when he drove himself from his home in Antioch, Illinois, to Kenosha on Aug. 25, 2020. In his mind, he went to patrol the city and protect businesses during protests that followed the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a Black man who was shot seven times by a white police officer, leaving him paralyzed from the waist down.

Videos from the night of the shooting show that several protesters attempted to disarm Rittenhouse, who fatally shot Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, then Anthony Huber, 26, and seconds later shot Gaige Grosskreutz, 27, who was wounded but survived.

Today on the stand, Rittenhouse alleged that Rosenbaum threatened him with a chain, yelling, “If I catch any of you fuckers alone, I’m going to kill you.” He added that Rosenbaum then screamed, “’I’m going to cut your fucking hearts out,’ and I’m not going to repeat the second word but ‘kill you n-words.’”

“Don’t get brazen with me! You know very well that an attorney can’t go into these types of areas when the judge has already ruled, without asking outside the presence of the jury to do so. So don’t give me that!” Schroeder yelled at Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger during a brief sidebar without the jury present, Daily Beast reports. 

It’s difficult not to examine this trial without mentioning the often odd behavior of Schroeder. He has proven himself to be overly invested in everything from what’s being said about him on CNN, to using the bible to prove his point, to refusing to allow the prosecution to call the three men Rittenhouse shot “victims.” Or the latest, while hearing the defense team argue that the prosecution is planning for a mistrial, Schroeder allows his phone to ring. 

Schroeder prefers “decedents” or “complaining witnesses” to “victims,” according to The Washington Post.

“It seems like he’s [Judge Schroeder] aiming to let this man out of this courthouse scot-free and we’re not going to let that happen,” Justin Blake, Jacob Blake’s uncle tells the Post.  “If it happens, we’re not going to be quiet about it.”

Let’s not forget, a year ago, right-wing nutcase attorney Lin Wood formed the FightBack Foundation in order to raise bail money for Rittenhouse—$2 million in bail was posted. Wood vehemently defended Trump in his ludicrous claim of a stolen election.

Six counts remain against Rittenhouse, including first-degree reckless homicide, first-degree intentional homicide, and attempted first-degree intentional homicide. If convicted, he faces life in prison.

Again… as this trial comes to a close, things are not looking good for the prosecutors.

This post was originally published on this site

This week, Daily Kos won a stunning (albeit preliminary) victory in a California court over Nazi-cavorting anti-vaxxer Robert Kennedy Jr.  

Kennedy is suing Daily Kos, trying to force us to reveal the identity of one of our community members. We’re telling him to go pound sand. Lawyers are involved. You can get the background here, here, here, here, here, and here. The great folks at Public Citizen are providing that community member with pro bono legal services.

This is a big deal, and a real challenge to not just our free speech rights, but your ability to engage in the political process without the fear of being persecuted in your community, workplace, or social circle. We have asked you to help fund the expensive legal process, which spans two states (New York and California), and you’ve delivered. Together, we’re not going to let Kennedy’s unearned wealth violate your rights.

To summarize where things stand, Kennedy sued us in a New York state court. The trial judge allowed Kennedy to issue a subpoena for the identity of our community member, a decision we believe to be grossly in error and have just appealed. Pending appeal, we asked for a stay on the subpoena, but the New York court has so far refused.

Kennedy’s problem is that New York courts can’t enforce a subpoena against a California company. (Public Citizen’s Paul Alan Levy explains why in this blog post, if you’re interested in the legal rationale.) And we sure as hell weren’t (and aren’t) about to volunteer the information. Therefore, Kennedy had to sue us in California court to enforce that subpoena.  

After months of legal wrangling, the California court finally issued its decision, and it was essentially one big “nope” to Kennedy, for now.

In short:

1) the subpoena is stayed pending the resolution of the New York appeal (in other words, it’s currently unenforceable),

2) the California court will take notice of the legal standard used by the New York court in making its decision,

3) if New York doesn’t use the same standard that California courts use or something similar (giving anonymous speech a high degree of First Amendment protection) and rules for Kennedy, then:

4) the case will still need to be litigated in California, and Kennedy will have to show that the subpoena the New York court allowed to issue is actually enforceable in California against a California company. My home state currently has stronger First Amendment laws than New York, though our New York appeal is trying to change that.

The end result is that New York has become just the first hurdle to Kennedy’s effort to dox our community member. Even if Kennedy wins in New York, he will still need to persuade a California judge to enforce the subpoena, and he’ll have to do it under legal standards specifically developed by California courts to protect constitutional rights and guard against the kind of harassment that Kennedy is attempting.

As a practical matter, there’s zero reason for Kennedy to continue this case, except that we know that there’s nothing rational about this case to begin with. Kennedy claims it’s about being defamed, but he hasn’t sued any of the other media organizations that reported on his attendance at the Berlin Nazi rally. He hasn’t sued Daily Kos for repeating, over and over again, that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. cavorted with Nazis at an anti-vaxx rally that was organized and promoted by fascist right-wingers. This has always been about unmasking an online critic and nothing more.

I’ve appended the full California decision below. We’ve been able to fight this (ongoing) battle because you’ve had our back, helping fund this litigation. Furthermore, Public Citizen has stepped up to defend pro bono the community member Kennedy is trying to unmask. As always, I urge you to donate to Public Citizen for their courageous defense of our rights to political participation, as well as to Daily Kos so we can continue to fight this as long as Kennedy insists on tilting at this windmill.  

———-

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

Date: 11/08/2021
Time: 8:14 AM
Dept: 16
Judge: Michael Markman

The Court, having taken the matter under submission on 11/02/2021, now rules as follows:  

Petitioner Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. seeks to reveal the true identity of an anonymous blogger using the handle “DowneastDem.” DowneastDem posted an entry on the “Daily Kos” site about Mr. Kennedy’s speech to an audience in Germany. Mr. Kennedy says DowneastDem’s post was defamatory. He persuaded a court in Westchester County, New York to issue a pre-suit subpoena to Kos Media, LLC d/b/a Daily Kos (“Daily Kos”) seeking to obtain information about DowneastDem’s identity. KK

The Westchester County decision is on appeal in New York. Nonetheless, on June 23, 2021, the DowneastDem blogger filed a Petition to Quash Subpoena pursuant to sections 1987.1, 1987.2, and 2029.600 of the California Code of Civil Procedure (RG21102647). And on July 30, 2021, Mr. Kennedy filed a Petition to Compel Kos Media, LLC to Comply with the Subpoena (Case No. HG21107215). Since the identity of DowneastDem is unknown, the Court will refer to the blogger with “they/them” pronouns.

A different bench officer previously denied an ex parte motion to consolidate the two cases without prejudice to a noticed motion. On its own motion, the Court now consolidates the two cases. The two cases concern the same subpoena, and the issues raised in the two cases are substantially similar. Consolidating the cases will benefit all concerned by coordinating hearings and by ensuring consistent adjudication of overlapping identical issues.

The Court will exercise its discretion to STAY both the Petition to Compel and the Petition to  Quash pending the outcome of the appeal of the Decision and Order by the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Westchester County, in Kennedy, Jr. v. Kos Media, LLC (Index No.:  65319/2020), dated April 16, 2021 (the “New York Decision”).

Daily Kos and DowneastDem are collaterally attacking the New York Decision here. Many,  though not all, of the arguments raised by Daily Kos in opposition to the Motion to Compel, and by DowneastDem on their Motion to Quash, were raised in the first instance in the New York action. There, the New York court determined that Mr. Kennedy “alleges sufficient facts, which  fairly indicate that he has a claim for defamation and is thus entitled to pre-action discovery limited to obtaining the identity of prospective defendants.”

New York authorities are apparently split concerning the test for determining whether to issue a  subpoena to reveal the identity of an anonymous speaker. One of New York’s four appellate departments—the Second Department—has held that it is sufficient to simply allege facts that would support a claim for defamation. (See New York Decision at 3 [citing Matter of Konig v.  WordPress.com, 112 AD3d 936, 936 [2d Dept. 2013]; Matter of Toal v. Staten Island Univ.  Hosp., 300 AD2d 592, 592 [2d Dept. 2002]].) Westchester County apparently looks to the law of the Second Department, and the New York Decision follows that approach. 

California law, however, typically requires a prima facie showing with evidence to support a  defamation claim before permitting the use of a subpoena to pierce a speaker’s anonymity (California thus appears to be in line with New York’s other three appellate departments). In Krinsky v. Doe 6 (2008) 159 Cal. App. 4th 1154, 1172, the Court of Appeal conducted a searching analysis of the law at the time concerning the use of subpoenas to reveal the identity of an anonymous speaker. The Krinsky court ultimately concluded:

We therefore agree with those courts that have compelled the plaintiff to make a prima facie showing of the elements of libel in order to overcome a defendant’s motion to quash a subpoena seeking his or her identity. Where it is clear to the court that discovery of the defendant’s identity is necessary to pursue the plaintiff’s claim, the court may refuse to quash a third-party subpoena if the plaintiff succeeds in setting forth evidence that a libelous statement has been made. When there is a factual and legal basis for believing libel may have occurred, the writer’s message will  not be protected by the First Amendment.

(Id.)

Daily Kos and DowneastDem argue at length that the New York Decision is wrong. They argue both that Mr. Kennedy both failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for defamation, which would not pass even the Second Department’s test, and failed to present evidence to support a prima facie claim for defamation, in violation of the test set out in Krinsky (as well as the test used by New York’s First, Third, and Fourth Departments, according to the parties’ arguments at the hearing in this case).

A stay of this case may permit the New York appellate process to address whether the New York  Decision made an error in holding that Mr. Kennedy set out allegations sufficient to state a claim under New York’s defamation laws. As the Krinsky decision illustrates, this Court must look to New York’s defamation laws to determine whether Mr. Kennedy adequately alleged facts sufficient to state a claim for defamation. Further, this Court’s interpretation of New York law will determine whether, under Krinsky, Mr. Kennedy has made a prima facie case (with admissible evidence) to support his defamation claim such that this Court may enforce the subpoena issued in New York. That question may be determined with finality in connection with the appeal—particularly if the New York Second Department comes in line with the First, Third, and Fourth Departments (and Krinsky).

Stated another way, if the New York appeal applies Krinsky and finds that Mr. Kennedy satisfied that test, then full faith and credit would seem to dictate that this Court should enforce the subpoena. If the New York appeal declines to apply Krinsky but finds that Mr. Kennedy failed to adequately allege a defamation claim, then again full faith and credit would seem to dictate that this Court should not enforce the subpoena. If the New York appeal declines to apply Krinsky, and finds that Mr. Kennedy adequately alleged a defamation claim, then this Court will seek further briefing on (a) the full faith and credit question, and (b) the distinction between issuance and enforcement of the subpoena, so that the Court can determine what test to apply to the enforcement of the subpoena.

In summary, the New York court must determine whether the subpoena was properly issued in the first instance. If it turns out that the subpoena was not properly issued, then the question of enforcement of the subpoena will become moot. If Mr. Kennedy prevails, the appellate decision could well be relevant to findings that this Court would need to make concerning enforcement of the subpoena. The parties would also be in a better position to more accurately brief the issue of full faith and credit along with the issues of claim and issue preclusion that typically would bar a collateral attack on the New York Decision.

Daily Kos and DowneastDem raise a number of arguments that are not discussed in the New  York Decision. Those arguments do not impact this Court’s decision to await the outcome of the New York appeal before rendering a decision on enforcement of the subpoena. Daily Kos and DowneastDem further argue that California’s shield law for news reporters should apply to DowneastDem. And they argue that California law protecting disclosure of a confidential source might apply to Daily Kos.

DowneastDem further contends the New York courts lack personal jurisdiction over them. The personal jurisdiction issue seems to be a red herring, however, because the New York action concerns a subpoena directed to Daily Kos concerning DowneastDem’s identity (and not a  subpoena to DowneastDem). There appears to be no question concerning whether the New York court had jurisdiction to hear a case about a subpoena to Daily Kos. And the parties do not point to law that a pre-suit subpoena in New York to identify potential defendants must be for purposes of filing the lawsuit in New York rather than in some other jurisdiction.

As interesting as it could be to decide all of these issues right now, discretion is frequently the better part of valor. The Court finds that a stay “will promote the ends of justice” by allowing the New York appellate system to adjudicate the attack on its trial court’s subpoena. (See Cal. R. Ct. 3.515(f).) During the oral argument on the motion, Daily Kos confirmed that it agreed with the Court’s tentative ruling to await the outcome of the New York appeal.

This post was originally published on this site

The Washington Post has a long piece looking at these regular folks who took a break from their regular folks’ life to storm the U.S. Capitol, attack the police officers who defended it, and contribute to an attempt to overthrow the government. What it doesn’t have is much in the way of actual explanations.

That’s a bit of a disappointment, considering that we know quite a bit about how the crowd was radicalized. Then again, if it were The New York Times we were talking about we’d have three reporters all tag-teaming us to show that each Biff and Mary Jane in the crowd were just trying to be “real Americans” who flew into Washington D.C. directly on the wings of an airborne diner and were only wandering through the haze of tear gas because somebody told them there was another diner just off the Senate cloakroom. We’ll take what we can get.

Still, though, the facts remain. While many of those who took place in an orchestrated attempt to intimidate Congress into nullifying a Republican election loss were “were an array of everyday Americans that included community leaders, small-business owners, teachers, and yoga instructors,” and while “about 573” of those facing prosecution “have no known affiliation with an extremist group,” Ma and Pa America came to town specifically to answer a call from Donald Trump asking for warm bodies to come “march” on the U.S. Capitol as plan to overturn a democratic election.

They’re affiliated with an extremist group, all right. It’s the extremist group known as “people propagandized into believing democracy had collapsed because a delusional narcissist who—backed by a majority of the Republican Party, conservative media, and the dregs of Facebook—insisted without evidence that he—a man who oversaw a half million pandemic deaths, was impeached for corruption, cratered the U.S. economy and is now widely known as a rapist and tax cheat—could not possibly have lost a U.S. election unless the liberals and the socialists stole it from him.”

We’re working on a shorter identifier. “Seditionists” will work fine, however.

Despite the wide representation of lifestyles represented by those who responded to Trump calls— featuring everyone from white conservative real estate agents who believed themselves too important to go to jail to white conservative yoga instructors who believed themselves too important to go to jail—everyone in the crowd shared a common belief that they acted on well before they partnered with violent militia members to storm the Capitol by force. Each were there that day because:

• They were furious that Donald Trump had not won the election.

• They were willing to believe, based solely on Republican propaganda claims, that he had not won the election because their political enemies had “stolen” it from their rightful winner.

• They were willing to respond to a call to come to Washington, D.C., for a “rally” or “march” specifically sold as an attempt to intimidate Congress into overturning the results of the election so that Trump could retain power.

They agreed to take part in an attempted coup not when they turned violent and caused the certification of the election results to be temporarily halted as lawmakers fled from the mob. They agreed to take part in an attempted coup when they responded to Trump’s call to assemble in Washington for the explicit purpose of challenging the election. Each in the crowd was of the belief, in that moment, that their own personal feelings were reason enough to challenge the peaceful transfer of power that marks our democracy.

Whether they believed the lies justifying the attempt or did not is irrelevant; even if they did, their proposed solution was to demand that Congress ignore the Constitution and erase the election’s results. They did not care that none of the supposed legal experts on the case were able to provide proof compelling enough to convince a single federal court of their claim. They did not care that, of the uncountable number of officials whose jobs center on protecting the integrity of their elections, none were stepping forward to provide evidence of such corruptions.

They came to the conclusion that because nobody else inside or outside their movement had been successful in validating Republican claims of fraud, they would use their own bodies to assist an effort to erase the election loss regardless. They knew what Trump had called them there to do. They knew that it was timed to coincide, exactly, with the official acknowledgment of the election’s results by a joint session of Congress. They knew that their purpose was to assemble to help foil that constitutional task.

If the crowd was self-selected for those willing to quickly descend into violence to get what they demanded, it is not a surprise. The crowd consisted of those in America who were specifically willing to challenge the Constitution and the election both, rather than abide a loss. It was a crowd of those both eager to believe conspiracies and convinced that they themselves were the tools that would set things right. If those real estate agents or yoga instructors were only haphazard in their violence, compared to the professional militants who more methodically attacked police and went hunting for lawmakers, it was due to their inexperience.

I do not think we need to have much sympathy for Trump supporters whose first acts of political violence were in support of an American insurrection that threatened, however incompetently and implausibly, the peaceful transfer of democratic power. Attempting to erase an election through the use of physical intimidation is an unforgivable crime against the country, whether or not the resulting violence was premeditated or only opportunistic. It is absolutely the sort of crime that should ruin a person’s career and social status, and the sort of crime that suggests the perpetrator values the grievances bouncing around in their own head far more than they value the society and laws that look to constrain them.

Yes, a number are sorry now that they understand that Republican leaders fed them a series of absolute lies in order to goad them into action. But they were still goaded into action. Even if the lies they believed had been true, it was this crowd that decided the appropriate response was to ignore the elections officials, courtroom rulings, and law, taking it upon themselves to erase it all and declare themselves the final arbiters of which elections are valid and which are not.