Independent News

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.

This post was originally published on this site

On Tuesday, Nov. 9, 2021, insurrectionist Scott Kevin Fairlamb, who was facing up to eight years in prison and $250,000 worth of fines for his part in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol building in Washington, D.C., was sentenced to 41 months in prison. So far, this is the longest sentence handed down connected to the insurrection on the Capitol grounds. After his release from prison, Fairlamb faces an additional 36 months of supervised release.

Fairlamb, the brother of a Secret Service agent who was reportedly on Michelle Obama’s detail, took a plea deal in connection with his assault on law enforcement officers. The deal meant that Fairlamb would plead guilty to two counts: obstruction of an official proceeding, and assaulting an officer. Fairlamb cried in court before sentencing, telling the judge he had “nothing but remorse” for his “completely irresponsible, reckless behavior,” telling the court, “I just hope you show some mercy on me sir.” Judge Royce C. Lamberth only offered up to Fairlamb that “Had you gone to trial, I don’t think there’s any jury that could have acquitted you.”

The New Jersey gym owner and former Mixed Martial Arts fighter, besides reportedly receiving $53,300 worth of pandemic relief bailout money, is mostly known for being a wickedly scary prick who ran around brandishing a police baton and screaming “What Patriots do? We fuckin’ disarm them and then we storm the fuckin’ Capitol!” Fairlamb also punched a Metro Police Department officer in their face shield and told FBI agents who interviewed him on January 15, 2021 that he would “go again” to the U.S. Capitol. He also filmed a video two days after the insurrection threatening more violence.

Fairlamb pleaded guilty in August and federal prosecutors had asked that he receive a 44 month sentence. On Tuesday, before sentencing, Fairlamb’s attorneys reportedly filed a a statement saying that his client wanted to speak with the January 6 Committee but that the D.C. jail where Fairlamb was being held “would not allow the U.S. House of Representatives permission to come inside the jail and interview the Defendant along with counsel.”

This turn around, the guilty plea and now the claim that he has been trying to speak with the Jan. 6 committee, after months of “critical reflection” according to his attorney. Before that, Fairlamb’s defense was that he was being hyperbolic (I guess both verbally and physically) in his threats and actions. His attorney spoke to reporters after the sentencing, telling them “The government has been nothing but fair, honest, transparent, and very reasonable,” and saying that his client no longer believed that the election had been stolen. 

Fairlamb was arrested after making evidence readily available to anyone with an internet connection. He did everything one can do to both break the law and be filmed doing it. He climbed up scaffolding as he attempted to break into the Capitol building; Fairlamb even took a video of himself doing it. He stole a police baton that then he used to threaten violence with; yes, he shot a video of himself with the baton as well.

And another view of how much of a dirtbag bully Fairlamb and his faux patriotism exhibited itself on January 6, 2021.

This post was originally published on this site

With the House Select Committee on Jan. 6 busy issuing flurries of subpoenas, it’s easy to forget that they’re not the only game in town when it comes to investigations of Donald Trump and his associates.  There’s the ongoing investigation in New York state, as well as Manhattan and Westchester County. There’s the still unresolved case of Rudy Giuliani, whose offices were raided back on Apr. 28.

And there’s a special federal investigation opened back in October into how the Trump White House wadded up the Hatch Act and used it to wipe … whatever needed wiping. 

After months of investigation, The Washington Post now reports that “at least” 13 senior Trump officials have been found to violate the Hatch Act, illegally mixing campaign and government events. This wasn’t just a matter of Trump telling people to disregard the Act, though it was clear that he did. This was, according to the report: “what appeared to be a taxpayer-funded campaign apparatus within the upper echelons of the executive branch.”

Trump didn’t just mix campaign events with government events. He turned the government into a branch of his campaign.

Repeatedly during Trump’s time in office, cabinet members and other White House officials mingled campaign events with what were supposed to be government activities. That included Betsy DeVos, who attacked President Joe Biden in a Fox News appearance, which she then promoted at the Department of Education. But that was only one of multiple incidents. The Office of Special Counsel determined that Kellyanne Conway was a repeat offender back in 2019. Nikki Haley got involved in the game two years before using her official Twitter account to promote Republican candidates. 

But the biggest offender was Trump himself. Trump campaigned from the White House briefing room. He campaigned from the Oval Office. By the summer of 2020, the width and breadth of Hatch Act violations by Team Trump were genuinely “breathtaking in the contempt for the law.” That included Trump delivering his speech to the Republican National Convention from the White House grounds, in cooperation with a whole cast of supposed government officials who mingled items as solemn as a naturalization ceremony for new American citizens with promoting Trump and the Republican Party.

Former Sec. of State Mike Pompeo went so far as to deliver his RNC speech while on a supposed diplomatic mission to Jerusalem. That speech from Pompeo earned him a special mention in the Office of Special Counsel report, which cited Pompeo’s speech as a particularly flagrant example of “flouting the law.” Pompeo even edited the rules of the State Department to write in the new policy explicitly allowing him to engage in partisan political activities.

The report also concluded that the impetus for Pompeo’s violation “originated within the White House” and possibly straight from Trump. In any case, it was a prime example of Trump’s “willingness to manipulate government business for partisan political ends.”

While there were some investigations of these violations during Trump’s period in office, the OSC notes that Trump and his officials failed to “provide the good faith cooperation necessary” to ensure compliance and enforce the rules. 

In conclusion, the OSC received hundreds of reports of Hatch Act violations by Trump officials. On investigation, at least 13 officials violated the Act one or more times. It also reports that it sought to obtain a refund of government funds used in political events, which it didn’t get.

So what will happen now to all these officials? Absolutely nothing. Oh, but also … nothing.

That’s because the way the Act is written, “the president in office at the time is the only person who can take action to fire or reprimand his political appointees when they act illegally.” Meaning that the Act creates a system where the person who benefits most from violation of the law is the person in charge of enforcing the law, and no one can come along later to do something, even when a review shows clear violations of the law.

Sure. That’ll work.

In addition to Pompeo and former acting homeland security chief Chad Wolf, who delivered a boot squarely in the face of the Act with that combo Trump rally naturalization ceremony, the complete list of those who should be shamed, fined, or jailed—but won’t be—includes:

This post was originally published on this site

Just when you thought no one could be more Trump than Trump, in walks Kari Lake, a toady MAGA fawner like no other. Proclaiming to “change the narrative,” the former FOX News anchor is running for Arizona governor with the same old GOP playbook—denying President Biden’s win, railing against mask and vaccine mandates, supporting QAnon, raging against what she calls “woke” culture, and publicly thanking a Nazi sympathizer for his support.

Sounds like a Republican front-runner to me. And, of course, she’s endorsed by Herr Donald Trump.  

Lake is frightening; she often and loudly uses her GOP dogwhistle. She has repeatedly called for Katie Hobbs, Arizona’s secretary of state and the likely Democratic candidate for governor, to be arrested after certifying the 2020 election. And during an August rally, she targeted journalists, calling them the “corrupt media,” saying many of them should be jailed for “lying about COVID, the election, the audit.” 

Lake “came out of the gate full speed ahead and captured the Trump persona, the message, and the approach. She’s got it all dialed in,” Chad Campbell, an Arizona-based political consultant and former elected official in the state, told Daily Beast.

She has taken her anti-masking, anti-vaxxer message to colleges such as Arizona State University, urging students to defy mask mandates, calling it “child abuse” to make children wear masks. She recently tweeted: “The COVID vaccine is a nightmare that will NEVER stop.”

Lake’s background is a winning narrative for Trump’s most ardent supporters. She’s a fallen-away journalist who left the world of media because of “fake news.”

She’s gained the support of such Trump winningest losers as Michael Flynn, former Trump national security adviser turned deranged conspiracy theorist to MyPillow guy Mike Lindell; and Rep. Paul Gosar, who recently posted an anime video showing himself killing Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

But, Lake pushes the envelope by shmoozing with fringe Trumpers as well. 

In October, Lake posed for a photo with Ron Watkins, a MAGA conspiracy theorist, responsible for cultivating and escalating theories of the violent far-right QAnon conspiracy across social media. And at a campaign event in late August, Lake posed for a photo and video with far-right personalities Ethan Schmidt-Crockett, founder of the AntiMaskersClub, known for targeting a wig store that primarily sells to cancer patients for its position requiring customers to mask up, and Greyson Arnold, a Nazi sympathizer with a history of making White nationalist, racist, antisemitic, and pro-Nazi statements, including calling Adolf Hitler “a complicated historical figure which many people misunderstand.”

“For someone who’s never run for office before, her instincts about what to say and when to say it are about as good as anybody I’ve ever seen,” Republican political consultant Nathan Sproul tells the Arizona Mirror. “She has a very instinctive understanding of what her voter wants to hear and when.”

But for Arizonians, it seems, Lake’s endorsement from Trump has put her in a class all by herself. 

“Kari Lake got endorsed by President Trump, so I know she’s going to be for the people.” Stacey Goodman, a Cave Creek resident and retired police detective from Long Island, New York, told the AZ Mirror. 

Lake has been packing crowds in her home state.

“I’ve never seen hundreds of people go to an event over a year out,” said Tyler Montague, a longtime Republican operative from the East Valley told AZ Mirror. 

George Khalaf, a GOP political strategist and whose father is the treasurer for Lake’s campaign wonders if Lake can keep up the pace going into the 2022 elections. 

“Right now, the momentum seems decently unstoppable,” Khalaf, tells AZ Mirror. 

This post was originally published on this site

You may not be out going door-to-door to fight COVID-19 in your neighborhood. Then again … you may be. People certainly are, and to great effect. But whether you’re just trying to keep safe in your local grocery, or going up against screaming meme-ers at your local school board, what the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) posted on Tuesday could come in handy. 

In a new advisory (.pdf), Surgeon General Vivek Murthy urges “all Americans to help slow the spread of health misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.” Murthy warns that not only does this misinformation spread confusion and distrust, it represents its own threat to public health that only compounds the effects of the disease. At a time when everyone needs to pull together in a “whole-of-society effort” misinformation—whether accidentally or deliberately spread—is tearing us apart.

As an example of the last effects of misinformation, Murthy points out how “a poorly designed study” in the 1990s lead to the false link between childhood vaccines and autism. That false claim, adopted by anti-vaxx forces and those out to victimize communities for profit, has directly led to thousands of unnecessary illnesses and to the unnecessary death of children. In another instance, false claims about the connection between HIV and AIDS both helped spread the disease and slowed potential cures.

Which makes the toolkit provided by HHS a good resource for anyone—including schools and community groups—who needs to push back against both poorly informed misinformation and deliberately spread disinformation.

There are sections of the toolkit that are more useful when working with a group, but most of the information is valuable for anyone. That includes a section on how to talk to someone who has bought into medical misinformation and may be spreading it to others. The advice provided isn’t just good for dealing with anti-vaxx or anti-mask talking points, but is good advice for talking with someone on almost any point that has become politically charged.

The best way to change someone’s mind about misinformation is to listen to their fears and why they believe what they do. Try not to focus on the content or the false claim; instead, focus on the wider issue and how they feel about that issue. While sometimes it can be tempting to pull out a ‘fact-check’ as proof someone is wrong, this approach can often shut down a conversation.

Listen to their points, empathize with their concerns, agree that there are reasons that people might be distrustful of information sources—even sources that you might find trustworthy. Then start the slow turn …

Underscore that finding accurate information can be hard, especially during events like the pandemic when the information is constantly changing (which will always happen with a new virus or disease). Emphasize the need to find credible sources, who are not in a position to personally profit or to gain power or influence when seeking information. Remind them that an expert on one topic might not be the best expert to turn to around another topic.

Don’t shame the person you’re speaking with—not if you want the chance to actually change their mind. If you’re talking in person, try to do it one on one. If you’re doing it online, try to take the conversation somewhere other than social media where you can continue to exchange points without conducting a public performance. Make it clear that you also struggle to find good sources and to understand the latest information.

Use phrases such as “I understand”, “I’ve been confused too”, “it’s so hard to know who to trust.” Use phrases that include terms like ‘our community’, ‘our families’, ‘we’ and ‘us’, so the person feels that you identify with them.

All of this may be familiar if you’ve ever been involved in a workshop on persuasive language. However, that doesn’t make it less valuable.

Another section of the toolkit includes defining some of the common types of disinformation as well as the tactics used by those spreading disinformation. That might include things like adding a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention logo to false data, or starting a post with claims that it came from from someone trustworthy, like, “My sister is a nurse and she …”

Really, whether you’re trying to convince anyone about the facts on COVID-19 or not, download this toolkit and keep it handy. Consider it a very short case in spotting fraud, marshaling facts, and getting through to someone on a topic where their beliefs don’t align with the truth. That might be masks in schools, but it also might be climate change or police violence. The tactics of disinformation don’t change, and neither does good advice on how to win over someone who disagrees.

This post was originally published on this site

House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy is refusing to stand up for the 13 House Republicans who voted for their districts last Friday, when they helped pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill. That bill was negotiated by Republican senators and passed with 19 of their votes, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s. Those members, like Michigan Rep. Fred Upton, are getting death threats. Those threats have instigated by their extremist colleagues like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz, and McCarthy is still saying nothing. Worse, he’s recruiting more of the deplorables.

McCarthy announced Monday that he was endorsing candidates in Wisconsin, Texas, and Illinois with his “Young Gun” group. That’s the program he started back in 2008 with has-beens Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan. Those candidates “have met a series of rigorous goals and surpassed program benchmarks to establish a clear path to victory,” the website for the program says.

The one in Wisconsin, Derrick Van Orden, said of the 13 people who voted to repair bridges and roads in their districts, they “just voted themselves out of a job, and rightly so,” and called it socialism. “There’s absolutely no excuse for doing that,” he told Breitbart News. Texas candidate Monica De La Cruz tweeted, “I still can’t believe 13 Republicans voted for this unfundable bill, $3 trillion worth of social policy, infrastructure, and climate change programs,” clearly showing her fitness for the job by confusing BIF (hard infrastructure) with the Build Back Better bill—which hasn’t yet been voted on. Another of them, Esther Joy King in Illinois, called it a “Radical Left” bill created by Nancy Pelosi. “We have to fight this wasteful bill,” she tweeted, “with all we’ve got!”

Those are the best and brightest, McCarthy implies with his Young Guns endorsement. People who are already attacking their would-be colleagues in the GOP caucus. They’re all parroting Trump, of course, who also attacked the 13 at a “private event hosted by the House Republican campaign arm Monday night in Florida.” Just read that again. The House Republican campaign—the National Republican Congressional Committee—had an event with Trump, where Trump attacked congressional Republicans. “I love all the House Republicans. Well, actually I don’t love all of you. I don’t love the 13 that voted for Biden’s infrastructure plan,” was how one attendee remembered it in talking to the Washington Post. One of the 13 was apparently in the room:

So not only is McCarthy not telling the deplorables in the caucus to call off the crazies they’ve sicced on their colleagues, he’s trying to reinforce their ranks, because he is still in thrall to Trump. McCarthy has not provided any comment on the treats to his members or on their calls to have the 13 stripped of their committee assignments.

Meanwhile, McCarthy has also remained silent on the implied death threat one of the extremists, Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona, made against Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and President Joe Biden. The 13 Republicans shouldn’t be at all surprised that McCarthy isn’t standing up for them agains the extremists, not when he won’t say a word about Gosar literally making and releasing a video playing out his homicidal fantasies against political opponents.

McCarthy’s silence is becoming an issue. He is steadfastly refusing to respond to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s call for him to join in condemning the “horrific video” and supporting investigations by the House Ethics Committee and law enforcement. “Threats of violence against Members of Congress and the President of the United States must not be tolerated,” Pelosi said. The House Democratic Policy and Communications Committee also released a statement calling no him to act. “In any other job in America, if a coworker made a video killing another coworker, that person would be fired,” Reps. Matthew Cartwright (Pennsylvania), Debbie Dingell (Michigan), Ted Lieu (California) and Joe Neguse (Colorado), the group’s co-chairs, said. “Mr. McCarthy needs to decide whether he will finally stand with the American people on the side of law and order or he will continue to support violence and chaos.”

“There was a time when making light of murdering a colleague would elicit unified outrage. But not in McCarthy’s GOP. In McCarthy’s GOP they want to punish members who voted for infrastructure. That’s right, infrastructure. But condoning violence—that’s A-OK,” Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff said Tuesday. “It’s sick.”

This post was originally published on this site

A Kansas school district is pulling 29 books out of its school libraries based on a single parent complaint, and guess what—the books are overwhelmingly by authors of color and women authors and LGBTQ authors. Surprise, right? At least it’s not as many books as appeared on one Texas state legislator’s 16-page list.

In the Goddard school district, after a parent complained about language in Angie Thomas’ critically acclaimed young adult novel, The Hate U Give, he went on to submit a list of other books he was concerned about, and the district pulled them all from circulation while it debates whether to get rid of them permanently.

“At this time, the district is not in a position to know if the books contained on this list meet our educational goals or not,” Julie Cannizzo, Goddard’s assistant superintendent for academic affairs, wrote in an email to principals and librarians. “Additionally, we need to gain a better understanding of the processes utilized to select books for our school libraries.”

The Hate U Give is a novel about the aftermath of the police killing of a Black teenager. It was a well-reviewed, massive young adult bestseller, with Kirkus Reviews calling it “necessary” and “important” in a starred review. Relevant to its inclusion in a school library, the School Library Journal also gave it a starred review. No doubt it’s a book with some difficult content, but if you want kids to 1) read and 2) be able to grapple with important issues in U.S. society, school libraries should have books like this on their shelves.

So what else is the Goddard school district “not in a position to know” if they “meet our educational goals or not”?

Fences, the August Wilson play that won the 1987 Pulitzer Prize for Drama. 

Sherman Alexie’s The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, which won the 2007 National Book Award for Young People’s Literature and was included among the 2008 American Library Association’s Best Books for Young Adults, among other honors.

All Boys Aren’t Blue, an essay collection by journalist and LGBTQIA activist George Johnson that was included on best books of 2020 lists from Kirkus Reviews, the New York Public Library, and others.

The Handmaid’s Tale, by Margaret Atwood, a classic that makes frequent appearances on Advanced Placement exams.

The Bluest Eye, by Toni Morrison, which the College Board actually uses as an example for AP exam preparation.

The list goes on. Echo Brown’s Black Girl Unlimited, described as “just brilliant” by Kirkus. Susan Campbell Bertoletti’s They Called Themselves the K.K.K.: The Birth of An American Terrorist Group, which won the American Library Association’s 2011 award for excellence in nonfiction for young adults. 

By now, it should be fairly clear that the books in Goddard’s school libraries have been chosen off of lists of award-winning books and from the most positive reviews in industry-leading review journals like Kirkus. That much jumps out within a few minutes of the most cursory research into these books. But the school district needs to form a committee to “gain a better understanding of the processes utilized to select books for our school libraries,” substituting the judgment of a parent who is obviously incensed about books about people of color, LGBTQ people, racism, and sexism being available in school libraries for the judgment of professional school librarians.

Many of the books, by the way, also appear on another list: The American Library Association’s list of most-challenged books. Because this kind of objection is all too common from parents who want their kids to live in a white, straight, male-dominated world in which none of those things are questioned and no one has to confront, even through reading fiction, the horrors that this country has visited on people who do not fit that mold. That was the theme of Virginia Republican Glenn Youngkin’s ad featuring a parent upset that her high school-age son had been assigned a book containing “the most explicit material you can imagine,” a book that was nowhere in the ad revealed to be Toni Morrison’s Pulitzer Prize-winning Beloved. It’s the theme of the entire Republican campaign against “critical race theory” in schools, by which they mean not critical race theory but the teaching of things like children’s books about Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ruby Bridges.

The media keeps pretending something else is going on, talking about school COVID-19 responses that only a very small minority of people are upset about, rather than directly calling out the viciously racist—and homophobic, and transphobic, and sexist—campaign Republicans are waging against public education and against any view of history more nuanced than a U! S! A! chant. But this is a hysterical, terrified Republican fight against having their kids see people who are not like them as fully human, against having their kids learn that the history of the U.S. includes some very bad stuff—and not just in the distant past, either—and maybe possibly coming out with higher expectations or aspirations.

So, yeah. What we’re talking about is not critical race theory. We’re talking about parents wanting books that have won Pulitzer Prizes and National Book Awards and appeared on multiple best-books lists and are regularly included on Advanced Placement exams pulled out of public schools. And in a lot of places, they’re succeeding, helping to ensure that their children won’t learn another way is possible.

This post was originally published on this site

Jacob Chansley puffed out his chest, howled like an animal, and paraded his half-naked, horn-adorned body onto the Senate floor during the insurrection at the Capitol. For his obstruction to Congress’ efforts to certify the 2020 election, prosecutors have recommended a sentence of four years in prison.  

In a memo issued late Tuesday at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, prosecutors say Chansley, who also goes by the name Jake Angeli, effectively made himself the “public face of the Capitol riot” when he stormed into the complex wielding a six-foot-long spear-tipped flagpole, marauded through the chambers, and began hollering that then-Vice President Mike Pence was “a traitor.”

The 33-year-old was among some of the first people to breach the building on Jan. 6.  

Chansley “[riled] up other members of the mob with his screaming obscenities about our nation’s lawmakers and flouting the ‘opportunity’ to rid our government of those he has long considered to be traitors,” U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves and assistant U.S. attorney Kimberly Paschall wrote in the 28-page sentencing memo.

The recommendation of 51 months from the Justice Department, or just over four years in prison, is the harshest one yet for defendants tied to the insurrection. The only other felony Capitol riot defendant that has been sentenced so far is Paul Hodgkins. The U.S. requested 18 months for Hodgkins, but he received an eight-month sentence instead.

Hodgkins, originally from Florida, breached the Capitol with a backpack, goggles, rope, and white latex gloves on hand, and proceeded to barrel through to the floor of the Senate while hoisting a “Trump 2020” flag over his shoulder.

Incidentally, during the assault, Hodgkins stood nearby as Chansley led a group invocation, where he prayed with fellow rioters.

“Thank you for allowing the United States of America to be reborn. Thank you for allowing us to get rid of the communists, the globalists, and the traitors within our government,” he said.

Notably, he also left an ominous note on the dais in the Senate during the attack reading, “It’s only a matter of time. Justice is coming!”

Chansley fancied himself the “QAnon Shaman” when he was an avowed zealot for the QAnon conspiracy. That belief system is one he now claims to have divorced himself from completely. His attorney, Albert Watkins released a statement on Chansley’s behalf in September to the Huffington Post saying that the “long avowed and practicing shaman has repudiated the ‘Q’ previously assigned to him.”

“The road leading up to the events of January 6 traversed years,” Watkins said in a statement this fall. “The path charted by Mr. Chansley since January 6 has been a process, one which has involved pain, depression, solitary confinement, introspection, recognition of mental health vulnerabilities, and a coming to grips with the need for more self-work.”

Watkins, in response to the recommended 51- month sentence, defended Chansley as someone suffering from “mental health vulnerabilities” as evidenced, at the very least, he argued, by the exposure of his half-nude body while the weather in Washington that morning was below 40 degrees.

“His Shamanic chants were further indicia of mental health vulnerabilities. So too was the rapid clip at which his widely published post-Capitol entry speech was uttered. So too were his gait and apparent Forrest Gump-like obliviousness too much of the activity and many of the actions of those surrounding him as he approached, entered, and traversed the Capitol,” Watkins said. “The events that led Mr. Chansley to do what he did on January 6, 2021, antedate his presence in the Capitol. He was not an organizer. He was not a planner. He was not violent. He was not destructive. He was not a thief.”

Watkins also emphasized that Chansley’s unaddressed schizophrenia should be considered by the court when rendering its final decision.

“Mr. Chansley is not a political prisoner. He does not seek to be labeled such. Rather, this case is about a frail and vulnerable human,” Watkins wrote.

Watkins did not offer a specific recommendation for sentencing, only urging that it be far less than the prosecutor’s suggestion. The Arizona native has so far spent 10 months in pre-trial detention.

Prosecutors, however, offered a far tougher position on Chansley.

“The need for the sentence to provide specific deterrence to this particular defendant also weighs heavily in favor of a lengthy term of incarceration. Although the defendant has now expressed remorse and contrition, his media statements immediately after January 6 were those of a man gloating over victory in battle,” U.S. attorneys wrote.

Chansley did not express remorse upon leaving the Capitol or when going home, they argued.

“It came when he realized he was in trouble. It came when he realized that large numbers of Americans and people worldwide were horrified at what happened that day. It came when he realized that he could go to jail for what he did,” the memo states.

This post was originally published on this site

The Biden administration this past summer issued a policy limiting the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention of pregnant individuals. Now, a group of Senate Democrats is calling on Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Sec Alejandro Mayorkas to issue similar guidelines within the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency.

“Such a policy is vital to ensuring the dignity and health of these individuals and their newborn children, particularly during a continued global pandemic,” legislators tell Mayorkas. They note the 2020 case of one pregnant asylum-seeker forced to give birth at a border station after officials refused to take her to a hospital.

“After Border Patrol arrested her, she was sent to the Chula Vista Border Patrol station where she was forced to give birth standing up, delivering the baby into her pants, while holding onto the edge of a garbage can for support,” the 11 senators wrote. They note the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (ACLUF) of San Diego & Imperial Counties (SDIC) and Jewish Family Service of San Diego (JFS) complaint filed last year on behalf of “Ana,” a 27-year-old asylum-seeker from Guatemala. That complaint detailed how agents extended her agony, and that of her infant, within the following days.

” For several days after the birth, Border Patrol agents and hospital staff denied Ana a shower even after she asked for one,” the complaint said. “When the hospital discharged her, instead of allowing her to reunite with her family in the United States, Border Patrol forced her to spend yet another night at the station in a cold cell with her newborn baby. There, they denied her a clean blanket for her baby.” The complaint said that only after Ana was released to a local shelter did she receive any compassionate care.

“A change in CBP policy is required to prevent what happened to the woman who was the subject of this report from ever occurring again—including CBP’s failure to ensure she was given timely medical care while she was in labor, lack of privacy during and following the traumatic birth, and a night of postpartum detention in which she was forced to sleep on a bench together with her two-day-old newborn U.S. citizen baby,” legislators tell Mayorkas (click here for a complete list of signatories). 

They point to a similar policy announced at ICE this past summer stating that federal immigration officials should not detain pregnant immigrants “unless release is prohibited by law or exceptional circumstances exist.” Advocates welcomed that move but expressed caution because, while the Obama administration had such a policy in place (the 45th president later rescinded it), on the ground, pregnant immigrants were often still detained by ICE officials. Issuing the policy is one matter; enforcing it is the other.

Civil rights complaints have noted how pregnant individuals have languished in harmful detention conditions. “Several women report being ignored by detention staff when requesting medical attention or experiencing serious delays even during health emergencies involving severe bleeding and pain,” a complaint filed with the Department of Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and Office of the Inspector General in 2017 said. Teresa, one woman described in the report, was four months pregnant when she suffered a miscarriage while in detention.

“No parent should ever have to endure the trauma and abuse our client suffered when she was forced to give birth in a Border Patrol station and return for a night of postpartum detention with her newborn U.S. citizen baby,” said ACLUF-SDIC immigrants’ rights staff attorney Monika Langarcia. We can prevent this kind of mistreatment from ever happening again by altogether avoiding the detention of people who are pregnant, postpartum, or nursing. We welcome the senators’ demand to change CBP policy as a step towards rebuilding our asylum system at the border into one that welcomes people with dignity and humanity.”

“Policy changes must be enacted to ensure no one is forced to give birth in custody or immediately returned to a carceral setting with a newborn baby,” said JFS senior director of immigration services Kate Clark. “By aligning these policies with those already implemented by ICE, we can help ensure pregnant people and their families are treated with dignity and compassion as they seek their legal right to asylum in the U.S.”