Archives for category: Trump

Investigative reporter Barton Gellman describes a nightmare scenario that would sow chaos and destroy our democracy.

What if Trump refuses to concede? He has repeatedly said that mail-in ballots are fraudulent. He’s already predicted that, unless he wins, the election will be “rigged.”

Yesterday, he was asked directly if he would accept the results of the election, and he refused to say that he would.

Gellman writes:

In this election year of plague and recession and catastrophized politics, the mechanisms of decision are at meaningful risk of breaking down. Close students of election law and procedure are warning that conditions are ripe for a constitutional crisis that would leave the nation without an authoritative result. We have no fail-safe against that calamity. Thus the blinking red lights.

“We could well see a protracted postelection struggle in the courts and the streets if the results are close,” says Richard L. Hasen, a professor at the UC Irvine School of Law and the author of a recent book called Election Meltdown. “The kind of election meltdown we could see would be much worse than 2000’s Bush v. Gore case.”

A lot of people, including Joe Biden, the Democratic Party nominee, have mis­conceived the nature of the threat. They frame it as a concern, unthinkable for presidents past, that Trump might refuse to vacate the Oval Office if he loses. They generally conclude, as Biden has, that in that event the proper authorities “will escort him from the White House with great dispatch.”

The worst case, however, is not that Trump rejects the election outcome. The worst case is that he uses his power to prevent a decisive outcome against him. If Trump sheds all restraint, and if his Republican allies play the parts he assigns them, he could obstruct the emergence of a legally unambiguous victory for Biden in the Electoral College and then in Congress. He could prevent the formation of consensus about whether there is any outcome at all. He could seize on that un­certainty to hold on to power.

Trump’s state and national legal teams are already laying the groundwork for postelection maneuvers that would circumvent the results of the vote count in battleground states. Ambiguities in the Constitution and logic bombs in the Electoral Count Act make it possible to extend the dispute all the way to Inauguration Day, which would bring the nation to a precipice. The Twentieth Amendment is crystal clear that the president’s term in office “shall end” at noon on January 20, but two men could show up to be sworn in. One of them would arrive with all the tools and power of the presidency already in hand.

“We are not prepared for this at all,” Julian Zelizer, a Prince­ton professor of history and public affairs, told me. “We talk about it, some worry about it, and we imagine what it would be. But few people have actual answers to what happens if the machinery of democracy is used to prevent a legitimate resolution to the election.”

The article goes on to describe in detail how Trump and his allies are already planning to disrupt the election, tie up the count with lawsuits, discredit mail-in ballots, and, if necessary, call out armed mobs to intimidate voters. Gellman believes that Trump will never concede.

I hope the article is not behind a paywall.

It details the worst threat to our democracy in our lifetimes, maybe since the the Civil War, maybe ever.

I just saw this on Twitter from @cindymccain:

My husband John lived by a code: country first. We are Republicans, yes, but Americans foremost. There’s only one candidate in this race who stands up for our values as a nation, and that is
@JoeBiden

It was posted 23 minutes ago.

.

Harold Meyerson of The American Prospect thinks Mitch McConnell should confirm Trump’s nominee now, without waiting to get the name from Trump. Hearings will be a waste of time. No one will deliberate. McConnell has the votes to appoint anyone Trump chooses, no matter how wacky or intemperate.

Meyerson writes:

What’s delaying Mitch McConnell? With Lamar Alexander, Charles Grassley, Cory Gardner, and now Mitt Romney pledging to support whomever Donald Trump anoints as our next Supreme Court justice, Mitch has the votes to move forward right now.

What’s he waiting for? Hearings? Just more senatorial and nominee babble; who needs them? Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s funeral? He’s already expressed his regrets at her passing, or at least at the institution of death more generally.

OK, OK, I get it. Trump hasn’t chosen a nominee yet. But that shouldn’t pose an obstacle to the 51 yes-men and -women who’ve signed the Whatever Donald Wants Pledge and who constitute the majority of the United States Senate.

Since their votes to confirm Trump’s pick are effectively already cast, why not just go ahead and preemptively vote to confirm everyone on Trump’s short list? Barrett? Sure! Lagoa? Of course! Ivanka? Why not?! There may not be enough vacancies to put them all on the Court right now, but there’s no reason not to confirm them today in the sure expectation that other vacancies will eventually occur. (See, above, McConnell’s regrets at the inevitability of death.)

Besides, if there’s one thing in which Senate Republicans believe, it’s that only the present is real. Didn’t they say in 2016 that they wouldn’t vote on a Supreme Court nomination in an election year? But that was then, and “then” doesn’t count! And isn’t Trump not announcing his pick until the weekend? But that’s the future, and the future doesn’t count either! Living for today, voting for what we want today (and we want a lot)—that’s the Republican creed (well, along with support for plutocracy, white supremacy, and low levels of literacy).

So, Mitch—what’s holding you back? Your drones are aligned. Let’s vote today!

~ HAROLD MEYERSON

Trump wants to restore “patriotic history” and has vowed to creat a “1776 Commission” to carry out his wishes. Historians, history teachers, and everyone who cares about accurate teaching of history and academic freedom are alarmed.

Kevin Kumashiro has drafted a petition. If you agree with it, please consider adding your name.

Friends–I’m writing to folks who lead or are closely connected to a number of educational organizations/associations/centers/unions. I haven’t had a chance to update the website yet, but in just the first few hours since the first announcement went out, we already have 300+ signers, and we’ve only just begun to publicize! Individuals AND ORGANIZATIONS can endorse, so I wanted to make sure you saw this and that I reached out to you first to:

(a) invite your organization to endorse (T4SJ already endorsed, thanks!), and

(b) ask you to please help to spread the word to your members and comrades.

The announcement is below, which includes the URL to the sign-on form. I hope to push out to the media the full statement (with all the endorsements) in the coming days. Let me know if you have questions, and thanks for considering and helping,
Kevin

*

Dear Friend, Colleagues, Comrades: A coalition of organizations and a team of educators and scholars invite all educators, educational scholars, and educational organizations in early-childhood, K-12, and higher education across the United States to join us in endorsing this important new statement:

“Educating for Democracy Demands Educating Against White Supremacy:
A Statement by U.S. Educators and Educational Scholars”

To view and endorse the statement: https://forms.gle/PcSRzSSvTbDp69V36

From the Introduction: “The battle over what story about the United States gets taught in schools and who gets to tell that story is what has made education, particularly history curriculum, one of the main sites of ideological struggle. Today, as has happened repeatedly before, those who insist on teaching only a white supremacist rendition of U.S. history claim that curricula about the historical and systemic nature of race and racism are based on lies, biased, divisive, and un- or anti-American—but research soundly rejects such claims.”

From the conclusion: “Our country cannot become more just and democratic without illuminating, addressing, and healing from its long legacies of injustices, including imperialism, colonialism, and racism. As educators and educational scholars who specialize in early-childhood, K-12, and higher education across the United States, we reject the renewed calls to deny or ignore the legacies and systems of racism that have long defined and shaped U.S. schools and society and that continue to do so. Our job is to teach toward democracy by teaching the truth, and we proudly work collectively and in solidarity with the communities most impacted by injustice to do so.”

All educators, educational scholars, and educational organizations in early-childhood, K-12, and higher education across the United States are invited to join us in endorsing this statement. Read the full statement and add your endorsement here: https://forms.gle/PcSRzSSvTbDp69V36

Please forward to other educators, scholars, and organizations who may wish to join us. Thank you!
-In Solidarity-
***
Kevin Kumashiro, Ph.D.
https://www.kevinkumashiro.com
Movement building for equity and justice in education
***

This is a short teaching video created by Tim Slekar, dean of the college of education at Edgewood College in Milwaukee.

In the video, you will see Trump denounce Howard Zinn and the “1619 Project,” a series of essays about African American history published by the New York Times magazine.

Trump is reading from a teleprompter.

He has a reputation as a non-reader. You can be sure that he has never read anything written by Howard Zinn and he has never read the “1619 Project.” Based on many comments he has made, it’s apparent that he never studied American history and has no tolerance at all for teaching the history of racism, ethnic groups, persecution, discrimination, segregation, or anything that reflects poorly on our great leaders. He thinks that Robert E. Lee was a patriot, not a traitor who led a rebellion to dissolve the Union and preserve white supremacy. He has frequently referred to the Confederate flag as part of our “great national heritage.” He has opposed all efforts to rename military bases named for leaders of the Confederacy.

In the video, you will see that he is issuing an executive order to create a “1776 Commission” to rewrite American history and to inspire patriotism by removing all problematic issues from teaching American history.

Only a very stupid man would hold history in such contempt and assume that it can be rewritten by a commission.

I am reminded of a trip that I took to the Soviet Union in 1988, before the Wall and the Soviet Union had fallen. My host was a high-level bureaucrat at the Ministry of Education. I met with professors at pedagogical institutes, visited schools, asked questions. On one day, my host tried to impress me by offering me a plate of sliced tomatoes; that was a great delicacy because fresh food of any kind was not in the stores. During conversation, she mentioned that the Department’s big project was rewriting the history of the USSR. I asked her who was in charge of writing it. She said, proudly, “Chairman Gorbachev.” I was trying to imagine the head of state in charge of writing new history textbooks.

I feel the same about Trump’s “1776 Commission,” which hopefully will disappear after November 3.

What if?

What if Trump loses the election but refuses to accept the results?

What if he continues to say, as he will, that the election was rigged? He has actually said that the only valid election is one that he wins. He has prepared the public to believe that the election is a fraud.

Here are some suggestions from a group that’s thought about this dilemma. I don’t know the individuals involved but I think many people should be thinking hard about a potential and likely crisis of our system. Trump rules by creating chaos, so it’s not unreasonable to expect that he would cling to power by any means necessary. I picture him clinging to the Resolute desk in the Oval Office, his tiny hands grasping it to his large belly.

Read the report here.

You won’t believe this post by Peter Greene, but it’s documented.

Trump announced a ban on TikTok, a social media app, unless the Chinese company that owns it sold 20% to two Trump supporters.

Greene says this looks like a shakedown.

The new company, 80% Chinese, 20% American, would then give $5 billion to finance Trump’s “patriotic” history curriculum.

It is a campaign gimmick, like the pledge that Mexico would pay for Trump’s Wall? Where will the $5 billion go?

I keep repeating that federal law prohibits any federal official from medaling in curriculum or instruction. This is all nuts.

James Fallows wrote a fascinating article in The Atlantic about the media and its coverage of the election. Journalists are so accustomed to “both-sides-ism” that they find it almost impossible to acknowledge that Trump is lying. He lies habitually, incessantly, and most journalists can’t say that he is lying. He has his version of reality, and “some critics” disagree.

I hope the article is not behind a paywall because it’s too long to copy. And I don’t want to violate copyright law for “fair use.”

Here’s a snippet.

In pursuit of the ritual of balance, the networks offset coverage of Donald Trump’s ethical liabilities and character defects, which would have proved disqualifying in any other candidate for nearly any other job, with intense investigation of what they insisted were Hillary Clinton’s serious email problems. Six weeks before the election, Gallup published a prophetic analysis showing what Americans had heard about each candidate. For Trump, the words people most recognized from all the coverage were speech, immigration, and Mexico. For Clinton, one word dwarfed all others: EMAIL. The next two on the list, much less recognized, were lie and Foundation. (The Clinton Foundation, set up by Bill Clinton, was the object of sustained scrutiny for supposedly shady dealings that amount to an average fortnight’s revelations for the Trump empire.) One week before the election, The New York Times devoted the entire top half of its front page to stories about FBI Director James Comey’s reopening of an investigation into the emails. “New Emails Jolt Clinton Campaign in Race’s Last Days” was the headline on the front page’s lead story. “With 11 Days to Go, Trump Says Revelation ‘Changes Everything,’” read another front-page headline.

Just last week came a fresh reminder of the egregiousness of that coverage, often shorthanded as “But her emails!” On Wednesday, September 9, Bob Woodward’s tapes of Trump saying that when it came to the coronavirus, he “wanted to always play it down” came out, along with a whistleblower’s claim that the Department of Homeland Security was falsifying intelligence to downplay the risk of Russian election interference and violence from white supremacists. On the merits, either of those stories was far more important than Comey’s short-lived inquiry into what was always an overhyped scandal. But in this election season, each got a demure one-column headline on the Times’ front page. The Washington Post, by contrast, gave Woodward’s revelations banner treatment across its front page.

Who knows how the 2016 race might have turned out, and whether a man like Trump could have ended up in the position he did, if any of a hundred factors had gone a different way. But one important factor was the press’s reluctance to recognize what it was dealing with: a person nakedly using racial resentment as a tool; whose dishonesty and corruption dwarfed that of both Clintons combined, with most previous presidents’ thrown in as well; and whose knowledge about the vast organization he was about to control was inferior to that of any Capitol Hill staffer and most immigrants who had passed the (highly demanding) U.S. citizenship test.

In his account of life with Trump, Michael Cohen wrote that Trump won because he got so much free coverage by the media. The generally accepted figure is that he got $2 billion in free coverage because he was so entertaining, so unconventional, so outrageous. The media got higher ratings. And Trump promptly referred to the press as “the enemy of the people.”

As Politico explains in this article, the odds of stopping another Trump appointment to the Supreme Court are slim to none.

Republicans have 53 Senate members. Democrats 47.

It would require four Republicans to vote no. If only three vote no, there will be a tie, and VP Pence will cast a tie-breaker in favor.

There has been speculation that Collins and McSally might vote no if the vote is held before the election. Murkowski of Alaska has said she thought it was inappropriate to confirm a new justice right before the election. That’s a possible three.

James Hohmann has a fascinating article in the Washington Post. He writes that Republicans will forge ahead with a nominee and won’t care f they are called hypocrites for saying the opposite in 2016, when they refused to give a hearing to Obama’s appointee Merrick Garland, ten months before the election.

He says the Senate would likely vote after the election, during the lame duck session.

He says Trump called McConnell and said he would appoint a woman, a conservative to be sure. Trump called McConnell on his flight back to Washington from a rally in Minnesota to say he likes Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and Barbara Lagoa of the 11th Circuit, two people briefed on the discussion tell Seung Min Kim….

Barrett, only 48, was confirmed to her post in late 2017 on an almost party-line vote. The only two Democrats who defected were Sens. Joe Manchin (W.V.) and Joe Donnelly (Ind.), who was defeated the next year. As a devout and outspoken Roman Catholic (she has seven children), she has left little doubt in her public comments and jurisprudence about her deeply-held hostility to reproductive rights. “Your legal career is but a means to an end, and … that end is building the kingdom of God,” Barrett said in a 2006 speech to graduates of Notre Dame, where she attended law school.

He added that the Supreme Court battle would energize the right and enable Trump to change the subject away from the pandemic.

He also said that if the Democrats win, the left will pressure them to expand the Court and “pack” them.

Nancy Shively is a special education teacher in Oklahoma. She is a lifelong Republican. She voted for Trump in 2016. She now knows this was a huge mistake that has put her life and the lives of her colleagues at risk. She has switched her registration to independent and will vote for Joe Biden this time.

Her vote for Trump, she fears, may have been tantamount to signing her death warrant.

She writes:

I live and teach in a small Oklahoma town. It’s not far from the site of President Trump’s Tulsa campaign rally on June 20 that appears, as common sense would have predicted, to be a super-spreader event. About two weeks after the rally, Tulsa County reported a record high number of cases…

I am over 60, with two autoimmune diseases. This outbreak has me worried as it is. Now, with the prospect of schools reopening in a few short weeks, I am terrified.

And I am not the only one. One young teacher I know has chronic kidney problems and is at high risk for complications if she contracts COVID-19. She can’t quit her only source of income. Taking its cue from our governor, who hosted Trump’s rally and has now tested positive for COVID-19 himself, her school district has announced that wearing a mask will be optional, though the state is considering requiring it…

Our country has long devalued and underpaid teachers, refusing to adequately fund the public schools that support our democracy. At the same time, teachers routinely have to use their own money to buy classroom supplies. Now the government is turning to us to risk our health or possibly our lives during a pandemic. My school district has no mask mandate and two nurses for more than 2,400 students in 5 school buildings. How is that going to work?…

Teaching is a calling and Oklahoma teachers are as tough as they come. Some have sheltered their students as a tornado ripped the school building from over their heads. Most of us would do anything to help our students succeed.

So now the man I gambled on to be president is asking us to risk our health and our very lives. The odds are most definitely not in our favor.