Mediaboss Marketing

One lonely supportera reformed Trotskyist with a hard-luck story and a Jan. 6 historystood outside Manhattan Criminal Court as Donald Trump arrived for the second day of his trial on Monday morning.

It was quite a contrast from the scene a day earlier: about 50 MAGA fans waving flags and a 20-person anti-Trump contingent marching down the street. And even that was probably a letdown for the ex-president who loves crowds, and loves to overestimate them.

Gary Phaneuf, 68, didnt even have any reporters talking to him, except for The Daily Beast. He stood in a specially designated protest area across from the entrance to 100 Centre Street, wearing a New York baseball cap and carrying a Trump 2024: Take America Back banner.

People give me 20 bucks for walking around with this, he said proudly, then added, with a tinge of regret: I wish I didn't need the money, but thats a long story.

Phaneuf entertained himself by cracking jokes at passersby and occasionally leading a one-man chant of Fight! Fight! Fight for Trump! and Tara Reade! Say her name!a reference to the woman who claims Joe Biden sexually assaulted her in 1993. (Biden denies the allegations.)

I got pissed off, Phaneuf said of his motivation for being there on Day 2 of jury selection.

I was just watching like everyone else until Tish James pulled her stunt with all that money, he added. That was highway robbery.

Donald Trump loves a crowd. He didnt get one on Tuesday.

James, the New York attorney general, won a $450 million judgment against Trump and his company earlier this year for fraudulently inflating his net worth for personal gain. The facts of the case, and the department charging it, are completely separate from the criminal case underway this week, which was brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and accuses Trump of covering up hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels.

Why did Phaneuf think that he was the only one who could be bothered to show support on a gloriously sunny day?

People like to stay in their comfort zone, he theorized. And a lot of people are lazy.

Phaneuf, by his account, is anything but lazy. The Staten Island native said he worked as a history teacher and when that fell throughIts a long story, me and the Board of Ed, he saidany odd job he could find, from shipyards to selling souvenirs on the Brooklyn Bridge.

You name it, Ive done it, he boasted.

But what takes up most of his time these days is protesting. Phaneuf is a fixture in his Staten Island neighborhood, demonstrating against COVID lockdowns and former Mayor Bill De Blasios planned closure of Rikers Island.

On Jan. 6, 2021, he was arrested for a curfew violation after he traveled to Washington, D.C., to protest President Joe Bidens election, which landed him in the pages of The New York Times.

Theyre trying to figure out, Who are the ring leaders? so they pointed a finger at me, he griped. Asked whether he was a ringleader, he smiled conspiratorially and asked: Was I?

Phaneuf volunteered that he used to protest just as avidly for the other side. In 2010, he was escorted out of a New York Landmarks Commission hearing for rowdily demonstrating in favor of a proposed mosque being built near Ground Zero; a year later, he was one of five protesters interviewed by The New Yorker about their participation in Occupy Wall Street. In 2014, he marched against the death of Eric Garner at the hands of a Staten Island cop.

And, he admitted sheepishly, he voted for Barack Obama twice.

I used to be a Trotskyist, he said with a shrug.

Another Trump supporter, who declined to give his name, arrived as Phaneuf was speaking to The Daily Beast and said hed seen him get arrested and hauled away from other pro-Trump rallies. It did not seem that such drama was in the cards on Tuesday. By afternoon, as a handful of other protesters trickled in, Phaneuf was still there, napping on a park bench, his Trump 2024 banner resting beneath him.

More:
The One Dude Who Showed Up for Trump Trial Day 2 Voted for ObamaTwice - The Daily Beast

On April 8, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals handed down its latest opinion that consciously shielded from any judicial oversight the construction of the Obama Presidential Center in historic Jackson Park.

The opinion guts the guarantee of an 1869 grant from the Illinois legislature providing that the land encompassing Jackson Park would be held, managed and controlled by the (Park Commission) as a public park, for the recreation, health, and benefit of the public, and free to all persons forever, by making three fatal mistakes to insulate the project from all substantive review.

First, the initial creation of a 99-year use agreement for the center flatly violates the public trust doctrine, which prohibits the outright transfer of public lands to private institutions if fair value is not received in return. Transferring possession of the site required that the center has in hand the money both to build and maintain the property. The foundation had neither when it promptly cut down hundreds of mature trees in August 2021 in a project that is late and over budget.

Instead of building the center near underserved communities west of Washington Park the foundation and the city entered a sweetheart deal that delegated to the foundation the ability to pick the Jackson Park site under a 99-year lease of 19.3 acres of prime parkland for $10, an obvious giveaway of public trust lands. How? By relabeling the original lease as a use agreement to avoid judicial scrutiny. The opinion ignores that blatant subterfuge by noting that the title to the center remains with the city, even though virtually 100% of the economic benefits went to the foundation in violation of the terms of the 1869 grant.

How? By engaging in intellectual jiujitsu to conclude that the public was the real beneficiary of a deal whose every detail was dictated by the foundation. The Illinois Supreme Court has long insisted that the public trust doctrine only has meaning and vitality if members of the public have standing to enforce it. But the court sidestepped meaningful review by stating that the citys 2015 ordinance for the center and the 2016 Illinois Museum Act blessed the deal such that it could evade all constitutional constraints that bind the political branches.

Second, matters only get worse when looking at the 2019 Master Agreement between the city and the foundation, which conditioned transfer of that site to the foundation only if it had received enough money for construction and had an endowment for operation and maintenance by the foundation. As of August 2021, the cost of the project ballooned to over $700 million.

At that time, the foundation had received far less than $700 million dedicated to construction. It also indulged in a unique accounting practice that treated a 2021 $1 million contribution as fully endowing that fund, with further fundraising down the road. When the plaintiffs sought to amend their complaint to challenge these maneuvers, the district court took less than a day to throw their case out, claiming that the city and foundations master agreement did not allow any third party to sue.

The problem was that the plaintiffs did not sue on the contract but explicitly as taxpayers for the waste of public assets. The opinions discussion of the district courts hurried decision mangled the key precedent which flatly holds that a taxpayer can enjoin the misuse of public funds, based upon taxpayers ownership of such funds and their liability to replenish the public treasury for the deficiency caused by misappropriation thereof. Thus the Seventh Circuit put the kibosh on any citizens effort to open the books to supply public transparency.

Third, on environmental issues, the federal government initially said that the designated project was building the center in Jackson Park with the attendant road and other adjustments. The early reviews pinpointed negative historic, aesthetic and environmental impacts on Frederick Law Olmsteds priceless jewel. But the opinion ignored both Olmsted and the massive destruction of roads, trees and habitat by refusing to treat them as a major federal action causing significant harm that requires a full-scale environmental impact review. Instead, the opinion claimed that building the center was a local initiative because the federal government could not dictate where the center could be built or how it should be managed. Thus, the statutes became dead letters by ignoring the simple fact that the federal government is always allowed to effectively block unsuitable projects, even if it cannot instruct the city whether to abandon or relocate the project.

Worse, the opinion abjectly deferred to the city and agency decisions by ignoring the Supreme Courts canonical decision in Overton Park v. Volpe (1971) that requires the center to face a thorough, probing, in-depth review for which a project can be approved only if there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using the land.

Sadly, 17 months after the initial critical reviews, the federal agencies and the city, without notice or further hearings, redefined the project so that it no longer covered building the center, but only covered fixing the roadwork in and around Jackson Park. That sleight of hand was adopted by the opinion to block any review of alternatives to the location of the center.

The opinion opens by saying its current decision represents, we hope, the final installment in litigation that began in 2018. Sorry. Not so long as such decisions fail to protect the community, the environment, and block transparency of such transactions.

Richard A. Epstein is a professor at NYU Law School and senior lecturer the University of Chicago. Michael Rachlis is a partner in the Chicago law firm of Rachlis Duff & Peel, LLC. They represent Protect Our Parks Inc. and the other plaintiffs in the litigation against the Obama Presidential Center.

Read the original:
Lawyers: Why further litigation is sadly necessary on Obama Presidential Center in Jackson Park - Chicago Tribune

The co-chair of Columbia Universitys Board of Trustees, Claire Shipman, told a congressional panel on Wednesday that the proliferation of anti-Semitism on the schools Manhattan campus is "shocking."

Shipmans husband, Jay Carney, served as press secretary under former president Barack Obama, a Columbia alumnus whose longtime friendship with one of the schools notorious anti-Semitic professors became a central issue in his 2008 campaign.

During Wednesday's House Education Committee hearing featuring testimony from Columbia president Minouche Shafik and other school leaders, Shipman was asked to respond to what one lawmaker described as "pro-terrorist expressions on campus on a significant scale."

"I think it says we have a lot of work to do. It's shocking," Shipman said. "I think it says that we have lost our way in terms of what we expect from each other in a learning community and in our society. I think we have to commit to speech that isn't laced with hate and isn't just meant to provoke."

Carney is probably more familiar with the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic rhetoric that has percolated for decades on the Columbia campus, having accepted a job in the Obama administration in 2008, when Obamas friendship with one of Columbias most prominent anti-Semitic professors was a recurring theme.

Though Obama professed support for Israel, the Los Angeles Times reported in the spring of 2008 that, in fact, Obama was a "friend and frequent dinner companion" of Rashid Khalidi, an anti-Israel scholar who has taught in Columbia's history department since 2003. Obama lauded Khalidi at a going away party before the professor joined Columbia, saying Khalidi gave "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases."

In the wake of Hamas's Oct. 7 terror attack on Israel, Khalidi argued the attack required "context," telling Democracy Now! that Israel's "settler colonialism" and "apartheid" regime was to blame.

"This has to be put within the context. And the context is not just occupation," he said. "The context is settler colonialism and apartheid."

"You cannot commit daily violence against Palestiniansone Palestinian has died every day this year, in fact, slightly morein the occupied West Bank. You cannot expect that not to lead to a reaction. The reaction will be violent."

In the 1970s, Khalidi routinely spoke to reporters on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization, a U.S.-designated terror group. As a Columbia professor, he has faced criticism over anti-Semitic statements.

In 2017, for example, Khalidi said supporters of the Jewish state would "infest" the Trump administration, invoking anti-Semitic propaganda that referred to Jews as "vermin."

"There are a group of people, a lot of them in Israel and some of them in the United States, who live in a world of their own," he said during an interview with a Chicago-based radio show. "That is to say, they think that whatever they want, and whatever cockamamie schemes they can cook up, can be substituted for reality."

"Unfortunately, these people infest the Trump transition team," he continued. "These people infestare going to infest our government, as of January 20. And they are hand-in-glove with a similar group of people in the Israeli government and in Israeli political life, who think that whatever they think can be imposed on reality."

In addition to his longtime friendship with Khalidi, Obama in 1998 attended a speech by the late Columbia professor Edward Said, according to the Times. Said called for a campaign "against Israeli apartheid."

Two years later, Said was photographed throwing a stone in the direction of Israel Defense Force soldiers positioned outside of a guardhouse. Columbia responded by issuing a letter defending the professor.

Read more:
Wife of Obama Press Sec Shocked by Proliferation of Anti-Semitism on Campus of Obama's Alma Mater - Washington Free Beacon

By Michelle Obama

Updated: April 17, 2024 4:45 PM EDT | Originally published: April 17, 2024 7:10 AM EDT

Every once in a while, my good friend Thelma Golden will meet someone who is shocked to learn this tiny, energetic, and dynamic woman is a paradigm-shifting curator. Some would find this disheartening. But not Thelma. She sees it as her chance to show the world exactly what she can do.

As one of the most influential people in art, Thelma knows the power of flipping an assumption on its head. Her exhibits at the Studio Museum in Harlem and, previously, the Whitney not only stop you in your tracks, they also show you so much more about the depth of the Black experience. Her steadfast dedication has given voice to a new generation of artists and curators who are ready to stir our souls toofolks who may have otherwise gone unnoticed had it not been for Thelmas eye for talent and potential. She has broadened the world of art to better reflect the sum of us, rather than just a few. Thats power. And thats why, while some folks might go on underestimating her, Ill never be one of them.

Obama is a lawyer, author, and former First Lady of the United States

Read more here:
Thelma Golden Is on the 2024 TIME100 List | TIME - TIME

A citizen deposits a ballot into a box at the county clerk's office in Erie, Pa., on Oct. 15, 2020. Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post via Getty Images hide caption

A citizen deposits a ballot into a box at the county clerk's office in Erie, Pa., on Oct. 15, 2020.

ERIE, Pa. - On a recent weeknight in Erie, Pa., the local minor league hockey team hosted a playoff game for the first time in years. The home team Erie Otters faced off against the Kitchener Rangers from Ontario, Canada.

But even as fans watched the action on the ice, another kind of face-off isn't far from the minds of Erie County residents.

"You go down different blocks or different streets and you see something, you know, Trump or Biden," said 34-year-old Bekah Mook, who was at the game. "You can't even have a glass of beer unless something is mentioned Democrat or Republican."

"It's everywhere you turn," she said.

While most counties across the country predictably lean Democrat or Republican, Erie County, in the northwest corner of Pennsylvania, is what election watchers call a "boomerang county." It boomeranged from Democrats to Republicans and back in recent presidential election cycles.

The county went for former President Barack Obama twice, then former President Donald Trump in 2016, and narrowly for President Biden in 2020.

Now everyone is trying to predict what will happen this year.

Biden won Erie County in 2020 by less than 1,500 votes, or 1.03 percentage points. In 2016, the margin was less than 2,000 votes for Trump.

Mook, who works in a mental health practice, is one of those voters who flipped. She comes from a family of Christian Republicans, and once considered herself solidly in that camp. She supported Trump in 2016, largely due to her opposition to abortion.

But her feelings changed as she watched Trump in office.

Campaign signs sit in the Erie County Democratic Party office in Erie, Pa. Don Gonyea/NPR hide caption

Campaign signs sit in the Erie County Democratic Party office in Erie, Pa.

"Now I'm looking at everything else. And there are so many more issues than just abortion," she said.

One thing that particularly bothered her was Trump's policy of separating migrant families at the U.S.-Mexico border, and the images of children being kept in detention at border facilities.

"I have 19 nieces and nephews, no kids right now, and I'm just a kid person," Mook said. "So when I see kids like that I'm just like, 'Oh, that's disgusting.'"

As for this year, Mook says she's still going back and forth with her presidential vote. She's currently leaning "60% Democratic." Another Erie County voter at the arena that night, 22-year-old Ethan Haynes, says he's an independent, but this year he's all in for Biden. For him, democracy is on the ballot.

"I think that with Trump and his messaging has very much shown that he is unwilling to give up power if he gets it again," Haynes said.

Head out to the more rural parts of the county, outside the city of Erie, and you find a much more conservative type of voter. After finishing his breakfast at a classic old diner in Girard, Pa., 66-year-old Tim Stevenson said he'll be backing Trump.

"We can't go through another four years of Joe Biden," said Stevenson, a retired township police officer who now runs an auto repair shop. "I don't think he has the capability to run an ice cream stand."

The local political party chairmen in Erie have long histories in the county, and both know that this place could be pivotal in November.

Erie County Democratic Party Chair Sam Talarico is focused on boosting turnout ahead of the November elections. Don Gonyea/NPR hide caption

Erie County Democratic Party Chair Sam Talarico is focused on boosting turnout ahead of the November elections.

"Erie County actually mimics the state very closely demographically," explained Sam Talarico, the Erie County Democratic Party chair.

"We have an urban core, we have suburban areas. And if you go south of Interstate 90, it's rural," he said. "So that's why we're kind of a bellwether county. We see how Erie goes, Pennsylvania goes. And that's that's been true in the last few elections."

Talarico says his job this year is to drive turnout. That means the grunt work of campaigning: door knocking, phone banking and voter registration drives.

"I think most people have already made up their minds because both of these candidates have been in the White House and they know who they are," he explained.

"So our real challenge is to find new voters and, you know, hopefully get them on our side," Talarico said.

Across town at the local Republican Party headquarters, county Chair Tom Eddy has a different goal: getting more Republicans to vote by mail.

Democrats currently have a massive advantage when it comes to mail-in ballots. While Biden won Erie by just over a single percentage point in 2020, he won 75% of the county's mail-in ballots. The same dynamic played out for Democrats in the 2022 midterms and 2023 state judicial elections.

That's a big problem for the GOP. Eddy puts it in very blunt terms, saying Republicans have been losing elections they could have won because voters in his party don't believe in mail-in balloting.

That rejection of a type of voting that is legal and in wide use in the state comes in large part because the practice has been loudly vilified by Trump, who has repeatedly lied and called it a major source of voter fraud, falsely citing mail-in voting as a cause of his 2020 defeat. There is no evidence of any such problems with mail-in ballots.

Erie County Republican Party Chair Tom Eddy says his party must embrace mail-in ballots in order to compete in Pennsylvania. Don Gonyea/NPR hide caption

Erie County Republican Party Chair Tom Eddy says his party must embrace mail-in ballots in order to compete in Pennsylvania.

Eddy, without himself completely dismissing or dispelling the incorrect claims of mail-in ballot fraud, does insist it's time for Republicans to move on. He says it's time to play to win, and that needs to include embracing mail-in voting.

"I still have people that are adamant against them (mail in ballots), they say, 'Well, it's it's it's an avenue for fraud.' And I said, 'Yeah, it could be,'" Eddy said. "But we've got to play that game. Otherwise we lose. We can't win an election without them."

Eddy and Talarico both see advantages when it comes to mail-in voting: It allows voters more flexibility and makes it easier to vote, thus boosting turnout.

It also allows party officials to focus their "get out the vote" efforts. Applications for a mail-in ballot are public information, and so is whether or not those ballots have been submitted. That means campaigns can reach out to voters directly and remind them to turn in their votes.

Voters can also check a box and have a mail-in ballot automatically sent to them for all future elections, making it even more likely they'll vote in the future. That's a huge help to political parties, and right now an area where Democrats enjoy a huge edge. As a Republican, Eddy describes that option this way: "If you can get people to check that [box], that's the best thing in the world."

But as Eddy tries to spread the gospel of mail-in voting to Republicans, he knows he's facing an uphill battle. He tells the story of what he encountered when he tried to hand out mail-in ballot applications at a Trump rally in Erie last summer.

"I started at 6:30 in the morning, and I went to everybody that was lined up, all 10,000 people, and I asked them, 'Here's a mail in ballot,' and I gave them my reasons why. And the majority of those people said, 'No,' because, one, Donald doesn't endorse it and two, it's fraud," Eddy remembered.

He says that he only managed to get about 300 people in that crowd of thousands to sign up. Trump's lies about widespread fraud in the 2020 election that he lost have been convincing.

Democrats are hoping to keep their advantage in mail-in voting. This sign encouraging the practice hung in the Erie County Democratic Party office. Don Gonyea/NPR hide caption

Democrats are hoping to keep their advantage in mail-in voting. This sign encouraging the practice hung in the Erie County Democratic Party office.

That why it's easy to find that distrust in mail-in voting when you talk to Republican voters.

"I think you should go to the polls with your license and prove who you are and vote. That's it," Tim Stevenson, the auto repair shop owner, said.

Stevenson plans to vote in person.

State Sen. Dan Laughlin of Erie thinks that mindset leaves a lot to chance bad weather or a flat tire on Election Day could keep you at home.

Laughlin was a rare Republican supporter of mail-in voting back in 2020, and he says former President Trump does Republicans a disservice by continuing to bad-mouth mail-in ballots.

"If by chance, you use this clip in your interview and it gets back to him and he hears it, I hope he's listening," Laughlin said. "Because he's the only one that can fix it. Because the rest of us are trying, right?"

If Republicans don't get competitive on mail-in ballots, Laughlin said, "We're going to get our clock cleaned."

Read the original post:
How will a swing county in a swing state that chose Obama, Trump and Biden vote? - NPR