Mediaboss Marketing

Illustration by Victor Juhasz.

Thank you for signing up forThe Nations weekly newsletter.

When one of Jennifer Rourkes opponents in a critical Rhode Island state Senate race violently attacked her at a late June abortion rights rally in Providence, she was shocked. I didnt see it coming, Rourke recalls. When I looked to the left, [Jeann Lugo] was punching me in the face. Lugo, an off-duty Providence police officer, struck Rourke repeatedly, leaving her with impaired hearing.1

Chaos ensued. It was dark. People were yelling. State Senator Jeanine Calkin, a friend and fellow activist who was toward the back of the crowd of 1,500, called gubernatorial candidate Matt Brown, who was near the front with Rourke, to ask what was going on.2

I know something happened because I saw all this movement, and then I just saw Co-op bodies swarm around Jennifer, Calkin says. Everyone came out of the crowd and just surrounded her.3

Brown assured Calkin that Rourke was safe. The members of the Rhode Island Political Cooperative had their candidates back. My family was right there for me, Rourke says of the people who rushed to protect her as she was being assaulted.4

The Co-op, as everyone calls it, is a political movement that is all about defending its candidates, the hundreds of activists who pour long hours into its campaigns, and the long-neglected Rhode Island communities where it is renewing electoral politics as a vehicle for transformative change. One of the most remarkable political initiatives in modern American politicsand already one of the most successfulthe Co-op is addressing the great challenge of an electoral moment in which divide-and-conquer campaigning, viscerally negative television advertising funded by corporations and billionaires, and fake news stories about dubious wedge issues have left voters feeling disconnected from politics. This grassroots group in the nations smallest state is restoring a sense of community to elections by making a commitment that no candidate will stand alone in the fight against the most powerful political and economic interests in the state and nation. Theres such a strong, entrenched, corrupt Democratic Party machine here in Rhode Island, Calkin explains. We asked: How do we build our own machine that gives resources and knowledge and training and everything a candidate whos never run before needs to win elections? Our answer was that we had to do it ourselves. So thats what we did.5

Formed in 2019 with the audacious goal of upending the historically corrupt, corporate-aligned politics of Rhode Island, the Co-op is not a traditional campaign organization, not a political action committee, and not a political party. Its a movement with big ideas for expanding access to health care, raising wages, and tackling climate change in the Ocean State. But its biggest idea is that the Democratic Party can be moved away from its centrist and corporate moorings to become a genuinely progressive force in politics. That prospect has relevance for progressives in Rhode Island and a lot of other states. It also has relevance at the federal level of a country where the fight to make the Democratic Party a force for fundamental change is an ongoing struggle.6 Current Issue

Subscribe today and Save up to $129.

The Co-op is currently running more than two dozen candidates in Rhode Islands September 13 primaries for statewide posts and legislative offices. Its goal is to build on the success of the 2020 campaign, which saw eight Democratic candidates who were endorsed by the group win hard-fought primaries, a result that led WPRI-TV, the local CBS affiliate, to report that the progressives really came out strong with a lot of energy.7

A number of Co-op candidates are all but certain to win this year. Others face uphill battles. There are no assurances that the group will be able to deliver on its promise to provide Rhode Island with A Whole New Government. But if the Co-op achieves the sort of breakthroughs that candidates and organizers say are possibleparticularly in legislative racesit promises to make Rhode Island the kind of laboratory of democracy that US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis suggested 90 years ago would position states as the generators of big ideas for how to solve national problems.8

Jennifer Rourke, who has emerged as a key leader in the Rhode Island Political Cooperative, is running in state Senate District 29. (Courtesy of the Rourke campaign)

Although most of the attention on the battle for control of the nations 50 statehouses centers on the partisan fight between Democrats and Republicans, the Rhode Island competition is a reminder that even when Democrats are in charge, they are not necessarily champions of progressive policies. That has long been an issue of concern in Rhode Island, a state that has not backed a Republican for president since 1984 and where the Democratic congressional delegation includes Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a star of the Judiciary Committee and a favorite of liberals nationwide. Despite their current domination of the state capitol, Rhode Island Democrats have a history of compromising with corporate interests and of blocking progressive social initiatives.9

A survey of state legislatures conducted by political scientists Boris Shor and Nolan McCarty over an almost 20-year period, from the 1990s to the 2010s, found that there was significantly less ideological disagreement between Republican and Democratic lawmakers in Rhode Island than in other states. But Rhode Island has not exactly been a beacon of enlightened bipartisanship. A 2014 New York Times review of the Shor-McCarty survey noted, Its common for Republican officials in heavily Democratic Northeastern states to be moderates. What makes Rhode Island stand out is the number of conservatives within its Democratic legislative supermajority. The median Democrat in Rhode Island was more conservative than in all but 13 state legislatures, scoring directly between Georgia and Indiana and far to the right of those in Connecticut or Massachusetts.10

As the parties have moved further apart in recent years, Rhode Islands Democratic legislative leaders have remained outliers: A striking number of the partys top members earn high marks from anti-abortion groups and the National Rifle Association.11

Readers like you make our independent journalism possible.

While moderate Republicans and an independent (Lincoln Chafee) have occasionally held Rhode Islands governorship in recent decades, the Democrats have controlled both chambers of the state legislature since 1958. And theyve often enjoyed supermajorities, making the legislature the defining force in the governance of the state. Yet instead of delivering for the people in a state where almost 12 percent of residents live below the poverty line, where housing prices are skyrocketing, and where income inequality is a serious issue, Rhode Islands legislative Democrats have distinguished themselves by their close ties to the business community, compromises on social issues, and questionable ethics. Multiple legislators, including a former speaker of the state House and a House Finance Committee chair, have been jailed in the past decade on charges of influence peddling, bribery, and raiding campaign funds. The Democratic-controlled legislature passed a voter ID law that was so strict that Republicans in other states have cited it as a model for their voter-suppression initiatives. Some Rhode Island Democratic legislators still tout their A ratings from the NRA, and even after the mass shootings this spring in Buffalo, N.Y., and Uvalde, Tex., Rhode Island legislators did not respond to calls from their constituents for an assault weapons ban.12

There are Democrats who are anti-abortion, there are Democrats that are pro-gun in our legislature. Theyve been around forever. They call themselves Democrats, but they are really Republicansright-wing Republicansin everything but name, says Ellie Wyatt, a retired high school special education teacher who has long been active in local and state Democratic politics. Wyatt, who turned out on a scorching hot Saturday morning in late July for the launch of the Co-ops door-to-door canvas drive in North Providence, says, Changing the legislature is the key to changing politics in Rhode Island, and the way to change the legislature is by winning these Democratic primaries for the state House and the Senate.13

Wyatt has been working for years to move her states Democratic Party in a progressive direction. That Saturday morning, she was surrounded by young activists who were using phone apps to identify the doors they would knock on over the next few hours. This combination of the old-school, people-powered politics of neighborhood and community with new technology is central to the Co-ops campaigning strategy. The candidates the group endorses refuse corporate money and take positions on tax policy that are unlikely to attract contributions from wealthy donors. As Calkin, a cochair of the Co-op and one of its most successful candidates, says, Im fighting for Rhode Islands working families, not corporate lobbyists or party bosses. To wage that fight, says organizer A.J. Braverman, the Co-op has developed a model for campaigning in which dozens, sometimes hundreds, of activists show up whenever one of its candidates needs to gather signatures to get on the ballot or knock on a few thousand doors before Election Day. Or is threatenedas Rourke was on the night of June 24, shortly after the Supreme Court issued the Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization decision that overturned the protections for abortion rights established in its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling. Running by yourself is not fun, Rourke says. But with the Co-op, youre not running alone. You have a community that shares ideas, that shows up when you need help, that is there for you when youre in a tough spot.14

Bernie Sanderss 2016 campaign provided a political origin story for Rhode Island state Senator Jeanine Calkin, a cofounder of the Co-op. (Scott Eisen / Getty Images)

A relative newcomer to electoral politics, like most other Co-op candidates, Rourke was encouraged by Calkin and others to take on the overwhelming task of challenging powerful Rhode Island Senate majority leader Michael McCaffrey in 2018 and again in 2020. McCaffrey, a social conservative who opposed a 2019 measure to create a state-based protection for abortion rights, had served in the legislature since 1995 and had frequently run unopposed in past primaries. Rourke, a mother of four who campaigned while helping several of her kids manage education at home during the pandemic, came within 550 votes of beating the incumbent. Following the playbook of the Co-op, where she has emerged as a key leader, Rourke kept right on campaigning. She expected to face McCaffrey again in this years primary and then to take on Republican nominee Jeann Lugo in November. But then Lugo struck her at the abortion rights rally. Arrested and charged with assault and disorderly conduct, Lugo ended his campaign amid the flurry of national media attention that the assault attracted. The incident also focused attention on McCaffreys record of taking anti-choice positions, and within days he announced that he, too, would exit the race.15

But McCaffrey didnt exit politics. He joined other top Democrats in helping a local union official get on the primary ballot. Within a week, Rourkes campaign had revealed that the new contenders Facebook profile featured a picture of the white candidate wearing blackface and another with Fox News personality Tucker Carlson. He had also liked a Facebook page titled Support Officer Darren Wilson. Wilson is the police officer who shot and killed 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., on August 9, 2014. This guy calls himself a Democrat! says an outraged Rourke. As she outlines the support for her opponent by members of Rhode Islands Democratic establishment on the summer afternoon when I meet with Co-op activists, Matt Brown, the gubernatorial candidate, listens with mounting frustration. Thats how far they are willing to go, he says. To go out and support a guy who wore blackface in order to defeat a Black woman who is running for the legislature is beyond the pale.16

The problem, Brown says, is that this is who they are. They have held on to power for so long that they feel they dont have to change. Thats what were up against.17

Brown is a dynamic activist with deep roots in the civil rights and peace movementshis mother went into labor while attending a protest against the Vietnam War in 1969. He was elected as Rhode Islands secretary of state at the age of 32, and in 2018, he won a third of the vote when he mounted an underfunded but energetic progressive primary challenge to the corporate-aligned incumbent Democratic governor, Gina Raimondo. Ive been fighting with this party most of my life, Brown says as he knocks on doors in a Providence precinct where he is greeted warmly by voters. But Im definitely not doing it alone this time.18

When Brown ran for governor four years ago, one of his few supporters in the statehouse was Calkin, who, like hundreds of political figures across the countryincluding Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)has a political origin story linked to Vermont Senator Bernie Sanderss 2016 presidential campaign. Out of her two-story home on a leafy side street in Warwick, Calkin began organizing for Sanders in 2015 and played a big role in helping the senator win the state with 55 percent of the vote in April of the following year. Inspired to run for the state Senate, Calkin beat a Democratic incumbent who had served in the legislature for more than 20 years. That was the easy part. The hard part came when she joined the legislature as a progressive in a chamber controlled by conservative Democrats such as McCaffrey and current Senate President Dominick J. Ruggerio, who was first elected in 1980 and who until recently boasted about his A rating from the NRA. She immediately ran into roadblocks and opposition.19

Calkin grew so frustrated that she, Rourke, and some allies came up with what they called Project Chicxulub. Chicxulub is the asteroid that took out the dinosaurs, she says. We were thinking like DINOsDemocrats in Name Onlyso it made perfect sense to me. It made perfect sense to Brown as well, who became a cochair, with Calkin and Rourke, of the Rhode Island Political Cooperative.20

Get unlimited access: $9.50 for six months.

At their first meeting, Brown recalls, we took out the list of legislators and said, Who do we have to beat? They began to recruit grassroots candidates, many of them neighborhood and union activists who had never thought of running for elected office, and they havent stopped since. Were on a mission, Brown says. Were going to take out the leadership. Were going to win a governing majority for the people.21

The Rhode Island Political Cooperative is running more than two dozen progressive candidates in the states September 13 primaries. (The Rhode Island Political Cooperative)

The Co-op has pursued that mission with a politics built on personal relationships, a support structure designed to assure that candidates have the strategic help and resources they need, and shared values. Candidates sign on as supporters of a platform that they pledge to implement if elected: a $19-an-hour minimum wage, a state-based Medicare for All health care system, a plan to cap rents and build 10,000 affordable homes, and a Rhode Island Green New Deal that would make the state a leader in reaching net-zero emissions by 2040.22

The Co-op is not the only progressive project that is focusing on these sorts of issues at the state and local levels. Other groupssuch as the Vermont Progressive Party, Reclaim Chicago, and the Courage California coalitionrecognized the need to challenge entrenched Democratic machines and have built meaningful movements to do so. But the Co-op, which is part of a network of state-based progressive political projects known as Renew U.S., has been strikingly ambitious. And it has already enjoyed considerable success when it comes to upending Rhode Island politics. Its candidates dislodged powerful incumbents such as Democratic state Senate Finance Committee chair William Conley, who represented East Providence. Conley lost his race to Cynthia Mendes, a working-class single mom who once supplemented her income by cleaning the mansions of millionaires in the ber-expensive enclave of Newport. Were not going to stop until weve replaced every corporate sell-out politician in this state with leaders who will stand up for our communities, Mendes said after the primary win that assured she would become a state senator.23

Now Mendes is running for lieutenant governor on a ticket with Brown and as part of a slate that includes candidates such as registered nurse Lenny Cioe, who is challenging Senate President Ruggerio. My opponent says, Youre a politician, Cioe says as he knocks on doors in his North Providence neighborhood with Brown. I say, No, Im a nurse that wants to change politics. Cioe almost beat Ruggerio in 2020, and hes running hard to finish the job this year.24

Whether Brown ends up in the governors mansion is an open question. Brown and Mendes are being outspent in their races by candidates with ties to the party organizationwhich has endorsed incumbent Governor Dan McKee, who inherited the job when former governor Raimondo became President Bidens secretary of commerce, and Lieutenant Governor Sabina Matos, who replaced McKeeand by other contenders with sufficient personal wealth to fund free-spending television advertising campaigns. Yet they have a message thats in tune with what pundits in Rhode Island and nationwide have identified as a populist moment. For decades, the people in power have fought for giant corporations and the ultra-wealthy, declares their manifesto. Matt and Cynthia are doing things differently. They are not taking any money from corporate lobbyists, corporate PACs, or fossil fuel executives. Instead, they are running alongside dozens of candidatesnurses, teachers, social workers, people who have spent their lives fighting for their communitiesto build a whole new government.25

When I meet with Mendes in a second-floor workspace above a bustling downtown Providence street, she is taking a quick break between campaign stops to read a few pages from a favorite book by Audre Lorde. The poet and civil rights activist once wrote that for every real word spoken, for every attempt I had ever made to speak those truths for which I am still seeking, I had made contact with other women while we examined the words to fit a world in which we all believed, bridging our differences.26

Theres not a lot of time for poetry reading on the campaign trail. But Mendes is always looking for ways to frame the message that the people of Rhode Island have the power to transform the politics of their state and their nation. The first step is the work of imagination, Mendes says. Were building a movement of people who recognize that it doesnt have to be this way.27

Read more from the original source:
Meet the Rhode Island Progressives Taking on the Democratic Establishment - The Nation

A leading expert on anti-Semitism has said that university campus groups "have the right to exclude Zionists." Writing in the Times of Israel, Kenneth Stern argued that, although it may be "hurtful" and counterproductive, the right of progressive groups to exclude advocates of the occupation state must be respected. Stern is the US attorney who took the lead in drafting the highly controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism.

His intervention follows the growing debate around the exclusion of Zionist students from progressive spaces. Founded on the ethno-nationalist ideals of Zionism, Israel has long been viewed in progressive circles as a racist country that advocates settler colonialism and ethnic cleansing. This view has become more widespread in recent times after major human rights groups accused Israel of committing the crime of apartheid.

With Zionism increasingly being viewed as a racist, imperialist ideology, groups advocating for equality, human rights, the rights of minorities and progressive values, in general, are more frequently excluding supporters of Israel from their spaces. This has happened despite protests that Zionism and affinity with the apartheid state are intrinsic parts of Jewish identity. Critics, however, have long questioned this argument and rejected the claim that a political ideology should be treated as a "protective category" in the same way as gender, religion and race are.

The recent row over the IHRA definition is largely a demand by pro-Israel groups for wider society to support their claim that Zionism and support for the state of Israel be accepted as such a category. It is a form of exceptionalist pleading which is rejected wholesale when other groups in society make similar demands. For instance, the political ideology of "Islamism" or the desire to create an "Islamic State" are not only violently opposed and condemned, but any Muslim who insists that their political views and religion be granted special protection is also dismissed out of hand, and rightly so.

A similar example would be if India's far-right BJP government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi and advocates of Hindutva, said that it is racist and anti-Hindu to question their demand to create an exclusively Hindu state. As is becoming increasingly clear, in their quest to refashion India as a Hindu state, Hindutva extremists have placed themselves on a collision course with the country's secular constitution. No amount of special pleading that India is the only Hindu state in the world should make any difference, but the goal is still no less than the reformation of India as an ethno-religious state affording special rights and privileges to Hindus within a multi-tier system of citizenship. The model state that such Hindus aspire to replicate is Israel. The parallel between the two ideologies is a powerful illustration of the special status granted to Zionism.

Israel and its supporters are granted a privilege that is not extended to any other political community. Public bodies and private institutions across the Western world have not only agreed to their demand, but have also adopted the supposedly "working definition" of anti-Semitism produced by the IHRA that conflates legitimate criticism of Israel and Zionism with anti-Jew racism.

Although Stern does not compare Zionism and its equivalent ideologies around the world, he insists on treating Israel and its founding ideology in the same way as any other political ideology and its followers. The right to criticise freely without being labelled a racist should be preserved, he maintains. He admits that Zionism itself is a contested term but, nevertheless, the feelings about what Zionism means personally for some Jews should not be an excuse to crack down on freedom of speech by labelling people "anti-Semites" for criticising Israel's founding ideology.

Commenting on the different perceptions of Zionism and the reasons why progressives exclude supporters of Israel, Stern said: "Some progressive students may understand Zionism as a term for Israel's treatment of Palestinians; others may understand Zionism as most Jewish students do the right of Jews to self-determination in their historic homeland."

He explained that a significant and growing number of Jews are "agnostic" about Zionism or are anti-Zionist, which appears to suggest that Zionism and affinity with Israel is not as important to Jewish identity as pro-Israel groups claim.

MEMO In Conversation: 'Whatever happened to anti-Semitism?': MEMO in conversation with Antony Lerman

"Anti-Zionist students may feel that letting a Zionist work among them is the equivalent of overlooking whether someone is a Nazi," said Stern, "just as some Jewish organisations might feel that letting Jews in who support the Boycott/Divestment/Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel is overlooking anti-Semitism." He disagrees with both assertions, but people on campus must be allowed to define their politics.

Wrestling with the central question of the piece in the Times of Israel whether it is anti-Semitic to exclude Zionists from progressive spaces Stern defends the right of progressive groups to be selective. "If a group decides that in order to be a member, one has to have a particular view of Israel and Zionism, the right to make that decision must be respected. Those not invited in, even though exclusion hurts, can find other ways to express themselves, including by creating new groups and coalitions."

Stern has been critical of the way that the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism has been employed by pro-Israel groups against critics of the apartheid state. His latest intervention is another defence of freedom of association and speech against what many say is a crackdown on pro-Palestine voices and the dangers of conflating anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.

"Jewish groups have used the definition as a weapon to say anti-Zionist expressions are inherently anti-Semitic and must be suppressed," wrote Stern in the Times of Israel two years ago. Concerns raised by him then highlight the claim that the fight against anti-Semitism, as American Jewish commentator Peter Beinart believes, has "lost its way".

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Read more here:
An anti-Semitism expert says that progressives 'have the right to exclude Zionists' - Middle East Monitor

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. Im Amy Goodman, with Juan Gonzlez.

We turn now to look at a possible delay, by months or even years, of the FBIs investigation into whether former President Donald Trump violated the Espionage Act and presidential records laws, and whether he obstructed justice to cover up those crimes. The delay comes after a federal judge agreed Monday to appoint an independent arbiter known as a special master to review whether FBI agents properly seized thousands of classified documents from Trumps Mar-a-Lago home on August 8th. U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon agreed with Trumps lawyers that the Justice Department must halt its review of the documents recovered by agents, many of which were marked Top Secret. The Washington Post reports some of the documents were so sensitive that even many senior national security officials would not normally have access to them. Judge Cannon was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in 2020 by then-President Donald Trump. She was confirmed nine days after Trump lost the 2020 election.

On Tuesday, former Attorney General William Barr told Fox News the Justice Department should appeal Judge Cannons decision.

WILLIAM BARR: The opinion, I think, was wrong, and I think the government should appeal it. Its deeply flawed in a number of ways. I dont think the appointment of a special master is going to hold up. But even if it does, I dont see it fundamentally changing the trajectory. In other words, I dont think it changes the ball game so much as maybe well have a rain delay for a couple of innings.

AMY GOODMAN: This comes as the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol is set to resume hearings later this month.

For more, were joined by Elie Mystal, The Nation's justice correspondent, whose recent piece looking this and several other investigations into Trump is headlined Trump Is a CriminalWill Any of These 4 Investigations Snare Him? He's also author of the best-selling book Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guys Guide to the Constitution.

Elie, welcome back to Democracy Now! Why dont you start off by laying out these four cases or investigations into Trump? Because I think many people theres so much thats happening, its very hard for people to figure out what is going on right now, and maybe even why he hasnt been charged.

ELIE MYSTAL: OK, Amy. Lets do this lightning round style. Case number one is the one that youve been talking about. Its the espionage case. Trump stole documents, top-secret documents, classified documents, from the National Archives, put them in his basement. That is straight-up illegal. The Justice Department is investigating him for that theft. Doesnt matter if he declassified the documents or not, because he had sensitive national defense information. Well see how that goes, now that hes gotten it in front of his handpicked justices who are biased for him, right? So, thats bucket number one.

Bucket number two is the one that weve been talking about since January 6, 2020. Its the insurrection that he probably should be held responsible for, if not leading, certainly encouraging. Right? We have the January 6th committee thats investigating that, but we also know that the previous hearings over the summer from the January 6th select committee kind of lit a fire under the Department of Justice, pointed them in some new directions. We know that the testimony of former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson was particularly explosive. So, the Justice Department is arguably continuing investigation into Trumps role in January 6 and all the little tendrils of that, right? Theres the actual coup and insurrection. Theres the fake electors plot. Theres the obstruction of justice. Theres a lot of things wrapped up in January 6th.

But those two buckets are at the federal level. At the state level, he has more legal exposure. Theres the New York state investigation that is led by Attorney General state Attorney General Tish James thats looking into financial crimes and misdeeds from Trump Organization. There are allegations dating back to Michael Cohen, Trumps former fixer, about when Trump devaluing assets when it comes time to pay taxes and inflating assets when it comes time to get a loan. So, that investigation is ongoing.

And then, finally, we have the state of Georgia investigation, led by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. She is looking into Trumps apparent attempt at election fraud and obstruction of justice in Georgia specifically. Weve all heard the incriminating phone call, Donald Trump asking Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in Georgia to find him 11,000 votes. We know Lindsey Graham has been asked to testify. We also know that the judicial system is protecting Lindsey Graham, as well. But we know that investigation is ongoing. And as you pointed out this morning, theres even new evidence implicating Sidney Powell in some stuff. So, that, I think, is still maybe the most likely thing to land Trump in serious legal trouble, just because we literally already have him on tape committing the election crime, if I can say it that way.

But those are the four kind of main ones that I know about. Lets never forget that, you know, Trump commits crime like other people breathe, and so who knows what else is lying just beneath the surface? Those are the four that are kind of most furthest along in terms of investigating the former president.

JUAN GONZLEZ: But, Elie, isnt there a danger because, as you mentioned, all of these different investigations, one, that it feeds into a narrative by many Trump supporters, and even some who may not be that supportive of him, that the government is out to get him? And also, isnt the issue that all of these investigations and, before that, the two impeachments, they keep Trump in the news, so that hes constantly the story, whether or not hes actually officially running for office, and the danger of a backfire, come the next presidential election, about these investigations, that all operate at a snails pace because of the ability of anyone with a lot of money to gum up the works in terms of legal challenges? Your thoughts about the potential backfire of so much effort but no real indictments yet?

ELIE MYSTAL: Yeah, Juan, well, number one, I dont really concern myself what cultists say in defense of their cult. Right? Like, I get that the cult of personality that is Donald Trump creates various false narratives about whats happening and the persecution thats happening to their dear leader. And theyre all wrong. Theyre all dumb and wrong, and so I dont worry myself with what dumb and wrong people think about these investigations, I mean, because we cant, because we cant live at their speed. Right? We have to, like, do what is right regardless of what the cultists say, right?

In terms of doing what is right, thats kind of how I get to your second point. Yes, there is a lot of investigations going on, and, yes, that creates almost a spigot of potential criminality, but whats the alternative? The problem here is that Trump potentially committed many, many, many crimes. And allowing him to get off scot-free for any of the crimes, much less all of the crimes, is the bigger danger to democracy and to kind of faith in American government. If a person like Trump can get away with stealing an election in Georgia and committing financial crimes in New York and leading an insurrection and putting forward fake electors and violating the Espionage Act, if he can get away with all of that, then we are not a nation of laws. We are a nation of power. We are a nation that exists on the whims of the powerful people and their judges. So its almost like we have to pick which nation we want to live in. If we want to live in a nation of laws, then we have to its not an option then we have to prosecute Trump for the crimes he appears to have committed. There is no other option that still involves us living in a nation under the rule of law.

JUAN GONZLEZ: And speaking of a nation under the rule of law, in your book, Allow Me to Retort, you write about the structural problems of our Constitution that, to you, raise serious questions about the ability of our nation to function as a democracy. Im wondering if you could talk about some of those structural issues.

ELIE MYSTAL: Well, I think, look at what the Trump judge did in the espionage case, right? Look at Aileen Cannon. The idea that judges are apolitical, impartial arbiters is wrong. Its always been wrong. Its always been a legal fiction. We know that judges are political actors. If they werent, you wouldnt have wildly different judges nominated by each of the different political parties, right? We know theyre not impartial. We just havent been told that, because, for the most part, their bias and their prejudice has been towards white, cis, hetero, male people, right? And so we act like thats not a bias. But that is a bias. And thats kind of baked into the system.

And these people are also careerists. People keep saying, like, Oh, the point of lifetime appointments is that once a judge is in, they dont have to concern themselves with the political machinations of the country. We know that not to be true, right? Judge Aileen Cannon is a district court judge now. Does she want to be a circuit court judge someday? Does she want to be on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals someday? Does she want to go on the Supreme Court someday? Well, if she does, which wouldnt be surprising to me, well, making decisions in concert with the Republican agenda, especially given Trumps, again, Svengali-like hold over the Republican Party, seems to make sense.

So, when you look at the structure of our judicial system, it is still primarily based on people, and those people can be biased. Those people can be prejudiced. Those people can be wrong. And we dont do nearly enough within our system to hold our judges accountable, right? Theres no theyre appointed for life. Theres no way to remove them, absent impeachment. Like, these are real problems that we have, when you run into clear cases of bias or unethical behavior, as I believe were seeing with Judge Cannon.

And look, Juan, lets remember this. I am suggesting that Cannon is biased and corrupt, based on her opinion, which has no basis in law. The other option is that she has no idea what shes doing. And I tend to give her the benefit of the doubt that she actually knows what shes doing and has decided to help Trump, as opposed to, to me, whats worse, that she truly, kind of honestly doesnt understand how law works. Like, I dont think shes dumb. I think she is biased and prejudiced towards Trump. And the reason why I think that is that she said it in her opinion. She literally wrote that she was treating Trump differently because he was the former president, which is a kind of legal jargony way of saying, look, Juan, if you and I or Amy goes into the National Archives and steals documents, I promise you Judge Aileen Cannon is not slowing down the investigation against us for criminal liability in violations of the Espionage Act.

AMY GOODMAN: So, lets talk about the latest news that NBC is reporting, that among those very classified documents are perhaps nuclear secrets of another nuclear-armed country, just among the classified documents. But The New York Times reports, in her Senate questionnaire this is Judge Cannon described herself as having been a member of the conservative Federalist Society since 2005. And youve done a lot of investigation into this and the power of Leonard Leo, now getting $1.6 billion to start a new organization, and how they have populated the courts, not just her court, but if the Department of Justice appeals this to the 11th Court of Appeals, that court, and then, of course, to the Supreme Court. Trump alone got three Federalist Society judges on the justices on the Supreme Court. And in that answer, Elie, if you can talk about your call for adding more people to the Supreme Court?

ELIE MYSTAL: Yeah. So, lets start with Leo. If youre keeping tabs on what the new $1.6 billion man is doing, one of the first things hes done with the money is file an amicus brief for the upcoming Supreme Court case, advancing this bonkers theory of an independent state legislature that is allowed to change election laws without regard to their own state constitution. Its the biggest upcoming case in the Supreme Court docket this year, because it, essentially, will allow could allow state legislatures, red state legislatures, to simply throw away votes they dont like. Thats what Leonard Leo is doing with his money.

Thats what the Federalist Society is about. Thats their kind of modus operandi, to infect democracy and to take it away from the people and put it behind closed doors. Aileen Cannon, obviously a part of that from her whole career. She wouldnt have been appointed by Trump, who doesnt know a lot about judges he kind of outsourced his judicial picks to the Federalist Society. She wouldnt have been appointed by Trump without Federalist Society approval. So, thats on the one hand.

As you say, Amy, if the Department of Justice appeals this ruling, which they should, because its again, theres no basis in law for it, you go to the 11th Circuit, which is stacked with Trump judges. Then you go back to the Supreme Court, which also is stacked with Republican justices. Weve seen what theyve been willing to do, willing to do to precedent and the rule of law, just last term. So there are no good options there.

And thats something that I think liberals and progressives need to understand more generally. There is nothing that you can do to get around six conservative justices on the Supreme Court and a Republican justice judges stacked up and down through the judicial system. Weve already seen, with the Biden administration, they will block executive orders. They will issue stays and injunctions against moves made by Biden and this Congress. And they will seek to overturn laws passed by this Congress.

So, we saw last term, the Clean Air Act, yeah, that doesnt really matter to the conservatives on the Supreme Court when it comes to regulating the environmental pollutants in our air. The Supreme Court just basically ignored the Clean Air Act. And thats what theyre going to do again if if, by some miracle, Democrats hold onto the House theyll probably keep the Senate, because the Republicans have nominated some terrible candidates and they pass a nationwide abortion rights protection, the Supreme Court will overturn that before breakfast. Like, as long as you let the Republicans control the Supreme Court, there is no progressive agenda. There is no Democratic agenda that gets through these conservatives on the Supreme Court.

The only rational play this is beyond politics, this is beyond reform the only rational play for any Democratic administration, for any Democratic candidate who wants to get anything done for the next 30 years, is to add justices to the Supreme Court. Now, I have a lot of actual reform reasons why we should add justices. In my book, I talk about how, beyond the politics of it, more justices are better. It leads to more moderate decisions, because its harder to get a majority when you have more people. It leads to more diversity, more diversity of thought, and to say nothing of racial, ethnic and gender diversity. There are lots of good reform reasons to add more justices to the Supreme Court.

But as a practical political matter, if Democrats want their agenda to be upheld, they need to counteract the power of conservative justices that have been sent in there specifically to put a stop to progress to not just the progressive agenda in terms of left-right, a stop to progress, to bring us back to as Sam Alito did in the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, bring us back to a time when women were not considered full citizens and full people. Like, that is the goal of the conservatives on the Supreme Court. And as long as we let them have power, that is what they will be doing.

JUAN GONZLEZ: Elie, I wanted to ask you we only have about a minute or two, but voting rights. Considering all of the state efforts in the past few years to limit and restrict voting across the country, your concerns about whats going to happen in the upcoming election and, of course, in the presidential election in a couple of years, in terms of the ability of the majority of the American people to elect representatives that represent them?

ELIE MYSTAL: Yeah. So, this goes back to Chief Justice John Roberts on the Supreme Court. John Roberts has been an enemy of voting rights, and specifically an enemy of Black people voting, for his entire career. His first real job out of school was to work against the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act. He gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in 2013s Shelby County v. Holder. And he was part of the majority that gutted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in 2021s Brnovich v. Arizona. John Roberts is the real bad guy here when it comes to voting.

Now, how does that play out on the ground? Well, one thing that I have learned you know, my mother was born in 1950 in Mississippi, so my people go back a long way on this. One thing Ive learned in my travels is that when you tell people they cant vote, that makes them want to vote more. And so, there is the opportunity, the possibility, that all of the efforts to suppress the vote backfire on people who have been historically challenged in their ability to vote. It could lead to a higher more dedication to go out and have that right, that people are that Republicans are so desperately trying to take away.

But thats where this critical Supreme Court case, Moore v. Harper, that Ive been talking about, comes into play, this independent state legislature theory, this Leonard Leo ploy, that would allow states to throw away votes that have already been duly cast and counted. So, Republicans are both trying to suppress the vote and, if that doesnt work, trying to put themselves in a position where they can overturn the vote and throw away votes they dont like. We are in a crisis of democracy. We are not approaching a constitutional crisis; the crisis is upon us. And the question is: What do we do about it?

AMY GOODMAN: Elie Mystal, were going to have you back on to talk more about what we do about it and your book, The Nation's justice correspondent, author of the best-selling book, Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy's Guide to the Constitution.

Next up, we continue to remember the life and legacy of author, activist Barbara Ehrenreich. Back in 30 seconds.

Originally posted here:
Elie Mystal on the Four Investigations into Trump & Why Progressives Should Push to Expand the Court - Democracy Now!

Amid remembrances for all those killed at the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania 21 years ago Sunday, some progressives U.S. lawmakers also renewed calls to learn from the so-called "War on Terror" and discriminatory policies that followed the terrorist attacks.

"In the wake of 9/11, some government leaders chose fear and hate over healing."

"21 years ago we lost thousands of lives in the devastating 9/11 attacks," tweeted Congressman Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.). "Let's remember those who we have lost, but also remember how it sparked intense Islamophobia and hatred in our country. We must continue to do better and learn from our mistakes."

The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) said in a series of tweets that "today, we're thinking of all whose lives were changed that day: families grieving the loved ones taken from them, as well as communities targeted with hate and harassment for their race, religion, or national origin."

Noting that the U.S. government responded to the attacks with "two long-term military campaigns, torture, and countless civil rights and liberties violations of Arab, Muslim, Middle Eastern, Sikh, and South Asian people," the CPC declared that "we must end endless wars, close Guantnamo, and abandon unconstitutional surveillance and discriminatory policy."

Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who chairs the CPC, shared that "9/11 is when my path into activism and organizing truly began. So much changed that day, and so much has happened in the intervening two decades but our work still continues."

"Today we must remember the communities right here at home that suffered so muchnot only through the terrorist attacks that affected every American's psyche, but also the hate, discrimination, and erosion of civil liberties they had to endure," she stressed.

Jayapal also pointed to the resolution she introduced on September 10, 2021 with Reps. Judy Chu (D-Calif.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) to acknowledge what Arab, Muslim, Middle Eastern, South Asian, and Sikh communities nationwide have endured post-9/11 and offer recommendations to support those affected.

Lakshmi Sridaran, executive director of South Asian Americans Leading Togetherone of the dozens of groups that backed the effortsaid last year that "we are hopeful that this resolution will center the accountability of members of Congress to rescind the policies of the War on Terror and truly ensure the safety of all communities of color."

In a nearly 15-minute speech at the Pentagon Sunday, President Joe Biden also acknowledged the discrimination some people in the United States faced after the 2001 attacks.

"A true sense of national unity," he said, "that's the greatest lesson of September 11thnot that we will never again face a setback, but that in the moment of great unity we also had to face down the worst impulses: fear, violence, recrimination directed against Muslim Americans as well as Americans of Middle Eastern and South Asian heritage."

See the original post:
Progressive Lawmakers Mark 9/11 With Calls to 'Do Better and Learn From Our Mistakes' - Common Dreams

Two years ago New York implemented a broad reform to its bail system, covering misdemeanors and felonies alike, intended to ensure nobody would remain stuck behind bars simply because they couldnt afford cash bail. Data shows the reforms arent leading to an increase in crime, but that hasnt stopped Republicans from lying about it.

Even as conservative politicians and their allies on Fox News hammer these sorts of broad reforms, theyll sheepishly admit that, yes, people with low-risk cases should be allowed to return to their homes and jobs and families while waiting for trial.

So youd expect Republicans to be happy with Harris Countys conservative bail reform, which only covers low-level misdemeanors. Theyre not, and it gives progressives the opportunity to push for something better.

These reforms stem from the ODonnell lawsuit, in which a federal judge found Harris Countys cash bail system was unconstitutionally detaining people facing misdemeanor charges on the basis of their wealth rather than on the basis of risk to public safety or flight from court.

In response to this court case, the largest county in Texas created a presumption of quick pretrial release for most people charged with low-level misdemeanors. This bail reform also includes cut-outs to exempt higher-risk misdemeanors like family violence, repeat DWIs, and new offenses while out on bail or probation/parole. Basically, it applies to the low-hanging fruit the easiest cases that everyone admits pose no threat to public safety without having to touch on anything potentially controversial.

So far, research has found that Harris Countys misdemeanor bail reform kept people out of jail, reduced reliance on plea deals, and even reduced recidivism rates. Thats right: Bail reform is fighting crime. It turns out people are less likely to commit new crimes if you let them return to their jobs, families, and communities instead of locking them up with other accused criminals.

Heres the downside: Misdemeanor bail reform is a good first step, but it isnt nearly enough.

While drug possession and one-punch bar fights may earn easy sympathies for quick pretrial release, the fact of the matter is that our jails are filled with tougher cases. More than half of all people held in Harris County jail before their trials are there on charges for violent offenses like aggravated robbery, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and murder. Some of these cases no doubt involve people who should be detained before trial but nowhere near all of them. Individuals charged with violent crimes are still innocent under the law, and the facts show that a vast majority will simply go back to their lives if theyre released before trial.

Any serious bail reform effort has to address the injustice of wealth-based detention in these felony cases, too.

But these cases also make for scary headlines, and all it takes is one case ending in tragedy to overshadow one thousand that go right.

Luckily, progressives can point to the success of Harris Countys misdemeanor bail reform as a good start and push for reforms in the felony system next.

However, it isnt hard to imagine a world where Republicans latch onto the success of ODonnell and try to use it to stifle this forward momentum and divide the reform movement.

Right-wing power players like the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the arch-libertarian Cato Institute supported the initial ODonnell litigation, along with dozens of law enforcement leaders and current and former prosecutors. Even Crime Stoppers of Houston says theyre OK with it. Republican politicians from Abbott to Alexandra Mealer could hold up Harris Countys misdemeanor reforms as a conservative ideal and contrast it with the broader, most progressive Democratic-led bail reforms in places like New York, Illinois or other scary blue states. In fact, a former NYPD officer did just that in a Houston Chronicle oped this past March.

Im glad that Texas Democrats are finally learning facts about our broken cash bail system that Republicans have known for years, wrote Jillian E. Snider, policy director for R Street, a right-wing think tank. Hopefully theyll join their conservative colleagues in passing reform bills in the next legislative session that will make it easier to detain the truly dangerous, harder to infringe on the constitutions preference of pretrial release and ensure that public safety matters more than bail bond industry profits.

Snider is trying to get Democrats to sign onto a Republican vision of criminal justice reform one that doesnt go nearly far enough. It may help around the edges or in the least controversial cases just like ODonnell but a failure to go all the way would do more to entrench mass incarceration than end it.

That strategy is disingenuous, and also politically brilliant.

Picking all of the low-hanging fruit leaves progressives who want true reform defending the toughest cases. Meanwhile, the Right on Crime crowd gets to stand hand-in-hand with single moms arrested for driving without a license. Moderate Democrats are left in a lurch. Energy gets sapped from the criminal justice reform movement. The media has a field day. Pundits would call it a classic moment of political triangulation just like Donald Trump did with the First Step Act.

In that case, progressives spent years trying to pass an aggressive bill to reduce the federal prison population, but Republicans in Congress co-opted the bill and ended up passing a half-measure while claiming all of the credit.

Luckily, Texas Republicans arent that clever. Instead theyre actually trying to roll back Harris Countys misdemeanor bail reform. Now Harris County candidates like Commissioner Jack Cagle are charging into the 2022 midterms stuck defending an unconstitutional cash bail system that wastes taxpayer dollars locking up working class moms and dads who made one mistake in life while millionaire murderers can pay for their freedom before trial. Our cash bail status quo is wasteful, harmful, ineffective, and 100% Republican.

Meanwhile, progressives are free to claim ODonnell as their own and point to it as an example of what Democratic reforms can accomplish. Taxpayer dollars are saved. Mass incarceration is shrunk. Public safety is improved. And anyone who once tried to push Harris Countys misdemeanor reforms as a conservative alternative is stuck in a political no-mans-land.

Thats bad news for Republicans. And good news for progressives.

To learn more about gun violence in Texas, visit the RA News Gun Violence Watch page.

See the original post:
Texas Republicans Cant Take The Win On Conservative Bail Reform. Thats Good News For Progressives. - Reform Austin