ReportWire

Tag: United States presidential election

  • Mass. voters flock to polls ahead of election

    Mass. voters flock to polls ahead of election

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — Massachusetts voters are flocking to the early polls, and sending and dropping off mail ballots at local election offices ahead of the presidential election Nov. 5.

    Hundreds of thousands have already voted through the mail and during the two-week early voting period that got underway Saturday, according to Secretary of State Bill Galvin’s office, which said it sent more than 1.3 million ballots to registered voters who requested them.

    As of Wednesday, at least 818,904 ballots had been cast, or roughly 16.2% of the state’s 4.9 million registered voters, Galvin’s office said. That included 154,684 in-person early voting ballots.

    Locally, many communities have already seen thousands of votes cast with 13 days until the election. As of Wednesday, voters in Beverly cast nearly 1,100 ballots while North Andover voters had cast 770 ballots, according to a tally provided by Galvin’s office.

    Salem voters had cast 756 mail ballots by Friday while Gloucester voters had turned in 428 ballots, according to the data. Newburyport voters had cast 716 votes as of Wednesday, Galvin’s office said.

    Topping the statewide ballot is the historic race for the White House between former Republican President Donald Trump and Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris, who will be on the ballot with their running mates, Ohio Republican Sen. J.D. Vance and Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.

    Recent polls show Harris with a wide lead over Trump in deep-blue Massachusetts, but the race is tight nationally – especially in battleground states such as Georgia, Pennsylvania and Arizona, where the candidates and their running mates have been campaigning to rally their supporters and win over undecided voters.

    Besides picking a new president and deciding a handful of contested legislative and local races, voters will consider ballot questions to audit the Legislature, scrap the MCAS graduation mandate, allow ride-hailing drivers to form unions, legalize psychedelic mushrooms, and boost the wages of tipped workers.

    More than half of the state’s voters are registered as independent – not affiliated with a major party – with their ranks swelling in the months leading up to the election. Those who aren’t registered can do so until Oct. 26, Galvin’s office said.

    Galvin is urging voters to check that they are still registered and if not, make sure that they do so before the deadline Saturday to register ahead of the election. Under Massachusetts law, there is a 10-day cutoff to register before a statewide election.

    “If you want to vote for president, any other office on the ballot, or these ballot questions, you need to be registered to vote,” Galvin said in a statement. “Even if you are already a voter, if you’ve moved since the last time you voted, I urge you to check that your address is up to date before it’s too late.”

    Voters can see a full list of candidates, register to vote, and look up early voting locations and times on the secretary of state’s website: www.VoteInMA.com.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Early voting gets underway ahead of Nov. election

    Early voting gets underway ahead of Nov. election

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — Hundreds of thousands of Massachusetts voters have already cast ballots for next month’s crucial presidential election with a two-week early voting period getting underway this weekend, according to state election officials.

    Each community will have at least one early voting station available during regular business hours, as well as Saturdays and Sundays, through Nov. 1, according to Secretary of State Bill Galvin’s office.

    Voters can also cast their ballots through mail, which can be received by Nov. 8 if postmarked by Election Day, Galvin’s office said.

    “Early voting offers each voter the convenience of casting their ballot at a time that works for them,” Galvin said in a statement. “If you prefer to vote in person, this gives you that opportunity, even if Election Day is a busy day for you.”

    More than 360,000 voters have already cast their ballots by mail as of Thursday, according to Galvin’s office, which says it has sent more than 1.3 million ballots to registered voters who requested them.

    Massachusetts has more than 4.9 million voters, over half of whom are registered as independent – not affiliated with a major party – and whose ranks have swelled in the months leading up to the election. Those who aren’t registered can do so until Oct. 26 and can register online or at early voting locations, Galvin’s office said.

    Topping the Nov. 5 ballot is the contentious, neck-and-neck race for the White House between former Republican President Donald Trump and Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris, who will be on the ballot with their running mates, Ohio Republican Sen. J.D. Vance and Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.

    Recent polls show Harris with a wide lead over Trump in deep-blue Massachusetts, but the race couldn’t be closer nationally and in battleground states such as Georgia, Pennsylvania and Arizona, where the candidates and their running mates have been campaigning to rally their supporters and win over undecided voters.

    Trump and Harris will share the Massachusetts ballot with several third-party and fringe candidates, including the Party for Socialism and Liberation’s candidates, Claudia De La Cruz and her vice presidential running mate, Karina Garcia.

    Green Party candidate Jill Stein and her vice presidential candidate Gloria Caballero Roca, Libertarian presidential candidate Chase Oliver and his running mate Mike ter Maat, and independent presidential candidate Shiva Ayyadurai and his running mate, Crystal Ellis, will also be on the ballot.

    Besides picking a new president and deciding a handful of contested legislative and local races, voters will consider ballot questions to audit the Legislature, scrap the MCAS graduation mandate, allow ride-hailing drivers to form unions, legalize psychedelic mushrooms and boost the wages of tipped workers.

    The state’s strong consumer protection laws often make it a testing ground for controversial changes in law and policy through the ballot box, and the outcomes of several of the questions are being closely watched nationally.

    Neither of the North of Boston area’s two Democratic congressional members, Reps. Lori Trahan of Westford and Seth Moulton of Salem, are facing challengers. Republicans didn’t field any candidates in 3rd or 6th Congressional District races, ensuring that Trahan and Moulton will win another two years in Congress.

    Despite the lack of contested races in this year’s election cycle, good government groups are still urging Massachusetts voters to cast ballots by mail, during the early voting period or on Election Day.

    “There’s a lot at stake and it’s a huge, consequential election,” Geoff Foster, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts, said Tuesday during a livestreamed briefing on voting options.

    “The election isn’t three weeks away. It’s now,” he said. “You can vote by mail. You can vote in person during early voting. Or, if you want to keep it old school, you can wait until Tuesday, Nov. 5, and cast a ballot at your local polling station.”

    Voters can see a full list of the candidates, register to vote and look up early voting locations and times on the secretary of state’s website: www.VoteInMA.com.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Early voting begins for Mass. primary

    Early voting begins for Mass. primary

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — Massachusetts voters can go to the polls beginning this weekend to nominate candidates for Congress and a handful of contested legislative and county races as early voting gets underway ahead of the state primary.

    From Saturday to Aug. 30, cities and towns will allow registered voters to cast early ballots ahead of the Sept. 3 primary. No excuse or justification is required to cast a ballot ahead of time. Voters can also vote by mail, but must request their ballots by a Monday deadline, according to the Secretary of State’s office. Saturday is the deadline to register to vote.

    Turnout is generally low in state primaries, but the lack of contested races means it could drop to new lows with voters more focused on the November crucial presidential election.

    Nevertheless, good government groups are urging voters to take advantage of the state’s expanded voting options to cast their ballots ahead of the primary.

    “With early voting and vote by mail, we have more options for how we choose to cast a ballot and pick our state leaders,” Geoff Foster, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts, said in a statement. “We encourage everyone to get out and vote before the long weekend.”

    Topping the ballot are three Republican contenders — attorney and cryptocurrency advocate John Deaton, Quincy City Council President Ian Cain and researcher and engineer Bob Antonellis — who are facing off in the GOP primary for a shot at challenging incumbent Democratic U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who has no primary challenger.

    None of the state’s nine Democratic congress members are facing primary challengers, including Reps. Seth Moulton of Salem, and Lori Trahan of Westford. Republicans didn’t field any candidates in 3rd or 6th Congressional district races, ensuring that Trahan and Moulton will win another two years in Congress.

    There are also a handful of contested state legislative primaries, including a rematch between incumbent Democratic Rep. Francisco Paulino of Methuen and Marcos A. Devers of Lawrence in the 16th Essex District race. There are no Republicans running for the House seat.

    Most of the largely Democratic state legislators representing the north of Boston region are facing no primary challengers, and few Republicans are running for the seats.

    On a county level, former Governor’s Councilor Eileen Duff of Gloucester is facing off against Navy veteran Joseph Michael Gentleman III in the Democratic primary for a six-year term as the Southern Essex County Register of Deeds. The winner will fill a vacancy left by former Register John O’Brien, a Democrat who retired on Dec. 31 after 47 years in the post.

    Incumbent Essex County Clerk of Courts Thomas Driscoll will try to fend off a challenge from former Beverly Councilor James FX Doherty on the Democratic ballot. The clerk oversees the superior courts in Salem, Lawrence and Newburyport.

    More than 4.9 million people are eligible to vote in the Sept. 3 primary, elections officials say. The majority, about 63%, are not affiliated with a political party.

    Under the Massachusetts system of open primaries, so-called “un-enrolled” or independent voters can choose a Republican or Democratic ballot.

    Registered Democrats can vote only in the Democratic primary, while Republicans can vote only on the GOP ballot. Libertarians, the state’s other major party, can only vote on their ballot.

    Secretary Of State Bill Galvin is recommending that voters check their city or town’s early voting schedule, and make a plan to vote. He noted that many local election offices have limited hours on Fridays.

    “With the primaries being held on the day after Labor Day, some voters may prefer to vote by mail or to vote early, especially if they have children going back to school that day,” Galvin said in a statement. “The early voting period gives you the chance to vote on whichever day you prefer, at your convenience.”

    Voters also can look up locations and times on the Secretary of State’s website: www.MassEarlyVote.com.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Biden electrifies Democrats, spars with Republicans in fiery State of the Union address

    Biden electrifies Democrats, spars with Republicans in fiery State of the Union address

    [ad_1]

    A spirited President Joe Biden delivered a fiery, partisan State of the Union address on Thursday, fit for an election year with enormously high stakes in a divided nation.

    “Not since President Lincoln and the Civil War have freedom and democracy been under assault here at home as they are today,” Biden said early in the speech.

    “What makes our moment rare is that freedom and democracy are under attack, both at home and overseas, at the very same time,” he said.

    “Overseas, [President Vladimir] Putin of Russia is on the march, invading Ukraine and sowing chaos throughout Europe and beyond. If anybody in this room thinks Putin will stop at Ukraine, I assure you, he will not,” the president said to cheers from Democrats and applause from a smattering of Republicans.

    “My message to President Putin is simple. We will not walk away. We will not bow down. I will not bow down,” Biden said.

    The president also celebrated Sweden’s ascension into NATO earlier in the day, as Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson sat to the left of First Lady Jill Biden in her guest box.

    U.S. first lady Jill Biden sits alongside Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson during U.S. President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address in the House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, March 7, 2024.

    Mandel Ngan | Afp | Getty Images

    On domestic policy, Biden was even more confrontational than he was on foreign affairs, repeatedly calling out Republicans and sparring live on TV with some of the loudest voices in the GOP caucus.

    As a coterie of conservative Supreme Court justices sat just feet away from him, Biden excoriated them for overturning the reproductive rights enshrined in Roe vs. Wade.

    “In its decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court majority wrote that, ‘women are not without … electoral or political power,’” Biden said.

    Then he paused and said to them, “You’re about to realize just how much.” With that, Democrats in the chamber jumped to their feet and clapped and cheered.

    Biden also went toe to toe with Republicans over a border security bill.

    “In November, my team began serious negotiations with a bipartisan group of senators. The result was a bipartisan bill with the toughest set of border security reforms we’ve ever seen in this country,” said Biden.

    U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., yells at U.S. President Joe Biden as he delivers the State of the Union address at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, March 7, 2024.

    Evelyn Hockstein | Reuters

    As Republicans booed the bill that they agreed to in the Senate, but then sunk in the House, Biden turned to his left, where Republican members were seated.

    “Oh, you don’t think so? You don’t like that bill, huh? Darn, that’s amazing,” he said.

    “Because that bipartisan deal would hire 1,500 more border security agents and officers, 100 more immigration judges to help tackle a backload of 2 million cases.”

    Again and again, Biden met Republican interruptions and boos in real time with quips and jabs that appeared to disarm them.

    Overall, the speech was a clear, and effective, effort to convey to the public and to his party that he is a candidate ready for a fight in November.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump Indicted For Trying To Overturn 2020 Election

    Trump Indicted For Trying To Overturn 2020 Election

    [ad_1]

    Former President Donald Trump has been indicted for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election, the third time in four months that the former U.S. president has been criminally charged. What do you think?

    “I’m sure seeing his beloved supporters jailed has punished him enough.”

    Daniel Welsh, Product Demonstrator

    “The rule of law has always been very biased against him.”

    Graciela Asnes, Lab Organizer

    “I wish I loved my job enough to destroy the country.”

    Jonas Murray, Janitorial Supervisor

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 16 Fake Trump Electors Face Felony Charges In Michigan

    16 Fake Trump Electors Face Felony Charges In Michigan

    [ad_1]

    Michigan’s attorney general is charging 16 Republicans with multiple felonies after they are alleged to have submitted false certificates indicating they were the state’s presidential electors despite Joe Biden’s 154,000-vote victory in 2020. What do you think?

    “I wonder if we’ll ever find out who won the 2020 election.”

    Estelle Kearney, Credit Analyst

    “Fine, then what’s the legal way to overthrow an election?”

    Frankie Roberts, Unemployed

    “I guess this is the thanks that getting politically involved gets you.”

    Steve Norman, Tattoo Consultant

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • As Republican contenders start to line up for the White House in 2024, Social Security may be key issue

    As Republican contenders start to line up for the White House in 2024, Social Security may be key issue

    [ad_1]

    zimmytws | iStock | Getty Images

    Last November’s midterm elections were expected to bring a so-called “red wave” of wins for Republican candidates. But ultimately, voters gave Democrats an edge in some of the most competitive congressional districts.

    One deciding factor was candidates’ messages around Social Security and Medicare, which helped sway voters, particularly those ages 50 and up, according to an analysis from AARP following the Nov. 8 election.

    Now, as the 2024 presidential election approaches, and GOP hopefuls line up for their party’s nomination, they face new pressure to decide where they stand, particularly with Social Security.

    Former President Donald Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis — who thus far are in the lead in the Republican polls — have so far pledged not to touch the program.

    “Under no circumstances should Republicans vote to cut a single penny from Medicare or Social Security to help pay for Joe Biden’s reckless spending spree,” Trump said in January.

    In March, DeSantis told Fox News, “We’re not going to mess with Social Security as Republicans.”

    Their position matches that of President Joe Biden, who during the State of the Union prompted both sides of the aisle to agree the program is “off the books.”

    More from Personal Finance:
    This tool lets you play at fixing Social Security woes
    Retirement-savings gap may cost economy $1.3 trillion by 2040
    How a retirement age change could affect younger Americans

    While that stance is popular with the public, some experts say it is ill-advised.

    “It’s fundamentally irresponsible to say we’re not going to touch it when everybody who’s ever looked at the finances of the program recognizes that it’s going bankrupt,” said Whit Ayres, president of North Star Opinion Research, a center-right political polling operation.

    The situation presents an opportunity for a hero to emerge, one who can put the program on sound financial footing, Ayres said.

    One longshot Republican hopeful — former Cranston, Rhode Island, mayor Steve Laffey — plans to enter the race with his own bold plan to reconstruct Social Security as the first priority on his agenda.

    “Our biggest problem is this: We as Americans simply don’t directly confront our problems,” Laffey said.

    Social Security is the “ultimate example of that,” he said.

    Changes needed ‘sooner rather than later’

    A crucial inflection point, particularly for Social Security, is coming, according to the program’s trustees.

    Social Security’s combined funds will only be able to pay full benefits until 2034. At that point, just 80% of benefits will be payable if nothing is done sooner.

    Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle would need to agree on fixes for the program. These could include benefit cuts, such as raising the retirement age, tax increases or a combination of both.

    But with Democrats vowing to protect benefits and Republicans swearing off tax increases, that has thus far left little room for compromise.

    As Washington leaders recently worked out a deal to raise the nation’s debt ceiling for two years, the cost of Social Security and Medicare came under scrutiny.

    Both Social Security and Medicare fall under the category of mandatory spending, which altogether represents more than two-thirds of the nation’s budget, according to the Tax Foundation.

    Consequently, it is impossible to address the nation’s spending without addressing those programs, according to Tax Foundation economist Alex Durante.

    “The longer we push this out, it becomes more difficult to try to protect everyone that receives the benefits,” Durante said. “It’s important that we tackle this sooner rather than later.”

    Proposal for ‘modern version’ of Social Security

    The Social Security plan Laffey would implement throws out the traditional approaches of tax increases or benefit cuts.

    Instead, he wants to gradually phase out the FICA tax completely. Currently, workers and employers each pay 6.2% on up to $160,200 in wages toward Social Security.

    That would be replaced by new Personal Security System accounts, to which workers would contribute 10% of their pay. Those balances would be invested in a weighted index of global stocks, bonds and other securities.

    The plan comes from Laurence Kotlikoff, a Boston University economics professor who has devoted much of his career to helping people get the most from Social Security and demystifying the program’s many rules.

    Kotlikoff himself ran for president in 2012 and 2016 as a third-party candidate. In subsequent election cycles, he has urged Laffey to run.

    The two met when Laffey was working on “Fixing America,” a 2012 documentary about Americans’ perspectives on fixing the country’s problems post-financial crisis. Laffey wrote and co-produced the documentary, for which he interviewed Kotlikoff.

    Laffey, a former Morgan Keegan executive, has mostly been out of politics after serving two terms as mayor of Cranston, Rhode Island.

    He ran for a U.S. Senate seat in Rhode Island in 2006 and then in 2014 pursued the Republican nomination for a U.S. House seat representing Colorado, where he now lives. He was unsuccessful in both races.

    Republican 2024 presidential hopeful Steve Laffey arrives for an interview at a local TV station in Cranston, Rhode Island, on March 17, 2023.

    Ed Jones | Afp | Getty Images

    Laffey launched a campaign for mayor at a time when Cranston had the lowest bond rating in America, he said. The big accomplishment he boasts as Cranston mayor is bringing the city’s bond rating up. The city’s S&P rating climbed to an A- in 2006 from a B in 2002, according to a spokesman for Laffey.

    The Social Security plan would be a fully funded system, where you get your money back in the form of an inflation-indexed annuity, according to Kotlikoff.

    “It’s a modern version of Social Security,” Kotlikoff said.

    The goal would be to give beneficiaries a bigger return on the money than they get now.

    It also aims to address the program’s current inequities. The government would make matching contributions on behalf of lower earners, the disabled and unemployed. Spouses would share their contributions to the program equally.

    The investment strategies would be computerized and custodied by the federal government, not by Wall Street. Everyone would get the same rate of return, Kotlikoff noted.

    The expectation is that over a 40-year time horizon the accounts would be able to make up for down years and ultimately provide workers with more money than today’s Social Security program.

    The hope is a worker who is 20 years old in 2025 may eventually stand to get $10,000 per month, rather than $2,000, which would be a “lot better,” Laffey said.

    The plan coincides with Laffey’s plans to overhaul government spending, such as changing the Federal Reserve’s inflation target to zero, rather than the current goal of 2%, in order to force Congress to work within its budget.

    ‘Both sides are going to have to give’

    Because any changes to Social Security involve strict emotions, the big question is whether lawmakers and Americans would be ready to embrace a new direction for the program.

    The idea of rethinking the way Social Security funds are invested has come up before.

    While in office, President George W. Bush had proposed letting Americans save part of their Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts, referred to as “partial privatization.”

    Andrew Biggs, who worked in the White House on Social Security reform at the time and who is now a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, remembers the proposal did not come close to succeeding, even as Social Security still had surpluses and Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.

    Consequently, privatization — where personal accounts are funded out of part of the existing payroll tax — would be a long shot, he said.

    “If Bush couldn’t do it then, despite a great effort, that’s not happening now,” Biggs said.

    But personal accounts funded on top of the existing Social Security program, such as ensuring everyone signs up for a retirement plan at work, could be “more possible,” he said.

    Another challenge may be getting Americans to embrace the idea.

    The only people who like personalized accounts are affluent, college-educated white men, said Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster and president at Lake Research Partners, who has conducted focus groups with married couples on the subject.

    Women of all ages, who are very worried about the future of the program for their own economic security, are less likely to embrace the idea, she said.

    Biden and Trump campaign signs are displayed as voters line up to cast their ballots during early voting at the Alafaya Branch Library in Orlando, Florida, Oct. 30, 2020.

    Getty Images

    For candidates, taking such a position can also jeopardize their primary and general election viability, Lake said.

    Yet Ayres, of North Star Opinion Research, sees an opportunity for reforms much like President Ronald Reagan helped usher in, which put Social Security on sound financial footing for half a century, he said.

    That likely won’t come from an “unworkable” overhaul of the program, Ayres said, but instead more marginal changes, such as raising the retirement age by several months and increasing the cap on Social Security earnings.

    Like Reagan’s efforts, it would also require bipartisan commissions, he said.

    As with the newly inked debt ceiling deal, “both sides are going to have to give a little bit,” Ayres said.

    “Just putting your head in the sand and waiting for it to go bankrupt is a fundamentally irresponsible position,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump faces about 30 criminal counts for document fraud in New York indictment

    Trump faces about 30 criminal counts for document fraud in New York indictment

    [ad_1]

    U.S. President Donald Trump delivers an update on the so-called Operation Warp Speed program, the joint Defense Department and HHS initiative that has struck deals with several drugmakers in an effort to help speed up the search for effective treatments for the ongoing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, in an address from the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, U.S., November 13, 2020.

    Carlos Barria | Reuters

    Former President Donald Trump has been hit with about 30 criminal charges related to alleged document fraud in the indictment issued against him by a New York grand jury, NBC reported Friday.

    The indictment, which was approved Thursday, remains sealed in Manhattan Supreme Court.

    Trump, who is the leading contender for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, is scheduled to be arraigned in Manhattan court on Tuesday.

    At least part, if not all, of the indictment is understood to be related to Trump’s reimbursement of his then-lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen for a $130,000 hush money payment made to porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election.

    The Trump Organization recorded payments that Trump made to Cohen for that purpose as “legal expenses.”

    It is a misdemeanor under New York law to misclassify business expenses. That can become a felony if done to cover up another crime.

    Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford, was paid to keep silent about her claim that she had sex with Trump in 2006. He denies her account.

    Trump is the first U.S. president, former or otherwise, to be charged in a criminal case.

    A Quinnipiac University poll released this week found that a majority of Americans believe that Trump should be disqualified from running for the White House if he is charged with a crime.

    However, there is no law against Trump seeking the presidency while facing charges.

    Follow our live coverage of the NY grand jury’s indictment of former President Donald Trump.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘Did not end well’: New Pence book details split with Trump

    ‘Did not end well’: New Pence book details split with Trump

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — Former Vice President Mike Pence blames Donald Trump for endangering his family “and all those serving at the Capitol” on Jan. 6 in a new memoir released Tuesday.

    In “So Help Me God,” Pence recounts, for the first time in his own words, the Republican former president’s extraordinary effort to push him to overturn the results of the 2020 election and shares his account of the day thousands of rioters stormed the Capitol, with some chanting “Hang Mike Pence.”

    “They had come to protest the result of the election and to prevent Congress from fulfilling its responsibility to open and count the Electoral College votes,” Pence writes. “And, as I later learned, many had come looking for me.”

    The book, which traces Pence’s life in politics — from serving as youth coordinator for a local Democratic Party to watching then-Vice President Al Gore certify his election loss days after Pence had been sworn in as a member of Congress — largely defends Trump, glossing over and whitewashing many of his most contentious episodes. “I had always been loyal to President Donald Trump,” the book begins.

    But Pence, who spent years refusing to publicly criticize his old boss, makes clear that Jan. 6, 2021, was a breaking point in which, he writes, Trump’s “reckless words had endangered my family and all those serving at the Capitol.”

    “For four years, we had a close working relationship. It did not end well,” Pence writes, summing up their time in the White House. Still, he adds, “we parted amicably when our service to the nation drew to a close. In the months that followed, we spoke from time to time, but when the president returned to the rhetoric that he was using before that tragic day and began to publicly criticize those of us who defended the Constitution, I decided it would be best to go our separate ways.”

    The book, published by Simon & Schuster, comes as Pence appears increasingly likely run for president in 2024, a move that would put him in direct conflict with Trump, who is expected to formally launch his own reelection campaign in Florida on Tuesday night.

    Pence, who in the book never directly states that Democrat Joe Biden won fairly, writes that when Trump first suggested holding a rally in Washington on Jan. 6, the day Pence was set to preside over the election’s certification, he thought it was a good idea. “My first thought was that a rally that day might be useful as a way to call even more attention to the proceedings on the floor of the House and Senate,” he writes.

    Instead, Pence describes sitting in the Senate chamber and presiding over the certification when the Senate parliamentarian leaned over to inform him that rioters had breached the building and a member of his Secret Service detail rushing over to insist they leave. Pence refused to vacate the building and was instead ushered to a Senate loading dock, where he spent hours, surrounded by staff and family members, making calls to military and congressional leaders to coordinate the government’s response, as the president — who never bothered to check in on Pence’s safety — sat cloistered, watching TV.

    “All around was a blur of motion and chaos: security and police officers directing people to safety, staffers shouting and running for shelter. I could see the intensity in the eyes of the Secret Service detail; it was audible, too, in the voices of the Capitol Police. I could hear the fall of footsteps and angry chanting,” Pence writes. Still, Pence insists he was “not afraid,” only angry at what was unfolding.

    At 2:24 p.m., as Pence remained in hiding, Trump fired off that infamous tweet saying Pence “didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution.”

    “I just shook my head,” Pence said he responded. “The truth was, as reckless as the president’s tweet was, I really didn’t have time for it. Rioters were ransacking the Capitol. … The president had decided to be part of the problem. I was determined to be part of the solution. I ignored the tweet and got back to work.”

    Pence also describes Trump’s campaign to pressure him to reject the results of the election by rejecting Electoral College votes or sending them back to the states, even though the Constitution makes clear that the vice president’s role is purely ceremonial.

    During one lunch on Nov. 16, 2020, Pence said he told Trump that “if the legal challenges came up short and if he was unwilling to concede, he could simply accept the results of the elections, move forward with the transition, and start a political comeback, winning the Senate runoffs in Georgia, the governor’s race in Virginia in 2021, and the House and Senate in 2022.”

    “That accomplished, I said, he could run for president in 2024 and win,” Pence writes. “He seemed unmoved, even weary, at the prospect.”

    “‘I don’t know, 2024 is so far off,’” Pence writes that Trump told him “before returning to the status of election challenges in various states.”

    At another lunch, Pence said he encouraged Trump “not to look at the election ‘as a loss — just an intermission’” and said if he “still came up short” after exhausting every legal option, Trump should “take a bow” and later run again.

    “He nodded, pointed at me as if to say, ‘That’s worth considering,’ and walked into the back hallway,” Pence writes. “I will always wish he had.”

    But as the lawsuits Trump’s legal team was pushing continued to fail, Pence writes that Trump’s mood darkened and he became increasingly irate. Pence says Trump berated him, telling him, “You’re too honest,” and predicting that “hundreds of thousands are gonna hate your guts” and “people are gonna think you’re stupid.”

    “As the days wore on, it was becoming clear that there would be a real cost to me politically when I presided over the certification of the 2020 election,” Pence writes. “I always knew that I did not possess the authority to overturn the election. I knew it would be hurtful to my friend for me to participate in the certification. But my duty was clear.”

    After the Capitol was cleared of the rioters, Congress reconvened and Pence presided over the certification of his and Trump’s loss. For several days the two men did not speak. But when they finally met, five days later, Pence said they spent more than 90 minutes together, alone.

    “I told him that I had prayed for him for the past four and a half years, and I encouraged him to pray,” Pence said he told Trump. “’Jesus can help you through this,’ I said. ‘Call on Him.’ He didn’t say anything.”

    “With genuine sadness in his voice, the president then mused, ‘What if we hadn’t had the rally? What if they hadn’t gone to the Capitol?’ Then he said, ‘It’s too terrible to end like this.’”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • O’Rourke hopes to upset Texas Gov. Abbott’s bid for 3rd term

    O’Rourke hopes to upset Texas Gov. Abbott’s bid for 3rd term

    [ad_1]

    AUSTIN — Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott sought a record-tying third term Tuesday while Democrat Beto O’Rourke reached for an upset in America’s biggest red state in one of the most expensive midterm races in the U.S.

    More than 5 million early votes had already been cast ahead of Election Day in Texas, where anger over the Uvalde school shooting that left 19 children and two teachers dead in May intensified an already heated contest in which both candidates’ campaigns combined spent more than $200 million.

    Five months later, Texas state police still face pressure for failing to confront the gunman sooner at Robb Elementary School. O’Rourke said the shooting, one of the deadliest classroom attacks in U.S. history, crystalized the stakes of the election as Abbott waved off calls for tougher gun laws.

    But Abbott, 64, has remained formidable in a state where Republicans have won every governor’s race since 1994.

    He has rallied his base around a record number of illegal border crossings from Mexico to the U.S., aggressively courted Hispanic voters in South Texas, and seized on economic anxieties and recession fears that have created headwinds for Democrats nationally.

    A victory by Abbott would strengthen his position as a potential presidential contender in 2024, secure his place as the second-longest serving governor in the state’s history and extend decades of GOP dominance.

    O’Rourke on Tuesday was set to embark on one last campaign blitz through Dallas, San Antonio and Houston before heading home to wait for election returns in his hometown of El Paso. Abbott was spending election night Tuesday in the southern border city of McAllen, underscoring the GOP’s rising confidence in a region that has long been a stronghold for Democrats.

    O’Rourke’s hard-charging challenge has rekindled Democrats’ hopes while appealing to voters soured by the Uvalde shooting, a strict new abortion ban and the deadly collapse of the state’s power grid in winter 2021. The former El Paso congressman has cast himself as a fresh start for Texas and a check on a GOP-controlled Legislature, while vowing to legalize marijuana and expand Medicaid.

    But four years after O’Rourke, 50, nearly won a U.S. Senate seat in Texas, raising his profile in the Democratic Party, he has confronted more skeptical voters. Abbott has painted him as a liberal crusader, and O’Rourke has been forced to answer for positions he took while running for the White House, particularly his support of mandatory gun buybacks.

    A day after the shooting in Uvalde, O’Rourke interrupted an Abbott news conference, telling him, “This is on you,” in reference to the governor’s opposition of tougher gun measures. To Republicans, the moment was a tasteless political stunt, but O’Rourke’s supporters saw it as an authentic reflection of their anger.

    During early voting in suburban Dallas, Deborah Thompson said she voted for all Democrats, including O’Rourke, out of concern that Republicans threaten voting and abortion rights.

    “I think that an 18-year-old girl that’s been raped should be able to get an abortion,” the 56-year-old Richardson resident said. “I’m not going back. I’m not going back to the ’50s … and I’m so angry at all of this.”

    Janie Helms, a retiree, said worries about inflation led her to vote for Abbott.

    “I see him as a conservative who will watch our money,” she said.

    ————

    Associated Press writer Jake Bleiberg contributed from Plano, Texas.

    ————

    Follow AP’s coverage of the elections at: https://apnews.com/hub/2022-midterm-elections

    Check out https://apnews.com/hub/explaining-the-elections to learn more about the issues and factors at play in the 2022 midterm elections.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Musk emerging as Twitter’s chief moderator ahead of midterms

    Musk emerging as Twitter’s chief moderator ahead of midterms

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — Days after taking over Twitter and a week before the U.S. midterm elections, billionaire Elon Musk has positioned himself as moderator-in-chief of one of the most important social media platforms in American politics.

    Musk has said he won’t make major decisions about content or restoring banned accounts before setting up a “content moderation council” with diverse viewpoints. But his own behavior as a prolific tweeter has signaled otherwise.

    He’s engaged directly with figures on the political right who are appealing for looser restrictions, including a Republican candidate for Arizona secretary of state who credits Musk with enabling him to begin tweeting again after his account was briefly suspended Monday.

    Musk even changed his profile to “Twitter Complaint Hotline Operator” — with a photo of himself when he was a toddler holding a telephone. But it is almost impossible for those outside of Twitter to know what strings he is pulling or whose accounts have been suspended: The company has stopped responding to media questions, except for the few that Musk answers by tweet.

    Musk’s promised interventions started last week on his first full day as Twitter’s owner. A conservative political podcaster shared examples of the platform allegedly favoring liberals and secretively downgrading conservative voices — a common criticism that Twitter’s previous leaders dismissed as inaccurate. “I will be digging in more today,” Musk responded.

    It continued when the daughter of Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson, whose provocative critiques of “politically correct” culture and feminism are popular with some right-wing activists, appealed for Musk to restore her father’s account after a tweet about transgender actor Elliot Page that apparently ran afoul of Twitter’s rules on hateful conduct.

    “Anyone suspended for minor & dubious reasons will be freed from Twitter jail,” Musk pledged. He had months earlier said in reference to Peterson that Twitter was “going way too far in squashing dissenting opinions.”

    One of Musk’s first big moves was an open letter to advertisers — Twitter’s chief revenue source — promising that he would not let Twitter descend into a “free-for-all hellscape” as he follows through with his plans to promote free speech on the platform. And he’s suggesting asking users to pay $8 for a coveted verified blue check mark as a way to diversify revenue.

    The check mark has been criticized as a symbol of elitism on the platform. But its primary purpose has been to verify that accounts in the public eye — such as politicians, brands and journalists — are who they say they are. It’s been a tool to prevent impersonation and help stem the flow of misinformation.

    But some still have their worries about Musk opening the platform to a flood of online toxicity that’s bad for their brands. General Motors has said it will suspend advertising on Twitter as it monitors the platform under Musk, and others are facing pressure to review their own plans. On Tuesday, more than three dozen advocacy organizations sent an open letter to Twitter’s top 20 advertisers, calling on them to commit to halting advertising on the platform if Twitter under Musk undermines “brand safety” and guts content moderation.

    Over the weekend, the billionaire posted — then deleted — an article that contained baseless rumors about the attack on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband. And much of his commentary in recent days has been a response to appeals from conservative voices.

    In a text exchange with The Associated Press, Mark Finchem, the Republican running to become Arizona’s secretary of state, said his access to the platform was restored quickly after reaching out to Musk via his personal Twitter handle. Asked why his account was suspended, Finchem said: “Perhaps you should reach out to Elon Musk. We were banned for an unknown reason, we reached out to him and 45 minutes later we were reinstated.”

    Finchem, who questions the results of the 2020 presidential election and was at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, has drawn national attention for his statements about election security and his ability to change election rules if he wins the state’s top election post next week.

    Musk tweeted Monday evening that he was “Looking into it” in response to a complaint about Finchem’s apparent suspension. The complaint came from attorney Jenna Ellis, who was a legal adviser to former President Donald Trump’s campaign. About 40 minutes later, Finchem posted a “test” tweet on his account, which was followed by a lengthier post thanking Musk for restoring his ability to use the site.

    “Thank you @elonmusk for stopping the commie who suspended me from Twitter a week before the election,” Finchem wrote in the Tweet. “Twitter is much better with you at the helm.”

    Jared Holt, a senior research manager at The Institute for Strategic Dialogue, said big social media companies have typically operated on the whims of their owners. But “that problem is especially glaring when somebody like Elon Musk takes the reins and kind of establishes himself as king of the platform, rather than an owner trying to run a coherent business,” Holt said.

    At the same time, Musk has sent mixed signals about his intentions. Despite overt examples of appealing to conservative calls and complaints about Twitter’s policies, there’s also plenty of evidence that the platform’s policies on combating misinformation are still in effect. Separately, Musk has defended Twitter’s ongoing head of trust and safety, Yoel Roth, after some conservative users called for his firing over past comments expressing liberal views.

    Roth remained on the job this week after other top executives were fired or resigned. And apart from Musk, he appeared to be the chief public voice of Twitter’s content moderation, explaining that the company spent the weekend working to remove a “surge in hateful conduct” following Musk’s takeover.

    “We’ve all made some questionable tweets, me more than most, but I want to be clear that I support Yoel,” Musk tweeted in response to a complaint from another conservative commentator. “My sense is that he has high integrity, and we are all entitled to our political beliefs.”

    Some longtime Twitter observers have expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of Musk’s planned content moderation council. In part, that’s because Twitter already has a trust and safety advisory council to address moderation questions.

    “Truly I can’t imagine how it would differ,” said Danielle Citron, a University of Virginia law professor who sits on the council and has been working with Twitter since 2009 to tackle online harms, such as threats and stalking. “Our council has the full spectrum of views on free speech.”

    Citron said she’s still waiting to hear if the council will be having its next meeting, scheduled for the day after the midterms.

    ——-

    O’Brien reported from Providence, Rhode Island.. AP Writer Bob Christie in Phoenix contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Musk emerging as Twitter’s chief moderator ahead of midterms

    Musk emerging as Twitter’s chief moderator ahead of midterms

    [ad_1]

    AP Business Writers — Days after taking over Twitter and a week before the U.S. midterm elections, billionaire Elon Musk has positioned himself as moderator-in-chief of one of the most important social media platforms in American politics.

    Musk has said he won’t make major decisions about content or restoring banned accounts before setting up a “content moderation council” with diverse viewpoints. But his own behavior as a prolific tweeter has signaled otherwise.

    He’s engaged directly with figures on the political right who are appealing for looser restrictions, including a Republican candidate for Arizona secretary of state who credits Musk with enabling him to begin tweeting again after his account was briefly suspended Monday.

    Musk even changed his profile to “Twitter Complaint Hotline Operator” — with a photo of himself when he was a toddler holding a telephone. But it is almost impossible for those outside of Twitter to know what strings he is pulling or whose accounts have been suspended: The company has stopped responding to media questions, except for the few that Musk answers by tweet.

    Musk’s promised interventions started last week on his first full day as Twitter’s owner. A conservative political podcaster shared examples of the platform allegedly favoring liberals and secretively downgrading conservative voices — a common criticism that Twitter’s previous leaders dismissed as inaccurate. “I will be digging in more today,” Musk responded.

    It continued when the daughter of Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson, whose provocative critiques of “politically correct” culture and feminism are popular with some right-wing activists, appealed for Musk to restore her father’s account after a tweet about transgender actor Elliot Page that apparently ran afoul of Twitter’s rules on hateful conduct.

    “Anyone suspended for minor & dubious reasons will be freed from Twitter jail,” Musk pledged. He had months earlier said in reference to Peterson that Twitter was “going way too far in squashing dissenting opinions.”

    One of Musk’s first big moves was an open letter to advertisers — Twitter’s chief revenue source — promising that he would not let Twitter descend into a “free-for-all hellscape” as he follows through with his plans to promote free speech on the platform. And he’s suggesting asking users to pay $8 for a coveted verified blue check mark as a way to diversify revenue.

    The check mark has been criticized as a symbol of elitism on the platform. But its primary purpose has been to verify that accounts in the public eye — such as politicians, brands and journalists — are who they say they are. It’s been a tool to prevent impersonation and help stem the flow of misinformation.

    But some still have their worries about Musk opening the platform to a flood of online toxicity that’s bad for their brands. General Motors has said it will suspend advertising on Twitter as it monitors the platform under Musk, and others are facing pressure to review their own plans. On Tuesday, more than three dozen advocacy organizations sent an open letter to Twitter’s top 20 advertisers, calling on them to commit to halting advertising on the platform if Twitter under Musk undermines “brand safety” and guts content moderation.

    Over the weekend, the billionaire posted — then deleted — an article that contained baseless rumors about the attack on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband. And much of his commentary in recent days has been a response to appeals from conservative voices.

    In a text exchange with The Associated Press, Mark Finchem, the Republican running to become Arizona’s secretary of state, said his access to the platform was restored quickly after reaching out to Musk via his personal Twitter handle. Asked why his account was suspended, Finchem said: “Perhaps you should reach out to Elon Musk. We were banned for an unknown reason, we reached out to him and 45 minutes later we were reinstated.”

    Finchem, who questions the results of the 2020 presidential election and was at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, has drawn national attention for his statements about election security and his ability to change election rules if he wins the state’s top election post next week.

    Musk tweeted Monday evening that he was “Looking into it” in response to a complaint about Finchem’s apparent suspension. The complaint came from attorney Jenna Ellis, who was a legal adviser to former President Donald Trump’s campaign. About 40 minutes later, Finchem posted a “test” tweet on his account, which was followed by a lengthier post thanking Musk for restoring his ability to use the site.

    “Thank you @elonmusk for stopping the commie who suspended me from Twitter a week before the election,” Finchem wrote in the Tweet. “Twitter is much better with you at the helm.”

    Jared Holt, a senior research manager at The Institute for Strategic Dialogue, said big social media companies have typically operated on the whims of their owners. But “that problem is especially glaring when somebody like Elon Musk takes the reins and kind of establishes himself as king of the platform, rather than an owner trying to run a coherent business,” Holt said.

    At the same time, Musk has sent mixed signals about his intentions. Despite overt examples of appealing to conservative calls and complaints about Twitter’s policies, there’s also plenty of evidence that the platform’s policies on combating misinformation are still in effect. Separately, Musk has defended Twitter’s ongoing head of trust and safety, Yoel Roth, after some conservative users called for his firing over past comments expressing liberal views.

    Roth remained on the job this week after other top executives were fired or resigned. And apart from Musk, he appeared to be the chief public voice of Twitter’s content moderation, explaining that the company spent the weekend working to remove a “surge in hateful conduct” following Musk’s takeover.

    “We’ve all made some questionable tweets, me more than most, but I want to be clear that I support Yoel,” Musk tweeted in response to a complaint from another conservative commentator. “My sense is that he has high integrity, and we are all entitled to our political beliefs.”

    Some longtime Twitter observers have expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of Musk’s planned content moderation council. In part, that’s because Twitter already has a trust and safety advisory council to address moderation questions.

    “Truly I can’t imagine how it would differ,” said Danielle Citron, a University of Virginia law professor who sits on the council and has been working with Twitter since 2009 to tackle online harms, such as threats and stalking. “Our council has the full spectrum of views on free speech.”

    Citron said she’s still waiting to hear if the council will be having its next meeting, scheduled for the day after the midterms.

    ——-

    O’Brien reported from Providence, Rhode Island.. AP Writer Bob Christie in Phoenix contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Is Alex Jones verdict the death of disinformation? Unlikely

    Is Alex Jones verdict the death of disinformation? Unlikely

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — A Connecticut jury’s ruling this week ordering Alex Jones to pay $965 million to parents of Sandy Hook shooting victims he maligned was heartening for people disgusted by the muck of disinformation.

    Just don’t expect it to make conspiracy theories go away.

    The appetite for such hokum and narrowness of the judgments against Jones, who falsely claimed that the 2012 elementary school shootings were a hoax and that grieving parents were actors, virtually ensure a ready supply, experts say.

    “It’s easy to revel in Alex Jones being punished,” said Rebecca Adelman, a communications professor at the University of Maryland. “But there’s a certain shortsightedness in that celebration.”

    There’s a deep tradition of conspiracy theories across American history, from people not believing the official explanation of John F. Kennedy’s assassination to various accusations of extraterrestrial-visit coverups to unfounded allegations of the 2020 presidential election being rigged. With the Salem witch trials in 1692, they even predated the country’s formation.

    What’s different today? The internet allows such stories to spread rapidly and widely — and helps adherents find communities of the likeminded. That in turn can push such untrue theories into mainstream politics. Now the will to spread false narratives skillfully online has spread to governments, and the technology to doctor photos and videos enables purveyors to make disinformation more believable.

    In today’s media world, Jones found that there’s a lot of money to be made — and quickly — in creating a community willing to believe lies, no matter how outlandish.

    In a Texas defamation trial last month, a forensic economist testified that Jones’ Infowars operation made $53.2 million in annual revenue between 2015 and 2018. He has supplemented his media business by selling products like survivalist gear. His company Free Speech Systems filed for bankruptcy in July.

    To some, disinformation is the price America pays for the right to free speech. And in a society that popularized the term “alternative facts,” one person’s effort to curb disinformation is another person’s attempt to squash the truth.

    Will the Connecticut ruling have a chilling effect on those willing to spread disinformation? “It doesn’t even seem to be chilling him,” said Mark Fenster, a University of Florida law professor. Jones, he noted, reacted in real time on Infowars on the day of the verdict.

    “This will not impact the flow of stories that are filled with bad faith and extreme opinion,” said Howard Polskin, who publishes The Righting, a newsletter that monitors the content of right-wing websites. He says false stories about the 2020 election and COVID-19 vaccines remain particularly popular.

    “It seems to me that the people who peddle this information for profit may look upon this as the cost of doing business,” Adelman said. “If there’s an audience for it, someone is going to meet the demand if there’s money to be made.”

    Certainly, the people who believe that Jones and those like him are voices of truth being suppressed by society aren’t going to be deterred by the jury verdict, she said. In fact, the opposite is likely to be true.

    The plaintiffs awarded damages in the Sandy Hook case were all private citizens, an important distinction in considering its impact beyond this case, said Nicole Hemmer, a Vanderbilt University professor and author of “Partisans: The Conservative Revolutionaries Who Remade American Politics in the 1990s.”

    The case is reminiscent of Seth Rich, a young Democratic Party aide killed in a Washington robbery in 2016, she said. Rich’s name was dragged — posthumously — into political conspiracy theories, and his parents later sued and reached a settlement with Fox News Channel.

    The message, in other words: Be wary of dragging private citizens into outlandish theories.

    “Spreading conspiracy theories about the Biden administration is not going to get Fox News Channel sued,” Hemmer said. “It is not going to get Tucker Carlson sued.”

    Tracing the history of outlandish theories that sprout and thrive in the web’s murky corners is also difficult. Much of it is anonymous. It’s still not clear who is responsible for what is spread on QAnon or who makes money off it, Fenster says.

    If he was a lawyer, he said, “Who would I go after?”

    Despite any pessimism about what the nearly $1 billion Sandy Hook judgment might ultimately mean for disinformation, the dean of the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania says it still sends an important message.

    “What this says is we can’t just make up truths to fit our own ideological predilections,” John Jackson said. “There is a hard and fast ground to facts that we can’t stray too far from as storytellers.”

    Consider the lawsuit filed against Fox News Channel by Dominion Voting Systems, a company that makes election systems. It claims Fox knowingly spread false stories about Dominion as part of former President Donald Trump’s claims that the 2020 election had been taken from him. Dominion has sought a staggering $1.6 billion from Fox, and the case has moved through the deposition phase.

    Fox has defended itself vigorously. It says that rather than spreading falsehoods, it was reporting on newsworthy claims being made by the president of the United States.

    A loss in a trial, or a significant settlement, could impose a real financial hardship on Fox, Hemmer said. Yet as it progresses, there’s been no indication that any of its commentators are pulling punches, particularly concerning the Biden administration.

    Distrust of mainstream news sources also fuels the taste among many conservatives for theories that fit their world view — and a vulnerability to disinformation.

    “I don’t think there’s any incentive to move toward well-grounded reporting or to move in the direction of news and information instead of commenting,” Hemmer said. “That’s what they want. They want the wild conspiracy theories.”

    Even if the crushing verdict in Connecticut this week — coupled with the $49 million judgement against him in August by the Texas court — muzzles or minimizes Jones, Adelman says others are likely to take over for him: “It would be wrong to misinterpret this as the death knell of disinformation.”

    ———

    David Bauder is the media writer for The Associated Press. Follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/dbauder

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Is Alex Jones verdict the death of disinformation? Unlikely

    Is Alex Jones verdict the death of disinformation? Unlikely

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — A Connecticut jury’s ruling this week ordering Alex Jones to pay $965 million to parents of Sandy Hook shooting victims he maligned was heartening for people disgusted by the muck of disinformation.

    Just don’t expect it to make conspiracy theories go away.

    The appetite for such hokum and narrowness of the judgments against Jones, who falsely claimed that the 2012 elementary school shootings were a hoax and that grieving parents were actors, virtually ensure a ready supply, experts say.

    “It’s easy to revel in Alex Jones being punished,” said Rebecca Adelman, a communications professor at the University of Maryland. “But there’s a certain shortsightedness in that celebration.”

    There’s a deep tradition of conspiracy theories across American history, from people not believing the official explanation of John F. Kennedy’s assassination to various accusations of extraterrestrial-visit coverups to unfounded allegations of the 2020 presidential election being rigged. With the Salem witch trials in 1692, they even predated the country’s formation.

    What’s different today? The internet allows such stories to spread rapidly and widely — and helps adherents find communities of the likeminded. That in turn can push such untrue theories into mainstream politics. Now the will to spread false narratives skillfully online has spread to governments, and the technology to doctor photos and videos enables purveyors to make disinformation more believable.

    In today’s media world, Jones found that there’s a lot of money to be made — and quickly — in creating a community willing to believe lies, no matter how outlandish.

    In a Texas defamation trial last month, a forensic economist testified that Jones’ Infowars operation made $53.2 million in annual revenue between 2015 and 2018. He has supplemented his media business by selling products like survivalist gear. His company Free Speech Systems filed for bankruptcy in July.

    To some, disinformation is the price America pays for the right to free speech. And in a society that popularized the term “alternative facts,” one person’s effort to curb disinformation is another person’s attempt to squash the truth.

    Will the Connecticut ruling have a chilling effect on those willing to spread disinformation? “It doesn’t even seem to be chilling him,” said Mark Fenster, a University of Florida law professor. Jones, he noted, reacted in real time on Infowars on the day of the verdict.

    “This will not impact the flow of stories that are filled with bad faith and extreme opinion,” said Howard Polskin, who publishes The Righting, a newsletter that monitors the content of right-wing websites. He says false stories about the 2020 election and COVID-19 vaccines remain particularly popular.

    “It seems to me that the people who peddle this information for profit may look upon this as the cost of doing business,” Adelman said. “If there’s an audience for it, someone is going to meet the demand if there’s money to be made.”

    Certainly, the people who believe that Jones and those like him are voices of truth being suppressed by society aren’t going to be deterred by the jury verdict, she said. In fact, the opposite is likely to be true.

    The plaintiffs awarded damages in the Sandy Hook case were all private citizens, an important distinction in considering its impact beyond this case, said Nicole Hemmer, a Vanderbilt University professor and author of “Partisans: The Conservative Revolutionaries Who Remade American Politics in the 1990s.”

    The case is reminiscent of Seth Rich, a young Democratic Party aide killed in a Washington robbery in 2016, she said. Rich’s name was dragged — posthumously — into political conspiracy theories, and his parents later sued and reached a settlement with Fox News Channel.

    The message, in other words: Be wary of dragging private citizens into outlandish theories.

    “Spreading conspiracy theories about the Biden administration is not going to get Fox News Channel sued,” Hemmer said. “It is not going to get Tucker Carlson sued.”

    Tracing the history of outlandish theories that sprout and thrive in the web’s murky corners is also difficult. Much of it is anonymous. It’s still not clear who is responsible for what is spread on QAnon or who makes money off it, Fenster says.

    If he was a lawyer, he said, “Who would I go after?”

    Despite any pessimism about what the nearly $1 billion Sandy Hook judgment might ultimately mean for disinformation, the dean of the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania says it still sends an important message.

    “What this says is we can’t just make up truths to fit our own ideological predilections,” John Jackson said. “There is a hard and fast ground to facts that we can’t stray too far from as storytellers.”

    Consider the lawsuit filed against Fox News Channel by Dominion Voting Systems, a company that makes election systems. It claims Fox knowingly spread false stories about Dominion as part of former President Donald Trump’s claims that the 2020 election had been taken from him. Dominion has sought a staggering $1.6 billion from Fox, and the case has moved through the deposition phase.

    Fox has defended itself vigorously. It says that rather than spreading falsehoods, it was reporting on newsworthy claims being made by the president of the United States.

    A loss in a trial, or a significant settlement, could impose a real financial hardship on Fox, Hemmer said. Yet as it progresses, there’s been no indication that any of its commentators are pulling punches, particularly concerning the Biden administration.

    Distrust of mainstream news sources also fuels the taste among many conservatives for theories that fit their world view — and a vulnerability to disinformation.

    “I don’t think there’s any incentive to move toward well-grounded reporting or to move in the direction of news and information instead of commenting,” Hemmer said. “That’s what they want. They want the wild conspiracy theories.”

    Even if the crushing verdict in Connecticut this week — coupled with the $49 million judgement against him in August by the Texas court — muzzles or minimizes Jones, Adelman says others are likely to take over for him: “It would be wrong to misinterpret this as the death knell of disinformation.”

    ———

    David Bauder is the media writer for The Associated Press. Follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/dbauder

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump files $475 million defamation lawsuit against CNN

    Trump files $475 million defamation lawsuit against CNN

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — Former President Donald Trump on Monday sued CNN, seeking $475 million in damages, saying the network had defamed him in an effort to short-circuit any future political campaign.

    The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, focuses primarily on the term “The Big Lie” about Trump’s false claims of widespread fraud that he says cost him the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden.

    CNN said it had no comment on the lawsuit.

    Trump repeatedly attacked CNN as president, which resonated with his conservative followers. He has similarly filed lawsuits against big tech companies with little success. His case against Twitter for knocking him off its platform following the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol insurrection was thrown out by a California judge earlier this year.

    Numerous federal and local election officials in both parties, a long list of courts, top former campaign staffers and even Trump’s own attorney general have all said there is no evidence of the election fraud he alleges.

    Trump’s lawsuit claims “The Big Lie,” a phrase with Nazi connotations, has been used in reference to him more than 7,700 times on CNN since January 2021.

    “It is intended to aggravate, scare and trigger people,” he said.

    In a statement Monday, Trump suggested that similar lawsuits would be filed against other news organizations. And he said he may also bring “appropriate action” against the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by his supporters. The lawsuit comes as he is weighing a potential bid for the presidency in 2024.

    New CNN chief Chris Licht privately urged his news personnel in a meeting more than three months ago to refrain from using the phrase because it is too close to Democratic efforts to brand the former president, according to several published reports.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Jimmy Carter celebrating 98 with family, friends, baseball

    Jimmy Carter celebrating 98 with family, friends, baseball

    [ad_1]

    ATLANTA — Jimmy Carter, already the longest-living U.S. president in history, turned 98 on Saturday, celebrating with family and friends in Plains, the tiny Georgia town where he and his wife, 95-year-old Rosalynn, were born in the years between World War I and the Great Depression.

    His latest milestone came as The Carter Center, which the 39th president and the former first lady established after their one White House term, marked 40 years of promoting democracy and conflict resolution, monitoring elections, and advancing public health in the developing world.

    Jason Carter, the former president’s grandson now leading the Carter Center board, described his grandfather, an outspoken Christian, as content with his life and legacy.

    “He is looking at his 98th birthday with faith in God’s plan for him,” the younger Carter, 47, said, “and that’s just a beautiful blessing for all of us to know, personally, that he is at peace and happy with where he has been and where he’s going.”

    Carter Center leaders said the former president, who survived a cancer diagnosis in 2015 and a serious fall at home in 2019, was enjoying reading congratulatory messages sent by well-wishers around the world via social media and the center’s website even before the actual birthday. But Jason Carter said his grandfather mostly looked forward to a simple day that included watching his favorite Major League Baseball team, the Atlanta Braves, on television.

    “He’s still 100% with it, even though daily life things are a lot harder now,” Jason Carter said. “But one thing I guarantee. He will watch all the Braves games this weekend.”

    James Earl Carter Jr. won the 1976 presidential election after beginning the campaign as a little-known, one-term Georgia governor. His surprise performance in the Iowa caucuses established the small, Midwestern state as an epicenter of presidential politics. Carter went on to defeat President Gerald Ford in the general election, largely on the strength of sweeping the South before his native region shifted heavily to Republicans.

    A Naval Academy alumnus, Navy officer and peanut farmer, Carter won in no small part because of his promise never to lie to an electorate weary over the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal that resulted in Richard Nixon’s resignation from the presidency in 1974. Four years later, unable to tame inflation and salve voter anger over American hostages held in Iran, Carter lost 44 states to Ronald Reagan. He returned home to Georgia in 1981 at the age of 56.

    The former first couple almost immediately began planning The Carter Center. It opened in Atlanta in 1982 as a first-of-its-kind effort for a former president. The stated mission: to advance peace, human rights and public health causes around the world. Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. He traveled internationally into his 80s and 90s, and he did not retire officially from the board until 2020.

    Since opening, the center has monitored elections in 113 countries, said CEO Paige Alexander, and Carter has acted individually as a mediator in many countries, as well. Carter Center efforts have nearly eradicated the guinea worm, a parasite spread through unclean drinking water and painful to humans. Rosalynn Carter has steered programs designed to reduce stigma attached to mental health conditions.

    “He’s enjoying his retirement,” said Alexander, who assumed her role in 2020, about the time Jason Carter took over for his grandfather. But “he spends a lot of time thinking about the projects that he started and the projects that we’re continuing.”

    Alexander cited the guinea worm eradication effort as a highlight. Carter set the goal in 1986, when there were about 3.5 million cases annually across 21 countries, with a concentration in sub-Saharan Africa. So far this year, Alexander said, there are six known cases in two countries.

    In 2019, Carter used his final annual message at the center to lament that his post-presidency had been largely silent on climate change. Jason Carter said the center’s leadership is still exploring ways to combat the climate crisis. But he offered no timetable. “We won’t duplicate other effective efforts,” Carter said, explaining that one of the center’s strategic principles is to prioritize causes and places that no other advocacy organizations have engaged.

    On elections and democracy, perhaps the most unpredictable development is that Jimmy Carter has lived to see the center turn its efforts to the home front. The center now has programs to combat mistrust in the democratic process in the United States. Carter Center personnel monitored Georgia’s recount of U.S. presidential ballots in the state in 2020 after then-President Donald Trump argued the outcome was rigged. Multiple recounts in Georgia and other states affirmed the legitimacy of Joe Biden’s victory.

    “Certainly, we never thought we would end up coming home to do democracy and conflict resolution around our elections,” Jason Carter said. “(But) we couldn’t go be this incredible democracy and human rights organization overseas without ensuring that we were adding our voice and our expertise … in the U.S.”

    Ahead of the U.S. midterm elections, the center has asked candidates — regardless of party — to sign onto a set of fair election principles, including committing to the peaceful transfer of power. Among those who have signed commitments: Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, and his Democratic challenger, Stacey Abrams.

    Carter himself has mostly retreated from politics. For years after his 1980 defeat, Democrats steered clear of him. He enjoyed a resurgence in recent election cycles, drawing visits from several 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls and, in 2021, from President Joe Biden, who in 1976 was the first U.S. senator to endorse Carter’s presidential bid. With inflation now at its highest levels since the late 1970s and early 1980s, some Republicans are bringing up Carter again as an attack line on Biden and Democrats.

    Jason Carter said the former president reads and watches the news daily, and sometimes accepts calls or visits from political figures. But, he added, the former president isn’t expected to appear publicly to endorse any candidates ahead of November.

    “His people that he feels sort of the closest connection with now are the folks in Plains, at his church and other places,” Jason Carter said. “But, you know, his partner No. 1, 2 and 3 is my grandma, right? He has outlived friends and so many of his advisers and the people that he accomplished so much with in the past, but they’ve never been lonely because they’ve always had each other.”

    ———

    Online: https://bit.ly/Happy98PresidentCarter

    ———

    Associated Press journalist Alex Sanz contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link