Thursday, October 08, 2020

An explosive new documentary details how Jared Kushner's coronavirus task force consisted mainly of 20-something volunteers buying PPE with personal email accounts
White House senior advisor Jared Kushner and counselor Kellyanne Conway on April 30. AP Photo/Evan Vucci

For several weeks in March and April, Max Kennedy Jr., then 26, served on Jared Kushner's White House COVID-19 Supply Chain Task Force.

Kennedy, who is Robert F. Kennedy's grandson, quit the task force in April. Soon after, he wrote an anonymous whistleblower complaint to Congress accusing the task force of corruption and ineptitude.

According to Kennedy, most members of the task force were young, inexperienced volunteers "cold emailing" Chinese factories from their personal email accounts.


When Max Kennedy Jr. volunteered to help out on Jared Kushner's White House COVID-19 Supply Chain Task Force, he thought he'd be helping out senior staff with rote tasks like data entry.

"My old boss called me and said he heard Kushner's task force needed younger volunteers who had general skills and were willing to work seven days a week for no money," Kennedy, now 27, said in the forthcoming documentary about the Trump team's coronavirus response, "Totally Under Control." The film, which was made in secret over the past five months, is slated for on-demand release on October 13.

Official poster for "Totally Under Control." Courtesy of Neon

Despite his "apprehension" about working for the Trump administration, Kennedy volunteered because he felt like it was the right thing to do, he said.

So Kennedy traveled to Washington, DC, and showed up at the headquarters of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Once there, he said volunteers were led to Conference Room A, a windowless underground meeting space. TVs covered the walls, all blaring Fox News.

After they sat down, Kennedy said representatives from FEMA and the military came in and gave them a "pep talk." The officials told volunteers they needed to procure "the stuff" for the US government — Kennedy said they were referring to personal protective equipment, or PPE.

President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence at a meeting at FEMA headquarters on March 19. AP Photo/Evan Vucci, Pool

Then the officials left, leaving Kennedy and the other volunteers. Slowly, they realized what was happening.

"We thought we'd be auxiliary support for an existing procurement team," Kennedy, who is the grandson of Robert F. Kennedy, said in the film. "Instead, we were the team."

Kennedy said he and a dozen inexperienced volunteers had become a core component of the US government's efforts to procure PPE.

A severe shortage of PPE across the US

Kushner formed the COVID-19 Supply Chain Task Force in March to address what had become a pressing issue: the US's severe shortage of PPE and other medical equipment. Already, hospitals in many regions were running out of masks and ventilators, and workers were making single-use masks last over several days. One surgeon in Fresno, California, told The New York Times it was like being "at war with no ammo."

Pop-up signs on the lawn of the Capitol Building showing the faces of nurses and frontline healthcare workers pleading for adequate PPE on April 17. Paul Morigi/Getty Images for MoveOn

There were multiple reasons for these shortages, including a lack of preparations by previous administrations — many of the Strategic National Stockpile's 12 million N95 masks were expired, for instance. But in February, the Trump administration created the "CS China COVID Procurement Service," which existed partly to encourage American producers like 3M to sell their entire inventories of N95 masks to China.

One month later, when American hospitals desperately needed N95 masks, they were forced to import them and pay up to 10 times more than the price that American producers would have charged, according to the documentary.
Using personal email accounts to buy critical supplies

For the rest of March and well into April, Kennedy sat in Conference Room A with the other volunteers, whom he said had no experience in supply chains or medical issues. With very little direction, the team members opened up their personal laptops and got to work, Kennedy said.

"We started cold emailing people we knew who had business relationships in China, looking for factories online, and emailing them from our personal Gmail accounts," Kennedy said in the film.

The group was also told to prioritize leads from "VIPs," which mostly consisted of well-connected and wealthy Trump supporters, BuzzFeed News and The New York Times previously reported. The task force kept track of such leads in a spreadsheet called "VIP Updates."

One "VIP," the Silicon Valley engineer Yaron Oren-Pines, received a $69 million contract to provide 1,000 ventilators to New York state after he tweeted at the president, Business Insider previously reported. Oren-Pines never delivered, and the state has tried to get its money back.

As the team worked, the TVs kept playing Fox News 24/7, Kennedy said, adding that he remembered the channel's coronavirus-death counter ticking steadily upward.

Kennedy said nobody told the other volunteers how to buy PPE

Buying PPE without any experience or advice turned out to be difficult, largely because Kennedy said he and the other volunteers had no idea how procurement worked, and nobody would tell them.
Trump tours a Honeywell International Inc. factory on May 5 in Phoenix. BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images

"We would call factories and say, 'We think the federal government can send you a check in 60 days,' and they would say, 'There's someone with a briefcase of cash, and they're offering to pay me right now,'" he said in the film. "And we would run around the FEMA building looking for someone who could tell us what payment terms the government was allowed to offer, and no one ever told us."

A week into their work, Kennedy said several government employees walked into Conference Room A and told the volunteers they had to sign nondisclosure agreements. They offered an ultimatum: Sign the NDAs, or leave the room immediately, according to Kennedy.

"We all had built our own relationships with manufacturers, and it felt like if we walked away, it would negatively affect our ability to buy this critical, life-saving equipment. And so we all begrudgingly signed the NDA," he said in the film.


Kennedy quit the task force in April. That month, he also broke his NDA, sending an anonymous complaint to Congress that said the task force was "falling short."

"In my time on the task force, our team did not directly purchase a single mask," he said in the film.

Kushner's program was mostly shut down in May, even though state governments and healthcare facilities were still experiencing critical shortages of PPE and ventilators.

The White House didn't immediately respond to Business Insider's request for comment on the film or Kennedy's characterization of the task force.

SEE ALSO: Jared Kushner's shadow coronavirus task force used a spreadsheet called 'VIP Update' to procure PPE from inexperienced Trump allies over legitimate vendors

DON'T MISS: A volunteer on Kushner's coronavirus team filed a complaint to Congress warning the group was 'falling short' on helping health care workers

Facebook bans QAnon...but can it keep up with the conspiracy theory?

QAnon officially gets the boot from Facebook. But, will believers of the conspiracy go without a fight?
IMAGE: DANIEL MIHAILESCU/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES

BY MATT BINDER

Facebook is taking a giant step in keeping dangerous QAnon content off its platforms.

On Tuesday, Facebook announced it’s officially banning all QAnon Pages, Groups, and Instagram accounts. As NBC News described it, the policy update is “one of the broadest rules the social media giant has put in place in its history.”

Starting today, we'll remove any Facebook Pages, Groups and Instagram accounts representing QAnon, even without violent content. This is an update from August when we began removing Pages, Groups and accounts associated with QAnon when they discussed potential violence. https://t.co/Gm60rwOwY9
— Andy Stone (@andymstone) October 6, 2020


SEE ALSO: The most effective ways to support a loved one who believes in QAnon

Facebook has previously taken action against QAnon. Back in May, it removed a network of Pages, Groups, and accounts that pushed the conspiracy. However, the company said it was removing them because they involved fake accounts and engagements, which are against its rules — not because they were spreading dangerous content.

Facebook removed one of the largest QAnon-related groups on its platform months later in August under its policies banning misinformation, harassment, and hate speech. Just days after that action, a Facebook internal investigation leaked laying bare just how bad the platform’s QAnon problem was: millions of the site’s users were joining groups supporting the conspiracy theory.

On Aug. 19, Facebook announced it was cracking down on QAnon pages and groups that discussed or promoted “potential violence.” However, Facebook stopped short of totally banning QAnon. The company said at the time that the conspiracy theory didn’t meet the “rigorous criteria” of its Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policies.

Fast-forward to today: Facebook announced an update to its policies and declared a sweeping ban on QAnon.

“While we’ve removed QAnon content that celebrates and supports violence, we’ve seen other QAnon content tied to different forms of real world harm, including recent claims that the west coast wildfires were started by certain groups, which diverted attention of local officials from fighting the fires and protecting the public,” Facebook said in a statement announcing the policy change.

However, will this broad ban on all QAnon content even be enough? Can Facebook keep up with the ever-evolving conspiracy theory?

“Q has specifically asked QAnon followers to 'deploy camouflage' by dropping all references to 'Q' and 'QAnon,'" Travis View, co-host of the popular QAnon Anonymous podcast, which tracks the conspiracy theory with a critical view, said in a direct message on Twitter. “Instead QAnon followers have been replacing Q with '17,' 'Cue Anon,' or 'Save The Children.'"

Three years ago yesterday, President Donald Trump proclaimed to the press that it was “the calm before the storm” during a White House dinner with top U.S. military officials. This line laid the foundation for what would later be known as QAnon.

A few weeks after that dinner, a user known as “Q” began posting on the imageboard 4chan, claiming they were a government official with top security credentials. This anonymous entity’s posts have led followers of the QAnon conspiracy into believing that Trump has been waging a secret war against a global satanic pedophile ring run by a cabal of Hollywood elites and the members of the Democratic Party.

What individual QAnon followers believe is all over the place. Some QAnon believers think that John F. Kennedy Jr. is still alive and will replace Mike Pence as vice president on the Republican ticket any day now. Others think some alleged celebrity suspects in the cabal have already been executed, with clones now walking in their place.

The QAnon conspiracy has evolved further due to the pandemic lockdowns. Coronavirus deniers, anti-maskers, anti-vaxxers ... all of these groups have folded into the broader QAnon conspiracy theory in one way or another. As Travis said, the QAnon believers focused on Trump’s political enemies being involved in child sex trafficking have been especially visible, holding real-world events under the guise of the rallying cry “Save Our Children.”

“If Facebook is seeking guidance from knowledgeable online extremism researchers, and I assume that they have, then they should be able to quickly detect the most common attempts to disguise affiliation with QAnon,” said Travis.

Facebook seems to understand this aspect of QAnon, at least based on what the company wrote in its statement.

“QAnon messaging changes very quickly and we see networks of supporters build an audience with one message and then quickly pivot to another,” said the company. “We aim to combat this more effectively with this update that strengthens and expands our enforcement against the conspiracy theory movement.”

The company pointed to “Save Our Children” as an example, without explicitly mentioning it. Facebook says it “began directing people to credible child safety resources when they search for certain child safety hashtags last week,” knowing that QAnon believers use the issue to recruit.

Keeping QAnon off an entire social media platform has actually been done before. However, unlike other sites, QAnon believers undoubtedly know how key Facebook, specifically, has been to its spread. They’ll surely try to find a workaround. Facebook’s enforcement will be key here in keeping the conspiracy theory off its platform.

WATCH: How to recognize and avoid fake news
Successful GOP repeal of Obamacare would give the richest Americans a massive tax break: report


Published on October 6, 2020 By Common Dreams
Justice Brett Kavanaugh and President Donald Trump at U.S. Supreme Court investiture ceremony (White House photo)

New research released Tuesday shows that if the Supreme Court next month sides with the Trump administration and 18 state attorneys general seeking to repeal the Affordable Care Act, more than 20 million people would lose health insurance and millions more would be forced to pay more for healthcare—in the middle of a pandemic—while Big Pharma and the richest 0.1% would enjoy major tax cuts.

“The stakes in this case, always extraordinarily high”—wrote Tara Straw and Aviva Aron-Dine in one of several reports (pdf) published this week by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP)—”are even higher now amidst a global pandemic and an economic crisis that has caused more people to lose health insurance and become eligible for help from the ACA.”

Last week, President Donald Trump claimed on Twitter that a Supreme Court decision striking down the ACA “would be a big WIN for the USA!” Trump said that he would replace “Obamacare” with something “MUCH better,” but another new report (pdf) from CBPP shows that “none of the supposed alternatives to the ACA offered by the Trump administration or congressional Republicans” would protect people with pre-existing conditions.

Countering Trump’s assertion that eliminating the ACA would be a national victory, economist and former labor secretary Robert Reich explained exactly which class of Americans would win and who would lose were the law to be repealed during a pandemic and recession.

If Trump gets the Supreme Court to strike down ACA, the richest 0.1% would get a tax cut $198,000 a year. Big Pharma would get a tax cut of $2.8 billion.


But millions of seniors would pay billions more for prescription drugs. And 20 million would lose their health insurance.
— Robert Reich (@RBReich) October 6, 2020

“While the legal arguments against the law are extremely weak,” Straw and Aron-Dine explained, the Republican Party’s efforts to overturn the ACA have been given a boost by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the president’s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, “who has been critical of the Supreme Court’s reasoning for upholding the ACA in prior cases.”

The GOP-led Senate has made expediting Barrett’s confirmation a priority, even as an overwhelming majority of voters have indicated that they would prefer for Congress to pass an economic relief package, as Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell also recommended Tuesday hours before Trump announced that he was postponing stimulus negotiations until after the election.

A disgrace: McConnell has been blocking COVID relief for 144 days but will help Trump confirm Barrett to a lifetime Supreme Court seat where she can invalidate the ACA amid the pandemic. Cruel and dangerous. Stacking the courts and entrenching power is truly all they care about. https://t.co/mmFjL12Kf3
— Vanita Gupta (@vanitaguptaCR) October 6, 2020

According to Straw and Aron-Dine, overturning the ACA “was expected to cause 20 million people to lose coverage” prior to the economic crisis. “If the law were struck down during a recession… millions more would likely lose coverage… with commensurately larger impacts on access to care, financial security, health outcomes, and racial disparities in coverage and access to care.”

Repealing the ACA in the midst of a pandemic “would also impede efforts to address the public health crisis,” Straw and Aron-Dine wrote, and the elimination of “the ACA’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions could make it harder for the more than 7 million people who’ve had COVID to obtain affordable, comprehensive coverage in the future.”

Not only would striking down the ACA directly harm tens of millions of Americans “covered through the ACA marketplaces or benefiting from its protections for people with pre-existing conditions,” explained CBPP senior policy analyst Jessica Schubel, but it would cause additional damage by disrupting Medicare and “jeopardizing states’ ability to administer their Medicaid programs even for those who remain eligible.”

In contrast to all of the ways that a successful GOP repeal of the ACA would hurt working class Americans by undermining their access to healthcare amid the coronavirus crisis, millionaires and Big Pharma would stand to pocket massive amounts of cash.

“This doesn’t get the attention it should,” tweeted CBPP senior health policy fellow Judy Solomon. “If the Trump administration succeeds in overturning the ACA, not only will millions lose health coverage, but millionaires will get big tax cuts.”

This doesn't get the attention it should. If Trump Administration succeeds in overturning #ACA not only will millions lose health coverage, but millionaires will get big tax cuts. https://t.co/qjRaDSiQFa
— Judy Solomon (@JudyCBPP) October 6, 2020

According to CBPP, if the ACA is struck down, the highest-income households in the country would be given a “windfall.” The richest 0.1% of households, whose annual incomes are greater than $3 million, would receive tax cuts averaging nearly $200,000 per year, while households with annual incomes over $1 million would receive tax cuts averaging over $40,000 per year.

The cost to the federal government of tax cuts for households with annual incomes over $200,000 would be $30 billion in 2020, which is more than one-third of the cost of the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid to low-income adults—enough to “pay for health coverage for over four million people.”

Other beneficiaries of an ACA repeal would be pharmaceutical companies, which would pay $2.8 billion less in taxes each year. Big Pharma’s victory would come at the expense of millions of seniors who would pay billions more each year for prescription drugs.

The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this year that many wealthy Americans rushed to file claims for refunds of ACA taxes paid in previous years in case the Supreme Court invalidates the law.

With Trump out of the hospital Monday and still battling his own Covid-19 infection, Reich provided a reminder that “our tax-dodging billionaire president is getting publicly-funded healthcare while his lawyers are in court trying to rip yours away.”

by Kenny Stancil

Somalian Pirates and the Law of the Sea: International Law in Crisis

“Somalia is a land that has descended so deeply into misery that “failed state” is too generous a description for the country.” –TIME Magazine

In August 2020, three Iranian hostages who had been held for five years were freed by Somalian pirates, as contradictory news emerged that another ship had been intercepted after a three-year pause. The three Iranian hostages were the last of the crew of FV Siraj, an Iranian fishing vessel intercepted by pirates on 22 March 2015. For the Somalian pirates, who’ve held over 2,300 crew between 2010 and 2019, this liberation was supposed to mark the end of almost a decade of international maritime piracy. However, in other news, six armed men hijacked the Panama-flagged Aegean II off the coast of Somalia, after it had engine problems, as mentioned by a regional governor in Somalia.

Considering this and a significant number of attacks on maritime transport vehicles in the recent past, it becomes important to understand the root causes and lack of law enforcement in order to combat Piracy and the Emergence of Modern Day Pirates. The Somalian Piracy crisis emerged many years ago and appears to pose a significant problem for the international community. Even though piracy is an international crime for which the concept of universal jurisdiction extends, states operating off Somalia’s coast face significant difficulties in prosecuting pirates (Universal jurisdiction doctrine provides that every court has the authority to prosecute criminals who have perpetrated international offenses such as piracy.) 

In order to understand the status quo of piracy off the coast of Somalia, it’s important to understand its history. The author aims to do an analysis of International Piracy and the role of the Law of the Sea in countering one of the oldest international crimes.

The nature of Somali piracy is directly related to the country’s political environment, which, since 1991 has been ravaged by civil war and where the government occupies just one portion of the capital. The issue is compounded by Somalia’s geography. About 40% of world exchange has to go across the short straight line between the Horn of Africa and the Arab Peninsula. The volatile humanitarian crisis in Somalia allows more and more citizens to conduct acts of piracy and this makes it almost impossible to enforce the law. At the same time, the wage disparity between the wealthy and the weak has greatly increased. Somalia has the world’s freest liberated open market economy, with no central bank regulating money flow, fixing interest rates, or managing inflation, which could be another reason for people to get involved in crimes like that of Piracy.

Piracy is also said to be funded by influential warlords from Somalia who maintain influence over their respective regions of power; they periodically finance and enjoy the rewards of pirate attacks in the event of a productive hijacking and ransom payment. Pirates are usually active outside the coastal towns of Somalia, where they can easily dock their own skiffs and retrieve their stolen goods and captives. Coastal towns in Somalia profit economically from piracy proceeds and so they have little reason to participate in anti-piracy operations. The government of Somalia has lost full oversight over the numerous maritime regions where pirates are running and are unable to respond with piracy, law enforcement, or any military activity to counter the same.

Nations have encountered challenges that have been exacerbated by the limited interpretation of Piracy in international law. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS”), the global authority for dealing with maritime disputes, describes piracy as :

“Piracy” consists of any of the following acts: 

(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed: 

  1. on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft; 
  2. against a ship, aircraft, person or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any state; 

(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft; 

 (c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b)

The definition provided under UNCLOS has been considered to be more inclined towards customary international law. It gives a narrow interpretation of the crime of piracy in the following way.

Firstly, piracy has to occur in the high seas. If Somali pirates hijack a vessel in Somalia’s territorial waters, the attack will not count as piracy under UNCLOS. Therefore, although patrolling nations can be permitted to access territorial waters of Somalia in order to deter pirate attacks, if attacks take place in those waters, they would anyway not be considered attacks of piracy under International Law.

Secondly, an attack by pirates must include two vessels: a victim and an aggressor’s vessel. This could be problematic in situations where pirates try to board the victim’s vessel at its last port of entry, and then, later on, hijack the boat in the high seas. In this case, even though the hijacking would almost resemble piracy, it won’t be considered piracy.

Thirdly, it is necessary to commit the act of piracy for private purposes. If pirates happened to be related to a political cause or whether they were acting on behalf of a state agency, their acts would not count as piracy under international law.

Apart from the loopholes prevalent within the statute, a major issue is the applicability of the statute itself. The Convention (UNCLOS) is veiled in soft legal language. The implementation of the law relies on the member states. In other words, the law has no legally binding consequences.

A lot of nations have tied up with regional partners like Kenya, Seychelles, and Mauritius and have tried to capture and prosecute the pirates in the courts of these regional partner countries. In addition, the U.N. has also established a Piracy Contact Group, a group of state representatives that would meet several times a year and would work to find solutions to the piracy crisis in Somalia. The UN Report also recommended the creation of a Somali extraterritorial tribunal to be developed in neighboring Tanzania that would strictly apply Somali law but, for apparent security purposes, would be headquartered outside Somalia. Although this approach initially seemed appealing, it was met with opposition from Somalian people and hence, it couldn’t be implemented.

Major maritime nations need to support and deliberate to develop a wider view of UNCLOS and customary law, at the same time establish that international law does not explicitly preclude capturing states from sending pirates to third parties for trial, or by depending on certain agreements, such as the  Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation and other anti-terrorism treaties, which do not limit capturing states from initiating trial in their own courts. The most optimal solution, for now, would be to proliferate patrols in the Indian Ocean and to capture the pirates and prosecute them in the courts of the regional partners, in return of which these partners could receive monetary assistance from these nations. At the end of the day, Maritime Nations need to make sure that these pirates don’t become hostis humani generis of the modern-day.

Hriti Parekh is an undergraduate law student at Hidayatullah National Law University (HNLU), Raipur, India.

Suggested citation: Hriti Parekh, Somalian Pirates and the Law of the Sea: International Law in Crisis, JURIST – Student Commentary, October 7, 2020, https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2020/10/hriti-parekh-somalia-piracy/

Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.

Justices Thomas, Alito criticize same-sex marriage ruling in turning away Kentucky clerk’s case
The US Supreme Court Monday denied a petition for a writ of certiorari  filed by a former Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk who was sued for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples following the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

In the petition, Kim Davis’s lawyers argued that her refusal to issue marriage licenses did not impose a substantial burden on the plaintiffs’ right to marry. Furthermore, they argued that Davis was entitled to qualified immunity, a doctrine that immunizes government officials from lawsuits alleging infringement of constitutional rights unless the conduct violates clearly established federal law.

The Sixth Circuit already rejected Davis’s arguments, and the Supreme Court declined to revisit the issue. Justice Clarence Thomas, in a statement joined by Justice Samuel Alito, agreed not to hear the case. However, Thomas also used his concurrence to criticize the court’s previous decision in Obergefell:

Moreover, Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss. … Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals. This assessment flows directly from Obergefell‘s language, which characterized such views as “disparag[ing]” homosexuals and “diminish[ing] their personhood” through “[d]ignitary wounds.”

Thomas also criticized Sixth Circuit Judge John Bush’s concurrence in the Sixth Circuit decision, because Bush stated Davis was motivated by “anti-homosexual animus.”

Thomas’s statement caused alarm among some LGBT activists, although it is unclear whether a new court with Amy Coney Barrett would overturn Obergefell.

Who's behind these controversial yard signs in front of the White House?

Vote For Them yard signs urge voters to consider the impact of their vote ahead of Election Day.

IMAGE: GOODBY SILVERSTEIN & PARTNERS / COURAGEOUS CONVERSATIONS GLOBAL FOUNDATION

George Floyd 2020. Vote for Breonna Taylor. Stephon Clarke ‘20.

Six yard signs staked outside the White House urge people to vote this year, but not for a presidential candidate. Instead, couched in the familiar red, white, and blue imagery of political advertisements, the signs ask Americans to vote on behalf of victims of police brutality.

Advertising firm Goodby Silverstein & Partners created the yard signs in partnership with Courageous Conversation Global Foundation's latest initiative, Vote For Them, a nationwide campaign to increase voter participation. The foundation — which offers training, fellowships, and funding to organizations to promote "interracial dialogue to end racism" — wanted to increase conversations of racial inequity ahead of the November presidential election. Designers at Goodby Silverstein & Partners envisioned the yard signs as a clear way to connect the issues of police brutality and voter participation.

The campaign also created an Instagram account to educate voters about policies like mandated police de-escalation training that specifically affect Black, indigenous, and other people of color, as well as a YouTube video with audio from news coverage of the victims' deaths and this year's Black Lives Matter protests, all in a bid to get people to vote in honor of those who can't


The foundation has previously used eye-grabbing advertisements to educate viewers about police brutality. In collaboration with Goodby Silverstein & Partners earlier this year, the group released the “Not a Gun” campaign, featuring a video that intermittently switches a candy bar and a gun in the hand of a Black customer. At the end, the video informs viewers that Black people are three times more likely than white people to be killed by police, according to a study by Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. 

“It was important for us to continue the conversation about police brutality, to keep saying their names,” said Goodby Silverstein & Partners associate creative director Anthony O’Neill in an email. “Racial injustice is an issue that affects all of us, but it’s also something we can all change if we vote. It might not be immediate, but the road to change starts today, and it starts at the polls.”

Responses to the signs on social media are mixed. Some Twitter users admired the message behind the yard signs, while others expressed concern with the their appearances, worried that they exploit the victims' deaths.

I get it. This type of sign is meant to promo name recognition, not necessarily politics. Sometimes it feels like the only way to get some to recognize those names and even google them. It may seem tasteless, but it's also a desperate attempt to keep them in the minds of all.

— 🌟𝕊𝕡𝕚𝕣𝕚𝕥 𝕆𝕟 ℙ𝕒𝕣𝕠𝕝𝕖🌟 (@SpiritOnParole) October 5, 2020

Is this from white liberals thinking they're helping...

At least 2 of these deaths were pre-Trump
Oscar Grant was unjustly killed by police when Bush was president....
The exploitation 😔
— Simone (@SimoneKali) October 5, 2020

When asked about these criticisms, the team behind Vote For Them stood behind the positive impact of their signs, saying in an email that the images serve to start conversations about the power of voting. “This election year, we felt the need to call attention to the fact that we’re not just voting for one politician over the other, but we’re casting a ballot to change our society for the better by voting for officials that align with policies we believe in — specifically policies that affect Black lives the most,” said GS&P associate creative director Rony Castor. “By casting a spotlight on how votes affect real people like Breonna Taylor, we hope to enforce how much every vote counts.”

The campaign, which isn’t affiliated or endorsed by the Black Lives Matter organization, hopes to build upon this year's calls for social justice.

“This is a non-partisan issue and our campaign is simply encouraging people to vote,” said Glenn Singleton, founder and board chair of Courageous Conversation Global Foundation.

The eye-catching signs are sure to attract the eyes of critics and supporters alike. “No matter where you live in America, you've seen candidate lawn signs," Castor said. "They grab your attention. We're hoping the signs will not only be attention-grabbing but also cause a reaction, and lead people to our Instagram to read about policies that all Americans should care about."

Printable, PDF versions of the yard signs are available for download on VoteForThem2020.com.

Iconic George Floyd Mural At Cup Foods Vandalized Again, Called 'Satan's Mural'
The iconic George Floyd mural on the side of Cup Foods in south Minneapolis has again been vandalized.


By Minnesota Reformer/States Newsroom, News Partner
Oct 6, 2020 By Deena Winter




The iconic George Floyd mural on the side of Cup Foods in south Minneapolis has again been vandalized, this time with a vulgar and far more damaging defacement.

This marks the second time the mural has been vandalized since its creation after Floyd died outside the corner store at the hands of police.


Floyd died outside Cup at 38th Street and Chicago Avenue on Memorial Day after an employee called 911 to report he allegedly passed a fake $20 bill. The portrait of Floyd has since become ubiquitous.

Cup Foods spokesman Jamar Nelson confirmed the mural was vandalized at about 4 a.m. Saturday. The mural was spray painted with red paint that says "(Expletive) Walz Commies & Satan."

Nelson said Cup Foods got video of a suspect in black clothes casing the mural and suddenly vandalizing it within a few seconds, and will turn it over to police in the hope the vandal will be caught. The video shows what appears to be a thin male, wearing black from head to toe and a white mask, spray on the mural and then step back and take photos.

"This shouldn't be tolerated in our nation where beautiful memorials are defaced by people with hate… and so the store will continue to stand for the community," he said. "There's no room for any type of hate like this."


Marcia Howard, one of the local people who patrols the four-block area around Cup Foods, wrote on Facebook Monday that the people in charge of George Floyd Square "got ahead" of the vandal's plans to deface the mural.

"We saw him, he scampered away on his bike, and he bragged about his getaway as if he'd escaped the maw of death itself," Howard wrote.

The volunteer security force in the square does not call the police, and puts "people over property," according to Howard. When a previous vandal spray-painted Xs over Floyd's eyes, the volunteers caught him but didn't call police and ultimately let the vandal go. He was later outed as a medical student at the University of Minnesota Medical School and admitted the vandalism in a Reformer interview.

Howard posted what appears to be a cryptic, rambling screed by the vandal, who speaks of a "day of reckoning," in which he will "thrust my blade through the beast's eyes" until "Satan's idol lays silent."

Howard wrote that "This man came armed, ready to fight to the death and seemed incredibly disappointed that he wasn't engaged beyond being spooked away."

Howard did not respond to a request for comment, but wrote on Facebook that the "community (is) still united against systemic racism. We good."



The Minnesota Reformer is an independent, nonprofit news organization dedicated to keeping Minnesotans informed and unearthing stories other outlets can't or won't tell..


Donald Trump's launches explosive tirade in response to Michelle Obama
8 Oct, 2020 

Play Video Michelle Obama's 'closing argument' endorsing Joe Biden. Video / Michelle Obama via Twitter
news.com.au

Donald Trump has taken a swipe at former first lady Michelle Obama after she labelled him a racist and a liar in an explosive plea to voters.

With the US Presidential election just weeks away, Obama appeared in a 26-minute video for Joe Biden's campaign, which has been described as her "closing argument" to the American people before they head to the ballot box.

She attacked Trump's coronavirus response and said he was unfairly "stoking fears" about African-Americans.

She added that Trump is "morally wrong" for taking actions that intimidate voters and for "lying" about how minorities will ruin US suburbs.

Overnight, the President hit back with a stream of anti-Obama tweets and re-tweets on his Twitter page.

One of the more personal attacks was a re-tweet from a prominent Trump supporter, which made the case that the former first lady was a hypocrite for attacking the President.

"Don't you love it when someone lectures you on ethics & morals, while at the same time being married to one of the most corrupt Presidents in history?" the tweet, recirculated by Trump, read.

Don’t you love it when someone lectures you on ethics & morals, while at the same time being married to one of the most corrupt Presidents in history?— Heather (@hrenee80) October 7, 2020

Trump then went on a more general attack of the Obama administration.

He continued with accusations that his predecessor was involved in a wide-reaching conspiracy to derail his early presidency, which has been referred to over the years as Obamagate.

"When the truth about #Obamagate is revealed, every scandal in American history will look mild in comparison," one re-tweet read.

Grand Jury Hits St. Louis Attorneys Mark and Patricia McCloskey with New Evidence Tampering Charges

MATT NAHAM Oct 6th, 2020 

Patricia and Mark McCloskey

St. Louis attorneys Mark McCloskey, 63, and Patricia McCloskey, 61, have been hit with new felony charges several weeks after making a virtual appearance during the 2020 Republican National Convention. A grand jury indicted the couple on two counts each for exhibiting a weapon and tampering with evidence.

It is not clear at this time what evidence was presented to the grand jury that resulted in the evidence tampering charges, but KSDK focused heavily in its report Patricia McCloskey’s handgun, which she previously claimed was inoperable.

The couple was initially charged with unlawful use of a weapon stemming from an incident in which they stood outside their mansion in Portland Place—a private, gated community—and pointed a rifle and a handgun at protesters.

“It is illegal to wave weapons in a threatening manner at those participating in nonviolent protest, and while we are fortunate this situation did not escalate into deadly force, this type of conduct is unacceptable in St. Louis,” St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly M. Gardner, a Democrat, said in a statement back in July. She described the protesters, who were demonstrating against Mayor Lyda Krewson, as “peaceful” and “unarmed.”


1/ Statement from Circuit Attorney Kimberly M. Gardner – Today my office filed charges against Mark and Patricia McCloskey following an incident involving peaceful, unarmed protesters on June 28th. Full statement below: pic.twitter.com/zPucQ3MHs5

— Circuit Attorney (@stlcao) July 20, 2020



Mark McCloskey told conservative radio host Todd Starnes in July that he was “surprised” when investigators executed a search warrant and took his rifle. He asserted to KMOV-TV in a June 29 report that protesters threatened to burn down his home and kill his dog. The McCloskeys made similar remarks on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show.

The McCloskeys have received widespread support from Republican elected officials and Second Amendment advocates for their actions on June 28. Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt (R) promised to fight the “political prosecution” on behalf of the McCloskeys. Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley (R) asked the Department of Justice to look into whether Gardner violated the McCloskeys’ civil rights by initiating a prosecution. Missouri Gov. Mike Parson (R) said he would “without a doubt” pardon the McCloskeys. More recently, Rudy Giuliani said the couple was very close to being “murdered” and “raped.”

Notably, Giuliani had the couple on his podcast in early September to discuss “tampered evidence.” They said Kim Gardner and her team were the ones doing the tampering. Giuliani called Gardner a “SOROS prosecutor.”

Mark McCloskey made a number of media appearances, including on Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s show, and spoke about the incident. McCloskey said that he and his wife were “literally afraid that within seconds they would surmount the wall and come into the house, kill us, burn the house down and everything that I had worked for and struggled for for the last 32 years.”

During a CNN interview, McCloskey said he was a person who was scared for his life and the “victim of a mob that came through the gate.”

He said he was in “imminent fear” that he and his wife would be run over and killed. McCloskey said that the important context to understand this fear was that, as recently as June 2, he saw St. Louis burning. McCloskey cited the murder of 77-year-old retired police captain David Dorn.

McCloskey said the “mob” was threatening and committing acts of “terrorism” and “social intimidation.” He said they smashed down the gate to the private gated community and were trespassing. He also said that he got death threats that night.

“One fellow standing right in front of me pulled out two pistol magazines, clicked them together and said you’re next. That was the first death threat we got that night,” McCloskey said. Mark McCloskey further said that the protesters were not walking the correct way to Mayor Krewson’s home, where they were believed to be heading. The mayor faced calls for her resignation over the weekend after she doxxed Black Lives Matter protesters on Facebook Live. Krewson later apologized.

While the McCloskeys maintained they were lawfully defending themselves and their home against angry trespassers, Kim Gardner charged the married couple for unlawful use of a weapon.

Notably, St. Louis prosecutors declined to charge nine protesters who were initially issued trespassing tickets following the events of June 28. According to KSDK, Portland Place trustees, who have quite a history with the McCloskeys, said they did not want to press charges against the protesters. Joel Schwartz, an attorney for the attorneys, said that the McCloskeys “absolutely would have liked to press charges.”

“Once all the facts are out, it will be clear the McCloskeys committed no crime whatsoever,” Schwartz added. “Frankly because the grand jury is not an adversarial process and defense counsel are not allowed in there and I have no idea what was stated to the grand jury and what law was given to the grand jury.”

Mark McCloskey was outraged that he and his wife were charged while the protesters weren’t. He said that Gardner was protecting “criminals” but going after “honest citizens.”

“Every single human being that was in front of my house was a criminal trespasser,” he said. “They broke down our gate. They trespassed on our property. Not a single one of those people is now charged with anything. We’re charged with felonies that could cost us four years of our lives and our law licenses.”

“What you are witnessing here is just an opportunity for the government, the leftist, democrat government of the City of St. Louis to persecute us for doing no more than exercising our Second Amendment rights,” McCloskey continued.

[Image via Daniel Shular @xshularx]

St Louis couple who aimed guns at BLM protesters indicted on weapons charge

McCloskeys were initially charged in July

Matt Mathers@MattEm90

St Louis couple who pointed their guns at protesters during a Black Lives Matter demonstration have been indicted on a weapons charge, their lawyer has said.

Al Watkins, an attorney for Mark McCloskey, 63, and Patricia McCloskey, 61, confirmed the indictment to the Associated Press. He said his clients had been served with an additional charge of tampering with evidence.

He could not confirm why the additional charge was added. A spokesperson for St Louis circuit attorney Kim Gardner did not immediately repsond to a request for comment.

The McCloskey's, a white couple, came to national attention in June this year when they were filmed waving firearms at a group of mostly black and unarmed protesters.

Amid a wave of demonstrations sweeping the US following the killing of George Floyd, the protesters had been heading towards the home of St Louis mayor Lyda Krewson to demand an end to police brutality and greater racial equality.
Watch more

St Louis gun couple almost always in conflict with others, report says

The McCloskey's, both personal injury lawyers, say the protesters broke down their gate and trespassed on private property.

Attorney Gardner, a Democrat, charged the couple with felony unlawful use of a weapon. She said the display of guns risked bloodshed at what she called an otherwise peaceful protest.

Following the incident, the McCloskey's have become heroes to some conservatives and spoke at this year's Republican National Convention (RNC) where they spoke about Americans' rights to bear arms.

They baselessly accused Democrats of “protecting criminals from honest citizens” and trying to “abolish the suburbs”.

In a pre-recorded address to the RNC, the couple also claimed that a vote for presidential candidate Joe Biden would result in lawlness across the US.

Nine people involved in the protest were charged with misdemeanor trespassing, but the city counselor’s office later dropped those charges. The city counselor’s office handles lesser crimes and is not affiliated with the circuit attorney’s office.

Mr McCloskey, after a brief court hearing earlier Tuesday, expressed anger that he and his wife faced criminal charges while those who trespassed on his property did not.

“Every single human being that was in front of my house was a criminal trespasser,” Mr McCloskey said. “They broke down our gate. They trespassed on our property. Not a single one of those people is now charged with anything. We’re charged with felonies that could cost us four years of our lives and our law licenses.”

Additional reporting by Associated Press

 

Laying 'Tens of Thousands of Preventable Deaths' at the Foot of Trump Failures, Top US Health Official Resigns in Protest

"Nine months into the pandemic, the United States continues to grapple with failed White House leadership," writes whistleblower Dr. Rick Bright in public resignation letter.


Dr. Rick Bright listens during a House Oversight and Investigations subcommittee hearing on March 8, 2018. (Photo: Bloomberg/ via Getty Images)

In a direct and outspoken protest over President Donald Trump's deadly and failed response to the Covid-19 pandemic over the last nine months, government whistleblower Dr. Rick Bright on Wednesday publicly announced his resignation from the National Institute of Health as he chastized a White House that "suffers from widespread internal chaos" and warned the United States, due to lack of leadership, is now "flying blind into what could be the darkest winter in modern history."

Bright, who until April of 2020 served as the director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, first came forward to denounce the administration in May after he says he was removed from his post over voiced objections to how Trump and other political officials within HHS were mishandling the pandemic in the early weeks and months of the outbreak.

"Public health and safety have been jeopardized by the administration's hostility to the truth and by its politicization of the pandemic response, undoubtedly leading to tens of thousands of preventable deaths," Bright wrote in a statement published Wednesday afternoon by the Washington Post. "For that reason, and because the administration has in effect barred me from working to fight the pandemic, I resigned on Tuesday from the National Institutes of Health."

Despite best efforts by some, he continued, "there is still no coordinated national strategy to end the pandemic. Federal agencies, staffed with some of the best scientists in the world, continue to be politicized, manipulated and ignored."

As the Guardian reports:

Bright's departure comes as it was revealed that the head of the Centers for Disease Control, Robert Redfield, had been encouraged to expose the "slaughter" resulting from the Trump administration's "political interference" in the coronavirus response by William Foege—the US epidemiologist who devised the global strategy to eradicate smallpox and is also a former director of the CDC.

In his letter to Redfield, Foege wrote that despite "White House spin attempts, this will go down as a colossal failure of the public health system of this country." He further called the pandemic "the biggest challenge in a century," but said it was clear that the CDC "let the country down."

While Bright's criticism of the administration, the Guardian noted, has been well-documented for months "and discounted by the White House as sour grapes, Foege is regarded in US public health circles as a towering figure."

Taken together, the now public criticism from such high-level experts like Bright and Foege within the national public health establishment serve as the latest indictment of Trump's mishandling of the crisis—even as the president battles his own Covid-19 infection—just weeks before the November election.

Read Dr. Bright's full statement, as published at the Post, below:

Of all the tools required for an effective U.S. response to the coronavirus pandemic, one that is sorely missing is the truth. Public health guidance on the pandemic response, drafted by career scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been repeatedly overruled by political staff appointed by the Trump administration. Career scientists throughout the Department of Health and Human Services hesitate to push back when science runs counter to the administration’s unrealistically optimistic pronouncements.

Public health and safety have been jeopardized by the administration’s hostility to the truth and by its politicization of the pandemic response, undoubtedly leading to tens of thousands of preventable deaths. For that reason, and because the administration has in effect barred me from working to fight the pandemic, I resigned on Tuesday from the National Institutes of Health.

Until April, I had for almost four years been director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority. When I strongly objected this past spring to the Trump administration’s insistence that BARDA support widespread access to chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, two potentially dangerous drugs recklessly promoted by President Trump as a covid-19 cure, I was shunted to the NIH and assigned a more limited role in the pandemic response.

My task at the NIH was to help launch a program expanding national covid-19 testing capacity. The program is well underway, and should reach nearly 1 million daily tests by the end of the year. Since early September, though, I was given no work; my services apparently were no longer needed.

I fear the benefits of dramatically improved testing capacity will be wasted unless it is a part of a coordinated national testing strategy. My recommendations to support a national plan were met with a tepid response. In an administration that suffers from widespread internal chaos, such coordination may be impossible — especially when the White House has seemed determined to slow down testing and not test people who might have asymptomatic infections.

From the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak, the administration’s failure to respond with a coordinated strategy only heightened the danger. Now the nation, and the world, are in the worst public health crisis in over a century. More than 1 million people worldwide have died from the pandemic; more than 211,000 Americans are dead. More than half of the states in this country are reporting rising covid-19 cases. Nine months into the pandemic, the United States continues to grapple with failed White House leadership. Instead, we get the recent spectacle of the president exploiting his own illness for political purposes and advising the nation, “Don’t be afraid of Covid.” Ironically, he was only able to leave the hospital after receiving two treatments that I had pushed for in January.

Meanwhile, there is still no coordinated national strategy to end the pandemic. Federal agencies, staffed with some of the best scientists in the world, continue to be politicized, manipulated and ignored.

The country is flying blind into what could be the darkest winter in modern history. Undoubtedly, millions more Americans will be infected with the coronavirus and influenza; many thousands will die. Now, more than ever before, the public needs to be able to rely on honest, non-politicized and unmanipulated public health guidance from career scientists.