Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu
New polls:
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)
Enemies of the State, Part I: John Bolton Indicted
For the third time in a month, Donald Trump expressed hope that the Department of Justice would indict someone he regards as an enemy, and the DoJ has granted his wish. The latest target, following on the heels of former FBI Director James Comey and New York AG Letitia James, is former NSA John Bolton.
Bolton, of course, is a man of strong opinions, a fellow who prides himself on "telling it like it is" and "being a straight shooter." In our experience, people who present themselves in that manner are just trying to make a virtue out of "I'm an a**hole," and Bolton certainly is. He stepped on plenty of toes while he was in the Trump White House, which helped lead to his ouster, and then he shared more than a few unvarnished opinions of Trump after leaving. No surprise that the President hates his former underling.
Bolton is charged with eight counts of transmission of national defense information and 10 counts of retention of national defense information. As someone who is already 76 years old, he could be looking at a de facto life sentence if he is convicted. So, yesterday was undoubtedly a pretty unhappy day for the now-defendant.
There are some pretty significant differences between this indictment and the indictments of Comey and James. The first is that it is not the work of Lindsey Halligan, operating in her capacity as a Trump stooge. She's Eastern Virginia, and this indictment was filed in Maryland. The U.S. Attorney who signed off on it is Kelly O. Hayes, who first began working for the Department of Justice during the Barack Obama years, and who is serving entirely legally, having been appointed by the judges of that circuit. The indictment is also countersigned by several careerists from various agencies dedicated to cybersecurity.
Further, the investigation that led to this indictment wasn't a sham, and didn't commence a month or two ago, with someone looking for some crime—any crime—that might be charged. In fact, the investigation began during the Biden presidency. The matter was closed when prosecutors decided there wasn't enough "there" there. However, it was reopened when Iran hacked Bolton's e-mail account. That hacking not only caused more information to come out, but it also triggered a response from Bolton that heightens his legal exposure.
Finally, most importantly, and consistent with the above, the charges against Bolton may have merit to them. The charges against Comey are still somewhat mysterious, and look to be based on the splitting of some very fine hairs. The charges against James may not be legitimate and, even if they are, might not be something the DoJ would pursue, but for Trump's rage. But Bolton really screwed up, possibly to the point of it being criminal.
At issue is Bolton's habit of taking his handwritten notes each day, transcribing them, and then sending them to himself at his home e-mail address. He presumably wanted to have the information available as needed, and he was also clearly expecting to write a book, so he may have wanted it for that purpose, too. The moment he sent the materials to non-secure computers and e-mail accounts, he was already in "Hillary Clinton's e-mails" territory. However, he also made the materials available in a manner that they could potentially be accessed by family members without security clearances. That's worse; now we're into "documents being stored in a bathroom at Mar-a-Lago" territory. And then, when Iran hacked Bolton's e-mail, he pointedly did not tell the government that he was keeping some highly classified material there.
That last part is a real problem for the former NSA. First, his failure to disclose that may itself be criminal. More importantly, however, the government does not want to imprison everyone who makes dumb mistakes with classified material. To get popped, you have to either know you were putting classified information at risk, or you have to be so reckless that you should have known you were putting classified information at risk. For Bolton to withhold the full truth when his account was hacked is pretty good evidence that he knew he'd blown it, and was trying to cover his rear end.
It's not hopeless for Bolton, by any means. He's going to argue selective prosecution and, because Trump is so careless in showing his hand, that might work. Bolton will also get his date in court, of course, or an opportunity to make a plea bargain.
Over the weekend, we had a reader write in to opine that, given the DoJ's very high conviction rate (well north of
90%), Letitia James' goose is probably cooked. The large flaw in that argument is that the 90%+ conviction rate holds
when skilled prosecutors with extensive expertise are making dispassionate legal decisions. It doesn't apply when it's
a shyster an insurance lawyer acting U.S. Attorney who is being guided much more by politics than by the law.
Bolton, unlike James, was indeed charged by skilled prosecutors with extensive expertise, and it sure looks like they
are making dispassionate legal decisions, not political decisions. Assuming this is the case, he'd better go find himself
the best counsel money can buy. (Z)
Enemies of the State, Part II: The Oval Office vs. Venezuela
It doesn't seem right to say that the U.S. is making war against Venezuela; most voters don't support what's going on, and their legally elected representatives in Congress have not been given any opportunity to weigh in. It's not even right to say the U.S. military is making war against Venezuela. Those folks usually play things close to the vest, since that is their job, but we have at least one hint that the military is not happy about what is going on: The admiral who is in charge in that part of the world, Adm. Alvin Holsey, just announced he's retiring, after less than one year leading U.S. Southern Command. This is highly unusual, to say the least.
Nope, the war against Venezuela is coming from Donald J. Trump, and those underlings he can find who are willing to carry out his orders. Earlier this week, for the fifth time, a Venezuelan boat was destroyed on Trump's orders. In this case, six people died. This is entirely illegal. The White House claimed, yet again, that the folks on the boat were running drugs. However, the administration has provided not one scintilla of evidence, and hasn't even been able to name the organization with which these people were allegedly affiliated. Further, even if they are crooks, they are entitled to due process. The U.S. government cannot execute people just because it thinks they might be criminals, or they probably are criminals, or whatever.
In addition, Trump has also confirmed that he authorized the CIA to engage in covert operations inside Venezuela. This is really something that a sitting president should not be sharing, while said operations are still underway. However, Trump is living out his James Bond fantasies, and undoubtedly loves to brag about his role in cloak and dagger stuff. We wonder who Trump's M and Q are. We do have a pretty good idea of who his Ernst Stavro Blofeld is, though. Bald, sadistic, manipulative, mostly lurks in the shadows... sound familiar?
Since it is not known exactly what the CIA is doing in Venezuela, it's hard to say if they are breaking any laws, or what laws those might be. However, readers surely know the CIA has a delightful track record when it comes to mucking around in other nations. That's doubly true when it comes to mucking around in Latin American nations.
What is Trump's motivation here? We see three possibilities. The first is that Venezuela checks a lot of Trump's "boxes." He can point at them and scream "drugs!" and "undocumented immigrants!" and "criminals!" and "brown people!" There's some amount of truth to these claims, and a LOT of chauvinism and exaggeration. Still, that nation raises MAGA hackles the way that, say, Peru or Bolivia would not. That's despite the fact that Peru and Bolivia produce considerably greater quantities of illegal drugs than Venezuela does.
The second possibility is that this is personal. Strongmen love to pal around with other strongmen when it's all shiny beads and shallow flattery. What strongmen do not like is when other strongmen challenge their authority. Trump ordered Venezuelan leader/president/dictator Nicolás Maduro to stand down way back in 2017, and Maduro laughed in Trump's face. Not helping things is that Maduro is Latino, and that he's left-wing. A left-wing authoritarian, yes, but still left-wing.
Third, and finally, Trump and his admirers blasted the Nobel Committee last week; the general notions were "Who needs 'em?" and "It's a stupid prize, anyhow." That's denial and anger, aka the first two stages of grief. In truth, Trump still wants a Nobel, and if he gets one, those same people will be dancing in the streets and talking about how it's proof he is the greatest president and/or leader or all time. Undoubtedly, Trump noticed that María Corina Machado got the Prize for merely resisting Maduro. So, the person who actually takes down Maduro should be a slam dunk, right?
We don't know which of these it is. But if we had to guess, we would guess that it's... all three. (Z)
The Voting Rights Act: Are You Sure It's Not Necessary, John Roberts (and Company)?
Yesterday, we had an item on the Supreme Court's (second round of) oral arguments in Louisiana v. Callais. It was the big news of the day, and we wanted to mention it in a timely fashion. However, it's an important and weedy enough story that it's worth taking another look, with a bit more depth. And so...
During the Wednesday hearing, there was a notable lack of interest by the Court in the legislative history of the Voting Rights Act or the law's overall purpose. Enacted in 1965 to prohibit race discrimination in voting and to implement the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, it's been amended 5 times since, including as recently as 2006, and has been wildly successful in expanding the franchise for minority voters. Because of this landmark law, minority groups, especially Black voters in the South, have been able to vote in greater numbers and elect their preferred candidates. When the VRA was passed, there was one Black member of Congress; today 66 members of Congress identify as Black. In fact, the 119th Congress is the most diverse in history. Much of that progress is due to the law.
In 2013, the Roberts Court gutted the preclearance requirement of Section 5 of the VRA, which required preclearance for any changes in election laws by states with a history of discrimination. Chief Justice John Roberts claimed the section was obsolete because racial discrimination in voting no longer existed. Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg famously wrote in dissent that getting rid of Section 5 because it had been so effective was like "throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you aren't getting wet." And indeed, she was right. Since 2013, those same states that were under preclearance rules rushed to enact draconian laws that suppress the vote in minority communities.
The same "logic" seems to be infecting the Court with respect to Section 2. Once again, the goal is to weaken this section to such an extent that it is worthless as a tool to prevent race discrimination, while claiming its decision is in service of the goal to which we simpletons down below should all aspire if only we had the vision to do so: race neutrality. Can't we all just get along?
The Court can accomplish this sleight of hand by once again ignoring the facts on the ground and assuming that all Black voters are Democrats, so allowing them to vote for Democrats should be sufficient for purposes of that pesky Fifteenth Amendment. This argument, put forth by the Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan, is especially infuriating and hypocritical. The Trump administration and Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga spilled a good deal of ink bemoaning the appellants' alleged "stereotyping" of Black voters that they all vote alike, and so should be placed into the same districts with each other. And yet, the government's entire argument itself rests on stereotyping: that Black voters only elect Democrats.
This argument ignores the central purpose of the VRA—that the Fifteenth Amendment's prohibition against discriminatory voting laws and Congress' power to enforce the amendment requires examining whether minority groups are being prevented from electing their preferred candidates through vote dilution or other means, whether intentional or not. It is the Fifteenth Amendment itself that guarantees that minority groups' voting rights not be abridged. This requires an examination of the voting patterns of minority groups in the jurisdictions where their rights are alleged to have been violated. One can't ignore race to rectify race discrimination. And yet this Court is trying mightily to do just that.
To accomplish this, they are likely to convert Section 2 into an intent-only prohibition, even though the Fifteenth Amendment uses the passive voice ("the rights of citizens of the U.S. to vote shall not be denied or abridged... on account of race..."), and to limit its duration, even though Congress did not include such a time limit. (Silly us, we thought Congress was supposed to write the laws—so much for Schoolhouse Rock.) Plaintiffs alleging a racial gerrymander will only succeed if they can prove intentional race discrimination. At the moment, they need only prove a discriminatory impact, whether it was intentional or not.
If the Justices bothered to confine themselves to the facts of this case, there was a mountain of evidence, including statistics and witnesses, to show that the original Louisiana map resulted in race discrimination against Black voters. The evidence showed that Black voters could not elect their preferred candidate if their votes were diluted. For example, white Democrats would not elect a Black Democrat over a white one and neither would white Republicans. So, in this case, even if the legislature articulated a purely partisan reason for the original map and had no ill intent, the effect would still be discriminatory and could only be remedied by taking race into consideration. The Court apparently doesn't believe that's appropriate.
Put another way, the Court seems determined to make it virtually impossible to prove a Section 2 violation. Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh even seemed to endorse an argument by Mooppan that so long as a state can articulate a partisan basis for the gerrymandering, even if it's just a pretext for racist maps, that will satisfy Section 2. Just keep your racist motives to yourself and come up with some other plausible explanation and you can discriminate to your heart's content. After all, that was really the goal of the Fifteenth Amendment—just to pay lip service to equal voting rights.
If the Court holds that race can never be considered even to remedy a discriminatory map, and even if the main goal is permissible partisan gerrymandering, there is no doubt we will see aggressive dismantling of all majority-minority districts, as (V) pointed out in yesterday's item. And the justification will be that the state is merely complying with the law as redrafted by the Supreme Court. So much for judicial restraint and non-activist judges—the Republicans will have officially cornered the market on judicial activism, if that is the outcome here.
So, if the Supreme Court is going to pursue this course of action, and if the red states are going to use that to get rid of majority-minority districts and gerrymander their states to create even redder House delegations, the Democrats are screwed, right? Well... not so fast. The red states are not the only ones that have majority-minority districts. The blue states do, too. The effect of this, in red states, is usually to turn a red district into a blue one. The effect of this in blue states, by contrast, is to turn a blue district into an even bluer one. The general situation is that because blue-state minority voters live mostly in cities, and cities lean very blue, it's not especially possible to make districts that have: (1) a majority of minority voters AND (2) a sizable number of Republican voters. It's necessary to choose one or the other. The former increases minority representation in Congress, while the latter is the key to gerrymandering, since making a district 45%-47% Republican keeps it safely Democratic while rendering the maximum number of Republican votes moot.
Consider an example. The D+22 NY-08, currently represented by Yvette Clarke (D) is plurality Black (about 40%) and is also majority-minority (about 60%). It is next to NY-11, the R+10 district currently represented by Nicole Malliotakis (R). It would not be too hard to move some white Republicans out of NY-11 and into NY-08 (and also into next-door NY-09, which is also plurality Black, and is represented by Hakeem Jeffries, D). But doing so would likely make NY-08/NY-09 plurality white, and might end those districts' majority-minority status, as well. So, New York hasn't done it, in part due to a belief in fairness, and in part due to the VRA.
There are a fair number of majority-minority districts like this in New York, New Jersey, Illinois and California. There is already a VRA-free map of New York that hands the Democrats five more seats in that state. There is a VRA-free map of Illinois that would wipe out all three of that state's Republican representatives. New Jersey should be able to send either two or all three of its Republican representatives to the unemployment line. Nevada would be able to do the same with its only Republican representative (Mark Amodei). California might even be able to get into the act, despite the fact that it's already about to re-gerrymander its maps. The best estimates are that the blue states could pick up 12-14 seats this way.
On hearing this, the skeptic might observe that: (1) some or all of these states might not have the political will to play hardball like this; (2) some or all of these states have redistricting commissions or other laws that make this kind of hardball difficult or impossible or (3) some of these states have, or may have, Republicans in positions of power, and people like Gov. Joe Lombardo (R-NV) are not likely to sign off on something like this.
Fair enough. However, as California looks likely to demonstrate a few weeks from now, you can never know what will happen when people get desperate. More importantly, however, if the Supreme Court does rule that majority-minority gerrymanders are not acceptable, then... they all become unacceptable. The Louisiana case was brought by a group of white Republicans who felt they were being short-changed with the two-majority-minority-district Louisiana map. One could imagine the same happening in New York or Illinois. One could also imagine people who are actually friendly to the Democrats bringing such suits, too. This would give Democratic leaders plausible deniability. "I didn't WANT to undermine the Black plurality in NY-08," Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-NY) might say, "but the courts said I HAD to."
Whether or not there end up being shenanigans in blue states, the decision the Supreme Court appears poised to make will almost certainly have these four consequences: (1) less diversity in Congress, (2) greater polarization in Congress, (3) more voter support for federal anti-gerrymandering legislation, and (4) more voter resentment of the Court, and thus more support for some sort of change to the Court's structure or power. John Roberts does not seem to care about #1, and he might not care about #2, but #3 and #4 are likely concerning for him, particularly given the possibility that the Democrats might be able to prevent the anticipated loss of House seats. We don't really know if Roberts ever thinks long and hard about his decisions—he seems not to, since he's often surprised by predictable outcomes. In this case, though, he really should. (L & Z)
I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: The W.C. Fields Memorial Electric String Band
That's a real band. And even if you don't know them, well, you probably still don't need us to tell you that they were a 1960s psychedelic band. That's really the only period in popular music that gave us band names like Strawberry Alarm Clock, Frumious Bandersnatch, The Crazy World of Arthur Brown, Apple Pie Motherhood Band, The Chocolate Watchband and The Peanut Butter Conspiracy. If those latter two had gotten together and merged into one band, they really might have been on to something.
For last week's theme, which turned out to be a tough one, we gave this hint: "[W]e originally had a headline comparing J.D. Vance to Franz Ferdinand." We followed that with this: "The additional hint we'll give is that the theme, more specific than Entertainment, is 'Musical Groups.' That means that 'Music' or 'Musicians' is not quite enough. Oh, and also: The Glenn Miller Orchestra is most certainly not a rock band."
And here is the solution, courtesy of reader M.V. in Oak Park, IL:
This week's theme is bands named after people:
- Today in Corruption: Letitia James Indicted—The band's guitarist, Jim Glennie
- Today in Crazy: The Dead Kennedys Must Be Rolling in Their Graves—President John F. Kennedy
- Today in Presidential Health: Longing for that Reagan Youth?—President Ronald Reagan
- I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Does Megan Thee Stallion Admire Crazy Horse?—Native American leader Crazy Horse
- This Week in Schadenfreude: Lee Greenwood? Heck, How about The Glenn Miller Orchestra?—Bandleader Glenn Miller
- This Week in Freudenfreude: Who Needs Tesla?—Scientist Nikola Tesla
..and for good measure, in your hint, you mention Franz Ferdinand, who happens to be a band I love, and is named after Archduke Franz Ferdinand, whose assassination started World War I.
The W.C. Fields Memorial Electric String Band is also named after a person, of course, namely actor W.C. Fields. We also accepted a few other answers that weren't what we were thinking of, but were specific and correct enough to earn credit.
Here are the 20 readers to get it right (told you it proved to be tough):
|
For this week's theme, we can't really say, in an accurate way, how many words per headline it relies on. We can say it's in the category Language. For a hint, we'll say that this theme is sometimes a little shi**y, although not as shi**y as last week's theme was, apparently. Oh, well, they can't all be winners.
If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line October 17 Headlines. (Z)
This Week in Schadenfreude: Four Universities Have Now Told Trump He Can Take His Proposal and Shove It
For a president who prides himself on being a master of "the art of the deal," Donald Trump is... really bad at deals. (Z) has literally taught courses on negotiation, and so can say, without any doubt, that the first rule of negotiating is "Make sure that whatever each party is getting, they value that more than whatever they are giving up."
The "deal" that the White House offered to nine well-known universities was absurd on its face. What those schools were expected to give up was... the right to govern themselves. They would be required to handle admissions and hiring according to the Trump administration's dictates, to avoid nearly anything that comes within a country mile of embracing diversity, and to effectively give special protections to conservative students and professors. In exchange for these massive concessions, the reward is... hand-wave, mumble, hand-wave, mumble.
It is nearly inconceivable that ANY concession would persuade universities to accept these conditions. Faculty would revolt. Students would revolt. Donors would revolt. In Democratic-controlled states, such as California, the schools might even lose state funding. But in exchange for basically NO specific concessions, and from an administration led by a person who can't be trusted to keep his word? No way, José.
The only surprise is that it's taken so long for the schools to say "Hell, no." Maybe they are trying to make it look polite, like they actually considered the deal. Maybe their lawyers are preparing lawsuits and legal briefs before their schools break the news to The Donald. We don't know.
In any event, as we wrote earlier this week, MIT was the first school to say "no." Since then, three more schools have joined the list: Brown, USC and Penn. That leaves only five schools that have yet to RSVP: Vanderbilt, Dartmouth, UT Austin, Arizona and Virginia. As we wrote on Monday, UT Austin might take the deal, because Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) might step in and order them to do it. But even that's a maybe, and so, the administration's best outcome would seem to be a .111 batting average here.
We obviously know a fair bit about universities, by virtue of our profession, but we can come up with no explanation as to why those nine were the ones to receive this "generous" offer. They aren't all football schools, they aren't all at the top of the federal-research-funds-received list, they aren't all right-leaning, they aren't all located in states with Republican governors, they aren't all private schools. The only real commonality we can come up with is that they're big schools that are basically virgin targets. That is to say, the administration has already gone after Harvard, Columbia, UCLA, Wisconsin, etc., and established the "terms" of those disputes. Maybe Team Trump was experimenting with a different approach for group #2. Though the administration actually did go after Penn already, and also Dartmouth and Brown, a little. So even that explanation doesn't work all that well.
We also remain confused, as we were on Monday, as to what exactly the administration was thinking here. Did Trump & Co. really think that they were going to get a bunch of "yes" responses? Really? That's hard to believe, even for someone who is as poor a dealmaker as Trump generally is.
It would have been better if these schools had all said "no" at once, so as to put up a unified front. Still, the more times that a university, or a judge, or a business, or a law firm, or a general, or a government official stands up to Trump, the harder it becomes for him to succeed in his next attempt at bullying. Four schools have drawn the line here, and a bunch of others have drawn the line in THEIR disputes with Trump. That is a good thing for freedom in general, and for academic freedom in particular, and it's a bad thing for authoritarianism. (Z)
This Week in Freudenfreude: No Kings Protestors Refuse to Bow Before the Throne
There have been numerous anti-Trump protests in his first 9 months (back) in office, including several No Kings protests. The latest of those will take place on Saturday, of course.
For some reason, the latest No Kings installment has really gotten under the skin of MAGA Nation. Members and allies
of the administration have just gone wild, with Donald Trump, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), Secretary of Transportation
Sean Duffy and House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN) all giving interviews in which they slurred the event in terms
usually reserved for communists, trans people, teachers of critical race theory, and communist trans CRT teachers. The
themes have been recurrent—"America haters," "Hamas lovers," "terrorists" and "violent radicals" most prominent
among them. This strongly suggests central coordination, and the obvious candidate as the "organizer" is Ernst
Stav... Stephen Miller. It's been bad enough, and it carries enough risk of violence, that Sen. Bernie Sanders
(I-VT)
recorded a video
asserting that these rallies are actually for people who love America. Maybe we are wild-eyed, mamby-pamby,
glass-is-half-full optimists, or maybe we are communist trans CRT teachers, but we think the Senator has the much
stronger side of that argument.
The carping from Trump & Co. might well be designed to encourage a Kyle Rittenhouse clone to show up with a gun to one of the rallies. And even if that is not the intention, it could nonetheless be the effect. So, if readers are attending, please be careful.
On that point, we are going to break format a bit here. Normally, we run answers to the reader question of the week on Saturday morning. However, as several readers wrote in to point out, that is really too late to be of use to people who will have to be up bright and early to get to wherever they are protesting. So, we are going to run this week's reader answers today. As a reminder, here is the question:
R.E. in Chicago, IL, asks: What advice do you have for people who are going to participate in the No Kings protest on October 18? Either practical advice, or advice about how to maximize attention/effectiveness.
And here are some of the answers we got from readers:
K.H. in Albuquerque, NM: The most important thing is turning up. Unless you are at risk from ICE, be there. Be counted. Be in the video. Be seen. Your body is your voice on Saturday.
What I've seen in various e-mail threads and on Facebook:
- Undercover ICE, far right influencers, and agitators have been spotted at other protests.
- Mike Johnson has already started the narrative that the No Kings protest is a "terrorist" event.
- They WILL be trying to provoke violence. Whatever you do, do NOT take the bait. Stay peaceful, stay on message.
- If you are interviewed, repeat the most unifying talking points: Against fascism and violations of the law.
- Do NOT lean into "antifa" labels. It is not a real organization. Don't let their lies become real. Don't let it become a label. Stick to saying the whole thing: We are against fascism and violations of the Constitution.
BTW, I saw inflatable one-size-fits-most frog costumes for sale in the big box stores for $39. #justsaying
J.E. in San Jose, CA: If you share photos or video, try to include something with words in the shot. Should it go viral, it will be more believable because AI still can't get lettering right.
E.S. in Providence, RI: It's better to have a sign that shows a specific thing you support (e.g., "Defend the Constitution"), rather than just a bumper sticker slogan (e.g., "Trump Sucks").
S.S. in West Hollywood, CA: My advice for attending protests in Trump's America. First, a little paranoia is healthy these days. Always assume someone is taking pictures of the crowd and monitoring cell phones. I recommend turning your cell phone off and, if possible, leaving it in the car or at home. At the very least, restart your phone before and after the protest. That will help get rid of any spyware it might have picked up. (Actually, you should already be restarting your phone at least once a week for that reason. And get a VPN if you don't already have one.)
Do not put anything on your sign/t-shirt that can be perceived as a threat. And don't do anything illegal like blocking traffic or getting into a fight with counter-protesters. And if you are planning civil disobedience, be clear ahead of time exactly what that means and do it with people who have done it before and can properly guide you. Do not do it on a whim in the moment. It's a bad idea.
Having important phone numbers like your lawyer written on your arm with permanent magic marker might be helpful. And it's a good idea to make sure there are people who know you are at the protest and will start searching for you if you don't check in after it's over.
I know I'm about to contradict myself, but if there are any interactions with ICE/law enforcement, your best tool is to record it with your phone. Just don't involve yourself in a way that will put you in jeopardy. If possible, ask anyone they have on the ground and/or are being taken away for their names. It might be the only record of who they are when they are disappeared and their loved ones are trying to find them.
You might also want to sanitize your phone of any messages that could be perceived as illegal/threatening and/or anti-Trump. Do not open your phone for law enforcement for any reason and certainly don't give them permission to open/look at it. And it goes without saying not to say anything without your lawyer. Law enforcement are not your friends. Don't assume they're going to be reasonable, even if you're wealthy and white. That might have been enough in the past, but that was before the dictatorship took control.
As for maximizing your effectiveness? Just showing up is the most important thing you can do! Then on Monday call and/or write your Senators and Representative and politely demand they do more in the face of Trump's corruption, incompetence, and blatantly illegal and unconstitutional activities. Then do it again the following week and every week after that.
And finally, most important of all, have fun! 99% of the protests will not have anything ugly happen. (Despite what Fox "news" will report.) It's a very rewarding thing to join your community for something greater than yourself that is necessary and meaningful. It will recharge your batteries at a time when we could all use a recharge. And it can be a lot of fun, so enjoy it! I also still appreciate that I live in a country where I can peacefully protest the government and (probably) not be shot or thrown in jail for it... yet.
M.A. in Park Ridge, IL: I've been going to these things for a while now. Some thoughts:
- Bring a sign. No matter where you are, it's better with a sign.
- Make your own sign. Make it big, simple and easy to read (i.e., no brown, cardboard backdrop). People will have a few seconds to see it at most.
- If you want to add your body to pump up the crowd size, go to the large downtown event in Chicago. But be prepared to just stand around for a couple hours.
- If you want to interact with the public rather than pump up the crowd size, go to a place that puts you on the side of a busy street (preferably near a corner with a stoplight). If you have your sign with you, you'll get cheers, honks, thumbs up, and the finger (but not all from the same vehicle). Reactions are what it's all about for me: I like showing people that they aren't alone.
- Whatever and wherever it is, GET OUT THERE.
F.C. in Sequim, WA: As far as MAGA: They will drive by, flip you off and rev their engines. Mostly because they aren't any smarter than IQ 47 and they think you can be intimidated. Some will walk among the protestors. Ignore them.
It is amazing how good it feels to be with thousands of like minded folks. Mostly, I think, because mainstream media doesn't cover the protests. And we don't walk around talking to strangers, and talking politics, these days. So we really don't grasp how many of us there are. Everyone should do this at least once!
As far as signs, that's up to you. Say what you want to say!! I carry an American flag. We are encouraged to do so since MAGA doesn't like us to. Very highly likely there are lots of extra signs that the promoters will bring from past protests and you can pick through those if you like. In my town we also bring canned food for the food bank. My favorite protest sign:
M.M. in Leonardtown, MD: Bring a CamelBak or similar hydration system for drinking water. Don't have to carry anything in your hands, larger capacity means you can go longer before you have to find a new water source, and if things go sideways you can't be accused of throwing water bottles.
R.P. in Alexandria, NY: Having been to over a dozen rallies since late January in Jefferson County and Lewis County in northern New York, including the peaceful march out to Tom Homan's cottage on Lake Ontario that helped to get three school age children and their mother released from detention by ICE, I offer these recommendations for the October 18th No Kings events.
- Remember that you are exercising First Amendment rights guaranteed since 1791, designed to provide the means for average citizens to check the abuses of government power, making it protected speech.
- Remember that the language in that amendment is "peaceably assemble," so do your best to live out that legacy.
- There are likely to be people who disagree with you and will try, loudly and with profanity, to intimidate you and produce a chilling effect on your exercise of those rights. On a few occasions when there were less than a dozen of us holding up signs in a vigil we talked about the best way to respond. When a MAGA person flips you the bird, we found that waving your hand with a smile worked. We called it "giving them the full flock," or "giving them the bouquet."
We have had retired law enforcement personnel join us and remind us that when MAGA people drove by too fast and loud, they needed to be pulled over. And that did happen on some occasions, even here in rural areas.
When they shouted and cursed, we decided the best reply was "Bless your heart."- Do what feels right in terms of protecting yourself by wearing a mask. There are valid disagreements about whether it is best to do so or not. In these times of the resurgence of COVID that alone would make it valid and understandable to wear a mask. On the other hand, the point is to get the attention of media to bolster the courage of more people to engage, so wearing a mask may be counterproductive in that effort. I tend not to wear a mask but there are people I love who do.
- We have had the good fortune of having members of unions (particularly teachers unions from public schools), of the local Democratic Party, of people working for farm cooperatives, veterans representing peace groups and advocating for the retention of benefits, and people representing churches at these events. We have had tractor-trailer drivers give us a friendly blasts on the horn and found that boosts spirits to chalk those up for extra points.
At the first rally in the bitter cold, two young men in our group disappeared for a bit and brought back hot chocolate and paper cups to share. One of them then went with another older woman from our group to bring the hot chocolate to a young person waving a Trump flag and American flag nearby, he said, "I thought you hated me." They replied, "No, we don't hate."- Enjoy the music. Our music is so much better than theirs, especially Jesse Wells.
J.S. in Columbia, MO: Don't fall for distractions. There might be people on the sidelines shouting inflammatory stuff, egging you on to an argument, or better yet, a fight. Ignore them. But don't ignore 6th-sense safety stuff.
B.C. in Phoenix, AZ: As a child of The Sixties, a member of the last of the draft eligible men, I participated in a lot of antiwar demonstrations right up until Kent State. Somewhere, there might still be a photograph of a National Guardsman flourishing his bayonet at a long-haired me.
Protests like these are always highly emotional for everyone, so here are a few suggestions for anyone attending a No Kings protest:
- Don't shout, there will probably be enough shouting of orders from law enforcement and any misguided military or former military members present; you do not need to add to the cacophony.
- If possible, choose one or two people to say the things you wish said as you assemble and march; this will help keep tempers down, whereas having a whole mob of people even murmuring some slogans can be considered threatening by the folks with the badges and the military hardware.
- At the first sign of a breakdown in order (i.e., someone shouting and ignoring some cop's order) get the f**k out of there.
K.H. in Ypsilanti, MI: What I'm going to do, and encourage others to do, is bring a big American flag and fly it right-side up.
While I appreciate those who display it upside-down as a sign of distress, I think it's important to send the message that this is a patriotic movement of those who love our country and are distressed about the direction we're headed, and counter the right-wing message that we're just a bunch of discontents who just don't like America that much.
For too long we've allowed the right wing to co-opt the flag as a symbol. It's time we took it back.
R.L.D. in Sundance, WY: If you are at a protest and police/military confront you and your fellow protesters, sit down. I mean, not by yourself, you don't want to get trampled. But if you are sitting and the jackbooted thugs... I mean law enforcement professionals and military members just following orders... start cracking heads, it'll be clear who is rioting and who is remaining calm. You can't riot from the lotus position. You probably can't get away with blocking a public sidewalk, and various ordinances meant to make life unbearable for people experiencing homelessness might be applied to you, but at least the video will be unambiguous.
D.R. in Yellow Springs, OH: My best advice for protesters is to make your signs highly legible with short words. For example, this one:
Far too many signs at protests attempt to fit an essay onto a piece of cardboard. Anyone driving by will be unable to read more than a few words. When making your signs, use a ruler to mark straight lines on your board and keep your letters spaced evenly. Use a thick marker or a paintbrush to put the lettering on the sign.
As tempting as it might be, avoid using swear words on your sign. You won't win over anyone who isn't on your side already with vulgarity and you'll risk alienating people who are on the fence.
I plan to carry an American flag. Trump's allies are trying to portray this as a "hate America rally"; we want to counter that lie.
M.S. in Knoxville, TN: I would advise No Kings attendees to bring their joy and peace. Be loud, but be peaceful. Remember, there are more of us than there are of them. This is not about right and left, but right and wrong. We are right, and they are wrong.
We didn't get to run photos from the last big protest, but we'd really like to do that this time. So, if you have 'em, please send them to comments@electoral-vote.com, ideally with subject line "No Kings."
Again, if you're headed out to the protests, be safe. And whether you are protesting or not, have a good weekend! (Z)
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones