Barbara Ehrenreich, activist and groundbreaking ‘Nickel and Dimed’ author, dies at 81

Los Angeles Times

Barbara Ehrenreich, activist and groundbreaking ‘Nickel and Dimed’ author, dies at 81

Nardine Saad, Dorany Pineda – September 2, 2022

Author Barbara Ehrenreich poses at her home in Charlottesville, Va., on Aug. 25, 2005.
Author Barbara Ehrenreich at her home in Charlottesville, Va., in August 2005. (Andrew Shurtleff / Associated Press)

Barbara Ehrenreich, the author, journalist and political activist whose groundbreaking work of immersive journalism, “Nickel and Dimed,” presaged and arguably helped spark the resurgence of the American labor movement, has died. She was 81.

Ehrenreich died Thursday in Alexandria, Va., after recently suffering a stroke, the Associated Press reported Friday.

“Sad news. Barbara Ehrenreich, my one and only mother, died on September 1, a few days after her 81st birthday,” her son, author and journalist Ben Ehrenreich, tweeted Friday.

“She was, she made clear, ready to go. She was never much for thoughts and prayers, but you can honor her memory by loving one another, and by fighting like hell,” he wrote.

Following news of her death, writers, journalists and activists took to social media to pay their respects.

“Heartland” author Sarah Smarsh called Ehrenreich’s contributions to U.S. discourse around class and injustice “immeasurable. … May she rest in peace, & may we include class in every conversation about justice.”

Robert Reich, former U.S. secretary of Labor, called her “inimitable. … Our abiding thanks to her for her contributions to the labor, progressive and women’s movements, her brilliant literary journalism, and her tenacious appeals to common sense. She will be sorely missed.”

“Barbara Ehrenreich changed my life in many ways,” tweeted New York state Rep. Emily Gallagher. “Not only was I forever inspired by ‘Nickel and Dimed,’ I recently took a deeper dive into her earlier feminist pamphlets and felt kinship by her relentless pursuit of socialist feminism. Thank you Barbara [heart emoji] we continue your work.”

The Montana-born writer, also known for “Bait and Switch: The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream” and “Natural Causes: An Epidemic of Wellness, the Certainty of Dying and Killing Ourselves to Live Longer,” rallied for higher minimum wage, pushed against white privilege and challenged conventional thinking about race, religion, class, American exceptionalism, gender politics, the mechanics of joy and the gap between rich and poor.

A proponent of liberal causes such as economic equality and abortion rights, Ehrenreich wrote 20 books and was also the founding editor of the Economic Hardship Reporting Project. She frequently contributed to the Los Angeles Times and other publications such as Mother Jones and the Nation.

Her 1989 book, “Fear of Falling: The Inner Life of the Middle Class,” was nominated for a National Book Critics Circle Award. Her 2001 bestseller, “Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America,” traced her own journey as a waitress and hotel housekeeper, among other low-income jobs, and became one of her best-known works.

In that book, she wrote “to be a member of the working poor is to be an anonymous donor, a nameless benefactor, to everyone.” She learned — and wrote — that living on $7 an hour was not a way to live at all.

In a 2001 review for The Times, Stephen Metcalf called the book “thoroughly enjoyable, written with an affable, up-your-nose brio throughout. Ehrenreich is a superb and relaxed stylist, and she has a tremendous sense of rueful humor. … Social critics often sting but just as often lack real antiseptic power. Not so Ehrenreich, an old-time southpaw, a leftie without a trace of the apologetic squeak that’s recently crept into the voice of the left — and crept in while conservatives have stertorously monopolized phrases like ‘civilized society.'”

In 2009, Ehrenreich asked in The Times if feminism had “been replaced by the pink-ribbon breast cancer cult,” hoping to ignite a new women’s health movement. In 2014, she asked “how do we reconcile the mystical experience with daily life” for a memoir that she never set out to write, thinking the form was too self-involved.

Nonetheless, she crafted “Living With a Wild God: A Nonbeliever’s Search for the Truth About Everything,” a personal history and spiritual inquiry that pulled from journals she wrote between the ages of 14 and 24.

In a 2014 review of the book, David L. Ulin, a former Times books editor and critic, emphasized that the memoir was “not a book of faith. Educated as a scientist, trained as a reporter, Ehrenreich does not believe in what she cannot see. As such, she turns to philosophy, chemistry and physics; she traces the influence of her home life, which was dysfunctional (both parents were alcoholics) but encouraged asking questions and thinking for oneself.”

Barbara Alexander was born in Butte, Mont., in 1941, to a mother who was a homemaker and a father who was a copper miner before earning a PhD from Carnegie Mellon University and becoming the director of research at Gillette.

According to the Associated Press, she was raised in a union household where family rules included “never cross a picket line and never vote Republican.”

She also said she was born and raised into atheism “by people who had derived their own atheism from a proud tradition of working-class rejection of authority in all its forms, whether vested in bosses or priests, gods or demons.” She was a student activist, was educated as a scientist — she studied physics at Reed College and earned a PhD in cellular biology from Rockefeller University in 1968 — but trained as a teacher and reporter.

After getting her doctorate, she joined a group of activists trying to improve healthcare for poor New Yorkers, which cemented her love of reporting and writing. “Health seemed related to biology,” she told the Washington Post in 2005.

Her 1983 book, “The Hearts of Men: American Dreams and the Flight From Commitment,” helped her get assignments at the New York Times and launched her journalism career. She wrote a regular column for Time from 1990 to 1997. Her most notable books from that period include “Fear of Falling” and “Blood Rites: Origins and History of the Passions of War.”

Barbara Ehrenreich in New York in 2007.
Barbara Ehrenreich in New York in 2007. (Andrew Harrer / Bloomberg via Getty Images)

In 2019, after the release of “Natural Causes,” she explored “Silicon Valley syndrome,” or “towering hubris,” the pursuit of not just extending the quality of life but living forever.

The prolific author told The Times that once she realized she was old enough to die, she decided she would put up with no more “suffering, annoyance and boredom” in pursuit of a longer life. Instead, she opted to choose the foods she liked, the exercise that sufficed and the doctor visits that addressed the pains she actually felt. At the time, she had just released “Natural Causes.”

Ehrenreich was motivated by a desire to shed light on ordinary people as well as the “overlooked and the forgotten,” her editor, Sara Bershtel, told the New York Times.

She is survived by her son and her daughter, Rosa Brooks.

Barbara Ehrenreich, muckraking writer and activist, dies

CNBC – U.S. News

Barbara Ehrenreich, muckraking writer and activist, dies

Associated Press – September 2, 2022

  • Barbara Ehrenreich, the muckraking author, activist and journalist who in such notable works as “Nickel and Dimed” and “Bait and Switch” challenged conventional thinking about class, religion and the very idea of an American dream, has died at age 81.
  • Ehrenreich died Thursday morning in Alexandria, Virginia, according to her son, the author and journalist Ben Ehrenreich. She had recently suffered a stroke.
Barbara Ehrenreich, author of Dancing in the Streets, poses in New York on Wednesday, January 10, 2007.

Barbara Ehrenreich, author of Dancing in the Streets, poses in New York on Wednesday, January 10, 2007.Andrew Harrer | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Barbara Ehrenreich, the muckraking author, activist and journalist who in such notable works as “Nickel and Dimed” and “Bait and Switch” challenged conventional thinking about class, religion and the very idea of an American dream, has died at age 81.

Ehrenreich died Thursday morning in Alexandria, Virginia, according to her son, the author and journalist Ben Ehrenreich. She had recently suffered a stroke.

“She was, she made clear, ready to go,” Ben Ehrenreich tweeted Friday. “She was never much for thoughts and prayers, but you can honor her memory by loving one another, and by fighting like hell.”

Barbara Ehrenreich was a Montana native, raised in a union household where family rules included “never cross a picket line and never vote Republican.” A prolific author who regularly turned out books and newspaper and magazine articles, she was a longtime proponent of liberal causes from economic equality to abortion rights. For “Nickel and Dimed,” one of her best known books, she worked in minimum wage jobs so she could learn firsthand the struggles of the working poor, whom she called “the major philanthropists of our society.”

“They neglect their own children so that the children of others will be cared for; they live in substandard housing so that other homes will be shiny and perfect; they endure privation so that inflation will be low and stock prices high,” she wrote. “To be a member of the working poor is to be an anonymous donor, a nameless benefactor, to everyone.”

Barbara Ehrenreich, author who resisted injustice, dies aged 81

The Guardian

Barbara Ehrenreich, author who resisted injustice, dies aged 81

Ed Pilkington – September 2, 2022

Barbara Ehrenreich in 2018.
Barbara Ehrenreich in 2018. Photograph: Stephen Voss/The Guardian
Writer of the 2001 bestseller Nickel and Dimed died on 1 September, her son announced

Barbara Ehrenreich, the author of more than 20 books on social justice themes ranging from women’s rights to inequality and the inequities of the American healthcare system, has died at the age of 81.

The news that Ehrenreich had died on 1 September was released by her son, Ben Ehrenreich, on Friday. He accompanied the announcement with a comment redolent of his mother’s spirit: “She was never much for thoughts and prayers, but you can honor her memory by loving one another, and by fighting like hell.”

Ehrenreich battled over a half a century as a writer committed to resisting injustice and giving a voice to those who were typically unheard.

Her first book, published in 1969, Long March, Short Song, was an account of the student uprising against the Vietnam war.

In Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America, her 2001 bestseller, she wrote an immersive experience of living as a low-waged worker in Key West, Florida.

The book helped spread awareness of an economy in which it was necessary to work two or three jobs to survive, and acted as a catalyst of the minimum wage movement.

Later, she used her name and energy to try to give low-income and other disadvantaged groups a direct voice to tell their own stories.

She founded the Economic Hardship Reporting Project which supports independent journalists to write about their lives including in poor rural areas of the US.

Ehrenreich, who acquired a doctorate in cell biology before she turned to social activism and writing, was diagnosed in 2000 with breast cancer. She wrote an award-winning essay Welcome to Cancerland about the experience.

She brought her trademark clear-eyed reporting to the subject of her own mortality. In 2018 she published Natural Causes: An Epidemic of Wellness, the Certainty of Dying, and Killing Ourselves to Live Longer, in which she described coming to the realization that she had lived long enough to die.

“That thought had been forming in my mind for some time,” she told the Guardian at the time. “I really have no hard evidence about when exactly one gets old enough to die, but I notice in obituaries if the person is over 70 there’s not a big mystery, there’s no investigation called for. It’s usually not called tragic because we do die at some age. I found that rather refreshing.”

Announcing his mother’s death on Twitter, Ben Ehrenreich echoed that point. “She was, she made clear, ready to go,” he said.

Positive Views of the Supreme Court Drop Sharply After Abortion Ruling

Time

Positive Views of the Supreme Court Drop Sharply After Abortion Ruling

Madeleine Carlisle – September 1, 2022

Texas Challenges Elecetion Results at Supreme Court
Texas Challenges Elecetion Results at Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court stands on December 11, 2020 in Washington, DC. Credit – Getty Images—Stefani Reynolds/Getty Images

Favorable views of the Supreme Court have dropped since the ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, a new Pew Research Center survey found, driven largely by a steep drop in approval among Democrats.

In its 35 years of polling on the court, Pew has never documented a wider partisan gap in views of the institution. In August, just 28% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents said they view the Supreme Court favorably. That’s the lowest rating Democrats have ever given the court in the poll’s history—18 percentage points lower than in January before the court gutted abortion rights, and almost 40 points lower than in 2020.

Favorable opinions of the court among Republicans, on the other hand, have moderately increased. In January, 65% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents viewed the court favorably, while 73% said the same in August.

Overall, Pew found the American public is split over the Supreme Court: 48% of the public views the court favorably, while 49% holds an unfavorable view. Jocelyn Kiley, associate director of research at Pew Research Center, says this is the highest percentage of Americans sharing unfavorable views of the Supreme Court that Pew has documented in more than three decades. In August 2020, for example, Pew found that 70% of Americans held favorable views of the high court.

The survey released Thursday was conducted among 7,647 U.S. adults, including 5,681 registered voters, between August 1 and 14. Nonpartisan Pew Research Center said the intention of the survey was to understand the public view of the high court after its term concluded in June with several high-profile rulings along largely ideological lines, including the overturning of the constitutional right to an abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

The portion of Democrats who believe the U.S. Supreme Court has too much power has almost tripled since 2020, and increased by more than 20 points this year alone: 64% percent of Democrats said the court has too much power, compared to 40% in January. The survey found that 45% of U.S. adults overall said the court has too much power, which is 15 points higher than in January. 48% of the public said the court has the “right amount of power” and only 5% said the court does not have enough power.

“We are seeing a shift in a lot of different components of how Americans view the court,” says Kiley. “We see a growing share of Americans saying that the court has too much power. A growing share of Americans also say that they see the court as conservative.”

Pew found Americans’ favorability ratings of the Supreme Court is similar to what it was in 2015, when the high court issued another controversial landmark decision: Obergefell v. Hodges, which extended same-sex couples the right to marriage. In July 2015 after the ruling, Pew found that 48% of Americans had a favorable opinion of the court, while 43% viewed it unfavorably, and 61% of Republicans viewed the court unfavorably. The partisan divide over the Supreme Court is even starker today.

Corporate landlords are gobbling up mobile home parks and rapidly driving up rents — here’s why the space is so attractive to them

MoneyWise

Corporate landlords are gobbling up mobile home parks and rapidly driving up rents — here’s why the space is so attractive to them

Vishesh Raisinghani – August 30, 2022

Corporate landlords are gobbling up mobile home parks and rapidly driving up rents — here’s why the space is so attractive to them
Corporate landlords are gobbling up mobile home parks and rapidly driving up rents — here’s why the space is so attractive to them

The hunt for yield has pushed private equity firms and professional investors into new segments of the real estate market.

In recent years, sophisticated investors have snapped up multi-family units and single-family homes. Now, corporate landlords are targeting the most cost-effective segment of the real estate market: mobile home parks.

The most affordable housing available

Manufactured homes or mobile homes are considered the most affordable non-subsidized housing option in America. That’s because the owners own only the prefabricated unit and not the land under the home. The land is usually leased from the landlord of a trailer park.

The average monthly rent for a mobile home in 2021 was $593. That’s significantly lower than the average one-bedroom condo rental rate of $1,450. The mobile park rental also often includes utilities and insurance.

Rents typically rise 4% to 6% annually and renters have the flexibility to move their housing unit to another park. These factors make the manufactured home highly attractive to low-income households.

As of 2020, nearly 22 million Americans lived in mobile homes. That’s 6.7% of the total population or about one in 15 people across the country. However, the economic inefficiencies that make these manufactured homes affordable also make them attractive to professional investors.

Investing in mobile home parks

Factors such as below-market rents and disrepair make mobile home parks attractive for investors seeking to add value. The typical mobile home park lot costs $10,000, which means 80 lots would be worth $800,000 on average.

Put simply, the entry price for these parks is much lower than multi-family apartments and condo buildings across the country.

Professional investors can also raise rents significantly to improve the valuation of the property. Attracting tenants with higher incomes or improving the park’s amenities and infrastructure are other value-add strategies that make this asset class appealing.

The fact that moving a typical mobile home costs between $3,000 to $10,000 also means that most tenants are unable to afford the move. This gives landlords immense pricing power.

Meanwhile, the yield is much higher. The capitalization rate (the ratio of net operating income to market price) could be as high as 9%, according to real estate partners Dave Reynolds and Frank Rolfe, who together are the fifth-largest owner of mobile home parks in the U.S.

The largest mobile park landlord is real estate veteran Sam Zell. Zell’s Equity LifeStyle Properties (ELS) owns 165,000 units across the country and the asset is a key element of his $5.4 billion fortune.

In recent years, larger investors such as Singapore’s sovereign wealth fund GIC and private equity firms such as The Carlyle Group, Brookfield, Blackstone, and Apollo have also added exposure to this asset class.

Even Warren Buffett is involved. His firm’s subsidiary, Clayton Homes, is the largest manufacturer of mobile homes in the U.S., and also operates two of the biggest mobile home lenders, 21st Mortgage Corp. and Vanderbilt Mortgage.

You can invest too

Retail investors looking for exposure to mobile home parks have plenty of options. Acquiring a park is, perhaps, the most straightforward way to access this asset class. However, publicly-listed stocks and real estate investment trusts offer exposure too.

Sam Zell’s Equity LifeStyle Properties is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker ELS. Sun Communities Inc. (SUI) owns 146,000 units across the U.S. and some in Canada, while Legacy Housing Corp. (LEGH) builds, sells, and finances manufactured homes.

Retail and institutional investors could see more upside from this segment as the economic inefficiencies are ironed out.

Ted Cruz says there’s a ‘real risk’ that Biden’s student-loan forgiveness will help Democrats in the 2022 midterm elections

Insider

Ted Cruz says there’s a ‘real risk’ that Biden’s student-loan forgiveness will help Democrats in the 2022 midterm elections

Yelena Dzhanova – August 27, 2022

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas at the Senate on Wednesday.
Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas at the Senate.Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images
  • Sen. Ted Cruz said Biden’s student-loan forgiveness plan will “drive up turnout” for Democrats in November.
  • “Maybe you weren’t gonna vote in November, and suddenly you just got 20 grand,” Cruz said of the plan.
  • “If you can get off the bong for a minute … it could drive up turnout,” he said.

Sen. Ted Cruz on Friday railed against President Joe Biden’s student-loan forgiveness plan, predicting it’ll give Democrats an edge in the upcoming midterm elections.

“If you are that slacker barista who wasted seven years in college studying completely useless things, now has loans and can’t get a job, Joe Biden just gave you 20 grand,” Cruz said during an appearance on his “Verdict with Ted Cruz” podcast. “Like, holy cow! 20 grand. You know, maybe you weren’t gonna vote in November, and suddenly you just got 20 grand.”

“And you know, if you can get off the bong for a minute and head down to the voting station,” he continued. “Or just send in your mail-in ballot that the Democrats have helpfully sent you, it could drive up turnout, particularly among young people.”

Cruz said “there is a real risk” that the Democrats will net more support in November.

The Biden administration earlier this week announced a plan to cancel $10,000 in student-loan debt for borrowers whose annual income does not exceed $125,000.

“For too many people, student loan debt has hindered their ability to achieve their dreams—including buying a home, starting a business, or providing for their family,” Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said in a statement. “Getting an education should set us free; not strap us down! That’s why, since Day One, the Biden-Harris administration has worked to fix broken federal student aid programs and deliver unprecedented relief to borrowers.”

Prominent Democrats like Sen. Bernie Sanders have slammed Cruz’s remarks.

“This is what a leading Republican thinks of young ‘slacker’ Americans who took out loans to go to college,” Sanders tweeted in response to a clip of his remarks.

A former official working in the Obama administration also criticized Cruz.

“Since Ted Cruz knows baristas have been spitting in his coffee for years, it’s technically not punching down,” said Brandon Friedman, former deputy assistant secretary for public affairs at the United States Department of Housing and Urban

Ukraine nuclear plant reconnected to grid; narrowly avoided disaster, Zelenskyy says

NBC News

Ukraine nuclear plant reconnected to grid; narrowly avoided disaster, Zelenskyy says

Yuliya Talmazan and Artem Grudinin – August 26, 2022

The world narrowly avoided a radiation disaster after a Russian-controlled nuclear plant was completely disconnected from Ukraine’s power grid, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has warned.

The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, Europe’s largest, was back on the grid and supplying electricity to Ukraine on Friday, officials said, a day after it was disconnected from the national power grid for the first time in its 40-year history.

Zelenskyy said in a late-night video address Thursday that after the last working line connecting it to Ukraine’s power grid was damaged by Russian shelling, it was only the plant’s safety systems kicking in with backup power that had averted catastrophe.

“The world must understand what a threat this is: If the diesel generators hadn’t turned on, if the automation and our staff had not reacted after the blackout, then we would now be forced to overcome the consequences of the radiation accident,” he said.

“Russia has put Ukraine and all Europeans in a situation one step away from a radiation disaster,” Zelenskyy added.

Russia blamed Ukraine for the incident. NBC News has not verified either side’s claims.

Earlier Friday, the country’s state nuclear company, Energoatom, said the plant itself was being safely powered through a repaired line from the power grid. There were no issues with the plant’s machinery or safety systems, it said.

It later announced that the plant was reconnected to Ukraine’s power grid and was producing electricity to meet the country’s needs. The agency hailed the plant’s staff as heroes who “tirelessly and firmly hold the nuclear and radiation safety of Ukraine and the whole of Europe on their shoulders.”

But authorities nonetheless began distributing iodine tablets to residents near the plant Friday in case of a radiation leak, amid mounting fears that the fighting around the complex could trigger a catastrophe, the Zaporizhzhia regional military administration confirmed to NBC News.

Russian-installed officials in the surrounding Zaporizhzhia region sought to play down the gravity of the situation. “There was just an emergency situation” that was handled by the plant’s safety systems, Alexander Volga, a Russian-installed official in the nearby town of Enerhodar, told the state news agency Tass on Friday.

Intense fighting around the site has spurred growing fears of a catastrophe. The two sides have traded blame for the attacks, with world leaders calling for a demilitarized zone around the nuclear complex while pushing for access for United Nations inspectors.

Any damage to the plant would be “suicide,” U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned earlier this month.

“It was potentially a very, very dangerous situation,” said Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, who led the chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear defense forces known as CBRN in both the British army and NATO.

Cooling systems and other mechanisms that are essential to the safe operation of the reactors need power to run them, while emergency diesel generators are sometimes unreliable.

“The generators at Zaporizhzhia are in an unknown condition, thought to be not in great condition mainly because the Russians have occupied the site for six months, had not allowed inspectors in and maintenance has not been taking place as it should be,” de Bretton-Gordon said. “So we now have the safety mechanisms being run on generators, which we are not 100% certain are reliable.”

“Absolutely had those generators failed, we would then be in a serious position,” he added.

Nuclear experts have raised concerns before about the risk the fighting could pose to the plant’s reactors and the silos of nuclear waste around it.

Ukraine and its international allies, including the United States, have been urging Russia to hand over control of the plant. Moscow captured the site in March and has controlled it since, although Ukrainian engineers still operate it.

As the accusations flew about the plant, Belarus’ authoritarian leader President Alexander Lukashenko said Friday that the country’s warplanes have been modified to carry nuclear weapons in line with an agreement with ally Russia.

Lukashenko said the upgrade followed his June meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who offered to make Belarusian combat aircraft nuclear-capable at Russian factories and to help train pilots.

“Do you think it was all blather?” Lukashenko said to reporters Friday. “All of it has been done.”

It’s Over: Trump Will Be Indicted

Daily Beast

It’s Over: Trump Will Be Indicted

Brad Moss – August 26, 2022

Brandon Bell/Getty Images
Brandon Bell/Getty Images

I have finally seen enough. Donald Trump will be indicted by a federal grand jury.

You heard me right: I believe Trump will actually be indicted for a criminal offense. Even with all its redactions, the probable cause affidavit published today by the magistrate judge in Florida makes clear to me three essential points:

(1) Trump was in unauthorized possession of national defense information, namely properly marked classified documents.

(2) He was put on notice by the U.S. Government that he was not permitted to retain those documents at Mar-a-Lago.

(3) He continued to maintain possession of the documents (and allegedly undertook efforts to conceal them in different places throughout the property) up until the FBI finally executed a search warrant earlier this month.

Read the Redacted Mar-a-Lago Affidavit the Feds Just Released

That is the ball game, folks. Absent some unforeseen change in factual or legal circumstances, I believe there is little left for the Justice Department to do but decide whether to wait until after the midterms to formally seek the indictment from the grand jury.

The cruelest irony for Trump is that it never needed to be this way.

Put aside that in the chaos following his election loss Trump’s team never undertook the normal procedure for properly sorting through and archiving his presidential records in coordination with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Put aside that properly marked classified records were shipped to Mar-a-Lago and sat there for months until he began turning stuff over to NARA in late 2021.

If he had fully cooperated at that point, and returned all of the records to NARA last year, this likely never would have become a criminal matter. DOJ would have declined to take any action, notwithstanding the existence of the classified records, and it would have been a “no harm, no foul” situation. Just another minor story in the Trump saga of incompetence.

But Trump just could not bring himself to play by the rules. He turned over 15 boxes last January but did not turn over all the records. Political operatives from conservative organizations started whispering into his ear that he had legal precedent on his side to refuse to turn over the classified records to NARA (he did not). His lawyers surprisingly wrote a rather condescending letter to DOJ in May 2022, effectively arguing that even if there were still classified records at Mar-a-Lago the FBI lacked the authority to take any criminal action against Trump given his former status as president. Then, in June 2022 after the FBI executed a subpoena to recover more records at Mar-a-Lago, two Trump lawyers wrote (and one signed) a sworn affidavit reassuring the government there were no more classified records at the property.

We now know that statement was not true. The FBI found multiple more classified records, including some with markings for Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) during the search this month, and not just located in the storage room with the other boxes of records. They found records located in different parts of Mar-a-Lago.

Of course, there are various arguments for why a prosecution might not succeed in this situation.

There is the contention by Trump and his allies that he declassified the documents, whether through a “standing order” or more specific verbal action. No evidence has been produced corroborating that assertion, and there certainly is no indication that the classification markings themselves were ever revised to reflect the declassification. The Trump lawyers in May certainly did not provide any such evidence in their letter to DOJ, and they similarly provided no evidence of it in their “motion” filed earlier this week in district court in Florida seeking a Special Master.

And that is before we even consider if the classification status would matter for an Espionage Act prosecution, which only requires that the information relate to the national defense.

Trump’s Coup Attempt Will Always Be a Way Worse Crime Than Stealing Documents

There is also the issue of selective political prosecution and supposed bad faith by the government in its decision to pursue the case. This is something that has been mentioned ad nauseum by Trump allies on cable news, and was briefly mentioned in the “motion” filed earlier this week in court. Lacking from those arguments is anything beyond rank speculation. That will not fly in court. Just ask Sidney Powell how well it works to try to litigate in court the way you argue on cable news. Hint: it does not go well.

All in all, this case should and in my opinion will result in an indictment. Sure, an indictment does not equal a conviction. Trump is still assumed innocent until proven guilty. There are unknown variables like whether the prosecution would occur in Florida or in D.C. We do not know what evidence Trump might have to substantiate his declassification claim. And we do not know what the courts would say about his various arguments.

Get the popcorn ready either way.

Bradley P. Moss is a Partner and national security attorney at the Washington, D.C. Law Office of Mark S. Zaid, P.C. 

Murkowski’s primary win spurs interest in election reforms, as well as criticism

Yahoo! News

Murkowski’s primary win spurs interest in election reforms, as well as criticism

Jon Ward, Chief National Correspondent – August 23, 2022

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s surprisingly strong showing in Alaska last week has sparked new interest in election reforms used by the state and that could be a model for the rest of the country, as well as scrutiny from those who suspect the changes may favor one party more than another.

Murkowski, a Republican, was targeted for defeat by former President Trump, whom she voted to impeach after the January 6, 2021 assault on the U.S. Capitol. But Murkowski received the most votes of any candidate in the nonpartisan primary, with 44% of the vote to just under 40% for the Trump-backed candidate, Kelly Tshibaka. The rest of the vote was split between a handful of other contenders.

Kelly Tshibaka with Donald Trump
Senate candidate Kelly Tshibaka with Donald Trump during a rally in Anchorage, Alaska, July 9. (Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images)

If Alaska had conducted its primaries the way it has in the past — the way most states still do — Murkowski likely would have lost to Tshibaka. But election reform advocates say it’s a mistake to view the new system as helpful or hostile to either Republicans or Democrats.

“This doesn’t mean Trump-endorsed candidates don’t win. If that’s who a majority of November voters want, that’s who they get. It just means all November voters have a voice rather than just 10% of people who turn out in summer primaries,” said Katherine Gehl, founder of the Institute for Political Innovation, a group that has pushed for the changes.

In other words, Alaska’s new system stops a minority of voters in either party from eliminating a candidate with broad appeal before most voters even cast ballots.

In 2020, Alaska voters approved a system which discarded multiple party primaries and merged them all into one contest. Last week, all voters cast ballots in one single primary, rather than separate primaries for Republicans, Democrats and other minor parties.

The top four vote-getters advanced to the fall election, the final round of voting. Murkowski, with 82% of the vote counted, has received almost 69,000 votes, far more than the 39,545 she received in the 2016 Republican primary and more than the 53,872 votes she received in the 2010 Republican primary.

Murkowski lost that 2010 primary to a more right-wing Republican candidate, Joe Miller, but she ran as a write-in candidate in the fall general election, and pulled off a remarkable and decisive victory.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski
Sen. Lisa Murkowski at the Capitol on July 21. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

The second change Alaskans made in 2020 was to the fall election, known as the general election. The winner of that contest will now be chosen by ranked-choice voting, ensuring that the eventual winner will receive more than 50% support from the voters, rather than winning with less than 50% as other candidates split up the rest of the vote.

Much of the attention on election reforms in the past few years has been on ranked-choice voting. But Murkowski’s survival last week had nothing to do with ranked choice.

Reform advocates increasingly say that it is the combination of nonpartisan primaries with ranked-choice voting that will do the most to depolarize American politics and empower politicians to fix problems, and their emphasis is ever more so on the primary part of the equation.

“We see the combination of nonpartisan primaries and ranked-choice voting as the most powerful election reform,” Nick Troiano, executive director of Unite America, told Yahoo News. Unite America published a report last year showing that 8 out of 10 members of Congress are effectively chosen by about 10% of voters, because of the party primary system.

“Reform is gaining momentum as more Americans are realizing that if they want to fix the people they have to fix the system,” Troiano said.

Sarah Palin
Sarah Palin at the Conservative Political Action Conference earlier this year. (Lev Radin/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images)

But some Republicans in Alaska have attacked the voting reforms. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who is running for Congress, has been one of the loudest critics. Palin called the new system “crazy” and “cockamamie” even though it might enable her to win the special election for former Rep. Don Young’s open seat, even though she finished second in the first round of voting.

Palin finished with 32% of the vote, behind Democrat Mary Peltola’s 38%, but ahead of fellow Republican Nick Begich’s 29%. If enough of Begich’s voters listed Palin as their second choice, she could end up the winner when all the votes are finally tabulated on August 31.

Republicans in the state legislature also told the Anchorage Daily News that there will likely be efforts to repeal parts of the new system in the next legislative session. And right-wing activists have complained that Murkowski worked behind the scenes to help pass the nonpartisan primary and ranked-choice system because it would favor her politically.

But in Nevada, Democrats are opposing the push by reformers to enact the very same system that Republicans are complaining about in Alaska. Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak and both U.S. senators, Jacky Rosen and Catherine Cortez Masto — both also Democrats — all are against the changes. And Democrats in Nevada led the legal challenge to stop the issue to be decided by voters in the first place, but the state Supreme Court ruled in June that the reforms would be allowed on the ballot this fall.

Nevada voters will have to approve of the nonpartisan primary and ranked-choice system in two separate referendums, this year and again in 2024, for it to become state law.

Gov. Steve Sisolak
Gov. Steve Sisolak, D-Nev. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images)

“I’d be worried if we were not attracting political opposition because that would mean the status quo is not threatened by these reforms,” Troiano said.

It makes sense that both political parties find it disconcerting to get rid of party primaries. It is the way that they have chosen a nominee for every political office since the 1970s, when party bosses lost control of the nominating process.

But public discontent with the political status quo is rising. A recent New York Times/Siena College poll found that 50% of Americans think the country’s system of government should have “major reforms,” and 8% think it should be “completely replaced.” Another 29% said they think at least “minor changes” are required.

Troiano shared the results of a recent poll conducted by Frank Luntz for Unite America that showed 65% support for a nonpartisan primary, and only 13% opposition.

And as the number of unaffiliated voters rises in some states, it may be that letting go of the party primary is the best way for Republicans and Democrats to reduce the chance of a viable third-party establishing itself, or of multiple parties bursting through. These election reforms would enable both parties to grow beyond their most extreme and hardline voters and to send representatives to Congress, state legislatures and even the presidency. The reforms would bolster pragmatic politicians who are looking to please the majority of voters by solving problems rather than a small slice of the electorate that only wants them to fight the other side.

“Eventually, one of two things will happen: Either more states will adopt Alaska’s system, or the frustrated middle will become large enough to push both sides out,” wrote Henry Olsen, a conservative columnist for the Washington Post. “That latter response is what’s happening in many European countries as traditional parties are swept aside in favor of new, outsider ones.”

Trump envoy releases letter from National Archives deemed ‘extraordinarily damning’ for Trump

The Week

Trump envoy releases letter from National Archives deemed ‘extraordinarily damning’ for Trump

Peter Weber, Senior editor – August 23, 2022

U.S. National Archives

The National Archives and Records Administration waited until May 12 to give the FBI access to the highly classified documents retrieved from former President Donald Trump in January, despite the Justice Department’s “urgent” requests for the materials, according to a letter from National Archivist Debra Wall released late Monday by conservative journalist John Solomon, one of Trump’s two authorized NARA liaisons.

The May 10 letter to Trump’s lawyers also affirms that the National Archives found more than 700 pages of classified documents, including “special access program materials” — among the most highly classified secrets in government — in the 15 boxes recovered from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago complex. More classified material was taken from Mar-a-Lago by the FBI in June and August.

Much of the letter covers Wall’s rejection of a request by Trump’s lawyers to shield the documents from the FBI on executive privilege grounds. The White House counsel said President Biden “defers to my determination,” Wall wrote, and after discussions with the Office of Legal Counsel, “the question in this case is not a close one.”

“The executive branch here is seeking access to records belonging to, and in the custody of, the federal government itself,” Wall wrote, “not only in order to investigate whether those records were handled in an unlawful manner but also, as the National Security Division explained, to ‘conduct an assessment of the potential damage resulting from the apparent manner in which these materials were stored and transported and take any necessary remedial steps.'”

The letter released by Trump’s team is “extraordinarily damning for Trump” and his team, Politico‘s Kyle Cheney marveled on Twitter. “Trump allies pointed to this letter as some kind of evidence of Biden White House meddling,” but “what it shows is officials expressing extreme alarm about national security damage based on records being held by Trump.”

The NARA letter is “damning” to Trump “on any number of levels,” including its “lack of any reference to a claim by Trump’s representatives that he had declassified any of the classified materials,” adds University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck. “It’s also telling that, even though this letter really hurts the Trump version of events, it wasn’t released by the Biden Administration or NARA. It was released by Trump’s own team — both a self-inflicted wound and further proof of how the government has been playing by the rules.”