Connect with us

Politics

Trump Hosts Rally in Nevada, Defying State Rules Against Large Gatherings

Published

on

  • President Trump held an indoor rally in Henderson, Nevada, directly violating the state’s rules limiting gatherings to 50 people. It marked his first indoor rally since one in Tulsa, Oklahoma this past June, which experts say likely contributed to COVID-19 spikes in the city.
  • Pictures and videos showed thousands of people shoulder-to-shoulder, many not wearing masks, which were only required for those who would be seen on TV standing behind Trump.
  • Nevada’s governor condemned Trump for “reckless and selfish actions” that endangered lives, meanwhile, the City of Henderson threatened the venue with penalties and business license removal.
  • Trump hit back, saying he believed the rules did not apply to him, and that he was not worried about spreading the virus. His campaign also downplayed the risk of the indoor rally, saying they checked temperatures and offered sanitizers and masks.

Trump Rally

President Donald Trump held an indoor rally in Henderson, Nevada Thursday in direct defiance of his administration’s coronavirus guidelines and state-wide restrictions that limit gatherings to 50 people.

Pictures and videos from the event showed thousands of people packed into a warehouse, shoulder to shoulder. Very few masks could be seen among the crowd. According to the Associated Press, the only people required to wear face coverings were the supporters who stood directly behind Trump and whose images would be shown on TV. 

The event marked the first large indoor event the president has held since his Tulsa rally in June. The city’s top health official later said that rally “more than likely” contributed to the surge of cases Tulsa County saw in the following weeks.

Multiple people staffing the Tulsa event as well as some Secret Service officers tested positive for the coronavirus. Notably, former presidential candidate Herman Cain also contracted the virus just days after attending the rally, and died just weeks later. It is unknown, at least publicly, where Cain caught the virus.

Regardless, Tulsa turned out to be a major disaster for the Trump campaign, which largely took to holding smaller outdoor rallies afterward. However, in Nevada, the president wanted to go bigger — despite the 50-person gathering limit on both indoor and outdoor venues that was put in place by Gov. Steve Sisolak since May.

Pushback From Leaders

As a result, the Trump campaign received significant pushback from local leaders and other officials for trying to hold a rally that violated state-level restrictions.

According to The New York Times, the campaign decided to hold the rally indoors “after two outdoor rallies in the state were scuttled.” One of those rallies was set to be held at a Reno-Tahoe Airport hangar, but it fell through the Airport Authority sent a letter to the tenants who leased the hangar telling them that the event would violate the state limit on gatherings.

After that, according to a Trump administration official, the campaign “vetted five different outdoor venues, all of which were blocked by the governor.” 

They eventually decided on holding the rally indoors on the floor of the Xtreme Manufacturing plant, despite the fact that, according to its website, the company has “restricted meetings and gatherings to no more than 10 people in large areas.”

Last month, the owner of the venue told reporters that he was fined $11,000 by the state for violating coronavirus restrictions. The fine was in relation to a Trump campaign event and beauty pageant he held at a hotel that was attended by hundreds of people.

In a statement, City of Henderson spokesperson Kathleen Richards told reporters the city had issued both written and verbal warnings to the organizer saying that the event “as planned would be in direct violation of the governor’s COVID-19 emergency directives.”

“Large live events must be approved by the Nevada Department of Business and Industry, Division of Industrial Relations and at this time, the City has not been notified that this event has been approved,” she continued. “The City may assess a fine of up to $500 per violation of the governor’s directives as well as suspend or revoke the business license.”

Nevada Governor Goes After Trump

In a series of tweets before the rally, Gov. Sisolak personally took aim at Trump for directly ignoring the rules he had put into place to try and protect Nevadans.

“Tonight, President Donald Trump is taking reckless and selfish actions that are putting countless lives in danger here in Nevada,” he wrote. 

“Despite reports from his own White House, despite local officials in Southern & Northern Nevada reiterating to the venues the existing restrictions in State emergency directives, tonight, the President is knowingly packing thousands into an indoor venue to hold a political rally.”

Sisolak also argued that Trump failed to develop a national strategy for dealing with the pandemic, and added, “he didn’t have the guts to make tough choices — he left that to governors and the states. Now he’s decided he doesn’t have to respect our State’s laws. As usual, he doesn’t believe the rules apply to him.”

“Instead, he came into our State and blatantly disregarded the emergency directives and tough choices made to fight this pandemic and begin reopening our economy by hosting an indoor gathering that’s categorized as ‘high risk’ according to his own CDC,” he continued, accusing Trump of holding the rally for his own political gain, and saying his actions were “shameful, dangerous and irresponsible.”

Trump & Campaign Defend Rally

In a statement to the media, Trump campaign spokesperson Tim Murtaugh rejected criticisms of the rally and concerns that it was dangerous. He claimed that rallygoers were given temperature checks and that they had access to hand sanitizer and masks, which they were encouraged to wear.

“If you can join tens of thousands of people protesting in the streets, gamble in a casino, or burn down small businesses in riots, you can gather peacefully under the 1st Amendment to hear from the President of the United States,” he said.

Trump himself also seemed to echo that idea during the rally, calling Sisolak a “political hack,” and pushing back on his restrictions by telling rallygoers that he would support them “if the governor came after you” for attending his event.

He also downplayed the coronavirus multiple times, telling the crowd the U.S. was “making the last turn” in defeating the virus, and arbitrarily claiming: “We will very easy defeat the China virus.”

Notably, he did not mention the fact that COVID-19 has now claimed nearly 200,000 American lives and is still killing around 1,000 a day. 

In an interview with the Las Vegas Review-Journal after the rally, the president said that he believed he was not subject to Gov. Sisolak’s order limiting gatherings to 50 people. In fact, he blamed Sisolak for forcing him to have the event indoors.

Trump also reportedly “complained that holding the rally indoors limited the size of the crowd” and said he was not afraid of getting the coronavirus from speaking at the event.

“I’m on a stage and it’s very far away,” he said. “And so I’m not at all concerned.”

The president’s rally in Henderson is not the only time in the last week that he has openly flouted state-level rules. According to The Washington Post, while speaking during an outdoor campaign event in Winston-Salem, North Carolina on Tuesday: “Trump mocked pandemic restrictions by not wearing a mask and jeered at the state’s restrictions against outdoor gatherings of more than 50 people.”

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (The Washington Post) (Associated Press)

Politics

Supreme Court Begins Contentious New Term as Approval Rating Hits Historic Low

Published

on

The most volatile cases the court will consider involve affirmative action, voting rights, elections, and civil rights for the LGBTQ+ community.


High Court to Hear Numerous Controversial Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday officially kicked off a new term that will be marked by a number of very contentious cases.

The justices, led by a conservative super-majority, will hear many matters that have enormous implications for the American people.

The first case the court will hear this term involves a major environmental dispute that will determine the scope of government authority under the Clean Water Act — a decision that could have a massive impact on U.S. water quality at a time when water crises’ have been heightened by climate change.

The case also comes amid increasing concerns about federal inaction regarding climate change, especially after the Supreme Court significantly limited the government’s power to act in this area at the end of its last term.

Cases Involving Race

Several of the most anticipated decisions also center around race, including a pair of cases that challenge affirmative action programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.

For over four decades, the high court has repeatedly upheld that race can be a factor in college admissions to ensure a more equitable student body. Despite the fact that multiple challenges have been struck down in the past, the court’s conservative super majority could very well undo 40 years of precedent and undermine essential protections.

The high court will decide a legal battle that could significantly damage key voting protections for minorities set forth under the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The case in question stems from a lower court opinion that invalidated Alabama’s congressional map for violating a provision in the VRA prohibiting voting rules that discriminate on the basis of race.

Alabama had drawn its map so only one of its seven congressional districts was majority Black, despite the fact that nearly one in every three voting-age residents in the state are Black. 

States’ Power Over Elections 

Also on the topic of gerrymandering and elections, the justices will hear a case that could have a profound impact on the very nature of American democracy. The matter centers around a decision by the North Carolina Supreme Court to strike down the Republican-drawn congressional map on the grounds that it amounted to an illegal gerrymander that violated the state’s Constitution.

The North Carolina GOP appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause gives state legislatures almost total control over how federal elections are carried out in their state under a theory called the independent state legislature doctrine.

“That argument, in its most extreme form, would mean that [sic] no state court and no state agency could interfere with the state legislature’s version of election rules, regardless of the rules set down in the state constitution,” NPR explained.

In other words, if the Supreme Court sides with the North Carolina Republicans, they would essentially be giving state legislatures unchecked power over how voting maps are designed and elections are administered.

LGBTQ+ Rights

Another notable decision the justices will make could have huge implications for the LGBTQ+ community and civil rights more broadly. That matter involved a web designer in Colorado named Lori Smith who refused to design websites for same-sex couples because she believed it violates her right to religious freedoms.

That belief, however, goes against a Colorado nondiscrimination law that bans businesses that serve the public from denying their services to customers based on sexual orientation or identity.

As a result, Smith argues that the Colorado law violates the right to free speech under the First Amendment. If the high court rules in her favor, it would undermine protections for the LGBTQ+ community in Colorado and likely other states with similar laws.

Experts also say such a ruling could go far beyond that. As Georgetown University’s Kelsi Corkran told NPR, “if Smith is correct that there’s a free speech right to selectively choose her customers based on the messages she wants to endorse,” the Colorado law would also allow white supremacists to deny services to people of color because that “would be a message of endorsement.”

Record-Low Approval Rating

The court’s high-stakes docket also comes at a time when its reputation has been marred by questions of legitimacy.

A new Gallup poll published last week found that the Supreme Court’s approval rating has sunk to a record low. Specifically, less than half of Americans said they have at least a “fair amount” of trust in the judicial branch — a 20% drop from just two years ago.

Beyond that, a record number of people also now say that the court is too conservative. Experts argue that these numbers are massively consequential, especially as the U.S. heads into yet another highly-contentious court term.

“The Supreme Court is at an important moment,” Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs told The Hill

“Trust in the institutions has vastly diminished, certainly among Democrats, and many have a close eye on how they rule on other vital matters. If decisions seem to keep coming from a very pointed political direction, frustration and calls for reform will only mount.”

See what others are saying: (The Hill) (CNN) (The Wall Street Journal)

Continue Reading

Politics

Biden Mistakenly Calls Out For Dead Lawmaker at White House Event

Published

on

The remarks prompted concerns about the mental state of the president, who previously mourned the congresswoman’s death in an official White House statement.


“Where’s Jackie?” 

Video of President Joe Biden publicly asking if a congresswoman who died last month was present at a White House event went viral Wednesday, giving rise to renewed questions about the leader’s mental acuity.

The remarks were made at the White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health, which Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-In.) had helped convene and organize before her sudden death in a car accident.

The president thanked the group of bipartisan lawmakers who helped make the event happen, listing them off one by one, and appearing to look around in search of Rep. Walorski when he reached her name.

“Jackie, are you here? Where’s Jackie?” he called. “I think she wasn’t going to be here to help make this a reality.” 

The incident flummoxed many, especially because Biden had even acknowledged her work on the conference in an official White House statement following her death last month.

“Jill and I are shocked and saddened by the death of Congresswoman Jackie Walorski of Indiana along with two members of her staff in a car accident today in Indiana,” the statement read.

“I appreciated her partnership as we plan for a historic White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health this fall that will be marked by her deep care for the needs of rural America.”

The Age Maximum Question

Numerous social media users and news outlets presented the mishap as evidence that Biden, who is 79, does not have the mental capacity to serve as president. Others, meanwhile, raised the possibility of imposing an age maximum for the presidency.

Most of the comments against the president came from the right, which has regularly questioned his mental stability. However, the idea of an age limit goes beyond Biden and touches on concerns about America’s most important leaders being too old.

While Biden is the oldest president in history, former President Donald Trump — who is 76 and has also had his mental state continually questioned — would have likewise held that title if he had won re-election in 2020.

These concerns extend outside the presidency as well: the current session of Congress is the oldest on average of any Congress in recent history, and the median ages are fairly similar among Republicans and Democrats when separated by chambers.

There is also a higher percentage of federal lawmakers who are older than the median age. Nearly 1 out of every 4 members are over the age of 70.

Source: Business Insider

What’s more, some of the people in the highest leadership positions are among the oldest members. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.), is the oldest-ever House Speaker at 82, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) — the president pro tempore of the Senate and third person in line for the presidency — is the same age, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is 80.

As a result, it is unsurprising that a recent Insider/Morning Consult poll found that 3 in 4 Americans support an age max for members of Congress, and more than 40% say they view the ages of political leaders as a “major” problem.

Those who support the regulations argue that age limits are standard practice in many industries, including for airplane pilots and the military, and thus should be imposed on those who have incredible amounts of power over the country.

However, setting age boundaries on Congress and the President would almost certainly necessitate changes to the Constitution, and because such a move would require federal lawmakers to curtail their own power, there is little political will.

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (Business Insider) (NBC News)

Continue Reading

Politics

Churches Protected Loophole in Abuse Reporting for 20 years, Report Finds

Published

on

In some cases, Clergy members failed to report abuse among their congregation, but state laws protected them from that responsibility.


A Nationwide Campaign to Hide Abuse

More than 130 bills seeking to create or amend child sexual abuse reporting laws have been neutered or killed due to religious opposition over the past two decades, according to a review by the Associated Press.

Many states have laws requiring professionals such as physicians, teachers, and psychotherapists to report any information pertaining to alleged child sexual abuse to authorities. In 33 states, however, clergy are exempt from those requirements if they deem the information privileged.

All of the reform bills reviewed either targeted this loophole and failed or amended the mandatory reporting statute without touching the loophole.

“The Roman Catholic Church has used its well-funded lobbying infrastructure and deep influence among lawmakers in some states to protect the privilege,” the AP stated. “Influential members of the Mormon church and Jehovah’s witnesses have also worked in statehouses and courts to preserve it in areas where their membership is high.”

“This loophole has resulted in an unknown number of predators being allowed to continue abusing children for years despite having confessed the behavior to religious officials,” the report continued.

“They believe they’re on a divine mission that justifies keeping the name and the reputation of their institution pristine,” David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, told the outlet. “So the leadership has a strong disincentive to involve the authorities, police or child protection people.”

Abuses Go Unreported

Last month, another AP investigation discovered that a Mormon bishop acting under the direction of church leaders in Arizona failed to report a church member who had confessed to sexually abusing his five-year-old daughter.

Merrill Nelson, a church lawyer and Republican lawmaker in Utah, reportedly advised the bishop against making the report because of Arizona’s clergy loophole, effectively allowing the father to allegedly rape and abuse three of his children for years.

Democratic State Sen. Victoria Steele proposed three bills in response to the case to close the loophole but told the AP that key Mormon legislators thwarted her efforts.

In Montana, a woman who was abused by a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses won a $35 million jury verdict against the church because it failed to report her abuse, but in 2020 the state supreme court reversed the judgment, citing the state’s reporting exemption for clergy.

In 2013, a former Idaho police officer turned himself in for abusing children after having told 15 members of the Mormon church, but prosecutors declined to charge the institution for not reporting him because it was protected under the clergy loophole.

The Mormon church said in a written statement to the AP that a member who confesses child sex abuse “has come seeking an opportunity to reconcile with God and to seek forgiveness for their actions. … That confession is considered sacred, and in most states, is regarded as a protected religious conversation owned by the confessor.”

See what others are saying: (Associated Press) (Deseret) (Standard Examiner)

Continue Reading