RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
2 Truths and 31 Lies Joe Biden Has Told About His Work in the Civil Rights Movement Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=53145"><span class="small">Shaun King, Shaun King's Newsletter</span></a>   
Thursday, 30 January 2020 13:47

King writes: "In 1987, when Joe Biden was running for President for the very first time, his campaign got swallowed up in a swarm of lies that Joe Biden told about himself all over the country."

Joe Biden. (photo: Getty)
Joe Biden. (photo: Getty)


2 Truths and 31 Lies Joe Biden Has Told About His Work in the Civil Rights Movement

By Shaun King, Shaun King's Newsletter

30 January 20


Since the early 1970s, Joe Biden has been a serial liar when it comes to his "work" in the Civil Rights Movement. It's the equivalent of stolen valor and is fundamentally disqualifying.

n 1987, when Joe Biden was running for President for the very first time, his campaign got swallowed up in a swarm of lies that Joe Biden told about himself all over the country. First, Biden was caught plagiarizing a famous speech from British Labour Party Leader Neil Kinnock - including parts of the speech that came straight from Kinnock’s personal life that simply were not true for Joe Biden. Then, he plagiarized yet another speech from the late Robert Kennedy and another from JFK and another from Hubert Humphrey. You have to understand - this was pre-Internet, pre-social media, and something in Joe Biden’s mind made him think he could get away with it. He didn’t. And it ultimately tanked his campaign.

Soon, it was discovered that Biden had not just plagiarized those four speeches, but had lied about academic awards, lied about scholarships, lied about his ranking at Syracuse Law School, where he had nearly been kicked out for plagiarizing five entire pages of an essay, and that he also frequently lied about something that he had made a central part not just of his 1988 presidential campaign bid, but of his entire public persona. Temporarily, Joe Biden paid a price for most of those lies, but was never fully held to account for the worst of them all. On the backs of people who actually paid an enormous price for being activists and organizers in the Civil Rights Movement, Joe Biden created a completely false narrative of his work and contributions to the movement that persists to this very day. Instead of plagiarized speeches, he was plagiarizing details about his actual life. He not only told these lies in previous generations, they have now fully returned to his current stump speeches in churches and venues around the country as if he never acknowledged and apologized for them in the past. It’s shameful. Below is a full accounting of every lie Joe Biden has told about his work in the Civil Rights Movement. First, though, we must begin with two truths.

On two very important occasions, Joe Biden actually told the entire truth about his involvement in the Civil Rights Movement. Nearly everything else has been a lie. I’ve counted at least 31 different lies he has told about being an activist, organizer, sit-in demonstrator, boycott leader, voter registration volunteer, Black church trainee and more in the Civil Rights Movement, but every single time I dig, I actually find more interviews, more lies, more fabrications, more tales he told to voters, reporters, historians, and more. First, let’s start with the two truths.

In September of 1987, with his presidential campaign completely consumed by his lies, Biden, with his entire public life in shambles, fell on his sword and told the truth about his lack of work in the Civil Rights Movement. In repeated interviews, campaign events, and national keynote speeches at the Democratic Conventions of both Maine and California, Biden told wild tales of how he marched, sat-in, and boycotted during the Civil Rights Movement and even went so far as to suggest that he had traveled to Selma and Birmingham with such actions, but with his campaign in tatters, he finally said they were all lies.

Truth #1

“During the 1960s, I was in fact very concerned about the civil rights movement. I was not an activist. I worked at an all-black swimming pool in the east side of Wilmington, Delaware. I was involved in what they were thinking, what they were feeling. But I was not out marching. I was not down in Selma. I was not anywhere else. I was a suburbanite kid who got a dose of exposure to what was happening to black Americans.”

When pushed about false claims that he had also been against the Vietnam War, Biden also owned up to that lie and said:

“When I was at Syracuse, I was married, I was in law school, I wore sports coats. You're looking at a middle-class guy. I am who I am. I'm not big on flak jackets and tie-dyed shirts. You know, that's not me.”

Here’s the full C-Span video of these remarks.

Those honest, transparent words from Joe Biden are the single truest words he ever spoke about his involvement in the Civil Rights Movement. From 1987 until the release of his autobiography, Promises to Keep: On Life and Politics, 20 years later, as he entered yet another presidential race, Biden was actually very careful to never tell another lie about his involvement in the Civil Rights Movement. In fact, that leads us to:

Truth #2

Joe Biden’s autobiography is colorful. He’s a great story teller. When I purchased the book, which is 400 pages long, I was curious how he would frame his “involvement” in the Civil Rights Movement. I read the book from cover to cover. In light of what Joe Biden is now again saying in the 2020 presidential campaign about his work in the Civil Rights Movement, what I found in his autobiography shocked me. He reduces his entire involvement in the Civil Rights Movement to two sentences on page 43. It reads,

I worked there (a swimming pool) back in the early sixties, when freedom rides, sit-ins, and Bull Connor’s dogs and fire hoses were starting to get people’s attention. Like everybody in America in those years, I was getting dramatic lessons about segregation and civil rights from newspapers and television.

Newspapers and television. That’s it. That’s the whole section he wrote in his 400 page autobiography about his involvement in the Civil Rights Movement.

Newspapers and television. That’s where Joe Biden, like most people, in his own words, admitted that he learned about the Civil Rights Movement. Newspapers and television. Not during trainings in Black churches. Not during sit-ins at segregated restaurants and movie theaters. Not during the deeply organized marches and protests he claimed to be a part of along Route 40.

See, I just wrote a book that comes out this April. The editing and fact-checking process was fierce. It took months. The same was true of Biden’s autobiography. Unlike his campaign speeches and media interviews, Biden, or his aides, knew better than to tell lies about his days as an activist in the Civil Rights Movement in his autobiography - or for that matter in any of his future books. It’s never mentioned - not one single time. And that’s what we call a tell. In every fact-checked publication, speech, and video Joe Biden has ever produced, every mention of his “work” in the Civil Rights Movement is completely omitted. It doesn’t exist. Could you imagine being a 17 year old white boy in Delaware in 1960 who did sit-ins, boycotts, protests, marches, and voter registration drives, while getting trained in Black churches, and not having one single story or memory or recollection to tell about it? It’s fundamentally absurd. Those events would’ve had such a drastic impact on Joe, and on his whole family for that matter, that they would be told non-stop.

That’s why it is so incredibly disturbing, that after Joe Biden admitted in 1987 to telling such egregious lies about his role in the Civil Rights Movement that he has now, under the pressure of the 2020 presidential campaign, resorted to doing it again. If it was a lie in 1987 that he marched and did sit-ins and so much more, it’s a lie today.

Joe Biden’s Very Modern Lies About the Civil Rights Movement

After nearly losing his career because of lies, from 1987 until 2014 Joe Biden appeared to refrain from telling any at all about his role in the Civil Rights Movement. But suddenly, while giving a speech at a King Day Breakfast in January of 2014 for the National Action Network, he resorted back to the same old debunked lies and also added one brand new one that he had never told in his entire life saying that he was regularly trained for the Civil Rights Movement in 1960 on Sunday mornings in Black churches when he said,

“And so I got involved in deseg- (pause), I was no ‘big shakes’ Reverend, in the Civil Rights Movement. I got involved in desegregating movie theaters and helping, you may remember, Reverend Moyer in Delaware and Herman Holloway, organized voter registration drives - coming out of Black churches on Sunday - figuring how we were going to move.”

From 2014 until early 2019, Joe Biden would not again repeat the false claim that he was an activist and organizer in the Civil Rights Movement. But once he began running again, he could not resist himself. It’s as if he is not fully clear on how the Internet works.

In Waterloo, Iowa on this past December 5th, 2019 Biden began telling falsehoods again about being an activist and organizer, and then added new color to the lie from 2014 that he was being trained as an activist in Black churches on Sunday mornings, saying,

“I got involved, most of you don’t know me well, I got involved in public life, because when I was about the age of the guy standing over there (points to teenage boy), I got involved in the civil rights movement….

Well, I got my education, Reverend Doc... in the Black church. Not a joke -- because when we used to get organized on Sundays to go out and desegregate movie theaters and things like that, we'd do it through the Black church. I got to admit to you I'd go to my Catholic Mass at 7:30 first, and then I'd show up in the Black church."

Because Joe Biden did not actually do what he’s saying in this video, or in other videos - waking up early as a 17 year old high school senior to go to the 7:30AM Catholic mass so that he could then go to a local Black church for their 10AM church service to be trained for the Civil Rights Movement - he has absolutely no idea just how foolish this sounds. In 1960, during the Civil Rights Movement, even in the Deep South, even in churches pastored by Dr. King himself, Sunday morning was not at all like a Monday night planning meeting or strategy session. Sunday mornings were sacred religious moments of prayer, song, praise, offering, sermon, and invitation. Even during the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Sunday morning services were almost exclusively religious in nature. They weren’t brainstorming sessions, as Biden describes, where Black folk and their white friend named Joe would decide where they’d go desegregate next.

Apparently itching for another scandal to end yet another presidential campaign, Biden continued his lies again - this time at a special service at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Columbia, South Carolina on this past January 20th, 2020. Each time he tells these lies he appears to be abandoning his script and adding new layers of lies on top of the old ones.

“You know, when I was a teenager in Delaware, for real, I got involved in the Civil Rights Movement. We have the 8th largest Black population in America, most people don’t know that. And, uh, I’d go to 8 o’clock mass, then I’d go to Reverend Herring’s church, where we’d meet, in order to organize and figure where we were going to go, whether we were going to desegregate the Rialto movie theater or what we were going to do. I got my education. For real. In the Black Church. And that’s not hyperbole. It’s a fact.”

The Reverend Herring he speaks of there is the late legendary Reverend Otis Herring of Union Baptist Church in Wilmington. Other times this year when Biden tells this story he says he’d leave mass and go to the late Reverend Maurice Moyer’s church. I spoke to former members of their churches, as well as people close to both families. Neither stories are true. Joe Biden met both of these men much later in life and only learned about their great work in retrospect. Reverends Herring and Moyer were revered in Delaware and Joe Biden is abusing their names and deaths by falsely claiming they were his mentors in 1960. They were not. Four different people in Wilmington expressed to me that these claims of Biden are so outrageous and dishonest that it caused them to truly worry for his mental health.

This past week in Iowa Biden went so far as to say he “was raised in the Black church.” It’s about as absurd of a claim as a person running for President has ever made. Again, I must remind you that he has never mentioned any of this for his entire life.

All the Places Biden, Obama, and Staff Carefully Left Out His Lies about the Civil Rights Movement

In 2008 Barack Obama, the first Black man to ever get the Democratic nomination for President gave a rousing speech in Illinois to introduce Joe Biden as his choice for Vice President, he carefully left out any involvement Joe Biden claimed to have in the Civil Rights Movement. Here’s the transcript. Could you imagine how important and relevant such moments would’ve been to include? It’s unthinkable that Joe Biden, as he now says, was trained as a 17 year old white boy in Black churches, boycotted, marched, and put his body on the line all over Delaware, all for equality and freedom, but it never got mentioned one single time by Barack Obama not just in these speeches, but in his entire presidency - not one single time. Ever.

When Joe Biden came up after this speech, to accept the task ahead, he too, left out any mention of any work in the Civil Rights Movement. A few weeks later when Joe Biden was introduced and nominated as the Vice Presidential nominee at the DNC in 2008, one of the most historic times in our country, as we neared closer to electing our first Black president, again, Joe made no mention of his time in the Civil Rights Movement. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. What better time, what better moment would it ever be mentioned? Here’s the transcript.

When the DNC did this long biographical video of Joe at the 2012 convention, they made no mention of any work in the Civil Rights Movement. Even when President Obama bestowed the Presidential Medal of Freedom on Joe Biden, and recounted all of Joe’s accomplishments, not a single mention of the Civil Rights Movement was made - not by Obama, and not by Biden. Here’s the transcript. It is fundamentally preposterous to believe that a former freedom fighter in the Civil Rights Movement got a Presidential Medal of Freedom by the First Black President, but such actions were completely ignored not just in this speech, but for the entirety of eight years.

And here’s the thing - when Joe Biden actually has an experience, like the time where he really was the only white lifeguard at a segregated swimming pool for one single summer in Wilmington, Delaware his stories and details about those moments are endless. He has an entire chapter about that swimming pool in his autobiography. I’ve counted hundreds of very detailed stories he has told about his time there across the years. He won’t stop talking about it.

But from the early 1970s, until this very week, when Joe Biden mentions stories of his work in the Civil Rights Movement, something very un-Joe like happens - the details are scarce. He has no color or nuance on how he felt as an activist or organizer, who he was with, what it looked like, what it sounded like, or what the specific actions were.

Was he afraid? Was he arrested like everybody else? How come his name doesn’t appear in the arrest records? What did he tell his dear mother and father and siblings when he joined the Civil Rights Movement and participated in such bold actions? Who did he travel with to and from each action? What did his classmates and teachers and mentors think? How did the sit-ins end? What did the owners of the restaurants and movie theaters say to him? All of these details, and so many more, are left out, I have found, because they simply do not exist.

Where are the photos? Where are the images or newspaper clippings? Where are the details from Joe Biden in any of his books? Why was it so thoroughly omitted from the entire presidency of Barack Obama?

Below, I have carefully tracked and detailed the painful, disturbing lies Joe Biden has made for nearly 50 years about his involvement in the Civil Rights Movement.

  • I have interviewed esteemed historians of the Civil Rights Movement as well as countless historians of Delaware history.

  • I have interviewed living legends and elders from the Civil Rights Movement in Delaware that were in Wilmington and all over the state when Joe Biden claimed to be doing courageous work in the movement.

  • I have carefully combed through archives of every single newspaper article ever written about the Civil Rights Movement in Delaware, over 1,000 total articles from the time Joe Biden moved to the state until he became a United States Senator.

  • I have found and carefully catalogued every single mention of Joe Biden’s work in the Civil Rights Movement in newspapers, books, and magazines from 1973 until this morning.

  • I have found and carefully catalogued every video mention by Joe Biden of his “work” in the Civil Rights Movement. And my findings are below.

It is amazing that Joe Biden has gotten a pass on this for so long. Current and former elected officials in Delaware told me that it is an open secret among them that Joe Biden is a serial pathological liar when it comes to his “work” in the Civil Rights Movement and that he has told such lies, for so long, so many times, that it is an unwritten rule in Delaware that one must hold their nose and go along with them or risk being ostracized in such a small, close-knit political community. He is a legend there - and crossing him is akin to political suicide. Below, I will begin to unpack and explain the lies.

Videos of the Old Debunked Lies Joe Biden Told About His Role in the Civil Rights Movement

On February 26th, 1987 Joe Biden began giving speeches in New Hampshire as he prepared to run for President. Here he made multiple false claims about marching in the Civil Rights Movement saying, “When I marched in the Civil Rights movement, I did not march with a 12-point program, I marched with tens of thousands of others to change attitudes, and we changed attitudes.”

Except Joe Biden never marched in the Civil Rights Movement. Not once. He didn’t march with or without a 12 point program. It was a complete fabrication. Seven months later Biden explicitly admitted as much when his campaign crashed and burned. What’s doubly disturbing about this is that multiple staffers on his campaign begged him to stop telling this lie. They knew he had never marched in the Civil Rights Movement, but he continued telling the lie anyway.

I spoke directly to Matt Flegenheimer of The New York Times who really broke the video above about where he first unearthed the quotes from Biden’s 1988 presidential campaign staffers. “It’s all in a book that you’ve gotta get. It’s by Richard Ben Cramer. It’s massive. It’s called What It Takes: The Way to the White House and it’s all about the 1988 presidential race.” I bought it as soon as Matt and I hung up the phone. Cramer, who won the Pulitzer Prize, was a brilliant writer. He conducted over 1,000 interviews for the book, which is seen by many as the single best text ever written on modern presidential politics. It’s exhaustive. And there, plain as day, are Biden’s staffers talking about how desperately they wanted Biden to stop telling the lies about working in the Civil Rights Movement. He acknowledged that they were right, but kept on telling the lies anyway. Here’s Kramer, in Chapter 25, speaking to campaign staff:

“How he started in the civil rights movement, remember? The Marches? Remember how that felt? And they’re nodding in the crowd, and he’s got them, sure. Trouble is, Joe didn’t march. He was in high school playing football. The gurus would shake their heads. “That’s not marching.” And Joe would say, “I know, Okay.” But then a week later, another crowd, and Joe would do it again.

"Folks, when I started in public life, in the civil rights movement, we marched to change attitudes ... I remember what galvanized me ... Bull Connor and his dogs ... I'm serious. In Selma." Joe’s voice drops to an urgent whisper. “Absolutely. Made. My. Blood. Run. Cold. Remember?”

But Joe Biden had never seen such things with his own eyes. Turns out, Joe had been telling those lies for years.

In 1983 Joe Biden was a keynote speaker at the Democratic Conference in Maine and falsely claimed there to participate in sit-ins at movie theaters and restaurants to desegregate them when he was 17 years old in 1960.

Joe Biden did no such thing. In fact, nobody did.

Sit-ins at segregated restaurants did not begin in Delaware until 1961 and sit-ins never happened at the segregated movie theaters like the Rialto that Joe Biden sometimes falsely claims to have helped desegregate in 1960. Let me explain.

To get into those theaters you had to be white and purchase a ticket. So African Americans never “sat-in” and whites could only sit-in if they bought a ticket. So every time Joe Biden said he did sit-ins at those theaters he foolishly exposes the reality that he was never there. Protestors were there though. I spoke to them. Not a single protestor or organizer who demonstrated in Wilmington or anywhere in Delaware for that matter, has even one faint memory of seeing Joe Biden at any such event in 1960 when Biden said such actions took place (or 1961 or 1962 or 1963). Their efforts were chronicled almost daily in local papers and in the new book Historic Movie Theaters of Delaware by Michael Nazarewycz, who is seen as the leading expert on the subject. The form of protest that took place at those theaters was not even sit-ins, but relentless picket lines outside of the theater that started in November of 1962 and carried on all the way until 1963 when the theaters were finally desegregated - first by choice in May, then by law in December of 1963.

"When I was 17, I participated in sit-ins to desegregate restaurants and movie houses. And my stomach turned upon hearing the voices of [Arkansas Democratic Governor Orval] Faubus and [Alabama Democratic Governor George] Wallace. My soul raged upon seeing Bull Connor and his dogs."

As you will notice there, Joe Biden, in 1983, also hinted again at actually being in the Deep South during the Civil Rights Movement. That never happened.

In February of 1987 Joe Biden served as a keynote speaker at the California Democratic Convention. In the video below, Joe rekindles the lie that he participated in sit-ins at restaurants and movie theaters saying, “When I was 17 years old, I participated in sit-ins to desegregate restaurants and movie houses of Wilmington, Delaware."

Biden never once participated in a sit-in demonstration in his entire life. Not in Wilmington or elsewhere.

Speaking to a group of reporters in April of 1987, Biden again falsely claimed to have both marched and participated in sit-ins during the Civil Rights Movement. Again, he did neither. Again, his campaign admitted this in September of 1987.

In the video below, from Iowa in May of 1987, Biden, in the crescendo of his speech, falsely claimed to march in the Civil Rights Movement and in the anti-war movement. He did neither.

Pay particular attention in the video below to the flippant vagueness of how Biden describes what he did in the Civil Rights Movement in 1960 when he was just 17 when he says, "I came out of the civil rights movement. I was one of those guys that sat in and marched and all that stuff."

This is not how one who actually did any such thing would EVER describe the courageous work of activism. And it’s not even how Joe Biden himself tells stories about his actual life. He is vague and irreverent because he did not actually do these things.

When pressed further on this, Joe Biden and his 1988 campaign team eventually admitted he never once marched in the Civil Rights Movement that he never once participated in any sit-ins in any restaurants in Wilmington or along Route 40 anywhere in Delaware. When his campaign was finally over, his spokesperson, Larry Rasky, said that Biden may have helped in some non-sit-in kind of way at just one movie theater and one restaurant, but Biden has named and claimed multiple movie theaters and restaurants all over Wilmington and up and down Route 40.

And the restaurant that Joe Biden most often told people for decades that he helped to desegregate as a 17 year old in 1960, the Charcoal Grill, has a dubious and deeply problematic story once it was actually fact-checked by reporters.

On December 26th, 1982 in a story about the history of the Charcoal Pit in the Sunday News Journal in Wilmington, Biden said, he loved the place and only had one negative memory there from his senior year in high school in 1960.

“I organized a civil rights boycott because they wouldn’t serve black kids. One of our football players was black and we went there and they said they wouldn’t serve him. And I said to the others, ‘Hey, we can’t go in there.’ So we all left. It was very brief and not nasty. My clear intent was to boycott.”

Except the lone Black student in the class, Dr. Francis Hutchins, said that wasn’t what happened at all. In September of 1987, as investigative reporters began digging into all of Biden’s lies, they found that even his lone story about desegregating the Charcoal Grill was a farce. Here’s their report:

“That student, who is now a Philadelphia physician, says that Biden’s group was not even aware of what was going on because his ejection from the restaurant happened out of their vision. It was only later, after the students had eaten and left the restaurant, that they found out from the Black student what happened.”

“They weren’t aware of what happened,” Dr. Francis Hutchins, Jr. said. “I was only 16 then. It was my problem and my battle for me to work out. They were oblivious to it until later on.”

It wasn’t just that Joe Biden made these things up, they’ve been written about him hundreds of times in newspapers and magazines going back as early as 1975.

In September of 1975, after Joe Biden was elected to the United States Senate, he soon began working with lifelong bigots and white supremacists to pass/block certain pieces of legislation. In the below Washington Post article from that month we see the first printed account claiming that Joe Biden had been active in the Civil Rights Movement.

It says of Joe that, “He has accumulated some very credible civil rights credentials since adolescence - participating in a high school restaurant boycott and in sit-ins along US 40.”

Both are outright fabrications that were painfully debunked not only by his lone Black high school classmate in the case of the restaurant boycott, but by historians, civil rights leaders, and by Joe Biden’s own timeline in the case of the sit-ins along US 40 Biden claimed to participate in. By the time Biden started running for President in 1987, he had promoted lies about his work in the Civil Rights Movement for the entire previous generation.

In The Morning News in Delaware, also in September of 1975, they repeated the same claim about Biden saying that, “As a young man, he took part in sit-ins to desegregate restaurants along U.S. 40 in Delaware.”

Except Joe Biden did no such thing.

First off, Joe Biden said the only year he participated in the Civil Rights Movement was in 1960 when he was 17 years old. When Joe Biden was caught in his lying scandal in 1987, again, Biden said none of this ever happened and his spokesperson reduced it to lone incident at the Charcoal Grill and something at a movie theatre. The sit-ins and protests along Route 40 in Delaware did not take place until 1961 and 1962. Secondly, they were organized primarily by CORE (The Congress for Racial Equality) with adults who drove and bussed in from states across the country. These were trained, experienced activists and organizers. In fact, in his autobiography, Biden says at great length that one of the primary reasons he decided to take a summer job away from college at a segregated pool in Wilmington was so that he could finally get to know Black people and Black life personally. Had Biden, as he now says, been mentored in Black churches, and protested and sat-in with Black people all over Wilmington in 1960, why would he take a summer job in 1962 to meet the people he says so frequently that he never knew until he took that position? That doesn’t add up.

I spoke directly with Dr. Raymond Arsenault, an expert in the Civil Rights Movement as well as a History Professor at the University of South Florida, who wrote one of the most important texts on the Civil Rights Movement entitled Freedom Riders: 1961 and the Struggle for Racial Justice. It’s the single most sourced book ever written on the topic. He confirmed for me that out of hundreds of interviews and source documents he has never seen a shred of evidence that Biden ever participated in a single sit-in along Route 40 in Delaware. The primary activists and organizers of those actions, including Duane Nichols, who kept meticulous records of the Route 40 protests and Betsy Marston, who managed much of the work at the University of Delaware have also come forward to say that Biden was not a part of their circles and that no records suggest he ever was.

Without fail, when I asked elected officials or legendary activists who I should speak with in Wilmington, they each said that I should speak directly to the first Black Mayor of Wilmington, James Sills - who moved to the city in 1959 and called it home for the past 61 years. An activist and organizer himself, he participated in the actual pickets at the Rialto Theater in 1962-63 and confirmed that they were not sit-ins. He participated in, and was arrested in sit-ins at segregated restaurants. Like almost every other young activist in the area, he went to hear Dr. King in 1960 for the only time he came to Delaware. This, according to Biden, was his hey-day of activism, but he strangely did not go to hear King when he came to town. Mayor Sills, in fact said the first time he ever remembered meeting Joe Biden was closer to 1970 when Biden was running for office. Larry Morris, another veteran of the Civil Rights Movement in Wilmington, said he had no recollection of Biden ever being a part of the work.

And all of this leads me to a man named Mouse. In fact, his name is Richard “Mouse” Smith and he first met Joe Biden in that summer of 1962 when Biden was a lifeguard at the segregated swimming pool. Biden was 19 and Mouse was just 13 years old. Back in July of 2019, in the weeks after Joe Biden and Kamala Harris had a public disagreement in one of the early Democratic debates over Biden’s record on bussing and school integration, the Biden campaign began floating Mouse out to news outlets as someone interesting they could interview that would vouch for Biden’s character. A few places, like Blavity and The Washington Post took the bait. Blavity published an op-ed written by Richard “Mouse” Smith. And the Washington Post wrote a long-form story on Mouse, his life, and how it all intersected with Joe Biden. It was brilliantly written.

But only one thing Mouse said is confusing - very confusing. I called the author of the Washington Post piece, Robert Samuels, and immediately asked for clarification because it seemed like a clear error of some kind. Here’s what it says,

One day, in 1965, Smith told Biden that some politicians and preachers were going to picket outside the Rialto, the last segregated movie theater downtown.

“I’ll be there,” Biden said.

That was Biden’s first known civil rights protest.

In the summer of 1965 Joe Biden was 22 years old and had just graduated from college. According to every statement he’s ever made about his involvement in the Civil Rights Movement, including every lie, every book, every speech, including the very speeches that Joe Biden gave just this week, and last week, and the week before that, Joe said that he was protesting as a 17 year old in 1960. Never, once, has Biden said he attended a protest in 1965 after his senior year of college.

In fact, I searched local, regional, and national archives and not a single protest was documented at the Rialto theater in 1965. It was formally and legally integrated in 1963. But here’s the strange thing - the author of the story, Robert Samuels, said he called the Biden campaign to confirm the dates and the facts of the story, and that they “confirmed” that what Mouse said was true - that it was Biden’s first protest and that it did happen in 1965.

Without saying it, the campaign basically confirmed that everything Biden is saying on the campaign trail right now is a lie.

Because Biden has said 5 times on the record in the past 2 months that he did loads of civil rights work, from protests to trainings in Black churches, all in 1960 when he was just 17.

Mouse said it was one fluke moment that happened 5 years later.

The campaign confirms it was 5 years later.

But records don’t even show anything like that happening at the Rialto 5 years later.

What a mess.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Alan Dershowitz for the Defense: L'Etat, C'est Trump Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=53060"><span class="small">Susan B. Glasser, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Thursday, 30 January 2020 12:21

Glasser writes: "Dershowitz had something larger and more profound to say: Donald Trump has the power to do just about anything he wants to do, and there's nothing that the U.S. Senate can or should do about it."

So long as Trump believes himself to be acting in the national interest, the President's counsel Alan Dershowitz argued, he can do whatever he wants. (photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)
So long as Trump believes himself to be acting in the national interest, the President's counsel Alan Dershowitz argued, he can do whatever he wants. (photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)


Alan Dershowitz for the Defense: L'Etat, C'est Trump

By Susan B. Glasser, The New Yorker

30 January 20


At the Senate impeachment trial on Wednesday, Donald Trump’s lawyer said that the President can do just about anything he wants.

n hour into the Senate trial of Donald John Trump on Wednesday, the emeritus Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz came to the floor to answer a question from a former Harvard law student, Senator Ted Cruz, of Texas. In theory, it was a question that went to the heart of the impeachment case against Trump, about the President’s imposition of a quid pro quo on military aid to Ukraine and whether his motivations mattered. Dershowitz had something larger and more profound to say, however: Donald Trump has the power to do just about anything he wants to do, and there’s nothing that the U.S. Senate can or should do about it.

For more than a week, House managers prosecuting the impeachment case against Trump have argued that the Senate’s failure to convict him would make Trump an unaccountable leader; in effect, a dictator or a king. When Dershowitz spoke, it was if he completely agreed with them. Two days earlier, Dershowitz had told senators that Presidential “abuse of power” should not be considered an impeachable offense under the Constitution. On Wednesday, he took that further—much further. “If a President does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,” he argued. Dershowitz was offering Trump—and all future Presidents—a free pass. His argument seemed unbelievable: as long as the President thinks his reëlection will benefit the country, he can do anything in pursuit of it without fear of impeachment. Really?

Trump has already said that he considers himself empowered by Article II of the Constitution “to do whatever I want.” Video of this extraordinary moment has been played, repeatedly, by House managers in the trial. They clearly saw it as a damning statement made by a power-grabbing President—and then the President’s counsel, in effect, endorsed Trump’s power grab on the floor of the Senate. So long as Trump believes himself to be acting in the national interest, Dershowitz said, he can do whatever he wants. If the past three years have taught us anything, it is that Trump is a President who is comfortable conflating his own interest with the national interest. L’état, c’est Trump.

Were the senators supposed to take this seriously? Was it all just a show for the loyal Trump viewers on Fox? (That, after all, is how Dershowitz landed his Trump gig in the first place—going on the President’s favorite programs night after night to defend him.) After Dershowitz’s rant, his co-counsel Jay Sekulow launched into a long answer that was largely unrelated to the impeachment case surrounding Trump’s Ukraine scheme. He mentioned the 2016 Steele dossier, about Trump’s alleged ties to Russia, and Fusion GPS, the opposition-research firm that funded it. He talked about the F.B.I. and surveillance of the Trump campaign. The conspiracy theories Sekulow offered, though, didn’t really matter any more than Dershowitz’s outlandish constitutional theories did. The Senate math is the Senate math: Trump’s side has the votes to acquit him, and the Senate is running out the clock on the impeachment trial before the President’s inevitable acquittal by a Republican majority. Sekulow and Dershowitz might as well have been reading the phone book.

Their arguments on Wednesday came during the first day of Question Time, a unique aspect of the Presidential impeachment proceeding in which the Senate has up to sixteen hours, divided equally among the parties, over two days, to send written questions to the duelling legal teams, to be read aloud by Chief Justice John Roberts. Like everything else about the Senate trial, Question Time turned out to be a largely partisan box-checking exercise, with Democrats asking questions of the Democratic House managers and Republicans asking questions of the President’s legal team. There was no dialogue or debate between the two sides, or even a genuine effort to poke holes in each other’s arguments; these were, for the most part, parallel conversations. In the first two hours, there were only two questions that broke from the pattern of each party talking to itself. Later in the day, Cruz and several other senators crossed the partisan divide, but only to ask House managers to confirm identifying details about the intelligence-community whistle-blower whose complaint triggered the impeachment inquiry last fall. The House managers refused.

The arguments on the floor, to the extent that there was a running theme, revolved around the one remaining unsettled question: Will Senators hear testimony and evidence that Trump has blocked from Congress, most notably from John Bolton, the former Trump national-security adviser who has, according to the Times, written a devastating account of the President admitting that he was withholding millions in security aid to Ukraine on the condition of politically beneficial investigations? Bolton says that he is prepared to testify to the Senate about it, and there would seem to be no more relevant witness, considering that is precisely the allegation in the first article of impeachment. But Trump and his allies in the Senate G.O.P. are pushing ahead to vote for Trump’s acquittal as soon as Friday, without Bolton’s testimony—or anyone else’s not already in the House record. The managers, not surprisingly, made this the focus of many of their answers. “Don’t wait for the book,” Adam Schiff, the lead House manager, said. Have Bolton testify, he begged the senators. “You can erase all doubt.”

Before the senators’ questions began on Wednesday, I sat down with Zoe Lofgren, one of the House managers prosecuting the case against Trump. The California Democrat has the distinction of having participated in all three impeachment proceedings of our lifetime—as a House Judiciary Committee staffer during Richard Nixon’s impeachment process; as a House Judiciary member during Bill Clinton’s impeachment; and now as a House manager during Trump’s. She told me that the House managers had been working in the Capitol on Sunday when the Times story about Bolton’s forthcoming book was published. “The first words out of my mouth were ‘yikes,’ ” she recalled. “I just thought, Wow, that is a game-changer. That’s like when Nixon admitted everything,” she added, “and he had to announce his resignation.”

Of course, that’s not what happened this time. Not only is Trump not resigning but, in the three days since the Bolton revelations were published, the momentum appears to have shifted in the Senate Republican Conference—against hearing Bolton or any other witnesses. In the corridors off the Senate floor, Cory Gardner, of Colorado—a Republican facing a tough race this fall, who was previously seen as a possible swing vote on the issue—said that he was against witnesses. Republican leaders told reporters that they were prepared to move quickly after a vote against witnesses on Friday to a final vote on acquittal. “The momentum is clearly in the direction of moving to final judgment on Friday,” John Barrasso, of Wyoming, told reporters.

It turns out, once again, that Republican senators are more afraid of Donald Trump than of voters, who continue to strongly favor witness testimony, according to every public poll. Just in case the vote counts weren’t as solid as they seemed to be, the arguments on the floor seemed aimed at scaring any wavering Republicans back into line. Calling Bolton, Trump’s lawyers warned, would not be the end of it. They might call the former Vice-President Joe Biden, or Schiff himself, or the whistle-blower. The Senate “will be effectively paralyzed for months on end,” a Trump White House lawyer, Patrick Philbin, told the senators. “This would drag on for months.”

But will it? On Thursday, the senators’ questions will continue. On Friday, the senators will finally have to do what they have so far avoided, which is vote. Until then, it’s all just talking.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
RSN: An Acquittal of Donald Trump Is By No Means a Certainty Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=63"><span class="small">Marc Ash, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Thursday, 30 January 2020 09:31

Ash writes: "From the place we are now, it is still difficult to imagine 14 Republican senators voting on the floor of the Senate to remove Donald Trump from office. It is, however, finally a moving train - and the entire country is on it."

Monday, Jan. 27, 2020 | Legal Scholar, celebrity and attorney Alan Dershowitz argues during the Impeachment Trial in the US Senate that his client Donald J. Trump did nothing wrong. (photo: Senate Television via AP)
Monday, Jan. 27, 2020 | Legal Scholar, celebrity and attorney Alan Dershowitz argues during the Impeachment Trial in the US Senate that his client Donald J. Trump did nothing wrong. (photo: Senate Television via AP)


An Acquittal of Donald Trump Is By No Means a Certainty

By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News

30 January 20

 

rom the place we are now, it is still difficult to imagine 14 Republican senators voting on the floor of the Senate to remove Donald Trump from office. It is, however, finally a moving train – and the entire country is on it.

A question is often asked of Senate pundits: How many Republican senators would vote to convict Donald Trump if it were a secret vote? The answer is, invariably, more than enough to remove him from office. That answer is normally dismissed as meaningless because the vote will not be secret, but it speaks to a hidden desire on the part of even Trump’s supporters to rid themselves of his burden. What is lacking is not the will on the part of most Senate Republicans, but rather a politically safe means. While that may be cowardly, it is nonetheless a thing, and things can be addressed.

We keep hearing over and over again as the impeachment unfolds, “Let the people decide.” While that is a constitutionally incomplete solution, the Constitution clearly envisions a primary role for the people in the process. Good news! The people now appear to be driving the bus — in real time.

The polling numbers that now show 75% of Americans favoring witness testimony in the Senate impeachment trial are moving the equation rapidly and creating an atmosphere in which the cowardly can find a bit more courage. If a vast majority of the people want witnesses, then it can be assumed the people want the truth. If the truth makes an appearance, it could easily be with a Perry Mason-like flourish.

Subpoena Rudy Giuliani

It would seem certain that former national security advisor John Bolton has, as he says, “a story to tell,” and that story is likely to be highly relevant. The other witnesses the Democrats are seeking include but may not be limited to Mick Mulvaney, Mulvaney’s adviser Robert Blair, and Michael Duffey, an Office of Management and Budget staffer.

So far former federal prosecutor, New York City mayor, and now Trump personal attorney Rudy Giuliani has been “hands off” for congressional Democrats and the Justice Department under Attorney General William Barr. He shouldn’t be.

Giuliani knows more — by far — about the Ukrainian “drug deal” than all the other proposed witnesses combined. His testimony, if compelled, could be explosive on a nuclear scale. Giuliani was Trump’s point man on Ukraine, his personal liaison on the ground in Ukraine trying to implement his plan.

The White House and Giuliani will argue that as Trump’s personal attorney he cannot be compelled to testify, based on both a blanket invocation of executive privilege and more specifically attorney-client confidentiality. The blanket assertion of executive privilege on all matters Trump does not want in the public realm is in all likelihood legally unsustainable. However, the issue of attorney-client confidentiality does raise more potent legal questions.

The principle of attorney-client confidentiality is foundational in US law. It is not, however, absolute. In the hypothetical, for instance, if instead of shooting someone on New York’s Fifth Avenue Trump ordered his attorney, in this case Rudy Giuliani, to do so, neither Trump nor Giuliani would be protected by attorney-client confidentiality. Giuliani would be a material witness and participant in a crime and subject to the full weight of the legal process, which could in turn implicate Trump and create legal exposure for him as well.

In the current case, a Fifth Avenue shooting is not at issue, but High Crimes and Misdemeanors relating to the Ukrainian affair and the impeachment proceeding it has generated are.

Right now, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Republican senators continue to protect Donald Trump, because they calculate doing so is a lesser political risk than removing him from office.

But there is a genie in the bottle named Truth, and that genie is trying very hard to get out. If it does, all bets are off. This thing has the potential to really move.



Marc Ash is the founder and former Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Alan Dershowitz's Latest Defense of Trump Would Let Presidents Get Away With Almost Anything Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50554"><span class="small">Aaron Rupar, Vox</span></a>   
Thursday, 30 January 2020 09:29

Rupar writes: "One of the defenses presented by one of Trump's lawyers during Wednesday's portion of the Senate impeachment trial stood out from the others - big time."

Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz arrives at the Capitol on January 29, 2020. (photo: Tom Williams/Getty)
Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz arrives at the Capitol on January 29, 2020. (photo: Tom Williams/Getty)


Alan Dershowitz's Latest Defense of Trump Would Let Presidents Get Away With Almost Anything

By Aaron Rupar, Vox

30 January 20


Trump’s lawyer argued that anything the president does to stay in power is unimpeachable, short of actual crimes.

ne of the defenses presented by one of Trump’s lawyers during Wednesday’s portion of the Senate impeachment trial stood out from the others — big time.

That’s because it would give presidents almost unlimited power to pervert foreign policy into dirty tricks aimed at boosting their political prospects by defining anything they do to stay in office as part of the national interest.

In response to a Republican senator’s question about whether it’s true that “quid pro quos are often used in foreign policy,” Alan Dershowitz argued they are. But he then went a step further and made a case that even quid pro quos that most everyone would agree are unacceptable aren’t impeachable offenses.

“If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,” Dershowitz said.

He went on:

It would be a much harder case if a hypothetical president of the United States said to a hypothetical leader of a foreign country, ‘unless you build a hotel with my name on it, and unless you give me a million dollar kickback, I will withhold the funds.’ That’s an easy case. That’s purely corrupt and in the purely private interest.

But a complex middle case is, ‘I want to be elected. I think I’m a great president. I think I’m the greatest president there ever was. If I’m not elected the national interest will suffer greatly.’ That cannot be impeachable.

In other words, if the president thinks his or her reelection itself is in the public interest of the United States, then anything short of crimes he or she does to make that happen — including strong-arming foreign governments into announcing investigations into political foes — is justified.

It’s instructive to consider the sorts of things presidents could get away with if Dershowitz’s argument were accepted. And House impeachment manager Adam Schiff did just that immediately after Dershowitz spoke.

Schiff used the example of President Barack Obama’s infamous March 2012 hot mic conversation with then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev in which Obama told Medvedev he’d have more “flexibility” to work with Russia “after my election.”

Schiff asked senators to consider a hypothetical situation in which Obama had instead asked Medvedev to open an investigation into Mitt Romney, his political opponent at the time, and threatened to impose sanctions on Russia if he didn’t.

Nobody would argue a request of that sort is acceptable. And yet by Dershowitz’s standard, it wouldn’t meet the bar for impeachment and removal.

One could even argue that Trump’s conduct with Ukraine was more egregious than the Obama hypothetical, as Trump held up congressionally authorized military aid as part of his quid pro quo and didn’t go through the proper channels to do so. The US government’s top internal watchdog concluded earlier this month that the Trump administration “broke the law when it withheld military aid to Ukraine last year after Congress had approved its disbursal,” as my colleague Alex Ward explained.

Dershowitz’s argument illustrates a broader dynamic I wrote about earlier today: that with former National Security Adviser John Bolton now reportedly prepared to testify that Trump told him directly that the release of the Ukraine aid was conditional on the Ukrainian government agreeing to investigate the Bidens, Republicans are moving the goalposts from “quid pro quos are bad but Trump didn’t do one” to “quid pro quos don’t matter.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
How Cruelty at the Mexican Border Became an American Export Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=53141"><span class="small">Josue De Luna Navarro, BuzzFeed</span></a>   
Thursday, 30 January 2020 09:25

Navarro writes: "In the early weeks of 2020, hundreds of Central American families once again woke up and started a long northward journey together."

Mexican National Guards escort four Honduran women to an immigration checkpoint after detaining them near Ciudad Hidalgo on Jan. 22. (photo: Marco Ugarte/AP)
Mexican National Guards escort four Honduran women to an immigration checkpoint after detaining them near Ciudad Hidalgo on Jan. 22. (photo: Marco Ugarte/AP)


How Cruelty at the Mexican Border Became an American Export

By Josue De Luna Navarro, BuzzFeed

30 January 20


The southward expansion of US border enforcement has been happening for years. Now we're exporting Trump-era cruelty too.

n the early weeks of 2020, hundreds of Central American families once again woke up and started a long northward journey together. It’s a journey they’re forced to take to avoid persecution, economic instability, and the consequences of the climate crisis.

Though the Trump administration has made it all but impossible for Central Americans to get asylum in the US, a new caravan of immigrants has set out from Honduras on foot in hopes of reaching the United States to seek asylum. They are already facing the cruelty of US border enforcement thousands of miles before reaching the US border itself.

Honduran security forces have thrown tear gas at the caravan and Guatemalan authorities have turned away immigrants at the border, the AP reports, while Mexico has declared flatly they won’t allow any immigrant to get to the United States.

Through a combination of threats and tariffs, the US is cajoling countries on the caravan route to turn back these desperate asylum-seekers on its behalf. Homeland Security personnel aren’t confined to their own homeland anymore, either — according to the AP, embedded Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are “providing advisory and capacity building support” at the Guatemala–Honduras border as well.

The Trump administration has been uniquely cruel to these refugees, from its notorious family separation practices to its “Remain in Mexico” policy that forces asylum-seekers to remain in immigrant camps in Mexico. Trump himself has even called on authorities to illegally shoot immigrants.

But the southward expansion of border enforcement is a project that the US Customs Border and Protection has been working on for more than 15 years. All the way back in 2004, CBP commissioner Robert Bonner declared: “American borders are the last line of defense, not the first line.”

Honduran asylum-seekers now know that firsthand.

The CBP’s 2020 strategic plan advocates a “multi-layered comprehensive approach” to border control. It envisions the CBP working with international partners “to develop a seamless network of integrated law enforcement capabilities spanning the border environment.”

Or, as a mission statement earlier in the document declares directly: “We safeguard the American homeland at and beyond our borders.”

In his book Empire of Borders, author Todd Miller quotes former US soldier James Campbell, who said the goal of this approach is to ensure that “all borders face south” — and that immigrants never reach the US–Mexico border in the first place.

Accordingly, the Trump administration has frozen aid and deployed tariffs to force impoverished Central American countries and Mexico to enforce this most expansive vision of the US border.

The bullying worked. Last June, after Trump threatened higher tariffs on Mexico, the country dispatched 15,000 soldiers to its southern border with the goal of turning back asylum-seekers headed north. By all accounts, they’re doing so aggressively.

In August, the Trump administration deployed 65 CBP and 24 ICE agents to Guatemala City to assist in border control. There, as U.S. News and World Report reported this month, ICE agents have been assisting Guatemalan law enforcement in the arrest of immigrants in the caravans.

Immigrants themselves are aware of these risks. But whatever the cruel measures deployed against them, most say the risk is worth escaping the conditions they’re fleeing. “We aren’t living here, we’re just surviving,” Honduran asylum-seeker Elmer Garcia, 26, told the Associated Press. “So it doesn’t make much difference if you die there, or die here.”

In times like these, it’s easy to feel disempowered by the magnitude of the issue. But there is a simple way for us to protect immigrants risking their lives seeking refuge: We must push Congress to defund the border industrial complex.

All the anti-immigrant operations carried out by ICE and CBP are funded by our own taxpayer dollars. And every last one of those dollars is appropriated by Congress. So, tell your member to commit to cutting all money for ICE and CBP.

Seeking asylum is a legal right, and the freedom of movement is a human right. Let’s defund hate and uphold our collective right to freedom.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 Next > End >>

Page 607 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN