Contact Me By Email


What To Do When You're Stopped By Police - The ACLU & Elon James White

What To Do When You're Stopped By Police - The ACLU & Elon James White

Know Anyone Who Thinks Racial Profiling Is Exaggerated? Watch This, And Tell Me When Your Jaw Drops.


This video clearly demonstrates how racist America is as a country and how far we have to go to become a country that is civilized and actually values equal justice. We must not rest until this goal is achieved. I do not want my great grandchildren to live in a country like we have today. I wish for them to live in a country where differences of race and culture are not ignored but valued as a part of what makes America great.

Friday, September 20, 2024

Pro-Trump Georgia election board votes to require hand counts of ballots - The Washington Post

Pro-Trump Georgia election board votes to require hand counts of ballots

"Critics plan to sue, saying the new requirement would almost certainly lead to errors and could disrupt the process of certifying the vote in a crucial battleground state.

Georgia’s State Election Board members discuss proposals at the Capitol in Atlanta on Friday. (Mike Stewart/AP)

ATLANTA — The Georgia State Election Board approved a rule Friday requiring counties in the critical presidential battleground to hand-count all ballots this year, potentially upending the November election by delaying the reporting of results.

The change was spearheaded by a pro-Trump majority that has enacted a series of changes to the state’s election rules in recent weeks and approved the hand-count requirement despite a string of public commenters who begged board members not to.

Critics included democracy advocates who accused the board of intentionally injecting chaos and uncertainty into the presidential contest, as well as election supervisors and poll workers who said hand counts would take too long, cost money and almost certainly produce counting errors. The office of the Republican state attorney general, which is responsible for advising the board, wrote in an opinion that the change was unlawful.

The board voted 3-2 to approve the measure, which would require the hand count in addition to the customary machine count in each precinct. The rule requires the hand count to take place the night of the November election or the next day. But dozens of election officials said that would be physically impossible in all but the smallest counties. Many also said in public comments Friday that it is far too late in the year to adopt new procedures for which their staffs have not been trained and for which they have no money.

“Military ballots have already been issued,” said Ethan Compton, elections supervisor in southern Georgia’s Irwin County. “The election has begun. This is not the time to change the rules. That will only lower the integrity of our elections.”

The hand-count requirement was one of 11 rules expected to be up for a vote on Friday, the latest batch the State Election Board has considered in recent weeks in an effort, proponents say, to make state elections more secure and transparent. The flurry is the work of a new right-wing majority that took control of the board in May with an avowed mission of preventing fraud and other irregularities from tainting the presidential result this year.

All three are supporters of former president Donald Trump, and the rules they are pushing have been promoted by the state’s leading proponents of the false claim that Joe Biden stole the Georgia election in 2020.

Board member Janice Johnston, who was among the three voting in favor, said making sure the number of ballots cast is equal to the number of votes logged by the machines is essential to establish as early as possible so that any discrepancies can be investigated.

“It’s better to do it at the beginning than to try to do it at the end, when you don’t have a remedy if there’s a miscount,” she said.

A handful of speakers defended the new rules, citing irregularities in the 2020 election and claiming that hand-counting would bring needed transparency at a time when trust in the system is low.

“Why aren’t public servants allowing us to see the accountability?” asked Mary Belle Hodges, a resident of Gwinnett County, in suburban Atlanta.

The person who proposed the hand count, Fayette County Board of Elections member Sharlene Alexander, told the state board that much of the criticism is based on misinformation because the rule requires the counting of the number of ballots — to make sure the count matches the machine totals — but it does not require hand tabulation of how people voted.

Critics said that’s still an unnecessary burden on election offices. And most speakers warned of the myriad ways they believe a hand count would upend the presidential contest in Georgia — an electoral battleground that Biden won by fewer than 12,000 votes four years ago out of some 5 million cast.

Several pointed to federal court precedent recommending a 90-day “quiet period” ahead of elections during which it is widely considered imprudent to change the rules because of the risk of confusion, error and insufficient training.

Others said hand-counting would cost millions across the state, with the need to hire and train additional workers to conduct the counting, which the rule specifies must be done by three individuals per precinct. Another concern: Requiring poll workers to handle ballots — in some cases multiple times, if the hand counts don’t match the machines and must be started over — injects a security risk into the otherwise strict chain-of-custody rules surrounding ballot handling.

Saira Draper, a Democratic member of the state legislature and election lawyer from DeKalb County, was pointed in her comments at the meeting.

“It makes me question whether members of this board are operating in good faith,” Draper said. “Putting 11, maybe 12 new rules into play days before Election Day is a grift. We are setting up our counties to fail. Why do we know they are going to fail? Because they are telling you that.”

Democrats have already sued over a rule passed earlier this year that could allow counties to delay certification, with a hearing scheduled Oct. 1. More litigation is expected.

Research and practice have shown again and again that hand-counting of ballots is less accurate than machine tallies — and that it can take days, weeks or months, depending on the size of the jurisdiction.

Most jurisdictions in the United States already audit election results by hand-counting a sample of ballots and comparing the results with machine tallies. They do so after unofficial results have been reported, encouraging confidence in the result without gumming up counting on election night.

An early version of the hand-counting plan, which was proposed by one of the majority board members, Janelle King, would have required the count to take place on election night in each precinct.

The board agreed to alter that proposal; the version taken up Friday allows counties to begin the hand count in their central offices as late as the next day. The rule requires three poll workers to count each precinct’s tallies independently. If their totals don’t match, they must report the discrepancy to the county election board. The hand count would be required to be completed within the week, which experts say is not possible.

Earlier this year, the board passed a rule that critics say could empower county boards to delay certification of results. The rule allows the boards to demand “reasonable inquiries” if they have questions about the outcome of an election. The rule does not specify what a reasonable inquiry is, and it places no limits on the time frame of such a probe or what documents a board can demand.

Georgia law requires county boards to certify their results by the Monday following an election, but critics of the new rule say it could lead boards to misinterpret their power and refuse to certify, thereby slowing the process of state-level certification.

In a presidential election, the calendar for determining which presidential electors will convene and send their votes to Washington is fixed and inflexible, with disruptions having the potential to derail the process. This year, electors are due to convene in every state on Dec. 17, a precursor to the counting of electoral votes in Washington on Jan. 6, 2025.

Some critics say that because the hand-counting requirement would almost certainly inject error into the tabulation process, it could give county boards the evidence they need to investigate results and delay certification. Some questioned whether the two rules together amount to intentional sabotage of state elections.

“Requiring poll workers to hand-count ballots after the close of polls will do nothing more than provide exhausted patriots with an opportunity to undermine public confidence through an honest mistake,” said Joseph Kirk, elections chief in Bartow County, northwest of Atlanta.

The office of state Attorney General Chris Carr (R) also weighed in with a formal analysis of the proposal on Thursday, stating that state law does not permit hand-counting ballots at the precinct level.

Board chairman John Fervier, who was appointed by Gov. Brian Kemp (R), voted against the proposal and said he thinks the rule puts the board in legal jeopardy.

“If the legislature had wanted this, they would have put it in statute,” he said. “This board is not here to make law. We’re here to interpret law, and I don’t see anywhere in statute where we’re interpreting the hand-counting of ballots after they come out of the machine.”

The State Election Board carries a wide range of responsibilities, including investigating the administration of elections and recommending sanctions or even prosecution for mismanagement or fraud. It also makes recommendations for new laws and writes rules to promote uniformity and integrity in state elections.

It is a bipartisan board, with its five members appointed by the governor, the state House, the state Senate and each of the two major parties. Its role has typically been far less prominent than that of the secretary of state or others involved in administering Georgia’s vote.

The new majority’s partisan tilt has unsettled democracy advocates, county election administrators and the office of Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R), which sent a blistering letter to the panel this week denouncing the rules being considered Friday, including one that would require changes to absentee and provisional ballots.

“To underscore the absurdity of the timing of the Board’s actions,” wrote Raffensperger’s general counsel, Charlene McGowan, “[the ballots] have already been printed, and counties will have already begun mailing absentee ballots to voters before any rule change would take effect.”

She added: “It is simply impossible to implement this change for 2024.”

The board opted on Friday to postpone action on the proposed ballot changes.

Trump mentioned the three majority members by name at an Atlanta rally over the summer and referred to them as “pit bulls fighting for honesty, transparency and victory.”

Trump has repeatedly declined to say he will accept the results of the 2024 election and has complained of Democratic “interference,” saying he believes the only way he can lose is if the other side cheats."

Pro-Trump Georgia election board votes to require hand counts of ballots - The Washington Post

Abortion Bans Have Delayed Emergency Medical Care. In Georgia, Experts Say This Mother’s Death Was Preventable.

Abortion Bans Have Delayed Emergency Medical Care. In Georgia, Experts Say This Mother’s Death Was Preventable.

“At least two women in Georgia died after they couldn’t access legal abortions and timely medical care in their state, ProPublica has found. This is one of their stories.

Amber Thurman, a 28-year-old mother, died after she couldn’t access legal abortion care in Georgia. The state’s maternal mortality review committee found that her death was preventable and said a delay in care had a “large” impact. Photo Illustration by Andrea Wise/ProPublica. Photo by Nydia Blas for ProPublica.

In her final hours, Amber Nicole Thurman suffered from a grave infection that her suburban Atlanta hospital was well-equipped to treat.

She’d taken abortion pills and encountered a rare complication; she had not expelled all of the fetal tissue from her body. She showed up at Piedmont Henry Hospital in need of a routine procedure to clear it from her uterus, called a dilation and curettage, or D&C.

But just that summer, her state had made performing the procedure a felony, with few exceptions. Any doctor who violated the new Georgia law could be prosecuted and face up to a decade in prison.

Thurman waited in pain in a hospital bed, worried about what would happen to her 6-year-old son, as doctors monitored her infection spreading, her blood pressure sinking and her organs beginning to fail.

It took 20 hours for doctors to finally operate. By then, it was too late.

The otherwise healthy 28-year-old medical assistant, who had her sights set on nursing school, should not have died, an official state committee recently concluded.

Tasked with examining pregnancy-related deaths to improve maternal health, the experts, including 10 doctors, deemed hers “preventable” and said the hospital’s delay in performing the critical procedure had a “large” impact on her fatal outcome.

Their reviews of individual patient cases are not made public. But ProPublica obtained reports that confirm that at least two women have already died after they couldn’t access legal abortions and timely medical care in their state.

There are almost certainly others.

Committees like the one in Georgia, set up in each state, often operate with a two-year lag behind the cases they examine, meaning that experts are only now beginning to delve into deaths that took place after the Supreme Court overturned the federal right to abortion.

Thurman’s case marks the first time an abortion-related death, officially deemed “preventable,” is coming to public light. ProPublica will share the story of the second in the coming days. We are also exploring other deaths that have not yet been reviewed but appear to be connected to abortion bans.

Doctors warned state legislators women would die if medical procedures sometimes needed to save lives became illegal.

Though Republican lawmakers who voted for state bans on abortion say the laws have exceptions to protect the “life of the mother,” medical experts cautioned that the language is not rooted in science and ignores the fast-moving realities of medicine.

The most restrictive state laws, experts predicted, would pit doctors’ fears of prosecution against their patients’ health needs, requiring providers to make sure their patient was inarguably on the brink of death or facing “irreversible” harm when they intervened with procedures like a D&C.

“They would feel the need to wait for a higher blood pressure, wait for a higher fever — really got to justify this one — bleed a little bit more,” Dr. Melissa Kottke, an OB-GYN at Emory, warned lawmakers in 2019 during one of the hearings over Georgia’s ban.

Doctors and a nurse involved in Thurman’s care declined to explain their thinking and did not respond to questions from ProPublica. Communications staff from the hospital did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Georgia’s Department of Public Health, which oversees the state maternal mortality review committee, said it cannot comment on ProPublica’s reporting because the committee’s cases are confidential and protected by federal law.

The availability of D&Cs for both abortions and routine miscarriage care helped save lives after the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, studies show, reducing the rate of maternal deaths for women of color by up to 40% the first year after abortion became legal.

But since abortion was banned or restricted in 22 states over the past two years, women in serious danger have been turned away from emergency rooms and told that they needed to be in more peril before doctors could help. Some have been forced to continue high-risk pregnancies that threatened their lives. Those whose pregnancies weren’t even viable have been told they could return when they were “crashing.”

Such stories have been at the center of the upcoming presidential election, during which the right to abortion is on the ballot in 10 states.

But Republican legislators have rejected small efforts to expand and clarify health exceptions — even in Georgia, which has one of the nation’s highest rates of maternal mortality and where Black women are three times more likely to die from pregnancy-related complications than white women.

When its law went into effect in July 2022, Gov. Brian Kemp said he was “overjoyed” and believed the state had found an approach that would keep women “safe, healthy and informed.”

After advocates tried to block the ban in court, arguing the law put women in danger, attorneys for the state of Georgia accused them of “hyperbolic fear mongering.” 

Two weeks later, Thurman was dead.


Thurman and her son in a photo she posted on social media the year before her death via Facebook

Thurman, who carried the full load of a single parent, loved being a mother. Every chance she got, she took her son to petting zoos, to pop-up museums and on planned trips, like one to a Florida beach. “The talks I have with my son are everything,” she posted on social media.

But when she learned she was pregnant with twins in the summer of 2022, she quickly decided she needed to preserve her newfound stability, her best friend, Ricaria Baker, told ProPublica. Thurman and her son had recently moved out of her family’s home and into a gated apartment complex with a pool, and she was planning to enroll in nursing school. 

The timing could not have been worse. On July 20, the day Georgia’s law banning abortion at six weeks went into effect, her pregnancy had just passed that mark, according to records her family shared with ProPublica.

Thurman wanted a surgical abortion close to home and held out hope as advocates tried to get the ban paused in court, Baker said. But as her pregnancy progressed to its ninth week, she couldn’t wait any longer. She scheduled a D&C in North Carolina, where abortion at that stage was still legal, and on Aug. 13 woke up at 4 a.m. to make the journey with her best friend.

On their drive, they hit standstill traffic, Baker said. The clinic couldn’t hold Thurman’s spot longer than 15 minutes — it was inundated with women from other states where bans had taken effect. Instead, a clinic employee offered Thurman a two-pill abortion regimen approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, mifepristone and misoprostol. Her pregnancy was well within the standard of care for that treatment.

Getting to the clinic had required scheduling a day off from work, finding a babysitter, making up an excuse to borrow a relative’s car and walking through a crowd of anti-abortion protesters. Thurman didn’t want to reschedule, Baker said.

At the clinic, Thurman sat through a counseling session in which she was told how to safely take the pills and instructed to go to the emergency room if complications developed. She signed a release saying she understood. She took the first pill there and insisted on driving home before any symptoms started, Baker said. She took the second pill the next day, as directed.

Deaths due to complications from abortion pills are extremely rare. Out of nearly 6 million women who’ve taken mifepristone in the U.S. since 2000, 32 deaths were reported to the FDA through 2022, regardless of whether the drug played a role. Of those, 11 patients developed sepsis. Most of the remaining cases involved intentional and accidental drug overdoses, suicide, homicide and ruptured ectopic pregnancies.

Baker and Thurman spoke every day that week. At first, there was only cramping, which Thurman expected. But days after she took the second pill, the pain increased and blood was soaking through more than one pad per hour. If she had lived nearby, the clinic in North Carolina would have performed a D&C for free as soon as she followed up, the executive director told ProPublica. But Thurman was four hours away.

Thurman, left, and her best friend, Ricaria Baker, in 2020 Courtesy of Ricaria Baker

On the evening of Aug. 18, Thurman vomited blood and passed out at home, according to 911 call logs. Her boyfriend called for an ambulance. Thurman arrived at Piedmont Henry Hospital in Stockbridge at 6:51 p.m.

ProPublica obtained the summary narrative of Thurman’s hospital stay provided to the maternal mortality review committee, as well as the group’s findings. The narrative is based on Thurman’s medical records, with identifying information removed. The committee does not interview doctors involved with the case or ask hospitals to respond to its findings. ProPublica also consulted with medical experts, including members of the committee, about the timeline of events.

Within Thurman’s first hours at the hospital, which says it is staffed at all hourswith an OB who specializes in hospital care, it should have been clear that she was in danger, medical experts told ProPublica.

Her lower abdomen was tender, according to the summary. Her white blood cell count was critically high and her blood pressure perilously low — at one point, as Thurman got up to go to the bathroom, she fainted again and hit her head. Doctors noted a foul odor during a pelvic exam, and an ultrasound showed possible tissue in her uterus.

The standard treatment of sepsis is to start antibiotics and immediately seek and remove the source of the infection. For a septic abortion, that would include removing any remaining tissue from the uterus. One of the hospital network’s own practices describes a D&C as a “fairly common, minor surgical procedure” to be used after a miscarriage to remove fetal tissue.

After assessing her at 9:38 p.m., doctors started Thurman on antibiotics and an IV drip, the summary said. The OB-GYN noted the possibility of doing a D&C the next day.

But that didn’t happen the following morning, even when an OB diagnosed “acute severe sepsis.” By 5:14 a.m., Thurman was breathing rapidly and at risk of bleeding out, according to her vital signs. Even five liters of IV fluid had not moved her blood pressure out of the danger zone. Doctors escalated the antibiotics.

Instead of performing the newly criminalized procedure, they continued to gather information and dispense medicine, the summary shows.

Doctors had Thurman tested for sexually transmitted diseases and pneumonia.

They placed her on Levophed, a powerful blood pressure support that could do nothing to treat the infection and posed a new threat: The medication can constrict blood flow so much that patients could need an amputation once stabilized.

At 6:45 a.m., Thurman’s blood pressure continued to dip, and she was taken to the intensive care unit. 

At 7:14 a.m., doctors discussed initiating a D&C. But it still didn’t happen. Two hours later, lab work indicated her organs were failing, according to experts who read her vital signs. 

At 12:05 p.m., more than 17 hours after Thurman had arrived, a doctor who specializes in intensive care notified the OB-GYN that her condition was deteriorating. 

Thurman was finally taken to an operating room at 2 p.m.

By then, the situation was so dire that doctors started with open abdominal surgery. They found that her bowel needed to be removed, but it was too risky to operate because not enough blood was flowing to the area — a possible complication from the blood pressure medication, an expert explained to ProPublica. The OB performed the D&C but immediately continued with a hysterectomy.

During surgery, Thurman’s heart stopped.

Her mother was praying in the waiting room when one of the doctors approached. “Come walk with me,” she said.

Until she got the call from the hospital, her mother had no idea Thurman had been pregnant. She recalled her daughter’s last words before she was wheeled into surgery — they had made no sense coming from a vibrant young woman who seemed to have her whole life ahead of her:

“Promise me you’ll take care of my son.”

Thurman and her son in a selfie she posted online in 2020, two years before her death via Facebook

There is a “good chance” providing a D&C earlier could have prevented Amber Thurman’s death, the maternal mortality review committee concluded.

Every state has a committee of experts who meet regularly to examine deaths that occurred during or within a year after a pregnancy. Their goal is to collect accurate data and identify the root causes of America’s increasing maternal mortality rate, then translate those lessons into policy changes. Their findings and recommendations are sent to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and their states publish an annual report, but their reviews of individual cases are never public.

Georgia’s committee has 32 regular members from a variety of backgrounds, including OB-GYNs, cardiologists, mental health care providers, a medical examiner, health policy experts, community advocates and others. This summer, the committee reviewed deaths through Fall 2022, but most states have not gotten that far.

After reviewing Thurman’s case, the committee highlighted Piedmont’s “lack of policies/procedures in place to evacuate uterus immediately” and recommended all hospitals implement policies “to treat a septic abortion on an ongoing basis.”

It is not clear from the records available why doctors waited to provide a D&C to Thurman, though the summary report shows they discussed the procedure at least twice in the hours before they finally did.

Piedmont did not have a policy to guide doctors on how to interpret the state abortion ban when Thurman arrived for care, according to two people with knowledge of internal conversations who were not authorized to speak publicly. In the months after she died, an internal task force of providers there created policies to educate staff on how to navigate the law, though they are not able to give legal advice, the sources said.

In interviews with more than three dozen OB-GYNs in states that outlawed abortion, ProPublica learned how difficult it is to interpret the vague and conflicting language in bans’ medical exceptions — especially, the doctors said, when their judgment could be called into question under the threat of prison time.

Take the language in Georgia’s supposed lifesaving exceptions.

It prohibits doctors from using any instrument “with the purpose of terminating a pregnancy.” While removing fetal tissue is not terminating a pregnancy, medically speaking, the law only specifies it’s not considered an abortion to remove “a dead unborn child” that resulted from a “spontaneous abortion” defined as “naturally occurring” from a miscarriage or a stillbirth.

Thurman had told doctors her miscarriage was not spontaneous — it was the result of taking pills to terminate her pregnancy.

There is also an exception, included in most bans, to allow abortions “necessary in order to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or the substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.” There is no standard protocol for how providers should interpret such language, doctors said. How can they be sure a jury with no medical experience would agree that intervening was “necessary”?

ProPublica asked the governor’s office on Friday to respond to cases of denied care, including the two abortion-related deaths, and whether its exceptions were adequate. Spokesperson Garrison Douglas said they were clear and gave doctors the power to act in medical emergencies. He returned to the state’s previous argument, describing ProPublica’s reporting as a “fear-mongering campaign.”

Republican officials across the country have largely rejected calls to provide guidance. 

When legislators have tried, anti-abortion groups have blocked them.

In 2023, a group of Tennessee Republicans was unable to push through a small change to the state’s abortion ban, intended to give doctors greater leeway when intervening for patients facing health complications.

“No one wants to tell their spouse, child or loved one that their life is not important in a medical emergency as you watch them die when they could have been saved,” said Republican Rep. Esther Helton-Haynes, a nurse who sponsored the bill.

The state’s main anti-abortion lobbyist, Will Brewer, vigorously opposed the change. Some pregnancy complications “work themselves out,” he told a panel of lawmakers. Doctors should be required to “pause and wait this out and see how it goes.”

At some hospitals, doctors are doing just that. Doctors told ProPublica they have seen colleagues disregard the standard of care when their patients are at risk of infection and wait to see if a miscarriage completes naturally before offering a D&C.

Although no doctor has been prosecuted for violating abortion bans, the possibility looms over every case, they said, particularly outside of well-funded academic institutions that have lawyers promising criminal defense.

Doctors in public hospitals and those outside of major metro areas told ProPublica that they are often left scrambling to figure out on a case-by-case basis when they are allowed to provide D&Cs and other abortion procedures. Many fear they are taking on all of the risk alone and would not be backed up by their hospitals if a prosecutor charged them with a crime. At Catholic hospitals, they typically have to transfer patients elsewhere for care.

When they do try to provide care, it can be a challenge to find other medical staff to participate. A D&C requires an anesthesiologist, nurses, attending physicians and others. Doctors said peers have refused to participate because of their personal views or their fear of being exposed to criminal charges. Georgia law allows medical staff to refuse to participate in abortions.

Thurman’s family members may never learn the exact variables that went into doctors’ calculations. The hospital has not fulfilled their request for her full medical record. There was no autopsy.

For years, all Thurman’s family had was a death certificate that said she died of “septic shock” and “retained products of conception” — a rare description that had previously only appeared once in Georgia death records over the last 15 years, ProPublica found. The family learned Thurman’s case had been reviewed and deemed preventable from ProPublica’s reporting.

The sting of Thurman’s death remains extremely raw to her loved ones, who feel her absence most deeply as they watch her son grow taller and lose teeth and start school years without her. 

They focus on surrounding him with love but know nothing can replace his mother. 

On Monday, she would have turned 31.

A photo of Thurman that she posted online in 2020 via Facebook

BREAKING: Matt Gaetz named in damning court affidavit

Wednesday, September 18, 2024

New reporting makes Vance’s handling of Springfield story look even worse

New reporting makes Vance’s handling of Springfield story look even worse

“According to the city manager in Springfield, Ohio, JD Vance knew the truth about Haitian immigrants. The senator and Donald Trump kept lying anyway.

It was early last week when Sen. JD Vance turned to social media to tout a conspiracy theory that was ugly, false and racist in equal measure. The Republican senator specifically argued online that there were “reports” that “showed” Haitian immigrants abducting and eating household pets in Springfield, Ohio.

We now know, of course, that these offensive claims were ridiculously untrue, but new reporting from The Wall Street Journal appears to shed new light on how Vance amplified the lie.

City Manager Bryan Heck fielded an unusual question at City Hall on the morning of Sept. 9, from a staff member of Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance. The staffer called to ask if there was any truth to bizarre rumors about Haitian immigrants and pets in Springfield. “He asked point-blank, ‘Are the rumors true of pets being taken and eaten?’” recalled Heck. “I told him no. There was no verifiable evidence or reports to show this was true. I told them these claims were baseless.”

Before we proceed, let’s pause to acknowledge an important problem: Vance and his team didn’t pursue matters in the proper order. The GOP senator lent his support to the racist conspiracy theory, then a member of his team set out to determine whether Vance was telling the truth.

Ordinarily, responsible officials — especially those seeking national office — try to learn facts first, not second.

Nevertheless, the local city manager told Team Vance the truth, at which point the senator, Donald Trump and their 2024 operation decided to repeat the lie anyway, even during a nationally televised presidential debate.

On CNN’s “State of the Union” this past weekend, Vance defended himself by claiming, “[A]ll that I have done is surface the complaints of my constituents.” Except, the Wall Street Journal reporting puts this in a new light: The Republican vice presidential nominee amplified falsehoods, set out to learn the truth, discovered that the claims were baseless and then continued to echo the lie.

Wait, it gets worse.

Vance could’ve helped put out the fire he helped start. He also could’ve shifted his attention elsewhere and allowed the fire to burn out. But as recently as this week, a spokesperson for the senator provided the Wall Street Journal with a police report in which a Springfield resident had claimed her pet might have been taken by Haitian neighbors. The WSJ’s article added:

But when a reporter went to Anna Kilgore’s house Tuesday evening, she said her cat Miss Sassy, which went missing in late August, had actually returned a few days later — found safe in her own basement. Kilgore, wearing a Trump shirt and hat, said she apologized to her Haitian neighbors with the help of her daughter and a mobile-phone translation app.

This is amazing for a few reasons, including the fact that eight days after Vance’s initial tweet, in the midst of the senator’s own scandal, his office is still, even now, actively trying to pretend that his lie had merit.

What’s more, this anecdote pointed to a local woman who made a false claim, realized she’d made a mistake, and then apologized to her neighbors. Or put another way, she showed the kind of decency and maturity that Vance and Trump have so far refused to even consider.“

JD Vance exposed for knowingly lying about ‘pet-eating’ rumors in Spring...

The Real Reason Trump and Vance Are Spreading Lies About Haitians

The Real Reason Trump and Vance Are Spreading Lies About Haitians

“Investing in Rust Belt communities would not fix what they see as the actual problem.

Donald Trump and J. D. Vance
Chip Somodevilla / Getty

Produced by ElevenLabs and News Over Audio (NOA) using AI narration.

Six days into terrorizing the city of Springfield, Ohio, with baseless nonsense about Haitian immigrants kidnapping and eating people’s pets, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, J. D. Vance, admitted that the tales were intended to push a certain narrative.

“If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do,” Vance told CNN on Sunday. Days earlier, Vance had acknowledged that “it’s possible, of course, that all of these rumors will turn out to be false”—a confession that implies that he does not care whether they are true.

Since former President Donald Trump and Vance began centering their campaign on lies about Haitian immigrants being “dumped” on Springfield, municipal buildingsschools, and local festivals have had to be evacuated or canceled because of bomb threats. Asked whether he condemned the threats against Haitian immigrants, Trump couldn’t even bring himself to say that the threats were wrong, and instead simply spread misinformation about the migrants again: “I don’t know what happened with the bomb threats. I know that it’s been taken over by illegal migrants, and that’s a terrible thing that happened.” Besides failing to offer even a shred of concern for residents menaced by bomb threats, the statement was also false: The Haitians in Springfield are living and working there legally using green cards, humanitarian parole, and Temporary Protected Status, a legal immigration status for people who cannot return safely to their country of origin. Trump has vowed to deport them anyway.

Russell Moore: Trump’s lie is another test for Christian America

The reward that the Haitian community in Springfield has received for doing exactly what Republicans demand of legal immigrants—work, provide for themselves, contribute to their community—is a campaign of slander and intimidation. Contrary to Vance’s insistence that he is creating “stories” about a community to alleviate the suffering of Ohioans, what the Trump campaign is actually doing is invoking that suffering as license to justify violence and harm. This is the most employed rhetorical device of the Trump campaign: point to someone’s suffering and then offer as a solution the application of state violence against a disfavored group, using Americans’ problems as a pretext to harm people they have chosen to hate.

Trump and Vance have said that the Haitians were “dumped” on Springfield, that they came illegally, that they’ve spread disease, that they’re eating people’s pets. These are all long-standing staples of anti-immigrant rhetoric regardless of the origin of the immigrants, attempts to use shocking, disgust-provoking anecdotes to overcome people’s ability to reason. Vance has now essentially admitted that he is weaving “stories” for a larger purpose, but it’s worth examining these allegations a little more closely to see what that purpose is.

“What we know is that the Haitians who are in Springfield are legal. They came to Springfield to work. Ohio is on the move, and Springfield has really made a great resurgence with a lot of companies coming in,” Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, a Republican, told ABC News this past weekend. “These Haitians came in to work for these companies. What the companies tell us is that they are very good workers. They’re very happy to have them there. And frankly, that’s helped the economy.”

There are a few things about DeWine’s comments that are worth noting. One is that the Haitian migrants came to work and have benefited the town’s economy; they were not “dumped” there. The Haitians’ arrival did not hurt Springfield; it helped revitalize the kind of town that Trump and Vance claim to want to help. The Republican ticket’s allegations about disease and pet-eating appear to be completely spurious—the author of the Facebook post from which those stories originated has publicly apologized for spreading them and acknowledged that they have no evidence to support them. As my colleague David Graham notes, the arrival of the Haitian workers helped spur an economic revival, exactly what Vance has said he wants for his home state of Ohio.

There are only two grains of truth in Vance’s complaints about the Haitian migrants. One is that last year, a local boy, Aiden Clark, was killed when a Haitian driver hit Clark’s school bus by accident—though Vance has falsely called his death an act of “murder.” Aiden’s father, Nathan Clark, has condemned “morally bankrupt” politicians and “hatred spewing people” for trying to exploit his son’s death to foment racism against Haitians. Another is that the influx of workers has strained local resources: The New York Timesreported earlier this year that the new arrivals have put pressure on housing, medical facilities, and schools. Of course, this is how economic development works; people arrive, drawn by promises of gainful employment, and then services are expanded to meet demand. Those services in turn provide more jobs and opportunities, in a virtuous cycle.

To the extent that the arrival of the Haitian workers who have helped revive Springfield’s economic fortunes has caused problems, those problems have obvious solutions—investment in housing, schools, infrastructure, and so on—that would benefit everyone else in Springfield. Deporting the workers, in contrast, would harm the town, reverse its economic revival, and tear apart the community. And the town’s leadership is not asking for them to be deported. Springfield’s Republican mayor, Rob Rue, called the threats a “hateful response to immigration in our town.” He has been subjected to death threats for defending the Haitian community.

So the question is, why are Trump and Vance so fixated on deporting the Haitians?

One reason is Trump has a particular, well-documented hatred toward Haitians. The former president infamously referred to Haiti as one of the “shithole countries” that the United States should reject immigrants from, in favor of those from countries “like Norway.” Trump had also previously complained that Haitians “all have AIDS.” Trump’s hostility to Haitians extends to other Black immigrants—he also reportedly complained that if Nigerian immigrants were allowed to stay, they would “never go back to their huts.” Nigerian Americans are the most highly educated immigrant subgroup in America, and Haitians, as the Cato Institute’s David Bier has documented, have a higher rate of employment than native-born Americans and are much more likely than other immigrants or native-born Americans to join the U.S. military. Trump apologists have repeatedly insisted that Trump simply wants immigrants who can contribute to American society, but Trump himself ignores Black immigrants’ contributions in favor of his own ingrained stereotypes about Black people.

David A. Graham: What was he even talking about?

Another reason is Trump and Vance appear not to be interested in helping anyone in Springfield, or anywhere else for that matter. Their actions point to a political theory of the election, which is that fearmongering about immigrants, especially Black immigrants, will scare white people into voting for Trump. They also point to an ideological theory of the nation, which is that America belongs to white people, and that the country would be better if it were poorer and weaker, as long as it were also whiter. Trump and Vance have a specific policy agenda for socially engineering the nation through state force to be whiter than it is now: mass deportation, repealing birthright citizenship, and denaturalization of American citizens. This agenda, in addition to being immoral, would wreck the American economy. Republican elected officials in Ohio are defending the Haitians in Springfield because they understand that removing them would have a terrible effect on their town and state—the same terrible effect that Trump’s agenda would have on the country.

Trump’s and Vance’s statements reveal a belief that it would be better to leave dying towns in the Midwest to wither away than revive them and have to share that prosperity with people who are Black, and they seem to be betting that enough American voters in enough swing states agree that it would be better to be broke than integrated. In exchange for these fearful votes, a second Trump administration would proceed to shower tax cuts on the wealthy, raise them on everyone else, slash regulations on big business, and further undermine unions, while towns like Springfield would be left to tumble further into decline.

That message, spoken plainly, is not as appealing as they wish it were. So to justify hatred toward the Haitian migrants, Trump and Vance chose to smear them as pet-eating savages. Saying “we will invest more in these communities to ensure that they continue to prosper” would not have been good enough. It would not have removed what Trump and Vance see as the actual problem, which is not poverty, addiction, lack of affordable housing, or job loss, but the mere presence of Haitians on American soil.“