SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
A court found that the former Trump lawyer "flagrantly misused his prominent position" and "repeatedly and intentionally made false statements, some of which were perjurious," about the 2020 election.
Rudy Giuliani—onetime mayor of New York City, federal prosecutor, and attorney for former President Donald Trump—was permanently disbarred in New York state on Tuesday for lying about the 2020 presidential election being "stolen" by Democrats.
The New York Supreme Court's Appellate Division unanimously disbarred Giulian, calling his propagation of Trump's "Big Lie" about 2020 election fraud a threat to the public interest and the legal profession.
The panel found that Giuliani—whose law license was suspended in 2021—"flagrantly misused his prominent position as the personal attorney for former President Trump and his campaign" and "repeatedly and intentionally made false statements, some of which were perjurious, to the federal court, state lawmakers, the public … and this court concerning the 2020 presidential election, in which he baselessly attacked and undermined the integrity of this country's electoral process."
"The seriousness of [Giuliani's] misconduct cannot be overstated," the court stressed.
As the New York Law Journalreported:
Once known as "America's Mayor," the 80-year-old has faced mounting legal battles and financial ruin in recent years.
Giuliani was indicted in Arizona in May alongside 17 others for his alleged role in an attempt to overturn Trump's loss in the state during the 2020 presidential election.
Giuliani filed for bankruptcy protection in December following a $148 million defamation judgment leveled against him for false statements in the wake of former President Donald Trump's failed attempt to retain the presidency.
He is also facing multiple actions in New York state—including a $10 million complaint from an alleged former employee who accuses him of sexual assault and wage theft—though many were stayed in the wake of his Chapter 11 filing.
Giuliani—who is also facing felony charges in Georgia along with Trump and others who allegedly tried to subvert the 2020 election—denies these and other accusations, including that he tried to sell presidential pardons for $2 million each.
Barry Kamins, the retired judge who represented Giuliani as he fought to keep his New York law license, said his client "is obviously disappointed in the decision" and that they are weighing their appeals options.
A bar disciplinary committee in the District of Columbia has also recommended that Giuliani be disbarred.
Trump has cast doubt on the upcoming election's fairness about once per day since he announced his candidacy—engaging in a strategy The New York Times referred to as "heads, I win; tails, you cheated."
Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump has cast doubt on the fairness of the 2024 presidential election result significantly more than he had by this time in 2016 or 2020, according to an analysis published Friday in The New York Times.
The Times found more than 500 instances of Trump falsely accusing Democrats of trying to rig, cheat, or steal the 2024 election, or of having done so in 2020. This is a significant increase from the 2020 cycle, when Trump did so roughly 100 times, and 2016, when he did not begin regularly raising concerns about the election's legitimacy until the final weeks of his campaign against Hillary Clinton.
"Though the tactic is familiar—Mr. Trump raised the specter of a 'rigged' election in the 2016 and 2020 cycles, too—his attempts to undermine the 2024 contest are a significant escalation," the Times reported, based on its search of social media posts, interviews, and records of campaign events.
In the 2024 cycle, Donald Trump has escalated his accusations that Democrats are trying to rig or interfere with the election, according to analysis published Friday in The New York Times, which searched social media posts, interviews, and records of campaign events. (Source: The New York Times)
Trump has cast doubt on the upcoming election's fairness about once per day since he announced his candidacy—engaging in a strategy the Times referred to as "heads, I win; tails, you cheated."
Dean Baker, an economist at Center for Economic and Policy Research, referred to the Times' findings as a "big deal" on social media, while Ian Bremmer, a political scientist at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs, jokingly said, in response to the article, that 2024 was "off to a great start."
The Times analysis illustrates that in the 2024 cycle, Trump has broadened his argument about unfairness, suggesting not just that presidential elections are rigged against him but that the Democrats have a strategy of "election interference" that includes legal cases against him. After announcing his candidacy in November 2022, Trump began to argue that the legal cases against him "constituted a 'new way of cheating' in order to 'interfere' in the 2024 election," the Times reported. Trump called the appointment of a special counsel to investigate him a "rigged deal, just as the 2020 election was rigged."
In so doing, Trump has attempted to "undermine democracy" by conflating claims of a stolen election and claims of interference by means of legal action, argued Edward Foley, a constitutional law professor at Ohio State University, in Election Law Blog on Friday.
Turning to media criticism, Foley wrote that the Times repeated Trump's mistaken conflation in its new analysis. Though Trump collapses these arguments, the Times should not, he wrote, arguing that the analysis wrongly lumps together two distinct phenomena:
(1) Trump's false claim that he, not [President Joe] Biden, won more valid votes in enough states for 270 electoral votes in 2020, once allegedly fraudulent and thus unlawful votes are discounted, with (2) Trump's complaints that the electoral process is 'rigged' against him. Perhaps the most famous example of the first category is Trump's brazen assertion on Election Night that 'frankly, we did win this election.' An example in the second category, which the Times cites (without distinguishing it from the first kind of claim) is Trump's assertion that this year's election is 'rigged' because of the Biden [Department of Justice]'s prosecutions of him.
Trump is not alone in preemptively questioning the legitimacy of November's election results. Prominent Republicans are "already rushing to buy into Trump's 2024 election fraud narrative," CNN's Stephen Collinson wrote earlier Friday. Senators such as Ted Cruz (R-Texas), J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) have all failed to commit to honoring the election results despite the fact that "there is no indication that there will be irregularities in the election," Collinson wrote.
In fact, no leading contenders to be Trump's running mate—a list that includes Vance and Rubio—have committed to accepting the election results if Biden wins, according to NBC News.
Trump has hurt public confidence in elections, a pillar of democracy, in a way that will have long-term ramifications, Richard Hasen, a law professor at University of California, Los Angeles, wrote in Politico in January. "Without 'loser's consent'—when those on the losing end of an election accept the results as fairly determined—democracy falters. Trump has succeeded in undermining the foundation of that... pillar for everyone, whether or not he's victorious as a candidate in 2024," Hasen wrote.
The people who make, report, and teach history should take note: it has never been kind to those who spread Big Lies. This time will be no different.
Mainstream journalists and politicians have engaged in a campaign of mass slander against U.S. college students protesting the Gaza genocide. Their “antisemitism” Big Lie echoes the racist hate campaigns of the past, inciting hostility toward young people whose only crime is their dedication to justice.
A newly published survey provides some important context for these protests and undermines the smear campaign against the protesters.
The Chicago Project on Security and Threats (CPOST), a project of the University of Chicago, recently published “Understanding Campus Fears After October 7 and How to Reduce Them,” subtitled “a non-partisan analysis of Antisemitism and Islamophobia among College Students and American Adults.” Robert A. Pape, political scientist and CPOST’s director, writes that its findings “are an opportunity to re-center the national discussion around students and away from politics.” Let’s hope so.
Understandably, Pape and his colleagues focus on the steps that should be taken to make all students feel safe on campus, regardless of religion, ethnicity, or politics. In doing so, their report includes important findings that deserve wider attention.
Their “antisemitism’ Big Lie echoes the racist hate campaigns of the past, inciting hostility toward young people whose only crime is their dedication to justice.
Is there a “climate of antisemitism” on campus? CPOST’s study found that college students are less Islamophobic than the general population, but they are not more antisemitic. The level of student bias against Jews is the same as their bias against Muslims, but no greater.
Why, then, is there a national debate about campus antisemitism and none about the comparable scourge of Islamophobia? What message does that send to the Muslim students whose fears are being ignored?
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries wants a vote on the “Countering Antisemitism Act,” but neither he nor the president have proposed similar safeguards against Islamophobia. House Speaker Mike Johnson, who said that Columbia protesters have begun “to threaten lives and intimidate and harass people,” has an even more draconian antisemitism bill—also without plans to address Islamophobia.
President Biden, like the others, has condemned what he calls “antisemitic protests.” That slur is challenged by the Chicago study. The authors found that “while college students are not more antisemitic than the general population,” they are “more anti-zionist.” They also found that “prejudicial antisemitism and anti-zionism are largely separate phenomena,” with an “overwhelming” absence of any overlap between antisemitism and a negative view of Israel.
We’ve know for decades that the lie which equates anti-zionism with antisemitism serves a political goal by suppressing speech. We now have evidence to back it up.
One protest slogan has been cited over and over as “antisemitic,” with accusers claiming it calls for genocide against Jews: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”
Most students do not use it in anything approaching a genocidal way. The CPOST study found that only 14 percent of Muslim students, or roughly one in seven, interpret that slogan “to mean the expulsion or genocide of Israeli Jews.” That figure is too high, as is the 13 percent of students who believe that violence against Muslims is sometimes justified. But it also tells us that most people who use the slogan are not calling for harm against anyone.
Does antisemitism exist among [protesters]? Since it is pervasive in this society, the answer is yes. But amplifying a comment or two from a couple of isolated individuals is a totalitarian smear tactic.
That makes sense, since the phrase can be interpreted nonviolently in at least two ways. One is that a two-state solution should include the territory ceded to Palestine in 1948, which touched both the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Another is that Israel and Palestine should become a single, democratic, non-racial and non-theocratic state, with rights and safety for all. Under that interpretation, “Palestine will be free” is no more a call to genocide than “South Africa will be free” was a call to kill whites during the anti-apartheid struggle.
The study does note that the slogan makes two-thirds of Jewish students feel unsafe. For that reason, Pape recommends avoiding it.
But we now have confirmation that campus officials, politicians, and the media are misleading the public about that phrase. They’re endangering the protesting students and worsening the fears of pro-Israeli students. They should stop.
The political scientist Bernard Cohen once wrote that, while the press isn’t always successful and telling people what to think, “it is stunningly successful in telling people what to think about.” The student protests are a textbook example. The debate around these protests is focused on the false charge of antisemitism, not on the moral challenge raised by the protesters.
Does antisemitism exist among them? Since it is pervasive in this society, the answer is yes. But amplifying a comment or two from a couple of isolated individuals is a totalitarian smear tactic. Republicans did it with the racist Willie Horton ads in 1988. Trump does it when he highlights crimes allegedly committed by immigrants. And politicians, journalists, and college administrators are doing it today with their charges of protester antisemitism.
CPOST’s moderate recommendations for easing campus fears include, “Clear and immediate communication by college leaders condemning violence and intimidation by students and against students on their campuses.” Instead, those leaders are ordering police violence against protesting students, as they and the political/media elite stoke more fear and hatred against them—even in the wake of the anti-protestor mob violence at UCLA. That isn’t just wrong; it’s a dereliction of duty.
As leaders, these prominent individuals have been entrusted with the care and protection of the nation’s young people. Instead, they’re slandering them and putting them at risk. Why? To distract us from a genocide.
The people who make, report, and teach history should take note: it has never been kind to those who spread Big Lies. It won’t be this time, either.