• The CDC Just Released New Mask Guidance Impacting 70 Percent of Americans

    Goodbye to all that. Mostly.Michael Ho Wai Lee/SOPA Images/Zuma

    If you are among the 70 percent of Americans who live in an area with low or medium Covid risk, you can finally ditch your mask, according to new guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released Friday. And don’t feel like you need to keep your social distance, either.

    The new guidance for determining Covid risk considers not just the number of cases in a community, but also the number of new Covid hospital admissions, and the percentage of beds they occupy. The announcement signals a shift in the public health agency’s approach to the virus away from lowering overall cases and toward protecting the hospital system. New York and California already lifted indoor mask mandates earlier this month, paving the way for other localities to follow suit. A new CDC map, to be updated weekly, tells people which level of risk their community falls under.

    “With widespread population immunity, the overall risk of severe disease is now generally lower,” CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky said in a call with reporters today. “We want to give people a break from things like masking when our levels are low, and then have the ability to reach for them again should things get worse in the future.”

    Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.

  • Putin Invaded Ukraine, and Steve Bannon Says That’s a Good Reason to Impeach Biden

    Al Drago/AP

    On Thursday, Steve Bannon, the former Trump administration official and 2020 election results denier, turned his podcast into a litany of grievances against President Joe Biden, the Clintons, and the other usual targets. Then he called for impeachment and praised Russian President Vladimir Putin. 

    Any regular listener to Bannon’s War Room podcast has grown used to these kind of rants. Already he has called for Biden to be impeached over his handling of the “southern border” and for his failure to press China more forcefully to reveal the origin of the coronavirus.

    On Thursday, Bannon identified the Ukraine crisis as additional grounds for impeachment: the Ukraine crisis. Figuring out the “how” and “why” of it all was a bit harder.

    “I don’t care how much Media Matters and Mediaite and MSNBC don’t like to hear it, ok, he’s getting impeached,” Bannon said near the start of his show. “You do understand we’re going to win 40 or 50 or 60 seats? He’s getting impeached. We’re impeaching him.”

    And those reasons?

    Number one on the southern border, number two on this fiasco right now in the Ukraine. And we’re going to get into every detail of every penny his family stole out of there from the Ukrainian people, from the kleptocrats in Ukraine that were his partners. We’re going to get to every penny—to the fifth decimal place—of everything that the Clintons and Biden and these corrupt Democrats have skimmed off the top.

    Ah, ok. So Hunter Biden’s business activities in Ukraine, the impetus for a right-wing conspiracy theory that Joe Biden used his influence as vice president to help Hunter financially, is what Bannon is talking about? Sort of? 

    At a certain point, Bannon seems to be speaking to Biden directly and just listing out conspiracies, bullet-point style. He even, out of nowhere, name-drops Clinton Cash, an error-ridden book about the Clinton’s (admittedly eyebrow-raising) business dealings:

    Putin called your bluff. He says you’ve turned Ukraine into a ‘colony,’ a ‘Clinton colony.’ Clinton Cash. They stole as much money as they could out of Haiti, out of sub-Saharan Africa, and then they’re in Ukraine, stealing it with both hands.

    This is the usual shtick. Bannon does this all the time. After commending Putin’s toughness earlier in the week and predicting that the attack on Ukraine will drive up inflation, Bannon has consistently focused on Hunter Biden and the Clintons.

    Here’s more of that:

    Is Hunter Biden over there with his business partners? Is he sitting there with the Ukrainian flag? Where is Hunter? Is he in his art gallery? Is he with more strippers? Is he smoking more crack?

    During the first week of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, that is where the level of discourse was on War Room

  • Antiwar Activists Take to the Streets in Russia to Protest Putin’s Invasion of Ukraine

    Vitaliy Belousov/Sputnik

    Hours after Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a full-scale military invasion of Ukraine, antiwar protests broke out across Russia. 

    In the center of Moscow, “dozens” of protesters were arrested, one Russian newspaper reported. Andrew Roth, a journalist for the Guardian, saw one protester, who had held up a sign reading “Fuck war,” being immediately detained: 

    In St. Petersburg, Putin’s hometown, a reporter from the newspaper Novaya Gazeta, a rare independent voice within the Russian press, said nearly 200 protesters were chanting “No to war!” as police shouted them down with a microphone and began detaining people. 

    The invasion had been heavily foreshadowed in recent days as the United States and other Western countries cited intelligence that said Putin was planning to invade. But to Russian citizens, the sudden, violent escalation was shocking. Even those supportive of Putin’s two-decade rule were struggling to piece together how this had happened.

    As Anton Troianovski, a New York Times reporter in Moscow, put it on Thursday:

    On the country’s internet, still mostly uncensored, Russians saw their vaunted military sow carnage in a country in which millions of them had relatives and friends.

    Many of them had bought into the Kremlin’s narrative that theirs was a peace-loving country, and Mr. Putin a careful and calculating leader. After all, many Russians still believe, it was Mr. Putin who lifted their country out of the poverty and chaos of the 1990s and made it into a place with a decent standard of living and worthy of international respect.

    Nowhere was that cognitive dissonance more clear than in the reaction of Russian elites and celebrities, who broke protocol in their sharp condemnation of the invasion. Max Seddon, the Financial Times’ bureau chief in Moscow, cited several examples: 

    The Moscow director of a theater and cultural center had an even blunter reaction. After submitting her resignation on Thursday, Elena Kovalskaya posted to Facebook, “It’s impossible to work for a murderer and collect a salary from him.”

    In a speech on Thursday, Putin falsely characterized the Russian military’s actions as a defensive “special military operation” and urged the Russian people to “maintain social cohesion” in the days ahead.

    In Moscow and St. Petersburg, and in the few news outlets courageous enough to defy Putin’s censorship regime, the Russian people made clear how they feel about those words.

    “The invasion of Ukraine was started on behalf of Russian citizens but against our will,” declared an editorial in Meduza, an independent outlet in Latvia that reports on Russia. “The shame that comes with it will be with us forever.”

  • “We Are Facing a War and Horror”: Russia Has Attacked Ukraine

    Residents of Chuhuiv stand in an apartment that has been severely damaged by a Russian bombardment.Justin Yau/AP

    Early on Thursday morning, Russia attacked Ukraine in what has been described by officials as a “full-scale war.”

    Explosions were seen across the country, even in the capital city of Kyiv—where a cacophony of gunfire and sirens backgrounded the fleeing of residents. Photos show the debris of buildings struck by rockets across the massive country, reports the Washington Post. “We are facing a war and horror,” 64-year-old Liudmila Gireyeva of Kyiv told the Associated Press. “What could be worse?”

    For weeks, there have been dire warnings of the potential conflict. On Monday, after Russian President Vladimir Putin declared two eastern regions of Ukraine “independent”—resulting in swift sanctions from the United States and other western countries—the move seemed imminent. It was part of the way Putin has attempted to justify the invasion. Russia has explained this war in the language of self-defense; Russian officials say it was “necessary measures to protect [the country’s] interests” in response to the West and NATO who “broke their promises” on expansion. The West has said the actions are simply an invasion—full stop—of a sovereign nation, hiding behind flimsy rationale for aggression. “We woke up in a different world today,” a German official explained.

    US President Joe Biden promised more actions beyond the already announced sanctions, including a “united response” from NATO to “hold Russia accountable.”

    It’s unclear what this response will ultimately entail. France, another member of the alliance, has left open the possibility of some sort of military push; the country’s foreign minister said in a statement it “would further reinforce its support to Ukraine, under all its forms.”

    Ukraine, for now, has promised it will defend itself. “Ukraine is moving into all-out defense mode,” its foreign minister told the press. The country has asked for recruits for its military.

    Citizens are fleeing, in panic. Across the border in Poland, thousands of US troops have begun to set up refugee stations.

    Within the United States, there have been a series of responses, often distanced from the horrors of war. Many are concerned that gas prices, already high, will soar. On the right, Fox News hosted Donald Trump, who chit-chatted his way through the invasion, going beyond just calling Biden “weak” to blaming the current administration for the invasion (all just a few days after praising Putin’s neo-imperial aggression as “genius“).

  • Defying Logic and Biden, Louis DeJoy Gets His Gas-Guzzling Mail Trucks

    Graeme Jennings/CNP/Zuma

    No one, not even the president or the Environmental Protection Agency, is going to get in the way of Postmaster General Louis DeJoy’s fleet of gas-powered mail trucks.

    Despite the EPA’s objections, DeJoy’s Postal Service has finalized a $6 billion contract with Oshkosh Defense for 165,000 new, state-of-the-art mail trucks—90 percent of which would be gas-powered vehicles earning 8.6 miles per gallon. This goes against a Biden initiative to make federal vehicles electric. And it also goes against logic. Gas-powered vehicles are fueling climate change, which is intensifying wildfires and increasing the frequency and severity of tropical storms. Electric mail trucks wouldn’t solve the climate crisis, but they’d be a step in the right direction.

    “As we have reiterated throughout this process, our commitment to an electric fleet remains ambitious given the pressing vehicle and safety needs of our aging fleet as well as our fragile financial condition,” DeJoy said in a statement released today. “As our financial position improves with the ongoing implementation of our 10-year plan, Delivering for America, we will continue to pursue the acquisition of additional BEV as additional funding—from either internal or congressional sources—becomes available.”

    As I wrote earlier this month, President Biden has suggested that federal agencies phase out the use of gas-powered trucks, but he has no power to compel the USPS, an independent agency, to do so. The biggest problem with DeJoy’s acquisition of gas-powered trucks—aside from contributing to climate change—is that it ran afoul of procedure. DeJoy failed to initiate a mandatory environmental review until after awarding the contract to Oshkosh Defense. When the Postal Service did ultimately conduct an environmental review, the EPA contended that it was deeply flawed.

    Even as DeJoy moves forward with his plan to purchase new trucks, the insufficiency of the environmental review could be enough to invalidate the contract in court, Bloomberg suggests. Up next: the inevitable lawsuits from environmental groups.

    The new gas-powered trucks could cause $900 million in climate damages, according to the EPA, while electrifying the fleet could save the agency billions in the long term. But as Patricio Portillo of the Natural Resources Defense Council said today, “Neither rain, nor sleet, nor financial good sense will stop the leaders of the US Postal Service from trying to buy dirty, polluting delivery trucks.”

  • Is Biden “Weak” on Ukraine or Do Humans Have to Walk Out of Rooms?

    AP

    As Russia seems poised to invade Ukraine, Republicans have taken to criticizing President Biden’s foreign policy in variegated pouts. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board bemoaned a “complacent West.” Sen. Lindsey Graham decried Biden for “NOT seizing the moment.” A growing chorus of whataboutism from J.D. Vance and Lauren Boebert has argued that Biden cares more about securing the Ukrainian border than he does the US-Mexico border.

    But nothing has quite topped the meme—emboldened by the body language experts at the House Republicans’ Twitter account—that Biden has shown “weakness on the world stage” by walking out of a room.

    How dare Biden—after announcing sanctions—walk out of a room with such weakness, using his legs.

    This is a weird apotheosis of the growing “weakness” theory and adds to the wildest thing to have emerged in the right’s poo-pooing of Biden’s foreign policy: the assertion that none of this could have happened under Donald Trump because Vladimir Putin was too intimidated by his American counterpart. Here was the editor of the National Review as well as Marco Rubio making the case earlier this week:

    Lowry’s logic conveniently omits the many occasions of Trump lavishing praise on Putin, downplaying Russian interference, and the Trump administration’s efforts to undermine sanctions against Moscow. But its fallacy was only further exposed after Trump on Tuesday commended Putin’s moves in Ukraine as “very savvy” and “genius.” 

    “I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius,'” Trump giddily told a right-wing podcast just hours after Biden announced tough new sanctions against the Kremlin. “Putin declares a big portion of Ukraine—Putin declares it as independent. Oh, that’s wonderful.”

    Trump then parroted Russian propaganda talking points, calling Putin a “peacekeeper” for moving into eastern Ukraine.

    So far, the right has been overwhelmingly quiet on Trump’s effusive new praise of a foreign adversary. That silence is damning for sure, but perhaps not as damning as how one Fox News guest tried to spin the remarks last night:

    Of course, all of this is yet another entry into the right-wing complaints that Biden is too weak. Fox News has been all over that narrative for weeks. But will Republicans stick with Trump in light of his latest public admiration for Putin? We’ll see what mealymouthed excuses they come up with next, but at least Tucker Carlson has been forthcoming with his off-the-rails argument that Putin, because he hasn’t called you a racist, is better than a Democrat.

    So, that’s the deal. You can be a racist, a plutocrat, and a jerk. But, please god, don’t walk out of a room.

  • Ron DeSantis Wants to Seize Millions from Pro-Masking Schools

    Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis speaks at a December 2021 press conference in support of his party's "Stop W.O.K.E. Act."Joe Burbank/Orlando Sentinel/TNS/Zuma

    Ron DeSantis is taking his war on masks to a new—and possibly unconstitutional—level.

    Last year, Florida’s Republican governor issued an executive order banning mask mandates in schools. Now, he’s backing a proposal to withhold $200 million in education funds from 12 counties that kept requiring masks, and divert their money to 55 school districts that complied.

    The proposal, part of a Florida House of Representatives budget bill sponsored by casino-mogul-turned GOP state legislator Randy Fine, is pegged to the salaries of staff making over $100,000 in the targeted districts, although it wouldn’t directly slash those administrators’ salaries. The bill’s highest-profile opponent? Ron DeSantis. Less than two weeks ago, DeSantis rejected the proposal, objecting that it would “penalize a teacher or student because of the action” of their school board. But the governor just reversed course, tweeting his thanks to Fine for “heeding my call to protect students and teachers” from penalties aimed at “politicians and bureaucrats who defied Florida law by force masking kids.” While the state Senate hasn’t yet worked the salary cuts into its proposed budget, DeSantis’ approval helps pave the way for the suggestion to become law. (The Florida Department of Education has already cut some pro-mask districts’ funding in the amount of their school boards’ pay.)

    If Fine’s plan comes to fruition, it’s likely to face substantial legal challenges. As The Guardian points out, the provision is misguided—even on its own terms—in punishing administrators who enforced mask mandates, not just the school board members who set them. And while Fine has insisted that “these school districts broke the law,” it’s not clear that they did: The school districts all dropped their mandates once the issue was settled in court. In fact, the budget provision itself might violate Florida’s state constitution, which prohibits the state legislature from “passing a general law of local application to impose fines.”

    No matter how it pans out, a plan to cut school budgets in a state already firmly in the bottom 10 for per-pupil educational spending is not a good look.

  • Labor Tensions Just Came for MLB Spring Training

    Closed and locked gates at Los Angeles' Dodger Stadium on the first day of the Major League Baseball lockout, December 2, 2021./Image of Sports/Newscom/ZUMA

    Since December, Major League Baseball players have been locked out of their training facilities, thanks to a disagreement between their union and team owners. With the off-season coming to an end, the dispute is now guaranteed to postpone the start of spring training—and could potentially delay Opening Day.

    This season’s lockout is the MLB Players Association’s first work stoppage since the 1994 season, when a labor dispute ended the season early and canceled the World Series. This time, players are demanding better pay for younger players (who are often underpaid relative to their contributions), changes to the free agency framework, and a major increase in the competitive balance tax, which sets a ceiling on teams’ total payroll and serves as an unofficial salary cap. All this inside baseball amounts to a guarantee that spring training, originally scheduled for February 26, won’t start until March 5 at the earliest.

    In 1994, players launched a mid-season strike over a salary cap demanded by team owners, who argued that runaway salaries were threatening the league’s financial solvency. That strike was ended by none other than then-federal district court judge Sonia Sotomayor, who ruled that team owners couldn’t get around the strike by hiring non-union replacement players (otherwise known as scabs). Sotomayor’s ruling once again bound players and owners to the terms of their previous collective bargaining agreement, and players voted to return to work. Baseball remains the only major sport in the US to lack a salary cap.

    The 1994-95 strike was a financial and public relations disaster—just think of all the money lost by canceling the World Series—and players and owners have tried to play nice, or at least keep up the pretense, ever since. Owners say that this year’s lockout, the first since 1990, was an attempt to spur negotiations and reach an agreement by the time teams are set to play ball.

    Meanwhile, as players and owners engage in serious, complicated negotiations, New York’s much-maligned ex-mayor Bill de Blasio is proving that it’s never too late for him to make a mockery of himself online:

  • Kim Potter, Ex-Cop Who Killed Daunte Wright, Given 16-Month Sentence

    Daunte Wright's parents Arbuey and Katie react after Kim Potter's sentencing Friday. Nicole Neri/AP

    This morning a Hennepin County judge sentenced Kim Potter—the police officer who shot and killed a 20-year old Black man named Daunte Wright last April in the Minneapolis suburb of Brooklyn Center—to 16 months in prison and eight months on supervised release. She will also be fined $1,000.

    It is a lighter sentence than some expected. A 26-year veteran of the department, former police union president, and a field training officer, Potter claimed to have been reaching for her Taser when she pulled out her gun and shot and killed Wright. My colleague Samantha Michaels wrote about so-called “weapons confusion” last year. “It’s not ’causes’—it’s just a simple root cause,” an expert in police weapons training told her of the problem. “It’s because they designed the Taser like a gun in order to take advantage of the firearms training that officers do.”

    In December, Potter was convicted of first- and second-degree manslaughter. The state sentencing guidelines for first-degree manslaughter charges are up to 15 years imprisonment. The prosecution team, led by Attorney General Keith Ellison, had requested seven years, closer to the guidelines for someone with no criminal record. But, in her closing statements, Judge Regina Chu went below both. Chu said that guidelines can change “depending on the particular facts of the case.” 

    The particular facts of this case that warranted a “downward departure” from the typical sentencing guidelines according to the judge can be summarized like this: Being a cop is hard.

    Chu explained, almost crying, that cops have to make quick decisions in tense and chaotic situations. She noted Potter meant to reach for her Taser. And the judge even took time to differentiate Potter’s charge from the other officers tried in the same court—Derek Chauvin, who killed George Floyd, and former MPD officer Mohamed Noor, who killed a woman named Justine Damond in 2017—because unlike those cases, “this is a cop who made a tragic mistake.”

    “White women’s tears trump justice,” said Katie Wright, Daunte’s mother, of the sentence. “I thought my white woman tears would be good enough because they’re true and genuine. But when they’re coerced, coached, and taught by the defense attorney, I guess we don’t have a win in this at all.”

    Wright gave testimony at the hearing, urging the judge that the maximum sentencing be applied. Through tears, she read a statement where she referred to Potter not by name but as “the defendant,” because, she explained, Potter continually referred to her son as “the driver” throughout the trial, further dehumanizing him, she said. “For that I’ll never be able to forgive you,” she said. “And I’ll never be able to forgive you for what you’ve stolen from us.” 

    Daunte Wright’s brother Damik Bryant, who recently confronted pro–Kim Potter protesters outside of the jail where Potter has already served 58 days, read a letter he wrote to Daunte. “I promise I’ll never give up fighting for you because that’s what big brothers do,” he said. 

    Wright’s father, Arbuey Wright, remembered his time with Daunte as a young child. “I would always tell him, no matter what, I got you,” said Arbuey Wright. “From the day he was born until April 11, I had him. I was always there for my son. Daunte’s life was cut short by Kim Potter, who claims she thought she had her Taser.” 

    Potter gave her own tear-filled testimony to the family of Wright in which she said she hoped they’d one day find a way to forgive her.

    After she read Potter’s sentencing, Judge Chu spoke about the case and shared a quote from former President Obama on empathy. “Learning to stand in someone else’s shoes to see through their eyes is how peace begins,” she said. Judge Chu was not asking observers to imagine what it must feel like to be the mother, father, older brother, or young son of Daunte Wright. Judge Chu was urging empathy toward Potter. “That I granted a significant downward departure does not in any way diminish Daunte Wright’s life. His life mattered,” she said. 

    In a press conference after the hearing, civil rights attorney Ben Crump expressed surprise at the decision. “I thought we reached a new precedent in America where we were going to see equal justice regardless of the ethnicity of the offending party and the victims,” he said. Wright’s family called the sentence far too lenient, and that it was further evidence of the criminal justice system’s racist double standard applied when white police officers kill Black civilians. 

    “I feel cheated,” said Arbuey Wright. “They were so tied up in her feelings they forgot about my son getting killed.”

  • Melania Trump Might’ve Bought Her Own NFT

    Cheriss May/Zuma

    If you ever had the great misfortune of visiting Melania Trump’s official website, you would know that the former first lady is very into NFTs now. What exactly an NFT is is not clear. But Melania’s first entry into the boom, as typical of her and as usual for crypto, is certainly tacky as hell. Who on earth would want to own this thing?

    Apparently no one. Bloomberg reports that the winning bid on the auction for Melania’s NFT collection, which received just five bids last month, came from the same digital wallet belonging to the entity that created the auction. In other words, it seems like Melania or someone tied to the former first lady bought the NFTs themselves. From Bloomberg:

    Transactions reviewed by Bloomberg News show that on Jan. 23, the digital wallet listed as the creator of Trump’s NFT transferred 372,657 USDC, a stablecoin pegged to the U.S. dollar, to a second wallet that later sent 1,800 SOL to a third address. That third one is listed as the winner of the auction on Trump’s website.

    On Jan. 27, the original wallet sent 1,800 SOL back to the second wallet address, according to blockchain transactions. The record of transactions was earlier reported by Vice.

    In response to the report, Melania’s office said that the NFTs were purchased on behalf of a third party. But that claim, already dubious, was met with further skepticism on Thursday after Melania announced a new line of NFTs titled the POTUS NFT Collection.

    So, was this a wash-sale stunt? Or was Melania just sad that no one wanted what she was selling? Did she actually get a third-party buyer? Judging from the Trump family’s long record of grift and fraudulent charity-giving, it’s hard to imagine it’s not whatever of these options is the stupidest.

  • Biden Rejects Trump’s Executive Privilege Claim and Orders Release of White House Logs

    Joshua Roberts/ZUMA

    President Biden has shot down Donald Trump’s claim of executive privilege over White House visitor logs from January 6, a critical win for the House select committee investigating the attack on the US Capitol. 

    “The president has determined that an assertion of executive privilege is not in the best interests of the United States, and therefore is not justified, as to these records and portions of records,” White House counsel Dana Remus wrote in a letter addressed to the National Archives. “The records in question are entries in visitor logs showing appointment information for individuals who were processed to enter the White House complex, including on January 6, 2021.”

    The National Archives now has 15 days to turn over the documents, which could potentially fill in the gaps of who Trump may have spoken to as the attack unfolded.

    Biden’s decision on Tuesday, the latest blow to Trump’s efforts to stall the committee from obtaining the visitor logs, comes amid renewed allegations that the former president routinely violated presidential record-keeping rules, by either improperly storing documents in boxes at Mar-a-Lago or flushing papers down the toilet. (Trump has denied clogging the White House toilet.)

    Trump has long held a broad and rather loose approach to executive privilege, invoking the power throughout his impeachment proceedings in order to routinely block testimony from members of his administration. Which all begs the question of what exactly Trump is so frequently hoping to hide from the public.

  • Ted Cruz’s Old Boss Wants to Keep Him From Stealing the Next Election

    Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) speaks to the media on Capitol Hill on February 9, 2022. Gripas Yuri/Abaca via ZUMA

    Former Judge J. Michael Luttig said in a New York Times opinion piece yesterday that the current Republican Party is cleaved in two. On one side are those who believe the last election was legitimate, including Luttig, a prominent conservative appeals court judge from 1991 to 2006. The other side are those who, loyal to Trump, insist the 2020 election was stolen—and includes at least two of Luttig’s former clerks, John Eastman and Ted Cruz.

    Luttig helped nurture both men’s careers; for more than a year now, he’s been trying protect the country against them.

    In the lead-up to the January 6 insurrection, Luttig found himself pitted against Eastman. Trump was putting pressure on Vice President Mike Pence to delay certification of the election that day. One of his lawyers, John Eastman, was the architect of this insane legal strategy. He wrote a memo to Pence outlining his supposed authority to stop the certification of Biden’s win. Under pressure, Pence turned to Luttig for advice, and Luttig refuted Eastman. When Pence announced on January 6 that he would not interrupt Congress’ counting of the electoral votes, he quoted Luttig. Eastman, meanwhile, stood beside Rudy Giuliani and whipped up the crowd at the “Save America” rally with bogus allegations of election fraud. Today, Eastman is in a legal struggle with the January 6 committee, which is seeking access to his communications with Trump about overturning the election. 

    Inside the US Capitol, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), another former Luttig clerk, was also working to subvert American democracy, by urging his colleagues to delay proceeding so they could investigate specious claims of election fraud. Even after the Capitol was violently breached, Cruz exploited the Electoral Count Act to object to certification. Now, Luttig is trying to clean up that mess, too, so that his former protege cannot use it to try to derail democracy a second time. 

    Luttig is advising multiple Republican Senators on reforming the Electoral Count Act, according to the Times. In his Times op-ed, Luttig pointed, by name, to Cruz’s and his efforts on January 6:

    After the 2020 election, Republican senators like Ted Cruz of Texas and Josh Hawley of Missouri tried to capitalize on those ambiguities in the law to do Mr. Trump’s bidding, mounting a case for overturning the results in some Biden-won states on little more than a wish. …

    Trump acolytes like Mr. Cruz and Mr. Hawley should appreciate the need to reform this unconstitutional law. 

    Before they found themselves on opposite sides of the Trump divide, Cruz was not just an ex-clerk but something of a Luttig acolyte. According to a 2016 Times article, Cruz has described Luttig as “like a father to me.” The two deeply bonded while Cruz clerked for Luttig on the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court, where the future presidential candidate reportedly developed his zeal for the death penalty. In his 2016 campaign, Cruz, complaining about John Roberts, said he would have nominated a “rock-ribbed” conservative like Luttig as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

    But yesterday, Luttig was a long way from displaying that sort of appreciation, writing that what Cruz did on January 6 would threaten American democracy if repeated in 2024. “The clear and present danger to our democracy now is that former President Donald Trump and his political allies appear prepared to exploit the Electoral Count Act of 1887, the law governing the counting of votes for president and vice president, to seize the presidency in 2024 if Mr. Trump or his anointed candidate is not elected by the American people,” he warned. 

    As Luttig advises Republican senators on reforming the law that could abet an election heist in three years, Cruz is loudly opposed to effort. Earlier this month, Politico reported he came out “most forcefully against the group’s ongoing work to raise the bar for challenging elections in Congress.” 

    Perhaps Luttig was thinking of his former clerk when he wrote the last lines of his op-ed: The “only members in Congress who might not want to reform this menacing law are those planning its imminent exploitation to overturn the next presidential election.” 

  • Read the Damning Allegations of Racism in California’s New Lawsuit Against Tesla

    Vehicles are parked outside the Tesla plant, in Fremont, Calif., on May 12, 2020. California sued Tesla Inc. on Wednesday, Feb. 9, 2022, over allegations of discrimination and harassment of Black employees at its San Francisco Bay area factory. Ben Margot/AP

    They heard racial slurs from their fellow workers and supervisors. They saw racist graffiti on the walls. They spoke up but their voices were unheard. The factory in Fremont, California, where they worked, was nicknamed “the plantation.” This was the life of a Black worker at Tesla’s main factory in the San Francisco Bay Area, according to a new civil rights lawsuit filed by California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing.    

    On Thursday, the state agency that examines civil rights complaints filed a lawsuit against Elon Musk’s multi-billion dollar electric car company, alleging that the company failed to appropriately respond to complaints by Black workers who faced a barrage of racist abuse and workplace segregation. 

    In the suit, the details of which became public on Friday, California attorneys characterized Tesla, a company whose jobs have long been seen as a “golden ticket” to stability and whose ethos is defined by its pursuit of a more socially conscious future, as a place “that profits from an army of production workers, many of whom are people of color, working under egregious conditions.” They claimed that Tesla “failed to take effective remedial measures in response to complaints of discrimination and harassment,” noting that workers were discouraged from complaining and that they could face “retaliatory harassment, undesirable assignments, and/or termination.”

    The lawsuit follows a three-year investigation by the California agency and numerous other lawsuits filed against Tesla by former workers in the Fremont plant—in October 2021, a federal judge ordered Tesla to pay $137 million to Owen Diaz, a Black Fremont factory contractor who faced racist abuse by his supervisor and others and who accused the company of failing to address the abuse.

    The new suit focuses on the sprawling Fremont factory, where the company’s electric cars were originally produced, and is a disturbing window into life as a Black factory worker at Tesla. According to the complaint, 20 percent of assembly line workers are Black, yet the executive suite lacks any Black representation. What’s more, Black workers are not only overrepresented among Tesla’s lower-level workers, they are also severely underrepresented among the very managers and senior officials who would be tasked with addressing complaints of racism. The alleged racism is shocking:

    Because the factory was racially segregated, Defendants’ workers referred to the areas where many Black and/or African Americans worked as the “porch monkey station.” Defendants’ workers with tattoos of the Confederate flag made their racially incendiary tattoos visible to intimidate Black and/or African American workers. Racial slurs were also dispensed in Spanish and included “mayate” and “negrita.” Additionally, Defendants’ workers referred to the Tesla factory as the “slaveship” or “the plantation,” where Defendants’ production leads “crack[ed] the whip.” Many Black and/or African American workers understood these terms to be references to how Defendants treated its Black and/or African American workers. One Black worker heard these racial slurs as often as 50-100 times a day.

    In a company blog post, Tesla, noting it opposed all forms of discrimination and harassment, described the state’s lawsuit as “unfair and counterproductive” and pointed out that the lawsuit focused on accusations raised at its Fremont factory between 2015 and 2019, suggesting the issues had been resolved. The company claimed that the California agency “has never once raised any concern about current workplace practices at Tesla.” (In the lawsuit, California attorneys argue that contrary to the company’s claims, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and Tesla’s workers have repeatedly complained about racial harassment and discrimination for years, noting “complaints were filed as recently as 2022.”) A day after state officials filed the lawsuit to Alameda Superior Court, Elon Musk tweeted:

    You can read the lawsuit here. Even with the racial slurs peppered throughout the complaint, perhaps the most damning piece is how familiar and systemic they are—how Black workers were baited into confrontations and seen as “aggressive,” how Black workers were denied promotions and disproportionately faced disciplinary action and relegation compared to their peers, how Tesla allegedly failed to listen to Black workers’ complaints over the years and instead retaliated against those who spoke up. 

    Here are the most horrific allegations: 

    Daily harassment

    Throughout the day, every day, Black and/or African American workers heard Defendants’ workers, leads, supervisors, and managers make racial slurs and comments about Black workers. Examples of the racist language include the n-word, “porch monkey,” “monkey toes,” “boy,” “hood rats,” and “horse hair.” Defendants’ workers, including production leads and supervisors, made references to Black and/or African Americans in racist comments and racist jokes such as “N[ ] word out of the hood,” “from the ghetto,” “Tesla [was] hiring lazy coons,” and “go back to Africa.”

    Racist jokes and mockery

    These workers were subjected to Defendants’ production associates, leads, and supervisors directly calling them the n-word throughout the day. One worker heard Defendants’ production associates and leads tell her to “Shut the fuck up, N[ ],” and “All blacks look alike.” Another Black worker reported that at least twice Defendants’ workers mocked him for eating watermelon during lunch. They accused him of being lazy, saying, “You’re eating watermelon, that’s why you’re lazy.” These co-workers also speculated about his genitals and referred to him as “Mandingo” or “big black guy.” Another worker heard Defendants’ production lead and production associate crack racist jokes loud. 

    Racist inscriptions on the factory walls

    On a daily basis, Black and/or African American workers were confronted with racist writing while working at Tesla. They saw racist graffiti – including “N[ ],” “KKK,” swastikas, the Confederate flag, a white supremacist skull, “go back to Africa,” and “mayate” – written on the restroom walls, restroom stalls, lockers, workplace benches, workstations, lunch tables, and the break room. These slurs were even etched onto Defendants’ machinery. One Black worker observed “hang N[ ]” penned next to a drawing of a noose in the breakroom restroom. This worker also saw “all monkeys work outside” and “fuck N[ ]” on the breakroom walls. These racial slurs and racial comments, apparent to all who walked by, were left up for months, without Defendants bothering to remove them. 

    Relegation of work

    Black and/or African American workers reported being assigned to the most physically demanding posts in the Tesla factories, compared to non-Black workers who were given more technical, less physical jobs. One worker witnessed only Black and/or African American workers cleaning the factory floor on their hands and knees. No other groups of workers had to do the same. Another worker heard Defendants’ workers complain about the heavy workload and how they “need[ed] to get some [B]lacks on this line,” suggesting that Black and/or African American workers can and should be doing the difficult menial jobs. One Black worker started as a production lead when he came through a staffing agency, but after he introduced himself to his white manager, he was demoted on the same day to a production associate. His supervisor told him that Defendants’ manager thought he was “better suited” in the more labor-intensive position. This worker also applied for a transfer to Tesla’s Lathrop factory, only to be told by his manager not to “get [his] hopes up.” However, a white co-worker was granted the same transfer.

    Retaliation for speaking up

    Management retaliated against Black and/or African American workers for complaining. Complainants were denied bonuses, promotions, and other professional opportunities. They were falsely accused of being late, unjustifiably written up, denied transfers, assigned to physically strenuous posts or undesirable locations, constructively discharged, or terminated. For those who needed a reasonable accommodation, their requests for a reasonable accommodation were denied in retaliation. As a consequence, many Black and/or African American workers aggravated their injuries or disabilities.

    Protractedinvestigations

    Not surprisingly, Defendants ignored, immediately dismissed, or perfunctorily investigated and then dismissed workers’ complaints. Investigations were inconsistently completed, with different investigators asking vastly varying questions, with different levels of detail and analysis, and sometimes coming to opposite conclusions. Investigations took months to complete. For example, an investigation of a race complaint, where only one witness was interviewed, took close to six (6) months to complete. human resources staff were also not well-trained in analyzing race complaints. For example, one human resources investigator concluded that “banana boy” was simply a “nickname,” not a racial slur, even though the Black complainant perceived it to be racist and the harasser had been coached previously on his condescending communication style. In another case, Defendants’ human resources investigators determined that a claim of harassment was unsubstantiated because there was no witness corroboration, even though the harasser had admitted to saying a racial slur. Workers, whom Defendants concluded had indeed harassed Black workers and were previously disciplined for similar offenses, remained employed and even were promoted because they were “good performers.”

    Advance notice

    In some cases, human resources staff gave advance notice of the race complaints to the alleged harassers before the investigation began. One Black worker stated that immediately after she complained about race harassment, human resources official texted her harasser, who was also her supervisor, about her complaint against him. The supervisor then retaliated against the Black worker, accosting her, writing her up, and then calling security on her for being purportedly “belligerent.” Even after Black and/or African American workers were transferred to a different area, retaliation by management still persisted because management had the ability to simply walk over to the new post and harass the complainants.

  • Let This Sweet Man Keep His Damn Pig

    Wyverne Flatt and his pot-bellied support pig Ellie.Hans Pennink/AP

    In Chinese political philosophy, the ancient school of legalism promoted strict adherence to the letter of the law, sometimes issuing draconian punishments for minor infractions. The idea, wrote astrologer Sima Tan, was to be “strict and have little kindness,” in order to bring a fairness that does “not distinguish between kin and stranger.” 

    I had to wonder, today, if there are serious adherents to this doctrine in the upstate New York village of Canajoharie—because they’re being pretty aggressive about saying a seemingly nice guy can’t have a cute pet pig.

    In fact, Wyverne Flatt, the upstate man and pig owner, could go to jail for refusing to give away his emotional support pig because it violates “zoning laws” that prohibit having farm animals in the town.

    Flatt told the Associated Press that he’s raised black pot-bellied pig Ellie since she was a piglet and that she helped him handle a divorce and the death of his mother. Ellie’s presence, he claims, helped him get his anxiety under control and wean himself off medication. However, the Disney villains on the Canajoharie village board are threatening him with jail time unless he gets rid of her. Flatt currently faces a criminal trial and a potential sentence of up to six months in jail. On top of that, a civil case could fine him $20 for every day he’s had Ellie at his house—about $18,000 in total. 

    “I could never dream of giving away somebody who’s part of my family,” Flatt told the Associated Press. “She’s very smart. She’s more intelligent than my dogs. I think she can kind of hone in on you when you’re feeling bad because she’ll want to come in and snuggle with you.”

    There’s a lot here. Sending this man to jail would be a gross, and emblematic, example of the overcriminalization of life. The zoning law citation makes this one of the weirdest examples of NIMBYism I’ve ever read. But mostly, I just want to say: Ah fuck man I’m crying, this guy just loves his pig, don’t take it!

    And these cops are making it sound like he’s trying to speed societal collapse.

    In a court filing, a lawyer for the village described tolerating Ellie’s presence in the village as the first step toward total anarchy, writing “if every citizen were to openly scoff at the Village zoning codes…we would live in a lawless society.”

    But nobody else seems to mind Ellie except the hall monitors on the village board. Some of Flatt’s neighbors have signed affidavits saying that they like the pig. Others even accompanied Flatt to his court appearance and to a village zoning board hearing, where they held a small protest. Flatt told the Daily Gazette that he’s “dumbfounded” that officials have pursued the case with such single-minded devotion. 

    “My pig is not a farm hog,” he said. “It’s not used for meat. It’s a companion animal. And yet we’re still going through with this. There is nobody being bothered by this pig. All this pig is here to do is help me.” 

    The court fight hinges on whether Ellie can most reasonably be characterized as an emotional support animal or as livestock. Flatt does seem to be on shaky ground here: the only evidence he’s presented is a laminated card that he reportedly obtained online for a fee, and which doesn’t carry much legal weight. However, the legal question here is distinct from the human one, namely: will anyone benefit from locking Flatt in jail for six months and taking his pig away from him? 

    The story appears to be an entry in what my colleague Inae Oh likes to call “the fucked up, bizarre criminalization of everything” beat. State laws are overflowing with obsolete statutes that range from the stupid (“horses on the highway must wear sleigh bells”) to the harmful. In New Jersey, police have stopped Black cyclists “acting suspiciously” and cited a 19th-century law mandating that all bikes must be equipped with bells as justification. 

    But look, I might also be missing something. I’m an outsider, and I don’t know if this village has been traumatized before by pig-related shenanigans. But that caveat aside, this whole situation seems very sad. And it’s frankly insane to criminalize, with the threat of potential jail time, having a pig. In fact, I want this guy to keep his pig. Unless there are herds of wild pigs stampeding through Canajoharie on a regular basis, I am pro-pig and likely to stay that way.

  • California Is Suing Tesla for Allegedly Having a “Racially Segregated” Workplace

    Wear a real mask, dude. I know you can afford one.Imago/Zuma

    California is suing Tesla after the state says it has received “hundreds of complaints” from workers about a “racially segregated workplace” at its main factory near San Francisco.

    California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing filed a complaint Wednesday alleging that Black workers at the plant were routinely discriminated against. DFEH found evidence that workers “are subjected to racial slurs and discriminated against in job assignments, discipline, pay, and promotion,” the agency’s director, Kevin Kish, said in a statement.

    The details of the case have not yet been made public, but the agency said it would post the complaint to its website on Thursday.

    Tesla has tried to get ahead of the scandal, releasing a statement yesterday calling the lawsuit “misguided” and referring to the accusations as “a narrative spun by the DFEH and a handful of plaintiff firms to generate publicity.” (It’s unclear what a state agency tasked with protecting workers’ civil rights would have to gain from publicity.)

    This isn’t the first time Tesla has found itself in hot water for promoting a racist working environment.

    Late last year, the company was ordered to pay $136.9 million to a Black former elevator operator at the plant who said he faced “daily racial epithets” that supervisors failed to stop. The man, Owen Diaz, said that Tesla employees graffitied swastikas and racial slurs around the plant. Combined with a history of overworked factory employees, these accounts suggest a darker picture of the electric car behemoth than Elon Musk would like you to see.

  • Trump Reportedly Clogged White House Toilet With Flushed Documents

    Ross D. Franklin/AP

    Donald Trump’s bizarre obsession with household water pressure, which had the former president complaining that Americans are forced to flush their toilets 10 to 15 times a bathroom session, may finally get the context we did not deserve.

    Maggie Haberman reports in her forthcoming book Confidence Man that White House staffers regularly discovered flushed clumps of paper clogging a White House toilet, a plumbing nightmare that led many to believe that Trump may have been attempting to destroy documents.

    “The engineer would have to come and fix it, and what the engineer would find would be wads of clumped up wet, printed paper—meaning it was not toilet paper,” Haberman told CNN this morning.

    It’s unclear what exactly the user of this toilet was so desperate to dispose of. After all, Trump barely reads. But Haberman’s reporting comes as Trump’s long record of allegedly mishandling of White House documents, possibly in violation of the Presidential Records Act, has fallen under renewed scrutiny after the former president handed over 15 boxes of documents he had been keeping until last month. Of course, Republicans, who for years clung to the issue of Hillary Clinton’s emails, largely shrugged off that news cycle. But this new report—which has already produced a swift denial from our former president—may finally force Republicans to plunge into the issue. 

  • Fauci Says “Full-Blown” Pandemic Is Almost Over

    Greg Nash/AP

    As the number of new Covid cases continues to plunge across the country, Dr. Anthony Fauci has offered his most hopeful assessment of the pandemic yet, telling the Financial Times this week that the United States was “certainly” exiting the most dangerous phase. He also expressed optimism that Covid restrictions, including mask mandates, could soon be lifted.

    “As we get out of the full-blown pandemic phase of Covid-19, which we are certainly heading out of, these decisions will increasingly be made on a local level rather than centrally decided or mandated,” Fauci said in a new interview. “There will also be more people making their own decisions on how they want to deal with the virus.” 

    The remarks come as more states, and notably, Democratic-leaning ones, lift Covid restrictions—with some like New Jersey easing mandates in schools and others loosening mandates on businesses. For now, the White House has stood by the CDC’s recommendations on mask-wearing in schools. But the Biden administration is increasingly under pressure to deliver a road map for what the end of the pandemic could look like.

    Pandemic-weary Americans are sure to welcome the new signs of hope. But some on the right, particularly GOP politicians who have cast the nation’s top expert on infectious diseases as a political bogeyman, have already weaponized Fauci’s cautious optimism as evidence that their vociferous opposition to Covid restrictions was justified all along. 

    That, of course, fails to recognize the inherently evolving nature of what it means to be in a pandemic. Nor does it take into account the success that scientifically backed Covid safety measures have had in helping to reduce new infections. But that isn’t the point of any of this now, is it?

  • What Did the IRS Want With Your Selfies?

    Isuzek/ Getty

    Facing mounting bipartisan pressure, the Internal Revenue Service announced yesterday that it’s walking back plans to deploy facial recognition software to identify taxpayers.

    In November, the IRS signed an $86 million contract with identity verification startup ID.me, announcing that it would require taxpayers to provide personal, identifying materials, including selfies, to access their tax records. Privacy and civil rights advocates responded immediately, forming a coalition of close to 20 groups—from the National Lawyers Guild to the Council on American-Islamic Relations—that criticized the “destructive results of facial recognition technology…from police using it to track Black Lives Matter protesters, to wrongful arrests, to manipulative marketing.” The IRS plan, those groups said, “would have expanded the scope of these harms and impact the lives of millions more people.”

    Opponents have found support on both sides of the aisle. 15 Republican and five Democratic senators have demanded an accounting from IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig, along with members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, who followed suit with a separate letter. Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden, of Oregon, raised facial recognition’s history of bias in a separate letter, calling it “simply unacceptable to force Americans to submit to scans using facial recognition technology as a condition of interacting with the government.”

    The 15 Republican senators opposing the plan called ID.me’s verification process “intrusive,” arguing that a government clearinghouse of “personal information on a reported 70 million individuals, including biometric data, ID.me could be a top target for cyber-criminals, rogue employees, and espionage.” 

    ID.me attempts to verify users of digital services by collecting a variety of personal documents, from government-issued IDs, passports, and birth certificates to “video selfies” and interviews with ID.me employees. In addition, the company would have compelled taxpayers to sign three separate, binding contracts, including a “Biometric Data Consent and Policy” which would allow the company access to users “fingerprints, voiceprints, scans of a hand, facial geometry recognition and iris or retina recognition.” 

    Companies using biometric data and facial recognition technology to verify identities share a history of discriminating against—and sometimes excluding—Black people, other people of color, trans and gender-non-conforming individuals, and women generally. Black computer scientists Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru found that facial analysis algorithms misclassify Black women 35 percent of the time, despite a near-perfect match rate for white men. The same technology, deployed by police departments, has led to wrongful convictions of Black people.

    “We understand the concerns that have been raised,” Rettig, the IRS head, said in a public statement. “Everyone should feel comfortable with how their personal information is secured, and we are quickly pursuing short-term options that do not involve facial recognition.”

    While the IRS has halted plans to use ID.me’s facial recognition technology, the company still has contracts in effect with nine other federal agencies, including the Social Security Administration and Department of Veterans Affairs, and works with 30 state unemployment offices. Digital rights group Fight for the Future, which led the anti–ID.me coalition, now plans to focus on opposing those contracts as well.

  • Supreme Court Reinstates Alabama’s Racial Gerrymander

    Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. Jabin Botsford/AP

    In a 5–4 vote, the Supreme Court on Monday halted a lower court ruling that had required Alabama to redraw a gerrymandered congressional map. The move signals the new conservative majority’s willingness to eviscerate one of the last remaining components of the Voting Rights Act: the provision that bars the use of racial gerrymanders to dilute the voting power of Black Americans. The order functionally guarantees that in 2022, Black residents of the state will be able to elect their preferred candidate in only one out of seven congressional districts, despite making up 27 percent of the state’s population. 

    In January, a panel of three federal judges blocked a congressional map drawn by the Alabama Legislature, which folded most of the state’s Black voters into a single, creatively shaped district. The panel, which included two Trump appointees, ordered that the map be redrawn to include an additional district “in which Black voters either comprise a voting-age majority or something quite close to it.”

    Instead of rushing to draw up a new map, Alabama officials filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to stay the lower court’s decision on the grounds that it would cause a “massive disruption” to the state’s elections. Yesterday, the Court agreed to issue a stay, practically reinstating the discriminatory maps and ensuring that they will be used in the upcoming congressional election. 

    The order was so extreme that Chief Justice John Roberts—one of the main architects of the long campaign against voting rights by the court’s conservative justices—joined the liberals in voting against it. In his dissent, Roberts argued that the court should have taken up the case but that there was no reason to stay the lower court’s ruling in advance of the 2022 elections, writing that the three-judge panel had properly applied existing law “with no apparent errors for our correction.” 

    In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who joined the conservative majority to impose the stay, justified the order by arguing that changing election procedures close to the deadline would be hard on “candidates, political parties, and voters.” 

    “Late judicial tinkering with election laws can lead to disruption and to unanticipated and unfair consequences,” he wrote. 

    Yesterday’s order was a quintessential example of what law professor William Baude has deemed the “shadow docket,” a range of orders and decisions handed down with little explanation or advance notice. The shadow docket allows the Supreme Court to functionally change the law without having to justify its reasoning, before a case has been fully briefed and argued. 

    In a furious dissent joined by fellow liberals Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Elena Kagan attacked the conservative majority for using its shadow docket to alter the law “in a disconcertingly long line of cases.” 

    The court’s order “does a disservice to Black Alabamians who under that precedent have had their electoral power diminished—in violation of a law this Court once knew to buttress all of American democracy,” she wrote. 

  • Amir Locke’s Family Wants Minneapolis to Fully Ban No-Knock Warrants

    Amir Locke's parents, Andre Locke and Karen Wells, have called for a full ban on no-knock warrants in Minneapolis. Glen Stubbe/AP

    As they grieve their son, the parents of Amir Locke are calling on Minneapolis to commit to a full ban on no-knock warrants—the dangerous tactic employed by the police who killed their 22-year-old son last Wednesday in an apartment downtown.

    A former St. Paul Como Park High School football player and aspiring musician who was planning to move from the Twin Cities to Dallas, Texas, Locke was shot and killed by Minneapolis police officer Mark Hanneman as a SWAT team served a no-knock search warrant. Locke was not named in the warrant.  

    “The no-knock warrant is what caused Amir’s death,” his father, Andre Locke, told CNN’s Omar Jimenez. 

    “As professional people that carry guns and are supposed to protect and serve a community, they didn’t protect my son that day,” said Karen Wells, Locke’s mother. “They chose not to do that. And they took him from me and I am angry,” she said. 

    No-knock warrants have undergone intense criticism and scrutiny since Breonna Taylor was shot and killed as Louisville police served a no-knock warrant in May 2020. As I wrote on Friday, Mayor Jacob Frey had falsely claimed to have “banned” no-knock warrants during his reelection campaign this fall. In reality, the city had introduced a new policy regulating no-knock warrants, and this year alone the Minneapolis police department had been granted 13 no-knock warrants. 

    At a press conference on Monday, Nneka Constantino, a cousin of Locke, spoke out about the cyclical nature of police killings of Black men, something residents of Minneapolis and St. Paul have become all too familiar with. “Our family is not naive, so we understand that it was not necessarily a person, but a system of injustice, that has killed Amir Locke,” Constantino said. “It’s a layered system of injustice that starts with so many inequalities and abuse. Shame on you is not enough of a condemnation.”