Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 93

As Diamond and Silk testify before Congress, GOP’s victimization complex goes off the rails

YouTube

This morning, conservative video bloggers Lynnette "Diamond" Hardaway and Rochelle "Silk" Richardson gathered with Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill for a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee. The topic of discussion that brought everyone together, with other fellow conservative bloggers, was whether or not Silicon Valley media companies – including Facebook, Twitter and Google — had been censoring their right-leaning web content.

Representatives from Facebook, Google and Twitter reportedly declined an invitation to testify, according to the Washington Post. Such a move reportedly prompted Rep. Bob Goodlatt, R-Va., to threaten further action to get their attention, saying Congress would “pursue whatever means necessary.”

According to the Washington Post report, the three-hour hearing got heated—and Diamond and Silk yelled at lawmakers who questioned them and their motives. The duo claimed they were being censored by Facebook, under oath.

"Mark Zuckerberg testified before Congress and stated that the most important thing he cared about was making sure no one interferes in the 2018 elections," Hardaway said during her testimony. "But after doing our research we wondered if Mark Zuckerberg was using Facebook to interfere in the 2018 elections by labeling users' accounts as either Liberal, Very Liberal, Moderate, Conservative or Very Conservative."

Hardaway continued to explain, in her opinion, that such a tactic is a strategy of censorship.

“So if I’m labeled as Very Liberal without the option to edit, update and correct this setting, then Algorithms are already put into place which allows advertisers that have Liberal views, services and causes to target me,” she said.

Diamond and Silk,  who are two vocal Trump supporters, also alleged during the testimony that Facebook sent them a message saying that their Facebook page — which has over 1.6 million followers — was “unsafe to the community.”

“We was sent an email where Facebook deemed us “Unsafe To The Community” but what’s unsafe are these social media sites turning their platforms into political playgrounds,” Hardaway said in her testimony.  “We are not unsafe. We are not hate speech. We are not terrorist. These labels have tarnished our brand and defamed our character.”

According to The Post, Facebook said that message was inaccurately depicted by the bloggers. The social media giant reportedly reached out to them to fix the problem, and Zuckerberg, when pressed for comment on the issue in his congressional hearings, said repeatedly it was a mistake.

Hardaway continued to explain that they are “requesting that all algorithms and any bias tactics used to silence, suppress and censor voices be remove from all pages and platforms.”

Many have speculated that Diamond and Silk's claims to being censored were a hoax. As BuzzFeed as Diamond and Silk is part of Young Conservatives LLC network; websites affiliated with Young Conservatives LLC are reportedly “ using an increasingly popular tactic of quickly hopping from one domain name to another in order to blunt the impact of Facebook’s recent News Feed algorithm changes."

Democrats reportedly grew agitated throughout the hearing.

"This is a stupid and ridiculous hearing," Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., said, according to CBS.

"Why are we having a hearing about regulating content?" Lieu asked. "It's unconstitutional to begin with."

Hardaway also reportedly denied being paid by the Trump campaign, even though Federal Election Commission records show they received $1,274.94 for field consulting work. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-NY, questioned them about the report. Diamond and Silk said the payment was a reimbursement. Some political commentators speculated that the pair had lied under oath about the payment, as they appeared confused and in denial at first.

In contentious exchange with Rep. Jeffries, Diamond and Silk say FEC filing showing Diamond and Silk were paid $1,274.94 represents reimbursement for plane tickets, not field consulting work: "We're familiar with that particular lie. We see that you do look at fake news." pic.twitter.com/CzguBDLi7F

— ABC News (@ABC) April 26, 2018

The discussion between Jeffries and Diamond and Silk got so heated that Rep. Jeffries finally said, “I respect your game, I really do."

Republican lawmakers have once again come to their defense on social media.

I look forward to @DiamondandSilk ‘s UNCENSORED testimony at Judiciary Committee tomorrow. They are coming to document their personal experience with @facebook censorship of conservatives. https://t.co/peE5HR4Adb pic.twitter.com/GkJLOE6AWX

— Steve King (@SteveKingIA) April 25, 2018

It was great to hear from @DiamondandSilk today in the @HouseJudiciary hearing re: filtering practices of social media! pic.twitter.com/Rh0PkIUfi6

— Louie Gohmert (@replouiegohmert) April 26, 2018

Praise from GOP legislators echoed throughout the hearing; according to Politico, Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R.-Tenn., painted Diamond and Silk as victims.

"I had the ability to fight back. Diamond and Silk had the ability to fight back. But what about the thousands of others being thrown out of our new public squares for no good reason?" Rep. Blackburn said. "We are here today to speak up for them, and we are here today to speak up for free speech."

MSNBC host Joy-Ann Reid claims her blog was “compromised” after alleged anti-gay posts surface

Getty/Dave Kotinsky

The Daily Beast has suspended Joy-Ann Reid's column following allegations that the prominent political commentator made homophobic remarks on her now-defunct blog a decade ago. Reid, who claims the offensive content is the work of hackers, will remain on air as a host of MSNBC's weekend morning program "AM Joy."

Noah Shachtman, executive editor of The Daily Beast, sent a memo to the outlet's staff Wednesday announcing the decision. "We’re going to hit pause on Reid’s columns," the memo said. The news was first reported by CNN's Oliver Darcy.

Daily Beast exec editor @NoahShachtman sent this note out to staff today regarding the @JoyAnnReid situation. He says reporters @kpoulsen and @maxwelltani are investigating her claims and examining her history: “In the meantime, we’re going to hit pause on Reid’s columns...” pic.twitter.com/eJwwFeHSCn

— Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) April 25, 2018

"As you’re well aware, support for LGBTQ rights and respect for human dignity are core to The Daily Beast. So we’re taking seriously the new allegations that one of our columnists, Joy Reid, previously wrote homophobic blog posts during her stint as a radio host," Schactman added, announcing that the outlet's cybersecurity reporter Kevin Poulsen and media reporter Max Tani would both investigate the allegations that Reid's website had been "compromised" and report on their findings.

"Obviously, this is a difficult situation," Shachtman said. "We’ve all said and done things in our lives that we wish we hadn’t done. We deserve the room to grow beyond our past. But these allegations are serious enough that they deserve a full examination."

Blog posts were unearthed late last year where Reid used anti-gay language to mock former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist. Reid owned up to and apologized for her self-described “insensitive, tone deaf and dumb” remarks. But the latest alleged comments surfaced by Twitter user @Jamie_Maz last week are far more serious.

Thread - 1/x Joy Reid's homophobic blog posts were far worse than 1st reported.

They also had nothing to do with Republican hypocrisy on gay marriage. Joy also opposed gay marriage at the time. She gleefully accused people of being gay and posted a number of questionable things. pic.twitter.com/ZloivXczTS

— Not a bot (@Jamie_Maz) April 18, 2018

One post reads, "Couldn’t go see [Brokeback Mountain] either, despite my sister’s ringing endorsement, because I didn’t want to watch the two male characters having sex. Does that make me homophobic? Probably." Another reenforces one of the most harmful stereotypes about gay men: "And then there are the concerns that adult gay men tend to be attracted to very young, post-pubescent types, bringing them ‘into the lifestyle’ in a way that many people consider to be immoral." Others attack Reid's openly lesbian MSNBC colleague Rachel Maddow and offer a critical view of gay marriage.

Meanwhile, a NBC spokesperson told Politico that the network would wait for law enforcement to make a determination on the validity of the blog posts. The source did not say whether NBC will conduct its own investigation similar to The Daily Beast. (MSNBC did not respond to multiple requests for comment from Salon regarding the controversy surrounding Reid prior to the publication of this article.)

Politico added, "On Tuesday night, network representatives forwarded a statement from a 'cyber-security expert' hired by Reid, supporting her claim that the posts on her former blog, The Reid Report, were the work of hackers. The representatives also included letters her lawyers sent to Google and the Internet Archive in December, asking them to wipe the offending posts."

Reid claims that these posts, dating between 2005-2009, were not written by her and that "The Reid Report" was "manipulated." Reid's lawyer John H. Reichman sent a statement to TheWrap identifying dual investigations.

"We have received confirmation the FBI has opened an investigation into potential criminal activities surrounding several online accounts, including personal email and blog accounts, belonging to Joy-Ann Reid," he said.  "Our own investigation and monitoring of the situation will continue in parallel, and we are cooperating with law enforcement as their investigation proceeds."

Reid also sent her own statement about the matter to Meditate:

In December, I learned that an unknown, external party accessed and manipulated material from my now-defunct blog, The Reid Report, to include offensive and hateful references that are fabricated and run counter to my personal beliefs and ideology.

I began working with a cyber-security expert, who first identified the unauthorized activity, and we notified federal law enforcement officials of the breach. The manipulated material seems to be part of an effort to taint my character with false information by distorting a blog that ended a decade ago.

Now that the site has been compromised, I can state unequivocally that it does not represent the original entries. I hope that whoever corrupted the site recognizes the pain they have caused, not just to me, but to my family and communities that I care deeply about: LGBTQ, immigrants, people of color and other marginalized groups.

The posts were discovered through Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, and the website disputed Reid's claims Tuesday. "When we reviewed the archives, we found nothing to indicate tampering or hacking of the Wayback Machine versions," the Internet Archive post said. "We let Reid’s lawyers know that the information provided was not sufficient for us to verify claims of manipulation."

Reid's cybersecurity expert Jonathan Nichols provided a statement Tuesday night to Politico. "We discovered that login information used to access the blog was available on the Dark Web and that fraudulent entries — featuring offensive statements — were entered with suspicious formatting and time stamps," he said. "The posts included hate speech targeting marginalized communities, and Ms. Reid has been explicit in condemning them."

Investigations remain ongoing on multiple fronts as to whether Reid is, in fact, the author behind the offensive posts. But LGBT advocacy group PFLAG National has already rescinded Reid’s Straight for Equality in Media award.

"When we extended our invitation to Ms. Reid to honor her at our 45th anniversary celebration, we did so knowing about the blog posts from the late 2000s regarding Charlie Crist," Jean Hodges, the group's president, said in a statement. "We appreciated how she stepped up, took ownership, apologized for them and did better — this is the behavior and approach we ask of any ally. However, in light of new information, and the ongoing investigation of that information, we must at this time rescind our award to Ms. Reid."

President Donald Trump on Michael Cohen: “With this crazy Stormy Daniels deal, he represented me”

YouTube/Fox News

President Donald Trump's appearance on "Fox & Friends" Thursday morning ended awkwardly, as the conservative hosts attempted to ease the commander-in-chief off the air before his words got him into too much trouble.

The most notable moment of the interview occurred when the conservative hosts asked Trump about the recent raid on the office of the president's private attorney, Michael Cohen.

"Michael is a good person," Trump told the hosts. "Let me just tell you that Michael is in business. He really is a businessman – and fairly big businesses, I understand it. I don't know his business, but this doesn't have to do with me. Michael is a businessman. He's got a business. He also practices law. I would say, probably the big thing is his business. And they're looking at something having to do with his business. I have nothing to do with his business. I can tell you he's a good guy . . ."

After the Fox News hosts cut off the president to ask him about the exact nature of Cohen's relationship to Trump through his work as an attorney, Trump insisted that "just so you understand, I have many attorneys. I have attorneys. Sadly, I have so many attorneys, you wouldn't even believe it." Trump also claimed that Cohen's activities with him only constituted "a tiny, tiny little fraction" of his total legal work.

Then, Trump acknowledged that "Michael would represent me, and represent me on some things. He represents me. Like, with this crazy Stormy Daniels deal, he represented me. And, you know, from what I see, he did absolutely nothing wrong. There were no campaign funds going into the . . ."

At that point, "Fox & Friends" co-host Ainsley Earhardt asked Trump why Cohen would have pleaded the Fifth Amendment if he had done nothing wrong.

"Because he's got other things. He's got businesses," the president replied. "And from what I understand, they're looking at his businesses. And I hope he's in great shape. But he's got businesses, and his lawyers probably told him to do that. But I'm involved, and I've been told I'm not involved."

The president says Michael Cohen represented him in Stormy Daniels case & @MichaelAvenatti reacts pic.twitter.com/AOi82PGwEe

— Morning Joe (@Morning_Joe) April 26, 2018

But before Trump could continue with his venting about Cohen, the Fox News hosts abruptly switched topics to rapper Kanye West, who has recently emerged as an outspoken sympathizer of the president.

.@foxandfriends steer Trump from being very worked up about Michael Cohen to talking about his bromance with Kanye West pic.twitter.com/MRccBk0YXX — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 26, 2018

Michael Avenatti, the attorney representing Stormy Daniels, told the hosts of the MSNBC program "Morning Joe" that Trump's statement was a "hugely damaging admission" given how it contradicts the president's earlier claims that he knew nothing about Cohen's alleged efforts to pay Daniels in exchange for her silence over her rumored affair with the then-reality TV star. "Another gift from the heavens in this case – they keep coming. I don't know how I've fallen into such good luck in this case, but I'm going to take it," Avenatti said.

"Hugely damaging admission by the president, because according to what he said on Air Force One a few weeks ago, he didn't know anything about the agreement," Avenatti continued. "He didn't know anything about the payment. Michael Cohen went off and did this on a lark, and Mr. Trump knew nothing about it. We now find out that that's bogus." Avenatti also contextualized the comments as part of Trump's larger habit of speaking recklessly and in ways that seem to get himself into trouble.

.@MichaelAvenatti reacts in real time to Trump's reckless comments about Cohen & Daniels: "This is what happens when you have an undisciplined man who finds himself in litigation & doesn't know when to not make statements... There's serious consequences." pic.twitter.com/jPz3r5x4fy — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 26, 2018

"This is what happens when you have an undisciplined man who finds himself in litigation and doesn't know when to not make statements," Avenatti told his hosts, noting that there is a difference between doing that "in the public sphere" and doing that in litigation, where "there's serious consequences."

And Trump's troubling comments during the "Fox & Friends" interview weren't limited to discussing the Michael Cohen situation. He also ranted about special counsel Robert Mueller and the ongoing investigation into alleged collusion between his 2016 presidential campaign and Russia.

Trump on him meddling in DOJ: Because of the fact that they have this witch-hunt going on against the president of the United States, I have taken the position, and I don't have to take this position and maybe I'll change, that I will not be involved with the Justice Department." pic.twitter.com/ZRTbTXz9PE — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 26, 2018

After denouncing James Comey's new memoir, which gives an unflattering account of Trump, and condemning the former FBI director for alleged leaks, the president began to rail against the Justice Department for not pursuing his political foe. When Steve Doocy pointed out that the department is under Trump's control, the president acknowledged "you're right" before ranting about the ongoing Russia probe.

"I answer this all the time," Trump told Doocy. "Because of the fact that they have this witch-hunt going on — with people in the Justice Department that shouldn't be there — they have a witch-hunt against the president of the U.S. going on. I have taken the position — and I don't have to take this position, and maybe I'll change — that I will not be involved with the Justice Department. I will wait until this is over."

Trump then proceeded to claim that he had accomplished more during his first year as president than any of his predecessors – and insisted that even his "haters" would admit that. This claim overlooked such achievements as President Franklin D. Roosevelt passing the landmark legislation of the New Deal and Lyndon B. Johnson passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 during their perspective opening years as America's commander-in-chief. 

Senate confirms Mike Pompeo as Trump’s second secretary of state in bipartisan vote

AP/Alex Brandon

Six Democrats and one independent voted to confirm former CIA director Mike Pompeo as the 70th US secretary of state — and the second to serve under President Donald Trump.

Despite objections from dozens of Democrats who have expressed concern about his record of hawkish foreign policy positions and controversial comments about Muslims, the Republican-controlled Senate narrowly voted 57 to 42 to approve Pompeo as the nation's top diplomat.

Pompeo's schedule is already full and his earliest tests as secretary of state will play out on the world stage. Pompeo's confirmation was expedited to Thursday, immediately after the vote, to ensure he would be able to attend a Friday conference of NATO allies in Brussels as the newly-confirmed secretary of state.

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders celebrated by tweeting the first photos of Pompeo with North Korea's Kim Jong Un.

Great to have Secretary Pompeo confirmed. He will do an excellent job helping @POTUS lead our efforts to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula. (photos from previously confirmed Easter weekend trip) pic.twitter.com/o4RNDKVmah

— Sarah Sanders (@PressSec) April 26, 2018

Ahead of Pompeo's confirmation, his supporters emphasized his resume as a West Point and Harvard Law School graduate and former congressman who enjoys a close relationship with the president, especially on matters related to North Korea. As C.I.A. director, Pomepo traveled to Pyongyang over Easter and secretly met with leader Kim Jong Un. Democrats have criticized the move as presumptuous.

"He's the perfect person to come in at this time and lead those efforts" on North Korea, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said on the Senate floor moments before Pompeo was confirmed. But as recently as Monday, it appeared Pompeo would be guaranteed to receive an unfavorable recommendation by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Then Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky dropped his opposition to endorse him.

Pompeo was eventually endorsed by all the Republican senators and by six Democrats. The Democrats who supported him included several up for re-election in conservative-leaning states, including Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia.

Pompeo's opponents had cautioned that his hawkish foreign policy views and inflammatory comments about gay marriage and Islam made him ill-equipped to serve as the nation's top diplomat. Pompeo used his confirmation hearing to try to soften that image, edging away from past comments about regime change in North Korea.

"If there's no chance that we can fix it, I will recommend to the president that we work with our allies to achieve a better outcome and to achieve a better deal," Pompeo said in his confirmation hearing earlier this month.

Pompeo's earliest tests as secretary of state will play out in the first few weeks of his tenure on the world stage.

His schedule is already packed, with looming deadlines in the coming weeks involving Israel, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela. And he must manage these challenges while trying to fix a weakened and disillusioned State Department after a tumultuous first year under Rex W. Tillerson, the former Exxon Mobil CEO who was ousted by President Trump on Twitter last month and who left key diplomatic positions unfilled. Pompeo will also deal with the challenges of answering for a president who is prone to impulsiveness.

Pompeo will have to soon advise President Trump on whether to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal and re-impose sanctions on Tehran. Pompeo, a notable Iran critic, has long criticized the 2015 nuclear agreement and has praised Trump's efforts to impose new sanctions on Iran. A decision must be made by May 12,

On May 14, the new U.S. embassy in Jerusalem is scheduled to open. Trump's announcement that the embassy would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was overwhelmingly condemned by the United Nations, and it will be up to Pompeo to execute plans to build a bigger embassy so all the employees from Tel Aviv can work there.

In addition to those major issues, Pompeo will have to define a strategy in Syria, decide whether to launch a trade war with China, and decide whether to impose new sanctions against Venezuela after the expected re-election of President Nicolas Maduro on May 20 in a campaign widely considered as "illegitimate" and "undemocratic."

In those and other matters, Pompeo is expected to guide Trump's foreign policy in a more right-leaning direction than Tillerson, whose attempts to steer the president toward diplomacy caused him to develop a rocky relationship with the president that often left them publicly at odds.

Embattled comedian Bill Cosby found guilty of sexual assault in wake of #MeToo movement

Getty/Mark Makela

A Pennsylvania jury found Bill Cosby guilty of all three charges of sexual assault facing the embattled comedian on Thursday. An earlier trial in 2017 had resulted in a deadlocked jury. This time, a guilty verdict came on the heels of the #MeToo movement.

Cosby faced allegations of sexually assaulting and drugging Andrea Constand in his suburban Philadelphia home in 2004. Constand’s case was the exception in a wave of women who came forward with sexual assault allegations against Cosby — for many, the statute of limitations had expired.

According to the New York Times, the three counts Cosby faced — penetration with lack of consent, penetration while unconscious and penetration after administering an intoxicant — are felonies that are punishable by up to ten years in state prison. Cosby is 80 years old.

Cosby reportedly, via the New York Times, quietly stared down once the verdict was announced. Several women who have accused him of sexual abuse who attended the trial “briefly cheered.”

Judge Steven T. O’Neill commended the jurors saying, “You have sacrificed much, but you have sacrificed in the service of justice.”

In his 2017 testimony, Cosby admitted to having sexual relations with Constand, calling the encounter consensual. O’Neill allowed only one other accuser to testify, and a mistrial was declared.

During the retrial last week, Constand testified and recalled the events from 2004. According to The Guardian, she testified that Cosby invited her to his home after the two had become friends. She was a manager of the women’s basketball team at Temple University. He reportedly offered her three blue pills, which he allegedly told her were her “friends.”

“I trusted him. So I took them,” she said during the testimony.

Later, she said she started seeing double vision.

"Were you able to verbalize and tell him to stop?" state prosecutor Kristen Feden asked Constand, according to CNN.

"No," Constand said. "I wanted it to stop. I couldn't say anything. I was trying to get my hands to move, my legs to move and the message just wasn't getting there. I was weak, I was limp and I couldn't fight him off."

Cosby joins a long roster of men in the entertainment industry who have seemingly abused their power over women. The accusations preceded the #MeToo movement, which became a cultural boiling point in the wake of the sexual harassment and assault allegations levied against Harvey Weinstein.

As Salon's Rachel Leah explained, the Cosby retrial was indeed “inflected with new meaning” following the #MeToo movement. The prosecution and the defense were aware of the significance the retrial held.

"With the current atmosphere, it’s going to be hard enough to get the jury to focus on the trial at hand," defense lawyer Becky James said Tuesday, warning of a hemorrhage from #MeToo into the courtroom. "But bringing in additional accusers — especially 19 of them — in that environment would be highly prejudicial."

Prosecutors countered that narrative. "The truly unique nature of [Cosby’s] sadistic sexual script is manifest in the similarities between the acts he enacted with Ms. Constand and the 19 other women," Assistant District Attorney Adrienne D. Jappe said.

Cosby’s verdict is indeed monumental — one that likely could set a new precedent for future trials.

"Justice was served today," NOW President Toni Van Pelt said in a statement. "Thanks to the brave women who came forward to tell their stories, Bill Cosby, a violent assaulter has been convicted. This is a notice to sexual predators everywhere. No matter your position in life, our society will not tolerate such violent behavior anymore. Enough is enough."

Other sexual abuse prevention groups, such as The Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN) have noted that they hope this verdict will empower survivors to come forward knowing that justice can be served.

“RAINN is pleased with the jury’s decision in this case," Scott Berkowitz, the founder and president of RAINN, said in a statement. "There are many forces that discourage victims from reporting these crimes. Let’s hope the legacy of this case is that victims feel empowered to come forward, knowing that it can truly make a difference in bringing perpetrators to justice.”

Trans rights activist Sarah McBride: “I am powerful by just living”

B. Proud

On July 27, 2016, Sarah McBride made history as the first transgender person to speak at the Democratic National Convention — and the first transgender person to speak at a major political convention, period.

She was understandably both anxious and exhilarated. But it wasn’t the hardest thing she had to find the courage to do.

“It was a surreal experience,” Sarah told me in our conversation for the Inflection Point podcast. “What really brought me a lot of a lot of comfort in that was knowing that it was a moment that hopefully meant something to other people, and it wasn't about me, it was about that arena full of people standing up and cheering and applauding and affirming our dignity.”

Two years before, Sarah stood at the altar with her beloved partner and fellow trans rights activist Andrew Cray and vowed to love him forever and ever. It was a bittersweet wedding ceremony because they knew that Andy had terminal cancer and had very little time left.

“Through it all, my brother, who is a radiation oncologist and has watched far too many people pass away, said to me, ‘This is going to be incredibly difficult. But look around you and take stock in the acts of amazing grace that you will see,’” Sarah told me.

“For me it actually was eye opening because I then started looking around and I saw humanity at its best. . . . All of these miracles, all of this amazing grace that I was able to witness. It didn’t just change my perspective in Andy’s last month, but it's totally changed my perspective in life.”

A year before saying “I do” and then “goodbye" to Andy, Sarah stood on the steps of the Delaware state capitol, where she was working to get the Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Act passed in her home state. An angry woman walked up to her and threatened Sarah with assault if she were to see Sarah in a women’s restroom.

When Sarah reported the threat to the Capitol Police, they told her, “this is what you get for coming down here and doing this.”

“At first I was like, ‘Oh yeah, that is what I get. That is what’s to be expected,’” Sarah said. “But then I was like, ‘No. That's not to be expected. It might not be surprising, but it should not be a natural byproduct of advocating for your dignity to then be threatened with violence.”

But going toe to toe with the hatred so many transgender people face every day wasn’t the hardest thing that Sarah had to find the courage to do.

The hardest thing was finally finding the courage to use her voice and embrace the power of her story.

“My voice isn't just powerful, my voice doesn't just matter, but I as an LGBTQ person I am powerful by just being, by living.” Sarah says. “And that is a power we carry with us from the scariest of spaces to the safest of places.”

To hear more of Sarah's powerful story, listen to my conversation with Sarah McBride, press secretary at The Human Rights Campaign and author of "Tomorrow Will be Different: Love, Loss, and The Fight for Trans Equality."

And when you’re done, come on over to The Inflection Point Society, our Facebook group of everyday activists who seek to make extraordinary change through small, daily actions.

Hear more stories of how women rise up on "Inflection Point" on Apple Podcasts, RadioPublic, Stitcher and NPROne

Ronny Jackson, President Trump’s pick for VA secretary, withdraws his nomination

AP/Alex Brandon

Dr. Ronny L. Jackson, President Donald Trump’s personal physician and his nominee to lead the Department of Veterans Affairs, withdrew his name from consideration Thursday morning amid accusations of misconduct by nearly two dozen current and former colleagues from the White House medical staff.

“Unfortunately, because of how Washington works, these false allegations have become a distraction for this president and the important issue we must be addressing — how we give the best care to our nation’s heroes,” Jackson said in a statement provided by the White House press office.

Jackson said that the accusations against him were “completely false and fabricated.”

Within minutes of the announcement, Trump called into Fox News to defend Jackson.

"He would have done a great job, he has a tremendous heart," Trump said of his ill-fated nominee, in a phone call with "Fox & Friends." "These are all false accusations. They are going to destroy a man . . . There's no proof of this. He's got a beautiful record."

.@POTUS on Ronny Jackson withdrawing as nominee for VA secretary @foxandfriends https://t.co/PvljihV7ig pic.twitter.com/s9JEbvR0Hx

— Fox News (@FoxNews) April 26, 2018

Trump also blamed the opposition for derailing Jackson's nomination, singling out Montana Sen. Jon Tester, the top Democrat on the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, for smearing the physician. He said voters in Tester's home state "would have a big price to pay" for his undercutting of Jackson.

"And I watched what Jon Tester of Montana, a state that I won by like over 20 points, they love me and I love them," Trump said. "And I want to tell you. Jon Tester, I think this is going to cause him a lot of problems in his state. He took a man who is an incredible man, an incredible man."

Jackson's withdrawal came after a report released Wednesday by the Democratic staff of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee summarized interviews with 23 of Jackson's current and former colleagues.

The document described Jackson's "pattern" of handing out medication without patient history (for which he has been nicknamed the "Candyman"), writing prescriptions for himself and contributing to a hostile work environment where there was a "constant fear of reprisal."

Current and former colleagues told Democratic staffers of multiple incidents of drunkenness while on duty, including one where Jackson allegedly "wrecked a government vehicle" after getting intoxicated at a Secret Service going-away party. Jackson told reporters Wednesday at the White House that he had "no idea" where the claim he wrecked a car had originated.

A 2012 report by the Navy's Medical Inspector General also accused Jackson of exhibiting "unprofessional behaviors" and recommended that the U.S. Navy "consider" replacing him.

But the White House has stood by the physician and indicated that he had received glowing evaluations from former President Barack Obama.

“A most impressive leader who continues to perform at the Flag Officer level," Obama said on October 2014. "Ronny has earned my confidence and the gratitude of my family for his diligence and knowledge. Promote to Flag immediately.”

“Ronny does a great job — genuine enthusiasm, poised under pressure, incredible work ethic and follow through. Ronny continues to inspire confidence with the care he provides to me, my family and my team," a 2016 note from Obama read. "Continue to promote ahead of peers.”

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters at Wednesday's afternoon briefing that Jackson’s record as a White House physician has been "impeccable."

"In fact, because Dr. Jackson has worked within arm's reach of three presidents, he has received more vetting than most nominees," she continued. She returned to the vetting talking point repeatedly, saying that Jackson had undergone four background checks, which revealed "no areas of concern."

“Given his unique position of trust and responsibility, Dr. Jackson’s background and character were evaluated during three different administrations,” Sanders said. “Dr. Jackson has had at least four independent background investigations conducted during his time at the White House, including an FBI investigation conducted as part of the standard nomination vetting process.”

White House spokesman Raj Shah said Trump met with Jackson later on Wednesday, and he said the president still supported the nomination.

"This is, as the president said, Dr. Jackson's decision," Shah said on CNN.  "We stand behind him 100 percent depending on what he decides to do. We think he'll make a great secretary of Veterans Affairs, but this is a nasty process right now."

White House Director of Legislative Affairs Marc Short also blasted Tester for airing the allegations.

“It’s quite unusual for a U.S. senator to take allegations that have not been fully investigated, but to flaunt them to the national public to suggest he’s the ‘candyman,’ I think, is outrageous,” he said. "We're standing by Jackson."

Tester, speaking on MSNBC on Wednesday, acknowledged that not all the allegations had been verified.

"Am I 100 percent rock solid sure that he did this? No," Tester said. "But I've seen a pattern here that continues on and on and on."

An aide for the Montana senator pushed back against criticism from the White House, telling CNN Wednesday night that each allegation against Jackson in the two-page document came from multiple sources.

"Every allegation in that document has been brought to us by more than one source," the Tester staffer said.

How to digitize your cassette collection

There are countless ways to consume music today: online streaming services, digital downloads, and video playlists on YouTube keep music at the tips of your fingers. But nothing beats holding a physical copy of your favorite album in your hands and appreciating the cover art, band photos, and lyric sheets that came with cassettes from the 80’s and 90’s. Listening to those tapes forces a trade-off between enjoying your favorite artists and preserving the tapes themselves, but this Cassette to MP3 Converter backs up the audio on your computer, giving you the sound you want while conserving the tape.

This converter easily transforms the tunes on your tapes to MP3 files, keeping your music safe and preserving the sound you remember when you first popped into your car stereo or boombox. Just connect the Capture case directly to your laptop, put in your tape and let the included software work its magic. The Capture case’s physical style also mimics the style of the classic Walkman, giving you more nostalgia bang for your buck.

Keep your physical tapes preserved and your collection on display while saving the sound you grew up hearing with this Cassette to MP3 Converter. It’s on sale for $20.99 now, 70% off the normal retail price of $69.99.

Democrats may actually win the Senate in 2018, poll suggests

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

A new poll has bad news for Republicans hoping to retain their party's control over the Senate in the 2018 midterm elections.

In order for the Democrats to flip the Senate away from Republican control, they'll need to convert no fewer than two seats from one party to the other, according to Axios. While the Democrats have long been believed to be at a disadvantage because they are defending more Senate seats in 2018 than their Republican counterparts, a new survey by Axios and SurveyMonkey suggests that at least three Senate seats currently held by Republicans may be competitive.

This includes the race in Arizona, where Democratic frontrunner Kyrsten Sinema has a major lead over all three of her most likely Republican opponents — Rep. Martha McSally, former state Sen. Kelli Ward and former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Sinema is ahead of McSally by nine points (51 percent to 42 percent), ahead of Ward by eight points (51 percent to 43 percent) and ahead of Arpaio by 29 points (61 percent to 32 percent). The seat in question is currently held by Republican Sen. Jeff Flake, who is retiring in January.

The poll results were similarly dispiriting for Republicans in Nevada, where the Democratic frontrunner, Rep. Jacky Rosen, is ahead of Republican Sen. Dean Heller by six points (50 percent to 44 percent). In Tennessee, former Gov. Phil Bredesen (the Democratic frontrunner) is in a statistical tie with Republican frontrunner Rep. Marsha Blackburn, with Bredesen at 48 percent and Blackburn at 47 percent.

These survey results are consistent with those taken from other recent polls on the competitive Senate races. A Mason-Dixon poll conducted in Tennessee and released on Wednesday showed Bredesen ahead of Blackburn by three points (46 percent to 43 percent), while a series of polls on the Arizona Senate race taken by ABC 15/OH Predictive Insights all found Sinema with leads over her various possible Republican opponents that ranged from six percentage points to 26 percentage points. The only major point of divergence was in the polling results for the Nevada Senate race, where a Nevada Independent/Mellman poll released on Wednesday had Heller ahead of Rosen by 1 percentage point (a statistical tie).

Despite these projections, Axios did include a warning for Democrats who may be inclined to prematurely celebrate the results as foreshadowing a definite sweep for their party.

The overall Senate map in this election still favors the GOP, and an earlier Axios/SurveyMonkey poll showed five Senate Democrats could lose their seats to Republicans. Democrats need to keep the Senate seats they have and gain two more to take control of the Senate.

When it comes to the races for the House of Representatives, Republicans have similar reasons to be worried. A special election for an Arizona congressional seat being vacated by disgraced former Republican Rep. Trent Franks saw the Republican candidate, Debbie Lesko, beating her Democratic opponent Dr. Hiral Tipirneni by a much smaller margin than anticipated. As statistical guru Nate Silver wrote on Wednesday:

Lesko’s margin of victory was only 5 percentage points in a district that typically votes Republican by much, much more than that. The outcome represented a 20-point swing toward Democrats relative to the district’s FiveThirtyEight partisan lean, which is derived from how it voted for president in 2016 and 2012 relative to the country.

The silver lining for Republicans isn’t that Lesko won. If Republicans are winning by only 5 points in this sort of extremely red district in November, dozens of more competitive seats will [flip] to Democrats — more than enough for them to take the House. Rather, the “good” news is that Republicans have endured lots of this sort of bad news already. Before Tuesday night, Democrats had outperformed their partisan baseline by an average of 17 points in congressional special elections so far this cycle. So the Arizona result was only slightly worse for Republicans than previous ones.

Harry Enten, a polling expert for CNN, had a similar observation about the implications of Arizona's special House election on Wednesday.

Including Arizona 8, the average improvement for the Democrats has been 17 percentage points versus the partisan baseline. That's better than any party out of power has done in the lead-up to a midterm cycle since at least 1994.

You'll note that there is a clear correlation between the average overperformance of Democrats in special elections and the midterm outcome. The only cycle that looks like this one so far is 2006, when Democrats had a net gain of 30 seats and took back the House.

Meanwhile John Feehery, a former spokesman to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and communications director to former Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, wrote an editorial in The Hill on Monday that explained why he believed the predictions of a possible Democratic takeover of the House were overstated.

Republicans have a distinct national advantage going into this election. As Mother Jones reported in March, “A new report from the Brennan Center for Justice calculates just how much of a landslide Democrats will need in order to win in districts that were drawn specifically to withstand Democratic waves and elect Republicans. The result, report co-author Michael Li says, should be a ‘reality check’ for Democrats.” To win the House, the Democrats would have to win the popular vote by 11 points, according to this left-leaning organization.

Is that possible? Yes. Probably? No.

The Republican Party has been in control of the House of Representatives since the midterm elections in 2010, when President Barack Obama was struggling with a sagging economy and the disadvantages of first term incumbency. Four years later, during the 2014 midterm elections, the Republican Party managed to capture the Senate as Obama struggled with the disadvantages of being a second-term incumbent.

While the Republican Party would thus face an automatic disadvantage by virtue of the fact that they control the White House, that factor is exacerbated by the president's low approval ratings. A statistical tracker by FiveThirtyEight that monitors Trump's approval rating based on a number of polls found that he had a 53.7 percent disapproval rating and only a 40.5 percent approval rating, which significantly exacerbates the GOP's pre-existing disadvantage going into the 2018 midterms.

A third party? How not to settle for the lesser of two evils

This originally appeared on Robert Reich’s blog.

Are you happy with the electoral choices provided you by the two major parties? If not, should you vote for a third party candidate?

Not so fast. Remember what happened in 2016, when Libertarian Gary Johnson got 3.2 percent of the popular vote and Green Party candidate Jill Stein got 1.06 percent. Enough votes that, had they gone to Hillary Clinton, she’d have won the Electoral College, and Donald Trump wouldn’t be in the White House.

Oh, and anyone remember what happened in 2000, when the votes that went to Ralph Nader all but sealed the fate of Al Gore, and gave us George W. Bush.

You see the problem? In a winner-take-all system like ours, votes for third party candidates siphon away votes from the major party candidate whose views are closest to that third-party candidate. So by not voting for the lesser of two evils, if that’s what you want to call them, you end up with the worse of two evils.

But here’s the good news. You’ve got at least 2 ways to avoid the lesser of two evils other than voting for a third party candidate.

First, you could build support for your favorite primary candidate inside one of the major parties — like some of you did for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic primaries.

But, you might say, look what happened to Bernie! The Democratic Party establishment rigged the game against him.

I don’t want to open up this particular can of worms, but if a party establishment has a chokehold on the primaries — the answer isn’t to go with a third party and end up with the worse of two evils, but to organize and mobilize inside the party to break that choke hold, as some would say the Tea Party has done in the GOP.

Never underestimate the power of grassroots activism focused like a laser on taking over a major political party that has ossified.

Another way to avoid the lesser of two evils: Get your state to institute ranked-choice voting, also known as instant-runoff voting, which allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference.

The process is simple: In the first round, only voters’ first choices are counted. If a candidate gets a majority, that’s the end of it: That candidate wins. If no candidate gets a majority, the candidate who received the fewest votes is eliminated, and then the second choices of voters who preferred that candidate are counted.

If that gives a majority to one candidate, that candidate wins. If there’s still no one with a majority, the process continues,  until one candidate gets a majority.

Ranked-choice voting isn’t perfect, but it enables you to vote your conscience –even for a third-party candidate – without the worry that you’re giving ground to the candidate you like least.

The idea is gaining popularity. Last year, some form of ranked-choice voting was proposed in 19 states. In 2016, citizens in Maine initiated a referendum for ranked-choice voting and won. It’s already being used in statewide special elections in North Carolina, and in 10 major cities.

You don’t have to settle for the lesser of two evils. But in order to get the candidates you want elected you need to get involved, now. In the primaries. And in changing your state to ranked-choice voting.

It’s our democracy. Whether it works, is up to us.