Connect with us

GetEQUAL’s Wizard Advisor Paul Yandura: The Exclusive Interview

Published

on

Paul Yandura was a consummate Washington, D.C. insider — in the early ’90s he debuted as an intern for then-House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt and went on to work at the White House as a staff assistant to Marsha Scott, the first White House liaison to the LGBT community under President Bill Clinton. Yandura worked on the Re-Elect Clinton-Gore Campaign in 1996, was an Executive Director for the National Stonewall Democrats (founded by Rep. Barney Frank,) and founded the first Democratic National Committee LGBT Leadership Council in 2000 that cultivated wealthy donors and leveraged gay votes at the highest levels of the Democratic Party (Photo: Paul Yandura, right, and his partner Donald Hitchcock at the 2008 Democratic National Convention).

 


Those of us who have access or resources need to remember the millions of LGBT folks living in red states and other hostile places throughout the U.S. and the world, who don’t have the luxury of sitting around and accepting empty compromises, excuses and rationalizations in place of real progress.



 

Yandura had it all–living a dream of achieving elite status, access to some of the most powerful people in the world, and yet it was not enough. Something happened to Paul Yandura, despite enjoying the halcyon pleasures of Washington’s political business–he was not equal as a gay man in America and finally recognized how little had been done to change his and his friends’ second-class status. This acknowledgement so radicalized Paul and his ideas about how to achieve equality for LGBT people that in early 2010 he helped found GetEQUAL, whose work has been transformational and can claim direct credit for helping pass the legal repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT).

Left Right: Paul Yandura, Brian Bond, Donald Hitchcock and Marsha Scott, 2006 at the NGLTF Dinner

Living a wonderful life as a partner in Scott+Yandura, a D.C. based public affairs company, and happily, for the past 13 years, romantically partnered with Donald Hitchcock, a gay activist in his own right, Yandura and Hitchcock recently completed certification for adoption and fostering in Washington, D.C. and are looking forward to becoming parents and plan to marry in the near future.

While collecting ‘Outsider’ and Folk Art created by artists out of the mainstream and the disabled, gives him happiness too, Yandura readily admits that what gets him charged up now is “to wake up everyday and demand change and demand that we be treated as full and equal citizens.”

Armed with relentless focus that is accompanied by a vocalized rat-tat-tat litany of unfulfilled promises, no doubt Yandura evokes fear in the hearts of traditional Washingtonians. He is a formidable adversary. Schooled and experienced in the ways of Washington thinking and acting, and empowered by access to money and resources, Yandura knows how to create chaos that can rattle the cages of powerbrokers who have historically controlled the LGBT political terrain without interference.

Not anymore. Free agent Paul Yandura is now running a full-throated, clenched-teeth, spirited and unending campaign for LGBT equality.

In an interview with the New York Times published June 29th to mark the Obama White House’s Pride celebration and its awkward timing following so closely behind the New York victory, Paul Yandura declared, pulling no punches, “People know a fierce advocate when they see one. Andrew Cuomo was a fierce advocate.” The White House is feeling a gut check. And so they should.

The New Civil Rights Movement is proud to bring you this exclusive interview.

Paul, you are a politico, a “D.C. insider” who worked in the Clinton White House and for the Re-Elect in 1996.  How did you become a LGBT activist? What changed your “politics” over the years since you were sitting at the table of power in Washington, D.C.?

Several years ago I realized that many of my colleague insiders were continuing to make the same excuses and rationalizations we made in the 90’s. I also realized that if we continued to act like the best little constituency in the world we would never get equal. It became time to stop worrying about whether we would lose access or piss someone off for demanding our equality. I started asking harder questions and demanding more from our “friends and allies.” Those of us who have access or resources need to remember the millions of LGBT folks living in red states and other hostile places throughout the U.S. and the world, who don’t have the luxury of sitting around and accepting empty compromises, excuses and rationalizations in place of real progress.

It would be easy for me, as a white gay guy with resources and living in D.C. (with strong non-discrimination laws and marriage equality,) to accept the excuses and rationalizations for why we can’t push now for equality, or why it’s naïve to think we could force change, but for those still living in fear of losing their jobs or having their children taken away, discrimination is a lived reality every day.  I think all of the executive directors of national organizations should have to live in a city and state that has no non-discrimination laws, so the urgency that others feel becomes real and not a political game.

After being an insider for years, I now get to wake up everyday and demand change and demand that we be treated as full and equal citizens—the insiders and others get to wake up and have to continually convince us how complicated it is, and why it’s just not possible at this time to be equal citizens.

What are the most salient lessons you learned from the 1990s, when you were inside the government, that you now use to inform and advise GetEQUAL and other groups on the best tactics and strategies to use to advance a LGBT equality agenda?

There are several lessons and rules that I have learned over the years that I find instructive. Most of my early experiences taught me what not to do, rather than what to do:

  • Rules are created by those in power to keep power, not to create change. BREAK ALL THE RULES, UNTIL WE ARE EQUAL.
  • In politics things can be as simple or as complicated as they want those in power want them to be—it just depends on whether they want to do them or not.
  • You need to pick a fight to win a fight—the religious right learned this long ago and the conservative right really adheres to this rule, even when the facts, science, reality and everything else is not on their side.
  • Time is no guarantee for progress, the fight and the struggle is what moves us forward.  Martin Luther King Jr. talked about this and warned against the false hope of being patient and just waiting until attitudes soften or change. Equality will never come to the community if we just sit around and wait for it.
  • Chaos and crisis are very strong political motivators (next to money and votes.)
  • Tomorrow never comes.
  • We need to act like a civil rights movement and stop acting like a political movement. We have to relentlessly demand our rights everyday at every turn, regardless of what political cycle or election cycle or legislative window we find ourselves in.
  • Secrecy is necessary to hide failure, change has never come in secret.

Donald Hitchcock, left and Paul Yandura, right, holding a Frank Kameny sign at March on Washington, Oct. 2008

 

What do you mean the LGBT community must act like a civil rights movement and stop acting like a political movement?

We don’t stop equality during an election…look at the suffrage movement and the civil rights movement, who never stopped working for change during elections—history shows us that elections are opportunities to be heard and force change.

The more shaky things are during an election, the more opportunity there is to make change. Pushing and being relentless advocates is not something that would make Obama lose the election and progressives will feel better about him when he is doing the right thing at exactly the right time.

You participated in the Dallas Principles meeting—what purpose did that meeting serve and how have its objectives and goals been realized — or not?

The reason I was excited about the Dallas meeting was simple. I had felt for far too long that we were good at training and shuffling around our community leaders and we were good at creating “experts,” but what we were missing were principled leaders and principled leadership. Our leaders who are on the inside bargaining and compromising on our behalf should be beholden to a set of principles. If they are confronted by our friends or enemies and a principle is broken they should stand strong and expose it.

If you look at the Dallas Principles, they are simple and we should be able to adhere to them. People say to me all the time, if we don’t compromise we won’t get anything—yet, most of the time we compromise AND get nothing. Same goes for those arguing for incremental change. D.C. marriage equality is a great example of real, successful incrementalism. Year after year, very smart local activists and insiders forced incremental change after change that stacked up to something very close to marriage equality and then when it came time for marriage equality it was that much easier because of the previous progress. Instead, especially on the federal level, we have seen year after year no increments but lots of compromise and excuses and arguments for incrementalism.

(Read the Dallas Principles.)

What compelled you to help found GetEQUAL—the first such organization since Act Up!?

It had been 30 years since the late Paul Tsongas had introduced the first civil rights bill for gays in Congress. And  I felt like we were stagnant and complacent as a community. We also had a dearth of principled leadership. And, it was clear that our friends and allies in the Democratic Party understood that we would always be reasonable and accept every excuse and rationalization in the book in place of full equality. They did not fear us. Crisis and chaos are important tools in politics.

If you look at the way the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) was handled (controlled by insiders, shrouded in secrecy, chastising anyone who dared to question the strategy that the experts and insiders were secretly working on) compared to what happened with DADT repeal which was an uncontrollable, relentless, chaotic shitstorm–you see that DADT became impossible to ignore and they had to act.

It became clear that if we are not desperate and demanding then we could be ignored or placated. The protests and pushback that GetEQUAL, the bloggers and others created, changed the way that progressives and others viewed the issue. They created a relentless urgency for repeal. I will never forget the live shot on CNN of Dan Choi and Jim Pietrangelo handcuffed to the White House fence that first protest and hearing the announcer reverently narrating what he was seeing by saying, “look at their faces, look at that desperation, these guys wouldn’t do this unless the situation had become desperate.” We saw the visual from that point forward for Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repeal changed from being a photo of dogtags and rainbows to protesters and handcuffs. That imagery mattered; it became iconic and relayed a completely different story.



A lot of people have asked me whether I will be voting for Obama next year and I actually think that’s the wrong question to ask this far out. The question we should be asking is has he done what he promised and can he do more before the first term is over?



 

We were lucky that a donor (Jonthan D. Lewis) was smart enough, bold enough and frustrated enough to try something completely different and new and that a whole new generation of LGBT activists was ready to take the helm of a new organization and movement. We were also lucky that the donor and the leadership of GetEQUAL did not want access, an appointment, an ambassadorship or any other patronage, they wanted one thing–to be equal.

What do you think about the Obama followers who continue to spout the “first gay appointee” for this or that? There seems to be a steady drumbeat of that sort of thing by some supporters. Do you think Obama is really going to do the right thing by fulfilling his promises to the LGBT community? What do you make of his “thoughts are evolving on gay marriage” comments?

A lot of people have asked me whether I will be voting for Obama next year and I actually think that’s the wrong question to ask this far out. The question we should be asking is has he done what he promised and can he do more before the first term is over? Of course I am going to vote for him, I have never voted for a Republican in my life and I don’t think that the opportunity will ever-present itself in my lifetime, especially when you look at how conservative and backwards many of them are.

I don’t know anyone who thinks that any of the Republican presidential candidates would be better for the community, but, I do think it is fair to keep demanding that President Obama live up to his rhetoric and promises made during the campaign.

You hear a lot these days about how President Obama has done more than any other President ever “on the federal level”–but the truth is that even if he just passed Hate Crimes you could probably say that as well. There is a distinct difference between saying that he has done more than President Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, Reagan, Carter and all the others combined…and comparing what he promised he would do to what he has done. It’s that simple.

(Yandura’s position on Obama’s “slim accomplishments” is explained in the Advocate’s article titled Obama:  The Good Enough President.”)

What could President Obama do today to make things better for LGBT people in America?

President Obama said in his speech on Wednesday that he made good on his promises.  But the problem is that he has not made good on his promises.  It is tricky, but what the president was saying was that he made good on the promises he made at the first White House pride celebration–but we should be judging him on the promises he made as a candidate when we raised money and voted for him.

According to Yandura, from the donor side and with groups like GetEQUAL and Equality Matters, among others, they have been advocating for the following initiatives and reforms since Obama’s election in November 2008:

1.  Count and include LGBT Americans

  • Direct the federal government to include LGBT Americans in all federal level data collection efforts. (The allocation of federal funding and research dollars are dependent on data collection, from which our community has been historically excluded.)

2.  Prohibit Federal Funds from Being Used To Discriminate Against LGBT Americans

  • Add sexual orientation and gender identity to President Johnson’s executive order 11246, mandating employment non-discrimination policies for all federal contractors that receive federal funding.
  • Create non-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation and gender identity for all entities receiving or applying for federal grants.

3.  Enact an Employment Non-Discrimination Policy for the Federal Government (including the military)

  • Prohibit discrimination against members of the US military on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
  • Add gender identity protections to President Clinton’s executive order 13087, which protected civilian federal workers from employment discrimination based on their sexual orientation.

4. Accelerate progress on the over 192 individual department and agency specific requests presented to his transition team in December 2008

What do you think the LGBT movement can accomplish if Obama is reelected?  And what should the community aspire to in the next 25 years?

I think Obama has been an amazing opportunity for the community to learn that we need to fight for our rights and we need to demand that our friends act like friends and not just by-standers. The community seems to be waking up, and the younger generation is no longer happy with empty gestures and talk. They have a much healthier self-esteem because they grew up being able to enjoy the better conditions that many generations before them toiled to create—and they are no longer willing to sit at the table rubbing their stomachs moaning about how full they are after being served crumbs, just so they are liked by the other diners. They want full equality and they want it now. It is exciting to watch the younger activists get louder and take over the movement, we need new leadership and new blood.

I hope that Obama is reelected and I hope that the community has learned that we need to push from day one relentlessly for fully inclusive equality. I think many people are ashamed and embarrassed that we let the largest Congressional Democratic Party majority in our lifetime slip by without even getting ENDA out of committee in the House. No more waiting, no more excuses, we have to act-and demand–like a civil rights movement and stop acting like a political movement.

My greatest expectation is that we will pass an inclusive ENDA and repeal the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA), fix unfair immigration laws and other LGBT priorities (including trans priorities) and then we will work in coalition on other progressive changes like economic and racial justice issues, the environment and other progressive issues. Over the past couple of months many of the other progressive groups have looked toward the LGBT community as a model to force change—my great hope is that we would stand arm in arm with all the other progressive causes.

What are your thoughts about New York’s Marriage Equality achievement and the political consequences?

I think the victory in New York did two things. It showed us what a fierce advocate really looks and acts like and it gave us renewed momentum at a time when hope was seeming to die out. It also came at a time when the game has completely changed and the community is no longer willing to accept excuses and rationalizations instead of full equality. Don’t get me wrong, not everyone has figured out that the game has changed, you only need to look at the statements on national television from the Human Rights Campaign spokesperson prior to President Obama’s speech at the New York fundraiser stating that the community is overjoyed with the progress we have made over the past two years. Add that to HRC’s early endorsement of President Obama that was dead on arrival and it is clear that they need to reexamine their “strategy” soon, or be left behind.

What the win in New York demonstrates is that you need to pick a fight to win a fight–the only way to know what is politically possible is to get in the game. No longer can we accept support in words only, we need action and we need real leadership. Hoping, wishing and praying are not a strategies. It is about time our Democratic friends and allies expend some political capital on our behalf, after we have continually been told to be patient year after year and “take one for the team” while broken promises have piled up.

 

Tanya L. Domi is an Adjunct Assistant Professor of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, who teaches about human rights in Eurasia and is a Harriman Institute affiliated faculty member. Prior to teaching at Columbia, Domi worked internationally for more than a decade on issues related to democratic transitional development, including political and media development, human rights, gender issues, sex trafficking, and media freedom.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

OPINION

Noem Defends Shooting Her 14-Month Old Puppy to Death, Brags She Has Media ‘Gasping’

Published

on

Republican Governor Kristi Noem of South Dakota, a top potential Trump vice presidential running mate pick, revealed in a forthcoming book she “hated” her 14-month old puppy and shot it to death. Massive online outrage ensued, including accusations of “animal cruelty” and “cold-blooded murder,” but the pro-life former member of Congress is defending her actions and bragging she had the media “gasping.”

“Cricket was a wirehair pointer, about 14 months old,” Noem writes in her soon-to-be released book, according to The Guardian which reports “the dog, a female, had an ‘aggressive personality’ and needed to be trained to be used for hunting pheasant.”

“By taking Cricket on a pheasant hunt with older dogs, Noem says, she hoped to calm the young dog down and begin to teach her how to behave. Unfortunately, Cricket ruined the hunt, going ‘out of her mind with excitement, chasing all those birds and having the time of her life’.”

“Then, on the way home after the hunt, as Noem stopped to talk to a local family, Cricket escaped Noem’s truck and attacked the family’s chickens, ‘grabb[ing] one chicken at a time, crunching it to death with one bite, then dropping it to attack another’.”

READ MORE: President Hands Howard Stern Live Interview After NY Times Melts Down Over Biden Brush-Off

“Cricket the untrainable dog, Noem writes, behaved like ‘a trained assassin’.”

Except Cricket wasn’t trained. Online several people with experience training dogs have said Noem did everything wrong.

“I hated that dog,” Noem wrote, calling the young girl pup “untrainable,” “dangerous to anyone she came in contact with,” and “less than worthless … as a hunting dog.”

“At that moment,” Noem wrote, “I realized I had to put her down.”

“It was not a pleasant job,” she added, “but it had to be done. And after it was over, I realized another unpleasant job needed to be done.”

The Guardian reports Noem went on that day to slaughter a goat that “smelled ‘disgusting, musky, rancid’ and ‘loved to chase’ Noem’s children, knocking them down and ruining their clothes.”

She dragged both animals separately into a gravel pit and shot them one at a time. The puppy died after one shell, but the goat took two.

On social media Noem expressed no regret, no sadness, no empathy for the animals others say did not need to die, and certainly did not need to die so cruelly.

READ MORE: ‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

But she did use the opportunity to promote her book.

Attorney and legal analyst Jeffrey Evan Gold says Governor Noem’s actions might have violated state law.

“You slaughtered a 14-month-old puppy because it wasn’t good at the ‘job’ you chose for it?” he asked. “SD § 40-1-2.3. ‘No person owning or responsible for the care of an animal may neglect, abandon, or mistreat the animal.'”

The Democratic National Committee released a statement saying, “Kristi Noem’s extreme record goes beyond bizarre rants about killing her pets – she also previously said a 10-year-old rape victim should be forced to carry out her pregnancy, does not support exceptions for rape or incest, and has threatened to throw pharmacists in jail for providing medication abortions.”

Former Trump White House Director of Strategic Communications Alyssa Farah Griffin, now a co-host on “The View” wrote, “There are countless organizations that re-home dogs from owners who are incapable of properly training and caring for them.”

The Lincoln Project’s Rick Wilson blasted the South Dakota governor.

“Kristi Noem is trash,” he began. “Decades with hunting- and bird-dogs, and the number I’ve killed because they were chicken-sharp or had too much prey drive is ZERO. Puppies need slow exposure to birds, and bird-scent.”

“She killed a puppy because she was lazy at training bird dogs, not because it was a bad dog,” he added. “Not every dog is for the field, but 99.9% of them are trainable or re-homeable. We have one now who was never going in the field, but I didn’t kill her. She’s sleeping on the couch. You down old dogs, hurt dogs, and sick dogs humanely, not by shooting them and tossing them in a gravel pit. Unsporting and deliberately cruel…but she wrote this to prove the cruelty is the point.”

Melissa Jo Peltier, a writer and producer of the “Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan” series, also heaped strong criticism on Noem.

“After 10+ years working with Cesar Millan & other highly specialized trainers, I believe NO dog should be put down just because they can’t or won’t do what we decide WE want them to,” Peltier said in a lengthy statement. “Dogs MUST be who they are. Sadly, that’s often who WE teach them to be. And our species is a hot mess. I would have happily taken Kristi Noem’s puppy & rehomed it. What she did is animal cruelty & cold blooded murder in my book.”

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

Continue Reading

OPINION

President Hands Howard Stern Live Interview After NY Times Melts Down Over Biden Brush-Off

Published

on

President Joe Biden gave an nearly-unannounced, last-minute, live exclusive interview Friday morning to Howard Stern, the SiriusXM radio host who for decades, from the mid-1990s to about 2015, was a top Trump friend, fan, and aficionado. But the impetus behind the President’s move appears to be a rare and unsigned statement from the The New York Times Company, defending the “paper of record” after months of anger from the public over what some say is its biased negative coverage of the Biden presidency and, especially, a Thursday report by Politico claiming Times Publisher A.G. Sulzberger is furious the President has refused to give the “Grey Lady” an in-person  interview.

“The Times’ desire for a sit-down interview with Biden by the newspaper’s White House team is no secret around the West Wing or within the D.C. bureau,” Politico reported. “Getting the president on the record with the paper of record is a top priority for publisher A.G. Sulzberger. So much so that last May, when Vice President Kamala Harris arrived at the newspaper’s midtown headquarters for an off-the-record meeting with around 40 Times journalists, Sulzberger devoted several minutes to asking her why Biden was still refusing to grant the paper — or any major newspaper — an interview.”

“In Sulzberger’s view,” Politico explained, “only an interview with a paper like the Times can verify that the 81-year-old Biden is still fit to hold the presidency.”

But it was this statement that made Politico’s scoop go viral.

READ MORE: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

“’All these Biden people think that the problem is Peter Baker or whatever reporter they’re mad at that day,’ one Times journalist said. ‘It’s A.G. He’s the one who is pissed [that] Biden hasn’t done any interviews and quietly encourages all the tough reporting on his age.'”

Popular Information founder Judd Legum in March documented The New York Times’ (and other top papers’) obsession with Biden’s age after the Hur Report.

Thursday evening the Times put out a “scorching” statement, as Politico later reported, not on the newspaper’s website but on the company’s corporate website, not addressing the Politico piece directly but calling it “troubling” that President Biden “has so actively and effectively avoided questions from independent journalists during his term.”

Media watchers and critics pushed back on the Times’ statement.

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

“NYT issues an unprecedented statement slamming Biden for ‘actively and effectively avoid[ing] questions from independent journalists during his term’ and claiming it’s their ‘independence’ that Biden dislikes, when it’s actually that they’re dying to trip him up,” wrote media critic Dan Froomkin, editor of Press Watch.

Froomkin also pointed to a 2017 report from Poynter, a top journalism site published by The Poynter Institute, that pointed out the poor job the Times did of interviewing then-President Trump.

Others, including former Biden Deputy Secretary of State Brian McKeon, debunked the Times’ claim President Biden hasn’t given interviews to independent journalists by pointing to Biden’s interviews with CBS News’ “60 Minutes” and a 20-minute sit-down interview with veteran journalist John Harwood for ProPublica.

Former Chicago Sun-Times editor Mark Jacob, now a media critic who publishes Stop the Presses, offered a more colorful take of Biden’s decision to go on Howard Stern.

The Times itself just last month reported on a “wide-ranging interview” President Biden gave to The New Yorker.

Watch the video and read the social media posts above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

 

 

Continue Reading

News

CNN Smacks Down Trump Rant Courthouse So ‘Heavily Guarded’ MAGA Cannot Attend His Trial

Published

on

Donald Trump’s Friday morning claim Manhattan’s Criminal Courts Building is “heavily guarded” so his supporters cannot attend his trial was torched by a top CNN anchor. The ex-president, facing 34 felony charges in New York, had been urging his followers to show up and protest on the courthouse steps, but few have.

“I’m at the heavily guarded Courthouse. Security is that of Fort Knox, all so that MAGA will not be able to attend this trial, presided over by a highly conflicted pawn of the Democrat Party. It is a sight to behold! Getting ready to do my Courthouse presser. Two minutes!” Trump wrote Friday morning on his Truth Social account.

CNN’s Kaitlan Collins supplied a different view.

“Again, the courthouse is open the public. The park outside, where a handful of his supporters have gathered on trials days, is easily accessible,” she wrote minutes after his post.

READ MORE: ‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Trump has tried to rile up his followers to come out and make a strong showing.

On Monday Trump urged his supporters to “rally behind MAGA” and “go out and peacefully protest” at courthouses across the country, while complaining that “people who truly LOVE our Country, and want to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, are not allowed to ‘Peacefully Protest,’ and are rudely and systematically shut down and ushered off to far away ‘holding areas,’ essentially denying them their Constitutional Rights.”

On Wednesday Trump claimed, “The Courthouse area in Lower Manhattan is in a COMPLETE LOCKDOWN mode, not for reasons of safety, but because they don’t want any of the thousands of MAGA supporters to be present. If they did the same thing at Columbia, and other locations, there would be no problem with the protesters!”

After detailing several of his false claims about security measures prohibiting his followers from being able to show their support and protest, CNN published a fact-check on Wednesday:

“Trump’s claims are all false. The police have not turned away ‘thousands of people’ from the courthouse during his trial; only a handful of Trump supporters have shown up to demonstrate near the building,” CNN reported.

“And while there are various security measures in place in the area, including some street closures enforced by police officers and barricades, it’s not true that ‘for blocks you can’t get near this courthouse.’ In reality, the designated protest zone for the trial is at a park directly across the street from the courthouse – and, in addition, people are permitted to drive right up to the front of the courthouse and walk into the building, which remains open to the public. If people show up early enough in the morning, they can even get into the trial courtroom itself or the overflow room that shows near-live video of the proceedings.”

READ MORE: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.