Connect with us

Spilled Milk: If It Ever Came To That

Published

on

This post is the ninth in a series of Spilled Milk columns by Emmy Award-winning writer and producer William Lucas Walker that chronicle his journey through parenthood. Spilled Milk, which originates in The Huffington Post, appears on these pages every Saturday.

 

A question for today’s modern parent: What would it take, how desperate would you have to be, to consider prostituting yourself for the sake of your family?

Before I had children, I’d have said never. But children change things, as Lifetime TV makes crystal clear in their probing, popular new TV series The Client List, a show about a mom recalibrating her moral compass to keep her fatherless family in high-quality kitchen appliances. It stars a deeply cleavaged, adorably conflicted Jennifer Love Hewitt. Don’t think I mention J-Love’s cleavage gratuitously; as any viewer can tell you, it’s integral to every storyline. So integral, in fact, that some weeks it gets its own subplot.

If you doubt the importance of Jen’s assets to the stories being told, I submit the first sentence of the New York Times review: “The Client List is being advertised with billboards on which each of Jennifer Love Hewitt’s breasts appears to be the size of a studio apartment.” (That sentence alone almost got me to fork over $35 a month for an online subscription, until my son spotted me pulling out my credit card and snatched it, throwing on his fake sad face and reminding me how many Go-Gurts that could buy.)

Here’s The Client List in a nutshell: J-Love plays a woman named Riley Parks. Because Jennifer and Riley look uncannily alike, I call her Ri-Love. After her husband disappears without paying the mortgage, Ri-Love is forced to keep her family afloat financially. When her search for cartography and quilting jobs turns up nothing but dead ends, our heroine naturally takes the only other career path left open to her: She becomes a masseuse at a fancy Texas day spa called The Rub (you can’t make this stuff up… oh, somebody did).

If this were the real world, Ri-Love’s clients would mostly be bloated housewives with receding gums who say “ow!” a lot. But this being unreality television, coupled with the fact that Lifetime needs to recoup its investment on the Love Hewitt breasticles (a friend’s son invented that word, while eating Go-Gurts), most weeks her clients are men. Again, not the sort of real-life Texans who might actually seek out a day-spa masseuse (flatulent Karl Rove types with crippling hernias). No. Most weeks, Ri-Love’s table is stuffed with cut, hunky Abercrombie & Fitch alumni who would never in their bronze-nippled, twelve-packed lives have to pay a woman to massage them.

But you see where this is heading. Very quickly, Ri-Love learns that the other girls seem to be pocketing alot more in tips than she is. So naturally, she starts asking questions, at which point one of the girls tells Ri-Love that if she ever hopes to replace her noisy Maytag with that fancy Bosch dishwasher her kids have had their eye on, she’s going to have to knead more than trapezius muscles. So Ri-Love bites her lip, buys a jug of hand sanitizer, and gets to work.

Get any parent drunk enough and they’ll admit that sometimes, the scruples/practicality balance has to get shifted around some. Still, at the end of the day, we love Jennifer, because, A) she was once a Disney kid, and B) technically, Ri-Love’s not selling her whole body, just her dominant hand.

Which I could never do. I know this because of something that happened one night on a trip to New York City back in the ’90s, a time of crossroads for so many of us.

I was single then. The television series I’d been writing for had just wrapped, so I had pockets full of cash and plenty of time on my hands. It was my first night of a two-week vacation, and my flight had arrived too late for me to catch a Broadway show. So, after checking into my hotel, I headed to the Upper East Side to catch a 9 p.m. movie.

As the audience streamed onto the sidewalk after it let out, I noticed a very attractive, I mean unusually attractive, young guy in front of me. Picture a pre-James Franco James Franco. Tall, dirty blond, wearing jeans, a white T-shirt, and a leather jacket. Sizzling. He emerged from the multiplex before I did, setting off in the same direction I was, maybe 15 paces ahead.

Then it happened. He turned back and smiled. At me. Not once, but twice, then three times over the course of a couple of blocks.

And why not? I was handsome. (Ask my mother.) And, like I said, single, flush, and fancy-free. Still, this sort of thing never happened to me. It happened in movies. It happened in books. It happened all the time in ads for products with names like Summer’s Eve and Femfresh. But never to me. Mesmerized, I found myself following him, until he smiled over his shoulder one last time and ducked into a bar.

I stopped myself. Anyone who knows me will assure you that I have a hipness quotient of zero. Even old-maid English teachers who wear orthopedic Hush Puppies as a fashion statement find themselves disgusted by my lack of cool. Her name was Miss Shealy. (Please don’t give me flack for calling her an old-maid schoolteacher; that’s how she referred to herself, proudly, just as she proudly mowed her own lawn.) One day, having had about as much as she could take of my tendency to over-enthuse, she approached me in the hall as I was talking with friends and suggested that I “tone it down.”

“Tone what down?” I asked, baffled.

“Everything,” she said. “Whenever I see you, Bill Walker…” — she paused, grasping for the right words — “…you always tend to look like someone just ran up behind you and shouted, ‘Boo!'”

I can’t help it. I’m overeager — always have been. I lack that gene that warns other people to hold back, take a moment, and survey the situation before diving in, which is why I’ve spent a lifetime cannonballing into swimming pools that have just been drained for cleaning.

Not tonight. Being on vacation affords the opportunity to try out new selves. Who’s to know? Tonight I was determined to rein in the impulses that, on any other night, would have had me crashing through the door and sniffing out every corner of the bar until I’d found Smiling Guy, like some truffle pig in a cheerleader uniform.

Tonight, I was going to play it cool. Slow things down. It was a struggle, but instead of immediately following him into the bar, I found a phone booth and called L.A. to check my messages. Nothing major, just a few sales calls and my mom saying something about a relative slipping into a coma.

When I realized that not enough time had passed, I walked around the block, practicing my pout. Only then, after an agonizing 10 minutes, did I enter the bar.

The place was dark, lit only by the glow of two television screens over the bar and some deftly placed track lighting. It was crowded, so I took a seat at the bar, glancing casually around to see if I could spot him. I couldn’t.

The drinks were very expensive, even for the Upper East Side, so I ordered a cranberry and soda that still cost more than my wallet. As my eyes began to adjust to the darkness, I noticed that the decor was very upscale: dark, burnished wood, lots of mirrors, gleaming chrome, and thick, lush plants that looked like they’d been bottle-fed Evian by a Hungarian nanny. This was no dive, which I took to be a good sign. To hang out here, Smiling Guy must have a good job, which would mean going Dutch on dates, always a good idea at the beginning of a vacation fling. Which I knew nothing about.

And then I spotted him. Only Smiling Guy was no longer smiling. He was sitting all alone, smoking at a tall bar table about 10 feet away. I imagined him to be calculating his missteps, replaying scenarios of what he’d done wrong, why I hadn’t showed. But I had, so he could relax. I sauntered over, counting down the seconds until I’d see that smile again.

“Hey,” I said.

He nodded impassively, like he’d never seen me before.

“I finally got here,” I said over the music. Nothing.

He was staring off into the distance, like someone who’s farsighted and forgot his glasses. Then I got it.Oh, he’s pissed I took so long getting in here and made him wait. He’s so good-looking he’s probably not used to waiting. I can smooth this over. Which I started to do, until I remembered that smooth is not an arrow that came with my quiver. That brought me back to my original thought. Maybe he’s not focusing on me because he can’t. Maybe he is farsighted and forgot his glasses. At that point I took a step backward, crashing into a barback carrying a large tray of empties.

After I’d helped him clean up the broken glass and offered to pay for the damage, I turned back to Smiling Guy, who was now not-smiling even more severely.

“I had to make a phone call before,” I said, trying to recover. “Out there. On the sidewalk. My mom’s uncle. He slipped into a coma.”

“That’s what old people do,” he said distractedly. “They slip on stuff.”

It was a strange joke, both lame and kind of sick at the same time, but he was trying, so I laughed.

And that’s all it took. Finally, his face broke into that charming, familiar smile, and the sun was out. So he had a strange sense of humor. He also had great teeth. And they were smiling. At me.

Only they weren’t.

They were smiling past me, toward the men’s room. I turned to see a dumpy-looking guy in his 60s ambling our way. My first impression was that he was a dead ringer for the Kaiser dentist who’d botched my wisdom tooth extraction, which triggered an immediate impulse to flee. But I didn’t. Instead, I tried for a genial smile as he hoisted himself up onto the stool I was about to sit on and said in a thin Midwestern accent, “Sorry that took so long. Takes me forever to pee. I’m on a new medication.”

I waited to be introduced, imagining this guy to be my guy’s elderly neighbor, or maybe an uncle, in town for a convention. But nothing. I was starting to feel like a third nipple. Then, finally, Smiling Guy pulled me close, looked me dead in the eye, and, with the skill and tact of a Vegas ventriloquist, hissed through his perfect, unmoving teeth, “Later, dude. I’m booked.”

Suddenly, my pupils adjusted to the size of quarters, and I could see in the dark, as clearly as if someone had flipped on a bank of fluorescent overheads. The clientele in this particular establishment broke down into two distinct categories: unusually good-looking, buff young hotties and the much older quack dentists who were buying them drinks — which I now realized were nonrefundable security deposits.

Miss Shealy might as well have charged me in her orthopedic Hush Puppies, screaming, “Boo! You just cannonballed into a hustler bar!” Then moseyed on over to the bar, grabbed a fistful of rump roast, and ordered a tall one. Because face it: How often do old-maid English teachers get to abandon their lawn mowers in favor of an upscale New York hustler establishment?

As for me, I was mortified, sweat-drenched, and all set to hightail it out of there. Now, before some old dude who looked like my cat’s vet got the wrong idea and tried to swipe a credit card down my ass crack as a down payment on God knows what.

Then something strange happened — okay, on top of all the other strange. Suddenly, the intergenerational chit-chat had ground to a halt all around me, and I noticed all the not-neighbors/nobody’s-uncle were staring in my direction.

I started to panic. “Stop looking at me! Go back to your sex talk! I’m not for sale!” I almost shouted. Until I realized that they were all staring over me, at one of the TV screens. “Oh, my god,” blurted the quack dentist with the iffy bladder. “Jackie…”

I turned to see what he was staring at, what they were all staring at.

Over a network banner blaring “BREAKING NEWS” rose the image of an instantly recognizable face and two lines of text:


Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis
1929-1994

In what was as close to a come-to-Jesus moment as I’ve seen since my teenage holy-roller days, “clients” spontaneously began leaving their seats and moving closer to the bar as their clueless rent boys looked at each other, mouthing, “Who the hell is she?”

Some of the men had tears in their eyes as the images of a remarkable life began flashing across the screen: Jackie at the inauguration; Jackie on the White House lawn with her kids; Jackie in Dallas, shell-shocked in her blood-stained suit; Jackie’s surprise wedding to the Greek billionaire.

“I’ve never called her Jackie Onassis,” said one of the men, echoing the sentiment of every woman in my mother’s South Carolina bridge club. “I refuse. She’ll always be Jackie Kennedy to me.” At that point another of the men asked no one in particular, “Wasn’t there a drink named after her?” One of the bartenders looked it up. There was. It was called the Jackie-O, and before long the bar was cluttered with the pink-orange champagne and vodka cocktails. I was reaching for my wallet to pay for mine when a handsome older gentleman put his hand on my shoulder and said to the bartender, “It’s on me.”

Oh God. “That’s OK,” I stammered. “I’ve got it. Let me buy you one.” But he insisted. Anxious to make clear that I wasn’t some cocktail he could order out of a book, all I could do was sputter. “I’m not… I mean, I just came in here to…”

“You just came in here to what?” he smiled. “You’re not… what?”

Finally I found the word: “Selling. I’m not… selling.”

He just looked at me for a minute, then back at the TV screen.

“You remember, don’t you?” he said.

“Remember what?” I asked.

“All of it. Her.”

 

I did remember. I was in the second grade when the assassination happened, making Jackie Kennedy a widow a thousand times over on our TV screens. But no one had seen the TV images yet. The younger kids like me had been sent home early from school with no explanation. I pedaled fast on my bike, confused and wondering what was going on and why the teachers were crying. But there was no one home when I got there.

So I listened to the news pouring from the red radio that sat on the counter near our back door and just got more confused. In the days that followed, I remember feeling truly scared for the first time in my life, because the grownups were scared. All of them. Which was terrifying.

“Yeah, I remember. I thought she was a queen.”

“Of course you did,” he smiled. “We all did. And for you and me and half the gentlemen in here, she always will be. As for the rest of these boys… she’ll never be more than a cocktail.”

Suddenly, he was the most interesting man in the room.

That’s why I’m getting your drink,” he went on. “Because you remember. Not because I thought you were…” — he paused, amused — “…’selling.’ Not to burst your bubble; you’re cute, but nobody in this bar thinks you’re here because you’re selling.”

Boo!

Most people can’t tell you the date they realized they’ll never be young again. For me it was May 14, 1994, the night that Jackie Kennedy died, in a hustler bar.

Allow me to rephrase. Jackie Kennedy died at home, surrounded by loving friends and family. I died in a hustler bar.

Needless to say, this is a story I’ve never shared with my children, and never will — until later this week, when one of their friends shows them this column and I have to start answering questions.

Even so, it’s a story they know the ending to. My 11-year-old daughter erased all doubt when she recently forgot to knock on my door and ended up permanently damaging her retinas after stumbling onto my rear view as I was changing out of my underwear.

At which point she buried her face in a basket of laundry and spat out this cultured pearl: “Daddy, please! Don’t ever make me see that again! Your papayas are so past their expiration date.”

I’m happy Ri-Love still has what it takes. Long may she knead. Her kids need a quality dishwasher with an ultra-quiet cycle and no visible buttons. I just hope their mom has enough left over for a comprehensive medical plan that doesn’t exclude carpal tunnel syndrome.

Mine does, and for that reason alone I could never make the brave choice that Ri-Love makes each week, or, given my expired papayas, the even more noble choice of full-service professionals, who on a daily basis must sacrifice not only their hand but everything that’s attached to it.

I don’t judge these civil servants. I just know that I could never sell my body. Because if it ever came to that, we’d starve. It’s a fact I came to terms with the night I learned that one of our former First Ladies died, in a hustler bar.

A First Lady, I recall, whom I’d once had to defend against some pretty nasty charges made by Barbara Acheson, a woman in my mother’s bridge club. When Jackie, then a young widow, suddenly remarried a rich Greek guy 28 years older than she was, a lot of women in America went a little nuts. Mrs. Acheson called her some ugly names, accusing Jackie of selling her youth and beauty, not to mention her good name, to a short, ugly rich dude for some quick cash.

But being a child at the time, I knew what was going on. Her kids needed a dishwasher.

* * * * *

 

* * * * *

William Lucas Walker is an Emmy Award-winning writer and producer whose television credits include Frasier, Will & Grace and Roseanne. He co-created the critically-acclaimed Showtime comedy The Chris Isaak Show. Bill and his husband Kelly are the parents of Elizabeth and James, born in 2001 and 2005. The children were gratified by the legal marriage of their parents in 2008, an event that rescued them from a life of ruinous bastardry.

Spilled Milk chronicles Bill’s misadventures in Daddyland. The first recurring humor column by a gay parent to appear in a mainstream American publication, Spilled Milk has regularly landed on the front page of The Huffington Post.

Follow William Lucas Walker on Twitter: @WmLucasWalker, @SpilledMilkWLW or Facebook: “Spilled Milk” by William Lucas Walker.       

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.

News

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

Published

on

Legal experts appeared somewhat pleased during the first half of the Supreme Court’s historic hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was the President of the United States, as the justice appeared unwilling to accept that claim, but were stunned later when the right-wing justices questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s attorney. Many experts are suggesting the ex-president may have won at least a part of the day, and some are expressing concern about the future of American democracy.

“Former President Trump seems likely to win at least a partial victory from the Supreme Court in his effort to avoid prosecution for his role in Jan. 6,” Axios reports. “A definitive ruling against Trump — a clear rejection of his theory of immunity that would allow his Jan. 6 trial to promptly resume — seemed to be the least likely outcome.”

The most likely outcome “might be for the high court to punt, perhaps kicking the case back to lower courts for more nuanced hearings. That would still be a victory for Trump, who has sought first and foremost to delay a trial in the Jan. 6 case until after Inauguration Day in 2025.”

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, who covers the courts and the law, noted: “This did NOT go very well [for Special Counsel] Jack Smith’s team. Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh think Trump’s Jan. 6 prosecution is unconstitutional. Maybe Gorsuch too. Roberts is skeptical of the charges. Barrett is more amenable to Smith but still wants some immunity.”

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

Civil rights attorney and Tufts University professor Matthew Segal, responding to Stern’s remarks, commented: “If this is true, and if Trump becomes president again, there is likely no limit to the harm he’d be willing to cause — to the country, and to specific individuals — under the aegis of this immunity.”

Noted foreign policy, national security and political affairs analyst and commentator David Rothkopf observed: “Feels like the court is leaning toward creating new immunity protections for a president. It’s amazing. We’re watching the Constitution be rewritten in front of our eyes in real time.”

“Frog in boiling water alert,” warned Ian Bassin, a former Associate White House Counsel under President Barack Obama. “Who could have imagined 8 years ago that in the Trump era the Supreme Court would be considering whether a president should be above the law for assassinating opponents or ordering a military coup and that *at least* four justices might agree.”

NYU professor of law Melissa Murray responded to Bassin: “We are normalizing authoritarianism.”

Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, argued before the Supreme Court justices that if Trump had a political rival assassinated, he could only be prosecuted if he had first been impeach by the U.S. House of Representatives then convicted by the U.S. Senate.

During oral arguments Thursday, MSNBC host Chris Hayes commented on social media, “Something that drives me a little insane, I’ll admit, is that Trump’s OWN LAWYERS at his impeachment told the Senators to vote not to convict him BECAUSE he could be prosecuted if it came to that. Now they’re arguing that the only way he could be prosecuted is if they convicted.”

READ MORE: Biden Campaign Hammers Trump Over Infamous COVID Comment

Attorney and former FBI agent Asha Rangappa warned, “It’s worth highlighting that Trump’s lawyers are setting up another argument for a second Trump presidency: Criminal laws don’t apply to the President unless they specifically say so…this lays the groundwork for saying (in the future) he can’t be impeached for conduct he can’t be prosecuted for.”

But NYU and Harvard professor of law Ryan Goodman shared a different perspective.

“Due to Trump attorney’s concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there’s now a very clear path for DOJ’s case to go forward. It’d be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further. Justice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.”

NYU professor of history Ruth Ben-Ghiat, an expert scholar on authoritarians, fascism, and democracy concluded, “Folks, whatever the Court does, having this case heard and the idea of having immunity for a military coup taken seriously by being debated is a big victory in the information war that MAGA and allies wage alongside legal battles. Authoritarians specialize in normalizing extreme ideas and and involves giving them a respected platform.”

The Nation’s justice correspondent Elie Mystal offered up a prediction: “Court doesn’t come back till May 9th which will be a decision day. But I think they won’t decide *this* case until July 3rd for max delay. And that decision will be 5-4 to remand the case back to DC, for additional delay.”

Watch the video 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

Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

Published

on

Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court hearing Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity early on appeared at best skeptical, were able to get his attorney to admit personal criminal acts can be prosecuted, appeared to skewer his argument a president must be impeached and convicted before he can be criminally prosecuted, and peppered him with questions exposing what some experts see is the apparent weakness of his case.

Legal experts appeared to believe, based on the Justices’ questions and statements, Trump will lose his claim of absolute presidential immunity, and may remand the case back to the lower court that already ruled against him, but these observations came during Justices’ questioning of Trump attorney John Sauer, and before they questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s Michael Dreeben.

“I can say with reasonable confidence that if you’re arguing a case in the Supreme Court of the United States and Justices Alito and Sotomayor are tag-teaming you, you are going to lose,” noted attorney George Conway, who has argued a case before the nation’s highest court and obtained a unanimous decision.

But some are also warning that the justices will delay so Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump will not take place before the November election.

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

“This argument still has a ways to go,” observed UCLA professor of law Rick Hasen, one of the top election law scholars in the county. “But it is easy to see the Court (1) siding against Trump on the merits but (2) in a way that requires further proceedings that easily push this case past the election (to a point where Trump could end this prosecution if elected).”

The Economist’s Supreme Court reporter Steven Mazie appeared to agree: “So, big picture: the (already slim) chances of Jack Smith actually getting his 2020 election-subversion case in front of a jury before the 2024 election are dwindling before our eyes.”

One of the most stunning lines of questioning came from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who said, “If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into Office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes. I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is, from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country.”

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

She also warned, “If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office? It’s right now the fact that we’re having this debate because, OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] has said that presidents might be prosecuted. Presidents, from the beginning of time have understood that that’s a possibility. That might be what has kept this office from turning into the kind of crime center that I’m envisioning, but once we say, ‘no criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want,’ I’m worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he’s in office.”

“Why is it as a matter of theory,” Justice Jackson said, “and I’m hoping you can sort of zoom way out here, that the president would not be required to follow the law when he is performing his official acts?”

“So,” she added later, “I guess I don’t understand why Congress in every criminal statute would have to say and the President is included. I thought that was the sort of background understanding that if they’re enacting a generally applicable criminal statute, it applies to the President just like everyone else.”

Another critical moment came when Justice Elena Kagan asked, “If a president sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, is that immune?”

Professor of law Jennifer Taub observed, “This is truly a remarkable moment. A former U.S. president is at his criminal trial in New York, while at the same time the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing his lawyer’s argument that he should be immune from prosecution in an entirely different federal criminal case.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

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

 

Continue Reading

News

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

Published

on

The county clerk for Ingham County, Michigan blasted Republican National Committee co-chair Lara Trump after the ex-president’s daughter-in-law bragged the RNC will have people to “physically handle” voters’ ballots in polling locations across the country this November.

“We now have the ability at the RNC not just to have poll watchers, people standing in polling locations, but people who can physically handle the ballots,” Trump told Newsmax host Eric Bolling this week, as NCRM reported.

“Will these people, will they be allowed to physically handle the ballots as well, Lara?” Bolling asked.

“Yup,” Trump replied.

Marc Elias, the top Democratic elections attorney who won 63 of the 64 lawsuits filed by the Donald Trump campaign in the 2020 election cycle (the one he did not win was later overturned), corrected Lara Trump.

READ MORE: ‘I Hope You Find Happiness’: Moskowitz Trolls Comer Over Impeachment Fail

“Poll observers are NEVER permitted to touch ballots. She is suggesting the RNC will infiltrate election offices,” Elias warned on Wednesday.

Barb Byrum, a former Michigan Democratic state representative with a law degree and a local hardware store, is the Ingham County Clerk, and thus the chief elections official for her county. She slammed Lara Trump and warned her the RNC had better not try to touch any ballots in her jurisdiction.

“I watched your video, and it’s riveting stuff. But if you think you’ll be touching ballots in my state, you’ve got another thing coming,” Byrum told Trump in response to the Newsmax interview.

“First and foremost, precinct workers, clerks, and voters are the only people authorized to touch ballots. For example, I am the County Clerk, and I interact with exactly one voted ballot: My own,” Byrum wrote, launching a lengthy series of social media posts educating Trump.

“Election inspectors are hired by local clerks in Michigan and we hire Democrats and Republicans to work in our polling places. We’re required by law to do so,” she continued. “In large cities and townships, the local clerks train those workers. In smaller cities and townships, that responsibility falls to County Clerks, like me.”

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

She explained, “precinct workers swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Michigan.”

“Among the provisions in the Michigan Constitution is the right to a secret ballot for our voters,” she added.

Byrum also educated Trump on her inaccurate representation of the consent decree, which was lifted by a court, not a judge’s death, as Lara Trump had claimed.

“It’s important for folks to understand what you’re talking about: The end of a consent decree that was keeping the RNC from intimidating and suppressing voters (especially in minority-majority areas).”

“With that now gone, you’re hoping for the RNC to step up their game and get people that you train to do god-knows what into the polling places.”

Byrum also warned Trump: “If election inspectors are found to be disrupting the process of an orderly election OR going outside their duties, local clerks are within their rights to dismiss them immediately.”

“So if you intend to train these 100,000 workers to do anything but their sacred constitutional obligation, they’ll find themselves on the curb faster than you can say ‘election interference.'”

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

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.