AMERICAN POLITICS - The Republican Party 'Trumpified'

Man with the plan.....Sen. Josh Hawley (R)

"The Republicans Have an Insurrectionist Caucus" by Jordan Weissmann, Slate 1/7/2021

After a mob of Donald Trump’s supporters invaded the U.S. Capitol building on Wednesday to stop the certification of November’s election results, smashing windows and storming offices while forcing lawmakers to cower in hiding, Republicans had to confront a simple question: Were they with the insurrectionists or against them?

Going into the day, 14 GOP Senators and more than a 100 House members had announced that they would object to the Electoral College count, on the baseless premise that there were unanswered questions about voter fraud, helping to ensure that the ordinarily ceremonial event would become another flash point in Trump’s flailing efforts to retain power.

After the mayhem, some chastened lawmakers had second thoughts, realizing that it might be best not to give any more oxygen to the delusions that had set in motion the attacks.  “What we have seen today is unlawful and unacceptable,” Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, who had previously planned to object, said in a statement.  “I have decided I will vote to uphold the Electoral College results and I encourage Donald Trump to condemn and put an end to this madness.”  Senators such as Georgia’s Kelly Loeffler, fresh off her runoff loss, and Oklahoma’s James Lankford, gave subdued speeches announcing that despite their concerns, they would drop their opposition to the results.  “The events that have transpired today have forced me to reconsider, and I cannot now, in good conscience, object,” Loeffler said.

Meanwhile, Utah’s Mitt Romney, who has become the Senate’s principal voice of conservative never Trumpism, put the choice facing his colleagues as plainly as possible.

“Those who choose to continue to support his dangerous gambit by objecting to the results of a legitimate, democratic election will forever be seen as being complicit in an unprecedented attack against our democracy,” he said.  “They will be remembered for their role in this shameful episode in American history.  That will be their legacy.”

But most objectors shrugged and stuck to their plan.  Even after the breach, eight GOP Senators and 139 representatives—a solid majority of the party’s House members—ultimately voted against certifying the results from either Pennsylvania or Arizona.  It is hard to overstate just how frightening that end result is.

Up until the moment glass started to shatter, one could have at least made a case—albeit, a weak one—that objecting to the Electoral College results was nothing more than a symbolic gesture of loyalty to the President [Trump] and his base that would ultimately prove harmless.  There was nothing Republicans could actually do on their own to overturn the election’s outcome, since throwing out a state’s Electoral College results would have required a majority vote in both the Senate and Democrat-controlled House.  What’s more, small numbers of Democrats had pulled similar stunts in the past, objecting to certification after losing the 2000, 2004, and 2016 elections, and the republic hadn’t exactly collapsed as a result.

The obvious difference between those previous elections and this one is that the losing Democrats willingly conceded their races, while Donald Trump did not.  Instead, he spent two months whipping his followers into a frenzy with lies about a stolen election in a haphazard, often cartoonish effort to cling to office, then gathered them on the National Mall for a demonstration on certification day.  The chaos that ensued, in which four people ultimately died, illustrated in the bluntest terms possible that by fanning the flames of voter fraud conspiracies, the Republican objectors were playing a lethal game with American democracy.

And yet the vast majority of them decided to keep pumping away at the bellows.  The lawmakers just shook their finger at the mob’s rampage, while denying any responsibility for egging it on.  In a particularly brazen act of chutzpah, Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, who kicked off the whole objection effort in the Senate, suggested that the attack actually showed why debating the election’s validity in Congress was a good idea in the first place, since it would be a nonviolent way to resolve concerns about fraud.  (Never mind that politicians like Hawley helped conjure up those concerns in the first place.)  “Our Constitution was built and put into place so that there would be, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, no appeal from ballots to bullets, which is what we saw unfortunately attempted tonight,” Hawley grandiloquently declared.  “And that’s why I submit to my colleagues that what we’re doing here tonight is actually very important.“  Other Republicans, such as Reps. Matt Gaetz and Paul Gosar, just gunned it straight to Looneyville, repeating the fast-metastasizing conspiracy theory that the people who attacked the Capitol were actually left-wing antifa members masquerading as Trump supporters.  One way or another, lawmakers found ways to justify themselves.

Ultimately, Wednesday night’s vote was another demonstration of how Trump has permanently reshaped much of the Republican Party in his own image.  Yes, his attempt at the history’s dumbest autogolpe has finally caused some of his allies to crack and staffers to resign, as well as brought about rebuffs from the likes of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and erstwhile golf buddy Lindsey Graham, who seemingly declared his independence from the President (“Count me out, enough is enough,“ he said).  But most of its House caucus is now made up of members who are either terrified that they will be primaried by a Trumpier-than-thou challenger from the right or who outright share his lunatic fantasies.  Ambitious senators with their eyes on the presidency in 2024 know that for a large share of primary voters, the most important qualification may be loyalty to the current President.  The result is a group of legislators who, after witnessing firsthand the dangerous fury that their party’s rhetoric unleashed, decided it was best to more or less just go along.  Their ranks include not just rambling backbenchers and the newer class of QAnon-winking reactionaries, but also leaders like House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy.  What’s more, their ranks only seem likely to grow after redistricting this year, which will allow Republican legislatures to create a new batch of safe, Trumpified GOP seats.  The Republican Party’s insurrectionist caucus is going to be with us for years to come.

OPINION - Damage Done By Trump, Claims of Election Fraud

"Shields and Brooks on the damage done by Trump’s claims of election fraud" PBS NewsHour 12/04/2020

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week in politics, including the Biden team’s transition to the White House and the impact of Trump’s election fraud claims.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  And now it's time for the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields, and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Hello to both of you.

I want to pick up with what we were hearing, Mark, from Congressman Riggleman of Virginia, talking about putting party over country.  That was something he wasn't comfortable with, and talking about conspiracy theories, all of this stemming from President Trump insisting that he's won the election, that the election was completely riddled with fraud.

We're now hearing a number of Republicans calling for other Republicans to call the President out.  How much damage is being done by what is going on right now, Mark?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  I can't calculate it, Judy, in concrete terms, other than to say it's dangerous.

I mean, America has been the envy of the world.  It's been an example to bring millions of people to our shores, a free and open democracy, where every voice is heard.  And to have the elected leader of that nation charge that it is not that, that it's corrupt, that it's criminal, is damaging beyond my calculation.

And I just — I think — I hope it's reparable, but we will — it will be a while before we find out just how much damage has been done.

Judy Woodruff:  David, how deep is the damage that's being done?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Well, 77 percent of Republicans or Trump backers say the election was stolen by fraud, according to a Monmouth poll.  A lot of those same people don't believe in manmade climate change.  A lot of those same people don't believe that masks can save your life.

So, there's a section of a country that's become detached from reality and, under Trump paranoia, has become a style, a resurgent style.

I wrote a column about this a week ago.  And I tried to theorize that this derives out of a sense of menace and threat, that people feel existentially unsafe, and so they grasp for conspiracy theories, because it makes them feel powerful, that they see the truth.  It makes them feel agency.  They can expose the evil cabals.

And I think there's some truth to that, that people — a lot of people just feel very scared economically, socially, racially.  And out of that fear comes paranoia.

But I got a lot of e-mails from people.  Like, I got one from a guy in Palo Alto.  And he said, the neurosurgeon down my block believes all this stuff.  So, where's his anxiety?  And I'd say, I don't know the answer to that question.

But there is a lot of anxiety.  There's a lot of fear, and out of that has arisen an entire industry of paranoia-mongering.  The Newsmax, the far right-wing media TV station, their viewership has gone up 20 times since the election.  So, that paranoia is pretty deep and pretty widespread right now.

Judy Woodruff:  Mark, we are — as a news organization, the "NewsHour" is trying to understand this.  I know other news organizations are as well.

We want to understand the origin of this and how deep it goes and how long-lasting.  How much does it matter that we try to tackle this right now?  Is it — I guess what I'm trying to understand, is this a flight of fancy, that we're just living through a brief period, and we're going to wake up in a few weeks or months, and we're going to be past it, or is this with us for a long time?

Mark Shields:  Well, no, I mean, I think David put his finger on it, as he does regularly.

This also has a commercial aspect to it.  I mean, there is a profit in upping your viewership if you're spinning paranoid theories to your listeners and explaining that the other side — you never argue on the merits, Judy.  What it comes down to is, the other side is evil.

I mean, that is the first thing I learned when I came to Washington, that you don't question the motives of somebody on the other side, that they love their country and their children as much as you do.  And they may be mistaken, they may be ill-informed, they may be illogical, but you don't start off with, they're evil.

Well, that is — that's where these arguments begin, that it's a sinister, criminal collusion all out to get the American way, to destroy the American way.  It is anything we can do to rebut it.

And one hopes that the new administration, with a fresh start, will be a start in that direction.  And the fact that the President — that his predecessor is now receding in the rearview mirror, inevitably, I think, has to be helpful.

Judy Woodruff:  And, David, I guess my question is, is his predecessor disappearing in the rearview mirror?  He's raised over $200 million and counting since the Election Day for his legal defense fund.

But we are now learning that money, most of that money can go toward his new political venture, whatever it may be.  President Trump may be here for a long time to come.

David Brooks:  He's certainly talking like he will run again in 2024.

And Josh Hawley, the senator from Missouri, said that, if Trump runs again, he would endorse him and expect him to win.  And he might.  He might win the nomination again.  So, I don't think we have seen — maybe not seen the last of him.

The problem with all the paranoia and the conspiracy theory is, you can't talk people out of it.  The psychological research is super clear on this, that if you try to fact-check people when they have incorrect facts, you only entrench their belief, that you can't talk people out of an emotional state.

And so I think the two things that we can do is try to have contact, more contact between, frankly, those of us in the expert class, who tend to live in blue America, in the metro areas, and people in the rural country.

COVID doesn't allow that.  But traveling around the country is a good way to alleviate a lot of the barriers between us.  And, second, somehow, life has to become more secure for a lot of people.  And I'm hoping the administration, the new administration, will pass legislation that makes life economically more secure, so that sense of existential anxiety goes away.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, we can certainly hope not only the economy gets better, that we will all be able to travel more, get around, see our fellow Americans, family and friends in the not-too-distant future.

But, Mark, let's talk about Joe Biden, the President-elect.  Since the last time I saw the two of you, two weeks ago, before Thanksgiving, he's named more of the senior members of his team, his Secretary of State Tony Blinken, his Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen, a number of others.

What do you make of the team so far?

Mark Shields:  Well, I would say, the reviews, Judy, that are in are quite positive.

I mean, they reflect Joe Biden.  They're experienced.  They believe in public service.  They're people whom he knows, again, unlike his unnamed predecessor, who chose a Secretary of State because he had a very active passport and had traveled a lot and looked like a secretary of state.  He's choosing somebody with whom he's worked for close to a generation, experienced people, people who believe in public service.

And I guess dully competent would be the unflattering observation.  But I'm impressed.  And you mentioned a Janet Yellen.  I think that is a 10 strike.  I mean, to have the chairman of the — former chairman of the Fed, former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers of her stature and, figuratively speaking, and just her values as Secretary of the Treasury, I think is just awfully important, especially with Joe Biden, who has great experience in foreign policy and — but not deep in financial matters.

So, I'm encouraged by them.

Judy Woodruff:  David, what's your take on these folks Joe Biden is naming?

David Brooks:  Yes, I'm super encouraged too.

It's Biden being Biden.  It's Biden people — picking people he's comfortable with, people he knows, and people who you could wake up in the middle of night, and they could do the job.  Janet Yellen is super well-prepared to be Treasury Secretary, Jake Sullivan, a rising young star in the policy world.  Jared Bernstein has been on this program many times in the economic world.

Neera Tanden will be our flashiest OMB Director in history, but someone who's been around and who just knows the job.  And so you can rest assured that these are people who have experience and often served in the job right below them in the Obama administration.  So, we can expect fewer own goals under them.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, we're seeing, Mark, a number of women put into — or nominated for prominent roles, powerful roles in the new administration.

But there's still some interest groups out there saying there's not enough diversity here, for example, NAACP saying, where are the blacks in senior Cabinet jobs?

How much pressure is Joe Biden under to name a more diverse — more diverse leaders in — to his team — for his team?

Mark Shields:  Well, I mean, the diversity so far, Judy, I mean, I don't think anybody can make the case that it's for diversity's sake.  Everybody who's been chosen is somebody who qualified and is qualified for the position to which they were named, irrespective of race or gender or whatever.

I think that, as far as women is concerned, I mean, Joe Biden's campaign was run by Anita Dunn and Jen O'Malley Dillon, two women.  I mean, he's used to having women.  His sister Valerie ran all his other early campaigns for the Senate.  So, that is — that's a natural.  That's not window dressing.  That's a very natural development.

I think that the most important voice to Joe Biden has to be that of Congressman Jim Clyburn.  And Jim Clyburn has been critical of the paucity of African Americans in the Cabinet.

Joe Biden came crawling out of Iowa, limping out of New Hampshire.  He was dead on arrival in South Carolina, until African American voters, led by — led by Jim Clyburn, endorsed him and made him the nominee.  So, if he's going to heed any voice, the voice of Jim Clyburn is the voice that Joe Biden will be responsive to, and legitimately so.

Judy Woodruff:  And, David, how much pressure do you think Biden is under to name — get some more diverse figures in this Cabinet in top jobs?  And how much does it matter?

David Brooks:  Well, pressure implies resistance.  I don't think there's any resistance.

I think Joe Biden wants to have a diverse Cabinet.  He wants to have a Cabinet that looks like America, in part because it's a better Cabinet idea.  You have — the bigger diversity of viewpoints and backgrounds, the better decisions that get made.

And I don't think he will have any problem finding African Americans.  He's already found Linda Thomas-Greenfield, who's the — his choice for the U.N. Secretary — our Ambassador to the U.N.  And she's someone who has a long time career in the Foreign Service, somebody who ran the Africa desk under Obama.  I'm sure he will find many more people under that.

I think it's important to have vast diversity.  I hate to — when it gets reduced to a demographic label and a person is filling in a slot.  The person is the person.  And all the people he's picked so far and in the future are A-team.  They're super talented.

And so I'd hate to see it get down — it appear, even appear like it's just because of somebody's skin color or anything, because I don't think it ever is going to be that.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, he's saying he's got more to name.  He said you will know who they are in the next few weeks, and he said you can judge it then.

So, we will keep talking about it, keep looking at it.

Mark Shields:  Yes.

Judy Woodruff:  Thank you both, David Brooks, Mark Shields.  Thank you.

Mark Shields: Thanks, Judy.

TRUMP FUEL - The Promotion of Violent Imagery

"Trump employs images of violence as political fuel for reelection fight" by Michael Scherer, The Washington Post 9/8/2020

President Trump has reverted to using graphic depictions of violence as a centerpiece of his reelection campaign strategy, using his Twitter account, his stump speech and even the White House podium as platforms for amplifying domestic conflict.

His 2016 focus on radical Islamist terrorism and undocumented-immigrant crime, which he credited with helping him win the Republican nomination, has been replaced by warnings of new threats as he elevates gruesome images of Black-on-White crime, street fights involving his supporters and police-misconduct unrest nationwide.

The pattern continued over the holiday weekend, when he tweeted video of a melee in Texas between protesters and security officers during an event for a Trump-affiliated group and two celebratory videos of a protester in Portland, Ore., with his feet on fire.  One of the videos was scored to the Kenny Loggins song “Footloose,” and the second featured mocking play-by-play commentary by a mixed-martial-arts announcer.

“These are the Democrats ‘peaceful protests,’?” Trump wrote.  “Sick!”  On Monday, he retweeted a prediction that political unrest “could lead to ‘rise of citizen militias around the country.’?”

The strategy echoes the approach that fueled his climb in politics as he shocked the political world with graphic warnings about “rapists” crossing the border illegally from Mexico, welcomed the families of crime victims to speak at his events and said he favored instructing the military to target the families of Islamist extremists, a probable war crime.  He also repeatedly encouraged assaults on protesters at his events.

In each case, the unprecedented focus on violence by a high-profile American politician allowed Trump to attract attention, turning his rallies into unpredictable and raucous affairs that were widely viewed.  It also set the stage for Trump to establish his political persona as a strongman itching to dominate threats foreign and domestic.

Nearly four years after winning that race, Trump is making the same argument, albeit about different dangers, using the specter of violence amid Black Lives Matter protests to claim superior toughness and promising forceful resolution if given the chance.

“These people only know one thing, and that is strength,” he said Wednesday in Wilmington, N.C., of violent street protests in Oregon and Wisconsin.  “That’s all they know — strength.  And we have strength.”

On Monday, Trump retweeted footage of Black protesters in Pittsburgh screaming at White outdoor diners, drinking from their glasses and knocking over their dishes during a protest over the weekend.

“Disgraceful.  Never seen anything like it.  Thugs!” Trump wrote.  “And because of weak and pathetic Democrat leadership, this thuggery is happening in other Democrat run cities and states.  Must shut them down fast.”

Amid a pandemic that has killed more than 186,000 Americans, the jarring political gambit has shifted the focus of the Presidential campaign, forcing Trump’s Democratic opponent, former vice President Joe Biden, to air an ad, titled “Be Not Afraid,” [video link] focused on his own opposition to the recent violence in Oregon and Wisconsin.

“The President is on offense, and that is always a good thing,” said Roger Stone, a former Trump political adviser who received a presidential commutation after seven felony convictions this summer.  “The law-and-order issue really motivates the President’s base, and it also appeals to independents.”

Although Trump has received no big boosts in polling, he unapologetically promoted a video last week of his supporters attacking protesters in Portland, later arguing at the White House that their firing of paintball guns and pepper spray in city streets from the back of pickup trucks was “defensive.”  On Twitter, he said the conflict was a logical response to provocation by liberals.

“The big backlash going on in Portland cannot be unexpected,” Trump wrote in a tweet that included a video of the incident.

He also has returned to using his Twitter account to broadcast falsehoods that perpetuate racial conflict.  For the third time this summer, on Aug. 30 he retweeted a video of a Black man brutally attacking a White person, this time with a caption falsely suggesting that the assailant in a New York subway assault in 2019 was connected to Black Lives Matter or antifa.

The posts echo a 2015 Trump retweet that showed a picture of a Black man with a gun and falsely claimed that Black people commit a majority of homicides against White people, a racist trope for which he never apologized.  The White House argued this month, as Trump did in 2015, that he was not responsible for the accuracy of his retweets.

Politically motivated street fights have become more common during his presidency.  Conflicts at protests have led to injuries in recent weeks in places such as Kalamazoo, Mich.; Bloomington, Ind.; and Weatherford, Tex., as protesters of police misconduct have clashed with counterprotesters who are sometimes dressed in Trump-branded apparel and claim to be helping to keep the peace.  In one case, a gun-wielding Trump supporter in Kenosha, Wis., was charged with murder after allegedly killing two protesters and injuring a third.  (A supporter of a far-right group was fatally shot during a counterprotest by Trump backers in Portland last month.  The suspect, a backer of the far-left antifa movement, was killed by law enforcement Thursday.)

In the face of this violence, Trump has condemned the actions of left-wing rioters but declined to condemn violence by his supporters, even as he falsely claims that Biden is refusing to denounce violence on the left.

“I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough — until they go to a certain point,” Trump said last year in an interview with Breitbart News when asked about fights over free speech on college campuses.  “And then it would be very bad, very bad.”

From his start in politics, Trump has brushed aside the idea that he has a responsibility for any violence that results from his campaign style.  When a reporter asked in 2015 whether he was concerned that his rhetoric against protesters and immigrants might lead to additional violence in American streets, he recoiled at the question.

“People are getting hurt.  People are being decimated by illegal immigrants.  The crime is unbelievable,” he said, an argument belied by statistics.  “Now in my way, I don’t want anybody hurt.  But people are being hurt.  So when you ask that question, it’s very unfair.”

His answer was notable for its zero-sum view: Suffering in the country was inevitable — the question was who suffered more.

Trump’s return to focusing on violent threats and conflict follows summer months in which he appeared politically adrift as the coronavirus pandemic overtook the nation, infecting at least 6.2 million people and dampening the economy.

He initially wavered about whether to focus campaign advertising on touting his pandemic response or on attacking his opponent, before eventually launching attacks on Biden’s ties to China, his mental acuity and his policy positions.  Biden’s polling advantage widened.

When nationwide protests against police misconduct led to violence this summer, Trump’s strategy shifted again.  A July 9 set of talking points distributed around the White House by Stephen Miller, an adviser who wrote Trump’s 2016 nomination speech, previewed the message that Trump would settle on for the final push to the Republican National Convention.

The solution Miller described, which Trump soon incorporated into his rhetoric and advertising, was to portray Biden as a fundamental threat to public safety.  “No one will be safe in Joe Biden’s America,” the document read.  The Democratic nominee, Miller’s document continued, “will surrender America and its citizens to the violent left-wing mob” and “abolish the American Way of Life.”

The shift sought to rehabilitate Trump’s political message of dominance and turn the discussion away from the pandemic, which public polling showed had become a drag on the President’s support.

“You can’t really tell people that there is no COVID crisis, because they are surrounded by it.  The only thing you can do is make something else louder,” said Matthew Baum, a political scientist at Harvard University who studies political persuasion and misinformation.  “You don’t have to persuade people.  All you have to do is say: ‘Don’t look over there.  Look over here.’?”

Biden has argued that Trump is trying to distract Americans from his inability to better address the health, economic and race-relations crises facing the nation.

Trump’s message is, “?‘The whole country is up in flames.  Everything is burning.  Law and order,’ ” Biden said Friday at a news conference in Wilmington, Del., “because he doesn’t want to talk about anything, anything at all, about the job he hasn’t done.”

Biden has mocked Trump’s effort to cast him as responsible for any street violence, no matter the alleged perpetrator.

“Ask yourself: Do I look like a radical socialist with a soft spot for rioters? Really?” Biden asked during a speech on Aug. 31 in Pittsburgh.  “I want a safe America — safe from COVID, safe from crime and looting, safe from racially motivated violence, safe from bad cops.  Let me be crystal clear — safe from four more years of Donald Trump.”

Tim Murtaugh, a spokesman for the Trump campaign, said the President is focused on helping communities affected by the violence.  “These riots are destroying the life’s work of Black, Hispanic and Asian business owners, and they have to stop,” he said.

Expressions advocating violence were central to Trump’s early political endeavors.

“I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell you,” Trump said about a protester at an event in Las Vegas.  When a nonviolent Black protester was beaten at a rally in Birmingham, Ala., by a White crowd, Trump responded the next day, “Maybe he should have been roughed up.”

He argued repeatedly at rallies for the extrajudicial abuse or even killing of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who had left his post in Afghanistan.  “Thirty years ago, he would have been shot,” Trump said.  At another event, he said of Bergdahl’s capture by the Taliban, “They beat the crap out of him, which is fine.”

Rather than recoil, his crowds embraced the tough talk, and Trump has delivered more as President.  After Greg Gianforte, then a Montana congressional candidate, physically attacked a reporter in 2017, Trump turned the incident into an applause line.  “Any guy that can do a body slam, he is my type!” the President said.

When Trump addressed a law enforcement group in 2017 on Long Island he urged incaution in policing.

“When you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon,” he said, “you just see them thrown in, rough.  I said, ‘Please don’t be too nice.’?”

The new threat Trump has focused on is depicted as no less ominous than his previous targets — and it is similarly inflated with rhetoric that mixes descriptions of actual events with conspiracy theories for which he offers no evidence.  In recent days, he has described “rioters, anarchists, agitators and looters” who he claimed in a Fox News interview, without evidence, have been traveling the country in commercial planes to create havoc, funded by “people you have never heard of” who operate in “dark shadows.”

He also has tried to adjust the historical record by claiming federal actions he instigated have proved that his solution of physical toughness and law enforcement domination is responsible for clearing streets of violent protesters.  On a visit to Kenosha, he claimed that his push to deploy the National Guard saved the city from further rioting after the police shooting of Jacob Blake, an unarmed Black man.

“If I didn’t INSIST on having the National Guard activate and go into Kenosha, Wisconsin, there would be no Kenosha right now,” Trump tweeted last week.  Federal officials did work with local law enforcement in quelling the protests, but Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D) had ordered the Guard to the city a day before Trump’s public call for their deployment.

Pollsters have noted a shift in polling around the Black Lives Matter movement, which was initially broad and bipartisan in the wake of the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody in May.  Support for the movement in Wisconsin, according to a Marquette University Law School poll, fell from 59 percent to 49 percent between June and August.

But national polls continue to show that Biden leads Trump on questions of which candidate would make the country safer.  A recent national Quinnipiac University poll found that 50 percent of likely voters said Trump made them feel less safe, compared with 35 percent who said he made them feel more safe.

By contrast, 42 percent of voters said Biden would make them feel more safe as President, compared with 40 percent who said they would feel less safe.

FACT CHECK - Trump's Acceptance Speech

President Donald Trump speaks from the South Lawn of the White House on the fourth day of the Republican National Convention, Thursday, Aug. 27, 2020, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

"Fact-checking Donald Trump's 2020 RNC speech" by PolitiFact Staff, PolitiFact 9/27/2020

President Donald Trump accepted the Republican Party’s nomination for President in a speech from the South Lawn of the White House on Aug. 27, the first President to do so since Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

In 1940, Roosevelt accepted the nomination for a third term with a late night radio address.  "It is with a very full heart that I speak tonight.  I must confess that I do so with mixed feelings — because I find myself, as almost everyone does sooner or later in his lifetime, in a conflict between deep personal desire for retirement on the one hand, and that quiet, invisible thing called ‘conscience’ on the other."

Eighty years later, Trump spoke to a crowd in a different moment, striking a different tone.

"I say very modestly that I have done more for the African American community than any president since Abraham Lincoln, our first Republican president," Trump said.  "I have done more in three years for the black community than Joe Biden has done in 47 years—and when I’m reelected, the best is yet to come."

The claim overstates Trump’s own standing within history, historians say.

President Lyndon B. Johnson, a skilled legislator from his years in the Senate, deliberately crafted his civil rights agenda and pushed it through Congress with personal persuasion.  President Harry Truman moved to desegregate the military, and even President Richard Nixon, who was captured on tape making racist remarks, advanced the desegregation of schools and affirmative action in employment.

It’s one of several examples where Trump was wrong or misleading about Democratic nominee Joe Biden or Trump’s own record.

"Joe Biden claims he has empathy for the vulnerable, yet the party he leads supports the extreme late-term abortion of defenseless babies right up to the moment of birth."

This mischaracterizes the Democratic Party’s stance on abortion and Biden’s position.

Biden has said he would codify the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v Wade and related precedents.  This would generally limit abortions to the first 20 to 24 weeks of gestation.  States are allowed under court rulings to ban abortion after the point at which the fetus can sustain life, usually considered to be between 24 and 28 weeks from the mother’s last menstrual period — and 43 states do.  But the rulings require states to make exceptions "to preserve the life or health of the mother." Late-term abortions are very rare, about 1%.

The Democratic Party platform holds that "every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion—regardless of where she lives, how much money she makes, or how she is insured." It does not address late-term abortion.

Our work gives people the information they need to govern themselves in a democracy.  You can explore our database of over 18,000 fact-checks, as well as our promise tracking for elected officials.

"When asked if he supports cutting police funding, Joe Biden replied, ‘Yes, absolutely.’"

Amid discussions of defunding the police, this claim is missing context.  Biden has said he would redirect some social-services responsibilities away from police departments and roll back investments in military gear, but he also wants to increase federal funding for community policing.

During an interview [video] with Biden, liberal activist Ady Barkan said deadly police encounters with citizens could be reduced if some police funding were redirected to mental health counseling and other priorities.  Biden said he supported that approach.

Biden’s "absolutely" remark came during a discussion of the police using military equipment in their communities.  Barkan interjected as Biden was talking about the military equipment: "But do we agree that we can redirect some of the funding?"  Biden replied: "Yes.  Absolutely."

Biden has also called for linking federal law-enforcement funding to policing reforms.

"Biden has promised to abolish the production of American oil, coal, shale, and natural gas – laying waste to the economies of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Colorado, and New Mexico."

This is misleading.  Biden’s climate plan aims to wean the country off oil, coal and natural gas, not abolish it outright.

Biden’s plan calls for a transition to clean energy over several years, with the U.S. reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.  The plan includes energy efficient infrastructure investments and the creation of clean energy jobs.

"Biden also vowed to oppose school choice and close down charter schools, ripping away the ladder of opportunity for Black and Hispanic children."

This is Mostly False.  Biden’s policy platform backs several forms of school choice, including nonprofit charter schools, public magnet schools, and choice within school districts.

He opposes using public dollars to pay for private school tuition, and he opposes for-profit charter schools.

"Joe Biden recently raised his hand on the debate stage and promised he was going to give it away, your health care dollars to illegal immigrants, which is going to bring massive number of immigrants into our country."

This is misleading.  During a June 2019 Democratic primary debate, candidates were asked: "Raise your hand if your government plan would provide coverage for undocumented immigrants."  All candidates on stage, including Biden, raised their hands.  They were not asked if that coverage would be free or subsidized.

Biden supports extending health care access to all immigrants, regardless of immigration status.  A task force recommended that he allow immigrants illegally in the country to buy health insurance, without federal subsidies. 

Biden "has pledged a $4 trillion tax hike on almost all American families."

Yes and no.  That’s an accurate estimate for Biden’s tax revenues over a decade, according to the Tax Policy Center.  (Other groups have come up with slightly lower estimates.)

But tax analysts say the impact on most American families would be small and largely due to the indirect effects of Biden’s raising the corporate tax rate.  Biden’s proposed increases are heavily concentrated on corporations and the nation’s biggest earners.  The Tax Policy Center estimated that more than 90% of the tax increases would be borne by the top 20% of earners.

Biden has vowed not to directly raise taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 per year.

"Biden voted for the NAFTA disaster, the single worst trade deal ever enacted; he supported China's entry into the World Trade Organization, one of the greatest economic disasters of all time.  After those Biden calamities, the United States lost 1 in 4 manufacturing jobs."

The accuracy here is mixed.  Biden did vote for the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993 and for normalized trade relations with China in 2000.  Both led to a fall in American manufacturing jobs.

Of the two agreements, the one with China was responsible for nearly all of the manufacturing job losses, which were one out five, a bit smaller than Trump said.

Beyond manufacturing, researchers disagree on the effect of both trade agreements on employment in general.  Some find net job losses, while others find neither net gains nor losses.

The Obama-Biden administration "spied on my campaign and they got caught."

False.  Multiple independent investigations, including a series of bipartisan Senate reports, found no influence by the Obama administration over the FBI investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and contacts with the Trump campaign.

The FBI targeted four people with greater or lesser roles in the Trump campaign, but conducted that independently of the White House, a review by the Justice Department found.

Democrats "will demolish the suburbs."

This is a False interpretation of Biden’s proposal to reinstate an Obama administration rule change related to discrimination in housing.  The change required certain localities to work with Washington to identify barriers to fair housing and come up with strategies to fix them.

Experts said restoring that regulation would not force those jurisdictions to make zoning changes or build low-income housing.  It certainly wouldn’t spell the end for the suburbs.

"The top 10 most dangerous cities in the country are run by Democrats, and have been for many decades."

This is misleading.  Large cities do have more crime, and they do have more Democrats — both in terms of general voting and local leadership.  But the connection to crime is a classic example of correlation without evidence of causality.

FBI data shows that the top 10 cities for violent crime have Democrats as mayors, according to a Washington Post analysis in June.

Multiple local socioeconomic and cultural factors play a role in which areas yield that concentrated crime.  The FBI explicitly warns against simplistic readings of the "rough rankings" for those reasons.

"Somehow arguing that Democrats cause crime or something of that sort just doesn’t fit the history of crime prevention in the U.S.,"  David Weisburd, executive director of the Center for Evidence Based Crime Policy at George Mason University, previously told us.

"During the Democrat Convention, the words ‘under God’ were removed from the Pledge of Allegiance — not once, but twice."

The phrase "under God" was not excluded from the televised Democratic National Convention.  Delegates at two of 30 caucus and council meetings that took place during the convention week omitted "under God" during the Pledge of Allegiance.

"We have already built 300 miles of border wall."

This is wrong.  Before Trump took office, the nearly 2,000-mile southern border had 654 miles of primary barriers (the first physical impediment a migrant may face).

More than three years into Trump’s presidency, that has increased by 5 miles.

Trump’s boast refers to the replacement of older barriers with new fences.

"By the end of my first term, we will have approved more than 300 federal judges, including two great new Supreme Court justices."

The 300 number is optimistic.  So far, about 200 federal judges have been appointed by Trump and confirmed by the U.S Senate, according to records from the Federal Judicial Center.  This number refers to "Article III judges" — U.S. Supreme Court justices, federal circuit and district judges — who serve a lifetime appointment after nomination by the President and confirmation by the U.S. Senate.

"When the anarchists started ripping down our statues and monuments, right outside, I signed an order immediately, 10 years in prison."

This is overstating the law.  The 10-year penalty for damaging federal property is a maximum punishment, meaning it doesn’t apply to every violation.

The penalty also isn’t new.  It was contained in a previous piece of U.S. Code.

"We have spent nearly $2.5 trillion on completely rebuilding our military, which was very badly depleted when I took office."

This is Mostly False.  The $2.5 trillion comes from the total defense budgets for the last four fiscal years.  The Pentagon spent or appropriated about $562.5 billion on buying or upgrading equipment, which can take years to build and develop.  The rest went to research and development, military personnel, and operation and maintenance costs, among other things.

Experts say most weapons are the same as before, and there is more continuity than change in defense policy from President Barack Obama to Trump.

"Last month, I took on Big Pharma.  You think that is easy? I signed orders that would massively lower the cost of your prescription drugs."

Misleading.  Trump signed four executive orders on July 24, 2020, that are aimed at lowering prescription drug prices.  But those orders haven’t been put into effect yet — the text of one hasn’t even been made publicly available — and experts told us that if implemented, it’s unlikely they would result in significant drug price reductions for the majority of Americans.

"We will always and very strongly protect patients with preexisting conditions, and that is a pledge from the entire Republican Party."

Trump’s pledge is undermined by his efforts to overturn the Affordable Care Act, the only law that guarantees people with preexisting conditions both receive health coverage and do not have to pay more for it.  In 2017, Trump supported congressional efforts to repeal the ACA.  The Trump administration is now backing the GOP-led efforts to overturn the ACA through a court case.  And Trump has also expanded short-term health plans that don’t have to comply with the ACA.

"Over the past three months, we have gained over 9 million jobs, a new record."

The 9 million gain in jobs was preceded by a loss of 22 million jobs due to the shutdown prompted by the coronavirus pandemic.  In February, before the pandemic was declared, the United States had 152.4 million people employed in non-farm jobs.  That number bottomed out at 130.3 million in April.  By July, the number rose to 139.6 million.  In other words, only about 40% of the jobs lost due to the downturn had been gained back

"The United States has among the lowest (COVID-19) case fatality rates of any major country in the world.  The European Union's case fatality rate is nearly three times higher than ours."

The case fatality rate measures the known number of cases compared to the known number of deaths.  The European Union has a rate that’s about two and a half times larger than the United States.

But the source of that data, Oxford University’s Our World in Data project, says that "during an outbreak of a pandemic the case fatality rate is a poor measure of the mortality risk of the disease."

A better way to measure the threat of the virus, experts say, is to look at the number of deaths per 100,000 residents.  Viewed that way, the U.S. has the 10th-highest death rate in the world.

"We will produce a vaccine before the end of the year, or maybe even sooner."

It’s far from guaranteed that a coronavirus vaccine will be ready before the end of the year.

While researchers are making rapid strides, it’s not yet known precisely when the vaccine will be available to the public.  Six vaccines are in the third phase of testing that involves thousands of patients.  Like earlier phases, this one looks at the safety of a vaccine, but it also examines effectiveness and collects more data on side effects.  Results of the third phase will be submitted to the Food and Drug Administration for approval.

The website of Operation Warp Speed is less optimistic than Trump, saying that it "aims to deliver 300 million doses of a safe, effective vaccine for COVID-19 by January 2021."

And federal health officials and other experts have generally predicted that the vaccine will be available in early 2021.  Federal committees are working on recommendations about vaccine distribution, including which groups should get it first.  "From everything we’ve seen now — in the animal data, as well as the human data — we feel cautiously optimistic that we will have a vaccine by the end of this year and as we go into 2021," Dr. Anthony Fauci said.  "I don’t think it’s dreaming."

"We developed, from scratch, the largest and most advanced testing system in the world."

This is partially right, but it needs context.

It’s accurate that the U.S. developed its COVID-19 testing system from scratch, because the government didn’t accept the World Health Organization’s testing recipe.  Whether the system is the "largest" or "most advanced" is subject to debate.

The U.S. has tested more individuals than any other country in the world.  But experts told us a more meaningful metric would be the percentage of positive tests out of all tests, indicating that not only sick people were getting tested.  Another useful metric would be the percentage of the population that has been tested.  The U.S. is one of the most populous countries in the world, but has tested a lower percentage of its population than other countries.

The U.S. was also slower than other countries in rolling out tests and amping up testing capacity.  Even now, many states are still experiencing delays in reporting test results to positive individuals.

As for "the most advanced," Trump may be referring to new testing investments and systems, like Abbott’s recently announced $5,15-minute rapid antigen test that the company says will be about the size of a credit card, needs no instrumentation and comes with a phone app where people can view their results.

But Trump’s comment makes it sound as if these testing systems are already in place, when they haven’t been distributed to the public.

Daniel Funke, Jon Greenberg, Louis Jacobson, Noah Y.  Kim, Bill McCarthy, Samantha Putterman, Amy Sherman, Miriam Valverde and Kaiser Health News reporter Victoria Knight contributed to this report.  Photos from the Associated Press.

AMERICAN POLITICS - Barbra Streisand's Message to Trump

Barbra Streisand - Don't Lie to Me

PROPAGANDA - Fox in the White House

"Inside the unprecedented partnership between Fox News and the Trump White House" PBS NewsHour 3/5/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump has long acknowledged top-rated Fox News as his favorite media outlet, and the network relishes its role as a conservative voice.  But its increasingly close relationship with the administration is drawing criticism.  William Brangham talks to the New Yorker's Jane Mayer about an unprecedented “feedback loop” and whether the President has made policy decisions to help Fox succeed.

"The Making of the Fox News White House" The New Yorker

McCABE - President Trump is a Threat

I totally agree.

"Why Andrew McCabe sees the President as a threat" PBS NewsHour 2/21/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe has published a new book that includes some stunning allegations about President Trump -- including that he is the "most prolific liar" McCabe has ever encountered, despite decades of dealing with sophisticated criminals.  McCabe sits down with Judy Woodruff to discuss why FBI investigations aren't political and whether he plans to sue over his termination.

TRUMP - Biggest Lie

TRUMP'S WALL - Post Trump Shutdown

"After shutdown, what’s next for border security negotiations" PBS NewsHour 1/28/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Thousands of federal employees went to work Monday for the first time since before Christmas.  The 35-day partial government shutdown ended Friday after President Trump signed an agreement to fund closed government agencies for three weeks, while Congress continues to negotiate over border security.  But will that be enough?  Lisa Desjardins and Yamiche Alcindor join Amna Nawaz with the latest.

"Rep says ‘it’s possible’ Democrats would support more than $5.7 billion on border security" PBS NewsHour 1/28/2019

Fat chance, as long as Trump insists on a wall.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Lawmakers have three weeks to devise a border security plan that will satisfy President Trump, who threatens to declare a national emergency or shut down the government again if they fail.  A bipartisan group of 17 legislators will work to draft legislation.  One of them, Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif) joins Amna Nawaz to discuss evidence-based solutions, the asylum process and humanitarian aid.

From the delusional....

"Why Sen. Collins is ‘very optimistic’ about a deal to fund border security" PBS NewsHour 1/29/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Lawmakers have three weeks to come up with a long-term deal on border security, or potentially be faced with a second government shutdown or the president's declaring a national emergency.  Judy Woodruff talks to Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) about why she’s “very optimistic” that Congress can come up with a plan the President will sign and mechanisms for preventing future government shutdowns.

"Sen. Capito on the ‘sweet spot’ for border security negotiations" PBS NewsHour 1/30/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  A bipartisan congressional committee tasked with drafting a border security bill for President Trump to sign by February 15 met for the first time Wednesday.  Among its members is Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va) who joins Judy Woodruff to discuss the committee’s “great desire to reach a conclusion,” components of effective border security and why she's optimistic about bipartisan compromise.

THE INVESTIGATIONS - Trump Ordered Cohen to Lie?!

"What it means for Trump if he ordered Cohen to lie to Congress" PBS NewsHour 1/18/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  BuzzFeed reported Friday that President Trump personally directed Michael Cohen, his former lawyer, to lie to Congress about a potential Trump hotel project in Moscow.  In response, some congressional Democrats said ordering a subordinate to commit perjury "is an impeachable offense."  Judy Woodruff is joined by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md) a member of the House Judiciary Committee, to discuss.

Editor's Note: After this story aired, a spokesman for special counsel Robert Mueller's office released a statement: “BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate."  BuzzFeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith said the organization stands by its reporting.

TRUMP IMMIGRATION - The Wall and Fake Crisis

"Why we should expect ‘more of the same’ from the President’s address" PBS NewsHour 1/8/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  President Trump plans to make his case for a border wall during a primetime speech, in which he’s expected to reiterate his argument that the situation at the southern border constitutes a “crisis.”  Yamiche Alcindor and Lisa Desjardins join Judy Woodruff to discuss how the administration justifies the government shutdown, where public opinion stands and how congressional Democrats might respond.

"In familiar refrain, Trump relies on fear to sell immigration message" PBS NewsHour 1/8/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In an Oval Office address, President Trump again appealed for $5.7 billion to build a physical barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border, calling illegal immigration "a crisis of the heart and a crisis of the soul."  After his remarks, Democratic congressional leaders spoke, followed by analysis from Judy Woodruff, Amna Nawaz, Lisa Desjardins, Yamiche Alcindor, and the Cook Political Report's Amy Walter.  (full speech video)

"The facts behind the administration’s border ‘crisis’ claim" PBS NewsHour 1/8/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Ahead of his address on the government shutdown and border wall, President Trump tweeted that the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border was a humanitarian and national security crisis.  Meanwhile, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said that the “crisis is getting worse.”  But are these statements true?  Amna Nawaz joins Judy Woodruff for a look at the facts.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  So, even before President Trump's address tonight, his administration has been making a case that there is a crisis on the southern border, a national security and a humanitarian crisis.

Vice President Mike Pence spoke to reporters yesterday alongside Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen.  She said the crisis is getting worse.

"NewsHour"'s Amna Nawaz is here with a look at the facts.

Amna, you have been looking at this in-depth.  First of all, how do we define crisis, and is it our sense that there is a terrorist threat at the border, as the White House is suggesting?

Amna Nawaz (NewsHour):  So, first of all, we're following the administration's lead on this, right?

They're saying there is enough of a crisis, that it necessitates some kind of physical barrier to stop it in its tracks.  And there's really two prongs.  We have heard this already in the show, humanitarian crisis and a national security crisis.

That terrorist threat you mentioned, the administration has been citing a few examples repeatedly, including one we heard from Vice President Pence just this morning in an interview.  Here's what he had to say.

"With regard to terrorists," he said, "we have seen more than 4,000 known or suspected terrorists attempt to come into our country through various means."

Judy, that exact number is actually 3,755.  It's a rounding up.  That group that we know of, those are people with a direct link to terrorism.  But to associate it with the southern border is very, very misleading.

We know the vast majority of those people who've been apprehended come in through airports.  And so that — it's a misleading claim we have heard the government say again and again.  And, in fact, we have government's own numbers in this case that looked at the terrorist threat on the southern border.  This is from a State Department report in 2017.

They [State Department] said, "There are no known international terrorist organizations operating in Mexico, no credible info that any member of a terrorist group has traveled through Mexico to gain access to the U.S."

So that was 2017.  But, Judy, even in this year, it's now been reported, in the first half of 2018, there are believed to be six known or suspected terrorists who entered the country, none of them from our southern…

Judy Woodruff:  Six?

Amna Nawaz:  Yes.

Judy Woodruff:  The number six?

Amna Nawaz:  That's right.

Judy Woodruff:  So — but, even apart from this, you hear the administration making the argument there are dangerous people coming across.  Who are they, could they be referring to?

Amna Nawaz:  So, there's two other numbers we have heard repeated again and again.  And we dug into them to figure out, who are these groups they're talking about?

In a briefing yesterday, Homeland Security Secretary Nielsen cited these numbers.  She cited a group of special interest aliens, 3,000 of them, she said, who were encountered on the southern border last year, in addition, 17,000 convicted criminals who were stopped at the southern border last year.

Let's just take those piece by piece for a second.  The special interest aliens, all those are, are a group of people who come from different countries that may require a second look, either because of the nature of terrorism or threats in their home country or because of their travel patterns.  Those are not suspected terrorists.

The libertarian Cato Institute actually looked at the group in-depth.  They did a huge comprehensive study.  And they found, from 1975 to 2017, that those groups from special interest aliens, there were seven of them in that — all of those years who entered illegally who were convicted of planning a terrorist attack, and none of them actually successfully carried out the attack.

And none of them, Judy, actually entered on the southern border.  And most of them actually came in from our northern border.  The 17,000 criminal convictions, what we can say about that is, I went to a DHS source and said, what are those convictions?  They don't have a breakdown.

But they did say many of those convictions were for previous illegal entries.

Judy Woodruff:  Huh.  But northern border, Canada?

(CROSSTALK)

Amna Nawaz:  Northern border on those seven ones over — from 1975 to 2017.

Judy Woodruff:  So, setting that aside, setting aside the national security threat, the other argument the administration is making is, there's a humanitarian crisis at the border.

Amna Nawaz:  Yes.

Judy Woodruff:  What do we know about that?

Amna Nawaz:  There's absolutely a humanitarian crisis.

OK, it starts all the way down in Central America, makes its way all the way up to our border.  Here's what Secretary Nielsen had to say yesterday about that in the briefing.  She cited 60,000 children sent here unaccompanied at the border, 30 percent of the women who are raped on the journey, seven out of 10 that are the victims of violence.

We know these folks from these Central American countries who are fleeing violence and instability.  They have a dangerous journey along the way.  None of those are things that we have direct control over.

The things that we have control over in our government, kind of creating a crisis of our own.  We know that volume is not the problem.  Historically, border crossings are at an all-time low.  If you take a look at border apprehensions over the years, over the last 20 years, that's an 81 percent decline.  Volume is not the issue.

We have handled many, many more people, many hundreds of thousands more people a month.  The difference is demographics.  We now have more families, meaning parents and guardians, with children coming to our borders.  Take a look at those numbers.  Those have been going up over the last five years.  It's a 400 percent increase.

And that has taxed our system in ways it wasn't meant to handle.  We were built as an immigration system to handle single men.  We're not built to handle the families and children.  It's creating a backlog through the whole system.

Judy Woodruff:  And that's one thing the administration is acknowledging.

One other thing, Amna.  So, the President is going to speak to the nation tonight, short remarks, we're told seven or eight minutes.  He is going to make again, we believe, a case for a wall along the border, saying, if we build a physical wall, we will be able to address these crises we have been discussing.

Amna Nawaz:  Yes, there's a few other threats the President has cited too, with validity, absolutely.

He has said about the nature of drugs coming across the border — just on Friday, he said drugs are pouring into this country.  They don't go through the ports of entry.  When they do, they sometimes get caught.  We know that there's elicit narcotics trafficking flowing back and forth.  We know it's a problem, and the violence that comes with it too.

Statistically, those illicit drugs come through legal ports of entry.  A wall wouldn't really do much to stop it.  And we have DEA data that actually debunks that too.

But, more importantly, Judy, they say the wall could act as a deterrent, it'll send a message that people cannot illegally enter.

The problem is, historically, that hasn't worked.  In previous administrations and this one, anything we have done as a deterrent, whether it was pamphleting in Mexico, or putting families and children in mass detention — and these were in previous administrations, by the way — or family separation in this one, it hasn't worked, because the conditions on the ground these people are fleeing have not changed.