Biden Election

US Election 2020: Joe Biden endorsed by law enforcement chiefs – Daily Mail

Scores of current and former law enforcement chiefs endorse Joe Biden and call Donald Trump a ‘lawless president’ despite wrapping his campaign in laws and order’ rhetoric

  • List includes 190 sheriffs, state attorneys general, prosecutors, former police chiefs, and U.S. attorneys
  • It comes as Trump continues to center his campaign around ‘law and order’ 
  • Names come from such states as Arizona, Colorado and Michigan, and Ohio 

By Geoff Earle, Deputy U.s. Political Editor For

Published: | Updated:

Democrat Joe Biden‘s presidential campaign has amassed more than 190 endorsements from sheriffs, prosecutors and attorneys general even as Donald Trump centers his campaign around a call for ‘law and corder.

The list includes former sheriffs, state attorneys general, and U.S. attorneys. Many come from battleground states such as Colardao, Michigan, and Arizona, during a campaign when protests and violent clashes in cities has become an undercurrent of the campaign. 

Some of those lending the name to the effort, which was reported by Fox News, blasted Trump as a ‘lawless’ president.

Joe Biden’s campaign announced the backing of 190 former sheriffs, state attorneys general, and U.S. attorneys

Among them was Noble Wray, the retired police chief of Madison, Wisconsin. “It’s ironic that a lawless president claims to be the ‘law and order’ president,” Wray told the network. “We are at a crossroads with this nation, and we need a president that has always prioritized the safety of Americans and their families.”

Said the Biden campaign in a statement Friday morning: ‘Their endorsement comes on the heels of Donald Trump’s attempts to characterize himself as the ‘Law and Order’ president despite failing to condemn violence, his gross mismanagement of the coronavirus, and his incitement of chaos, destruction and violence as a way to rally his base and advance his political agenda. Additionally, 23 Democratic Attorneys-General have already endorsed Biden.’ 

Biden’s list came out a day after the former vice president toured Kenosha, Wisconsin and met with the family of Jacob Blake, who was shot in the back seven times by a police officer.

President Donald Trump listens to Kenosha County Sheriff David Beth (R) on September 1, 2020, at Mary D. Bradford High School in Kenosha, Wisconsin. – Trump visited Kenosha, the city at the center of a raging US debate over racism, despite pleas to stay away and claims he is dangerously fanning tensions as a reelection ploy

Trump has made support from law enforcement groups a pillar of his campaign

Both candidates toward Kenosha, the site of protests and destruction following the shooting of Jacob Blake

The Biden camp announced the endorsements after both he and Trump visited Kenosha, Wisconsin

Trump had visited a day earlier, where he toured small businesses turned to rubble and met with law enforcement members who support him – including Sheriff David Beth, who has already drawn controversy for his 2018 comments calling for a group of black shoplifters to be warehoused for life.

Late Thursday, Trump tweeted: ‘Why aren’t the Portland Police ARRESTING the cold blooded killer of Aaron “Jay” Danielson. Do your job, and do it fast. Everybody knows who this thug is. No wonder Portland is going to hell!’ He tagged the Justice Department and the FBI. 

Michael Reinoehl, 48, an Antifa gunman who had admitted shooting Danielson, a Patriot Prayer supporter, died later in a shootout with U.S. Marhsalls.

Read More

Election updates

Election 2020 live updates: Biden heading to Kenosha, Wis., while Trump travels to Pennsylvania – The Washington Post

Trump and the White House also sought Thursday to clarify comments from the president’s trip to North Carolina on Wednesday, when he suggested that those who vote by mail vote again in person. Trump said Thursday that he was merely suggesting that voters follow up to ensure that mail-in ballots are counted. The White House said he wasn’t advocating breaking the law.

Here are some significant developments:

Read More

asteroid Election

“Election Day asteroid” has a small chance of hitting Earth — but it definitely won’t hurt anyone – Salon

As if 2020 needed another bout of apocalyptic news, reports circled this weekend that an asteroid is headed toward Earth right on Election Day. “Just in Time for the Election: An Asteroid?” the New York Times reported. “Asteroid heading our way right before Election Day,” the CNN headline blared as the topic trended on social media.

It would certainly be the cherry on top of a not-so-sweet year. But just as headlines about the murder hornets were overhyped, this asteroid is nothing to fret about — this year.

“It currently has a 0.41% chance of entering our planet’s atmosphere, but if it did, it would disintegrate due to its extremely small size,” NASA’s Planetary Defense Coordination Office tweeted on Aug. 23.

2018 VP1, which is the name of the asteroid, is about 6.5 feet in diameter. While November 2, 2020 is the day that it has a 1 in 243 chance of hitting Earth, the asteroid wouldn’t cause any damage even if it does strike us. It’s far too small. In fact, it’s not uncommon for asteroids of this size to burn up in the atmosphere.

For context, the asteroid that researchers believe wiped out the dinosaurs was roughly 6 miles wide. Its impact radically changed the climate and atmosphere, which led to a mass extinction event.

Dr. Ed Lu, executive director of the Asteroid Institute and a three-time NASA astronaut, told Salon it will be like “a shooting star in the sky” if it enters Earth’s atmosphere.

“This is ridiculously small, meaning even if it hits the Earth it’s a bright show and that’s it,”  Lu said. “It would look like a fireball in the sky. It’s the kind of thing that happens every few weeks on Earth.”

In 2018, astronomers discovered the asteroid using a robotic telescope called the Zwicky Transient Facility in California. Its trajectory has a high uncertainty, since it hasn’t been seen since its discovery, but it has a two-year orbital period which means it is on its way back to us. While it is expected to be near Earth on Nov. 2, 2020, the day before the United States’ Election Day, it is more likely to pass a few thousand miles away from our planet.

Lu said it’s possible that this Near-Earth Object (NEO) could swing back and make an appearance in Earth’s atmosphere at a later date, but emphasized it still wouldn’t do any damage on Earth because of its size.

“Asteroids in general that come back to Earth do swing back at later times,” Lu said, adding that it could be a “teaching moment” for researchers and the public in part because of how hit or miss asteroid tracking is at the moment.

“You don’t have perfect data, because you have a limited number of observations so therefore you’re just sort of a range of possibilities that are all consistent with those two data points that we have,” Lu said.

If it isn’t a big deal, then why did this story go viral? Nobody knows, but it could be the funny timing — coming right on the same day as a pivotal election.

“This story should have been cut on the newsroom floor before it went viral,” Danica Remy, President B612 Foundation, told Salon. “Clearly someone went digging for this non-news story on the JPL Sentry page for sensationalized drama and clicks”. 

Notably, last week a small asteroid also flew by very close to Earth; an asteroid named 2020 QG. According to NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, it is now the closest known non-impacting asteroid. Like the Election Day asteroid, there was no concern about it impacting Earth because it would have likely have become a fireball as it entered Earth’s atmosphere.

“It’s really cool to see a small asteroid come by this close, because we can see the Earth’s gravity dramatically bend its trajectory,” Paul Chodas, director of the Center for Near-Earth Object Studies (CNEOS) at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California, said in statement. “Our calculations show that this asteroid got turned by 45 degrees or so as it swung by our planet.”

Read More

disputed Election

A disputed election, a constitutional crisis, polarisation … welcome to 1876 – The Guardian

As Donald Trump warns inaccurately of voter fraud and polls show the unpopular president staying within touching distance of Democrat Joe Biden, the prospect of an unresolved US election draws horribly near, especially as the impact of the coronavirus is widely seen as likely to delay a result by days, if not weeks.

Across the political spectrum, pundits are predicting what may happen should Trump refuse to surrender power. The speculation is tantalising but the short answer is that nobody has a clue.

History does provide some sort of guide. There have been inconclusive US elections before. They were resolved, but not by any constitutional mechanism and the consequences of such brutal political contests have been severe indeed.

In 2000, the supreme court decided a disputed Florida result and put a Republican, George W Bush, in the White House instead of the Democrat Al Gore. Though of course the justices could not know it, they had put America on the road to war in Iraq, economic crisis, the rise of the evangelical right and a deepening political divide.

That case is well within living memory. But an election much further back produced even more damaging results.

The campaign of 1876 ended with the electoral college in the balance as three states were disputed. Out of deadlock, eventually, came a political deal, giving the Republican Rutherford Hayes the presidency at the expense of Samuel Tilden, who like Gore, and indeed Hillary Clinton in 2016, won the popular vote.

Tilden’s compensation was that his party, the Democrats, were allowed to put an end to Reconstruction, the process by which the victors in the civil war abolished slavery and sought to ensure the rights of black Americans, via the 13th, 14th and 15th constitutional amendments.

The awful result was Jim Crow, the system of white supremacy and segregation which lasted well into the 20th century and whose legacy remains crushingly strong in a country now gripped by protests against police brutality and for systemic reform.

Eric Foner, now retired from Columbia University, is America’s pre-eminent historian of the civil war, slavery and Reconstruction, a prize-winner many times over. He told the Guardian the US of 2020 is not prepared for what may be around the corner.

“In 1877 there were three states, Florida, South Carolina, Louisiana, where two different sets of returns were sent up, one by the Democrats, one by the Republicans, each claiming to have carried the state.

“There was no established mechanism and in fact, in the end, we went around the constitution, or beyond the constitution, or ignored the constitution. It was settled by an extralegal body called the Electoral Commission, which was established by Congress to decide who won.”

National Republican chart from 1876 featuring Rutherford Hayes for president and William Wheeler for vice-president.
National Republican chart from 1876 featuring Rutherford Hayes for president and William Wheeler for vice-president. Photograph: Education Images/Universal History Archive/Universal Images Group/Getty Images

Through wheeling and dealing in smoky back rooms as well as the precincts of Capitol Hill, that process produced a result.

“If there is such a dispute this November,” Foner says, “one of the things that is similar to 1876 is that today you have a divided Congress. Back then, just as now, you had Republicans in control of the Senate and Democrats in control of the House. And that gave each party a lot of power.”

If Trump does refuse to vacate the Oval Office, Biden may have to make concessions.

“Let’s imagine that the Republicans recognize Biden, withdraw their claim that, say, Biden is ahead by 7m popular votes but the electoral college is disputed. In exchange for that, Biden has to promise to do X, Y and Z. He’s got to promise to build the border wall to completion. He’s got to promise to make Russia the 51st state. Whatever it is Trump wants.

“Is that conceivable? I don’t know, probably not. But somebody has to decide and in 1876, in the end, it was this Electoral Commission.

“In 2000, I remember very well, a bunch of historians took a full-page ad in the New York Times, calling for a new Electoral Commission to examine the whole thing, and I thought that was one of the worst ideas I’d ever heard. When you go back to 1876, part of the deal was the surrender of the rights of African Americans. I’m not sure that’s a precedent we want to reinvigorate, you know?”

Many fear Trump and the Republicans will consider no tactic too underhand, no punch too low, before or after the vote.

“The election of 1876,” Foner says, “would not have been disputed at all if there hadn’t been massive violence in the south to prevent black people from voting and voter suppression like we have today. Now, voter suppression is mostly legal. Back then it was violent, you know, mob activity or Klan activity or other things to intimidate blacks or prevent them from going to vote.

“In other words if you had a fair election in the south, a peaceful election, there’s no question that the Republican Hayes would have won a totally legitimate and indisputable victory.

“Today, I can certainly see the Trump people challenging these mail-in ballots: ‘They’re all fraudulent, they shouldn’t be counted.’ Challenging people’s voting. There are already efforts to recruit poll watchers to try to intimidate voters, to claim they’re not really registered to vote.”

Many urge that the only real way to resolve fears of a contested result is for the electorate to hand Biden so resounding a victory that Trump will have no choice but to go. Foner agrees, though as “the country is fairly evenly divided, it’s hard to win a landslide election”.

Does he think, as many do, that the US is now as divided as at any time since the civil war and its aftermath?

“Sure, in a sense. We’re in a very ideological moment [but] right now we don’t have the violence. President Grant sent troops into the south in 1871, to suppress the Ku Klux Klan. We had a civil war, which we’re not quite on the verge of yet, I hope.

“But in the aftermath of civil war, yes, the Democrats were explicitly and overtly a party of white supremacy. That was their principle. The Republicans were the party of Lincoln, of emancipation and, increasingly, basic rights for African Americans.

“Those were very different positions and they led to extreme partisanship. Not a single Democrat in Congress voted for any of the so-called Reconstruction legislation which tried to protect the rights of blacks in the south. The hyper-polarization was there, 150 years ago.”

Swap the parties round, and the parallel to today is clear.

A cartoon depicts intimidation techniques used to suppress southern black votes in the election of 1876.
A cartoon depicts intimidation techniques used to suppress southern black votes in the election of 1876. Photograph: AB Frost. From Harper’s Weekly, October 21, 1876

Foner also says that while a contested result in 2020 could send America down a very dark path, a big Biden victory could herald a brighter future.

“It’s possible Biden wins by a large majority, [the Democrats] get control of the Senate. You know, the atmosphere in the country, whether it’s the racial issue or the pandemic or the economic crisis we’re in, all of that cries out for people who are looking for serious, substantive leadership, which of course we haven’t had lately.

“On the other hand, if Biden squeaks in, you know, with 52% of the vote and the Senate remains in the hands of Mitch McConnell and the Republicans … Biden can reverse all of Trump’s executive orders but he’s not going to get the major progressive legislation through.”

In the words of William Dean Howells, the dean of American 19th-century letters whom Foner has quoted elsewhere, the American public always wants “a tragedy with a happy ending”. Thanks to the election of 1876, Reconstruction did not deliver. As the election of 2020 looms, the Trump presidency may. Or may not.

Read More

Election Zealand

New Zealand Election Postponed Amid New Coronavirus Outbreak – The New York Times

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said the September national election scheduled would be delayed by four weeks, citing voter safety and a lockdown in Auckland that would make it difficult to campaign.

Credit…Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images

Damien Cave

SYDNEY, Australia — New Zealand on Monday said it would postpone its national election by four weeks as a cluster of new coronavirus cases continued to spread through the city of Auckland despite a lockdown.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who has the sole authority to determine when people cast ballots, said she had consulted with all the major parties before delaying the vote, originally scheduled for Sept. 19, to Oct. 17.

Ms. Ardern called the decision a compromise that “provides sufficient time for parties to plan around the range of circumstances we could be campaigning under, for the electoral commission to prepare and for voters to feel assured of a safe, accessible and critical election.”

She also ruled out further change. Even if the outbreak worsens, she said, “we will be sticking with the date we have.”

The shift keeps Election Day within the time frame allowed under the law — the latest possible date is Nov. 21 — but it also highlights the national concern as a cluster of at least 58 new cases frustrates investigators, clears the streets of Auckland and suspends scheduled campaign events.

Ms. Ardern’s approval ratings skyrocketed after the country’s first lockdown, in late March, led to what health officials described as the elimination of the virus and a return to life verging on normal, with crowded restaurants, stadiums and schools. Now, she faces greater scrutiny over what went wrong and how long the country will have to endure another round of restrictions.

“If it transpires that there was a considerable oversight, lax regulation or flawed implementation, that could have a very significant impact on the narrative,” said Richard Shaw, a politics professor at Massey University in Palmerston North, New Zealand.

But, he added, “there is a deep reservoir of good will toward the prime minister,” and it is possible that the way she has handled the election delay will only bolster her chances.

“She might have just added 5 percent to her polling by making an announcement that many New Zealanders will think is reasonable, fair and sensible,” Mr. Shaw said.

He added the election delay was inevitable in part because the September date would have required the dissolution of Parliament on Monday to allow for a month of campaigning. Parliament will now be dissolved on Sept. 6.

“She needed to be seen as responding to this,” he said of Ms. Ardern. “It’s a straightforward political decision.”

New Zealand’s election is far from the first to be postponed because of the pandemic. Hong Kong cited the virus in delaying by a year a Legislative Council vote; more than a dozen U.S. states moved the date of their primaries, as did New York City. And though President Trump floated the idea of delaying the general election, he was promptly shut down by members of Congress and his own party.

In the short-term, Ms. Ardern’s delay will allow her government to focus primarily on the virus. Health officials in New Zealand are still scrambling to test thousands of workers at airports and other points of entry, along with quarantine facilities and a frozen food warehouse, to try to determine how the virus re-emerged last week after 102 days without known community transmission.

On Sunday, officials announced 12 new cases tied to the cluster of four from last Sunday. On Monday, they announced nine more.

Pressure on Ms. Ardern and her Labour Party to change the date had been building over several days. A New Zealand Herald-Kantar poll taken over the weekend showed that 60 percent of New Zealanders favored a delay.

The leaders of other major parties also argued that the Level 3 lockdown in Auckland, the country’s largest city, prevented campaigning and would have made a free and fair election impossible on the original date.

Winston Peters, the deputy prime minister and leader of the New Zealand First Party, Ms. Ardern’s coalition partner, said in a letter to Ms. Ardern last week that until the alert level dropped in Auckland, the “playing field is hopelessly compromised.”

The National Party’s leader, Judith Collins, has said that she would prefer that the election be moved to next year, which would require approval from 75 percent of Parliament.

On Monday, Ms. Collins said the focus must be on determining what led to the current outbreak “so we can be sure it won’t happen again.”

What the delay means for Ms. Ardern and her party’s prospects in the election may depend on the vicissitudes of the virus.

In the announcement on Monday, Ms. Ardern sought to portray the delay as an example of her willingness to listen to the public and make tough decisions.

“Covid is the world’s new normal,” she said. “Here in New Zealand, we are working as hard as we can to make sure our new normal disrupts our lives as little as possible.”

Read More

Election ready

Election 2020: ‘Are you ready?’ Biden says of V.P. search – The Washington Post

In a brief exchange with a reporter near his Rehoboth Beach, Del., home, presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden gave no indications Sunday morning whether he has come to a decision on his running mate.

“Are you ready?” the former vice president replied when asked whether he’d made his choice.

President Trump, meanwhile, started the day at his golf resort in Bedminster, N.J. He is expected to attend a fundraiser in Long Branch, N.J., before heading back to Washington later Sunday.

Here are some significant developments:

Read More

Belarus Election

Belarus election: President Lukashenko faces toughest test in years – BBC News

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko

Image copyright

Image caption

President Lukashenko has led Belarus since 1994

President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus is seeking a sixth term in office in an election he is both tipped to win but which is also likely to be his toughest challenge yet.

He won previous elections by a landslide but the votes were condemned by election observers.

This time though he has a prominent rival in a 37-year-old who is running in place of her jailed husband.

Belarus has also seen large opposition protests and a row with Russia.

President Lukashenko, 65, and sometimes referred to as Europe’s last dictator, was first elected in 1994.

In the last vote in 2015, he was declared winner with 83.5% of the vote. There were no serious challengers and election observers reported problems in the counting and tabulation of votes.

So will this vote be different?

Probably not. President Lukashenko is widely expected to win again. But the vote is being closely watched amid growing signs of frustration at his leadership.

The campaign has seen the rise of opposition candidate Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, a former teacher who became a stay-at-home mother until thrust into the political spotlight.

Her husband was arrested and blocked from registering for the vote so she stepped in to take his place.

“People are waking up, rediscovering their self-respect,” she told AFP in a recent interview. But she also said she expected the election to be rigged.

Image copyright

Image caption

Svetlana Tikhanovskaya has emerged as the wild card of the race

President Lukashenko has dismissed Ms Tikhanovskaya as a “poor little girl”, manipulated by foreign “puppet masters”.

Tens of thousands defied an escalating crackdown on the opposition last month to attend a protest in the capital Minsk last month, the largest such demonstration in a decade.

Hundreds of protesters have been held since May, human rights activists say.

On the eve of the vote Ms Tikhanovskaya’s team said her campaign manager had been arrested and would not be released until Monday.

Is anyone else running?

There are three other candidates:

Two key opposition figures were barred from running and threw their weight behind Ms Tikhanovskaya’s campaign.

Noisy defiance as election looms

By Abdujalil Abdurasulov, BBC News, Minsk

The calm streets of Minsk sporadically burst with the noise of drivers honking their car horns. Some flew a flag with a red stripe on the white background – the symbol used by the opposition.

Voicing dissent is dangerous in Belarus but activists still make noise despite a crackdown. People can be detained even for playing the wrong music, as happened to two DJs at a government-sponsored event in Minsk earlier this week.

It is this defiance that is making the election if not unpredictable then at least the most challenging for Aleksander Lukashenko.

Since the start of the election campaign in May, more than 2,000 people have been detained, according to Human Rights Centre Viasna.

Early voting began on 4 August and monitoring groups say their volunteers have frequently been prevented from observing the vote and even arrested.

Rumours have spread widely that the government is going to shut down mobile networks on Sunday to hide mass falsification of the results.

What else is happening?

Last month Belarus arrested more than 30 Russian nationals and accused them of plotting violent protests with members of the opposition.

Russia denied the allegations, saying the 33 – claimed to be members of a shadowy mercenary group – were only travelling through Belarus en route to Turkey.

Despite the apparent rift some analysts say Russia would like to see President Lukashenko win but be weakened by the vote, to force him into closer ties.

Media playback is unsupported on your device

Media captionAn unexpectedly lively election campaign has revived hope for change in Belarus

Three Russian opposition activists were detained on Saturday as they travelled to Belarus to observe the vote, the Open Russia group said.

Anger towards Mr Lukashenko’s government has been in part fuelled by the response to coronavirus.

The president has downplayed the outbreak, advising citizens to drink vodka and use saunas to fight the disease.

Belarus, which has a population of 9.5 million, has had nearly 70,000 confirmed cases and 600 deaths.

Read More

Citing Election

Citing Election Delay Tweet, Influential Trump Ally Now Demands His Re-Impeachment – NPR

President Donald Trump chats with reporters Friday as he heads to Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House. The day before, he floated the idea of delaying the election, prompting criticism from the Federalist Society’s co-founder.

Alex Brandon/AP

hide caption

toggle caption

Alex Brandon/AP

President Donald Trump chats with reporters Friday as he heads to Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House. The day before, he floated the idea of delaying the election, prompting criticism from the Federalist Society’s co-founder.

Alex Brandon/AP

After voting for President Trump in 2016 and staunchly defending him in conservative publications, a Federalist Society leader appears to be having some very public buyer’s remorse.

Steven Calabresi, co-founder of the powerful conservative legal organization, is now calling on the House of Representatives to do again what it has already done once this year: impeach Trump.

In a scathing opinion piece in The New York Times published online Thursday, the Northwestern University law professor points to what ignited his newfound ire with the president: a tweet Trump sent out shortly after news broke Thursday morning that the U.S. economy had suffered its biggest recorded contraction ever last quarter.

“With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history. It will be a great embarrassment to the USA,” the president intoned on Twitter. “Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???”

With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history. It will be a great embarrassment to the USA. Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 30, 2020

Calabresi declared himself “appalled” by the tweet, which he characterized as “seeking to postpone the November election.”

“Until recently, I had taken as political hyperbole the Democrats’ assertion that President Trump is a fascist,” the conservative legal scholar wrote. “But this latest tweet is fascistic and is itself grounds for the president’s immediate impeachment again by the House of Representatives and his removal from office by the Senate.”

It was a remarkable turnaround for a man who as recently as November had accused House Democrats of conducting an “unconstitutional” and “Kafkaesque ‘trial’ ” in their Trump impeachment proceedings.

Calabresi also had some stern advice for Republican lawmakers, many of whom have routinely approved conservative judicial nominees endorsed and promoted by the Federalist Society.

“President Trump needs to be told by every Republican in Congress that he cannot postpone the federal election. Doing so would be illegal, unconstitutional and without precedent in American history,” Calabresi warned. “Anyone who says otherwise should never be elected to Congress again.”

Calabresi’s public distancing from the 45th president was applauded by other conservatives critical of Trump.

“Steve Calabresi, welcome to the Resistance,” tweeted Washington attorney George Conway, the famously Trump-bashing husband of senior Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway.

Former national security adviser John Bolton, whose scorching tell-all account of his time in the Trump White House was published last month over the objections of Trump’s lawyers, tweeted that Calabresi’s op-ed was “a must-read.”

Trump, for his part, did not directly respond to his one-time ally’s demand that he be re-impeached. Instead, the president sought to portray his provocative suggestion that the election be delayed as stirring a needed public debate.

“Glad I was able to get the very dishonest LameStream Media,” Trump tweeted later on Thursday, “to finally start talking about the RISKS to our Democracy from dangerous Universal Mail-In-Voting (not Absentee Voting, which I totally support!).”

Many news organizations — including NPR — have noted that, contrary to Trump’s assertions, there is no universal mail-in voting for the November presidential election, just as there is essentially no difference between mail-in ballots and absentee ballots.

Read More