What Rights Do You Have To Stop Cops From Entering Your House – Warrants, Consent, Exigency

What Rights Do You Have To Stop Cops From Entering Your House – Warrants, Consent, Exigency

When can Cops enter your home? What cops use to enter your home. I discuss how Gov or Law Enforcement can gain entry to your home and under what circumstances they can enter your home without your consent or approval.

I have a video about why you should not talk to cops that I encourage all people to watch. Nothing good comes from talking or cooperating with the Gov. Once Gov is involved it can only down hill from there. Once Gov gets an inch of control they will always want more and you will end up playing catch up and wishing Gov was never invovled. Here is the link to that video:
http://www.thinklikeahorse.org/All_Ab…

I have said many times when I was a cop – It is better if you don’t make a statement, don’t talk to me and remain silent. There is an attitude that if you remain silent or refuse to talk, then you must be guilty or have something to hide. In the current adversarial relationship between citizens and the Government, protecting yourself should be your primary concern.

Nothing you say can help you and can only be used against you. Police work for the Government and politicians, they have careers to protect, policy to follow, they make mistakes, they misremember things, some things are accidentally left out of reports, their memory is not perfect and many other factors can come into play and you may become collateral damage during an investigation. The old saying, Truth is what the cop puts in the police report, is true to many.

Any lawyer will tell you DO NOT talk to the cops or give any statements. Anything you say can be misunderstood, taken wrong, repeated wrong, remembered wrong, important parts can be forgotten, confused or intentionally withheld by the Government, especially if it hurts their case.

This video is a Lawyer that explains this very well. Invest 20 minutes and watch this video where this experienced Lawyer gives specific reasons on why you should not talk to the Police.

Comments

As a law abiding citizen I appreciate the information but the behavior you described of cops today is very concerning. What happened to protect and serve. You see more and more police departments looking more and more like military operatives and that is scary even as a law abiding citizen.

 

 

If this is true–that cops can create exigent circumstances on a whim and thus can break in without consequences–the system needs to CHANGE. One of the important critical costs of individual liberty that an individual having a right to be secure in his person is that COPS DO NOT HAVE THE AUTOMATIC RIGHT TO WIN unless they can prove it to a judge who would provide a warrant. A person’s home is his sanctuary. Period. If cops want to snag someone who’s in his house and don’t have a warrant, starve him out. Don’t break in. If someone’s life is in danger, cops don’t have–that is, should not have–the limitless power to resolve the situation, not at the cost of one’s right to be secure. To argue otherwise is to give absolute power to a police state, which I’m beginning to realize we may have already become, rather than a nation governed by individual rights. But the greater crime is in the courts/”justice” system that have successfully absolved such tyrannical violations of the 4th amendment and given what was said in this video the backing of precedent. Checks and balances clearly end at the courts, a tragedy that is ultimately causing the implosion of our nation. Granted, the stories this guy shares are examples of where having a police state worked out nicely.

 

So you can do nothing wrong but be a victim of impatient cops attending a bogus call, not even get charged, and still receive a record? “Land of the free” The more I learn about our legal system the more I despise it, it’s despicable and constantly stacked against the citizens. A cop will give you a record just because he didn’t want to have to justify his unneeded use of force on paper. What the hell…

 

most everything you’ve said is why law enforcement has very low respect. I had a DA tell me Law Enforcement is not an honorable job anymore.

 

“There’s a difference between kicking a door and preventing you from closing the door” that right there tells you everything you need to know about cops.

 

by the way I am law abiding citizen and a veteran … I believe in the constitution to the fullest! officers infringe on that daily! a good friend of mine that I severed with  just became a officer in texas … his class skipped over learning bout the constitution … umm… that’s an issue for me … how many agencies do that !? isn’t the fucking constitution the basis for our laws ,rights, way of life ?
Officer, what you’re saying is that police will, after violently harming an innocent person, will arrest them, book them, and give them a criminal record so they don’t look bad? That’s what I would call a disgusting and evil action.  That, and the victim of those perpetrators would also have a good claim for a 1983 suit.
Wrong house and home owner gets killed or shot and injured? In my opinion the fact that you got the wrong house means you’re wrong and completely liable for anything and everything. Period.
An attorney named Dale Carson wrote a book called “Arrestproof Yourself”. In that book he stresses that when ever you deal with government and law enforcement to ‘Shut the hell up”. To never EVER start talking to them. That they are NOT your friends. That book should be required reading for every citizen of this country. The information contained would help to put the kabash on a lot of governmental and law enforcement abuse. Most police I know are pretty good people just doing a dirty job. But I have met a few who I am amazed ever passed a psych test.
I appreciate your information, except the part where you laugh about busting in the wrong house and you told the lady to have the city pay for the damage. Disgusting! How would you feel if someone busted into your home and just said, “oops, I made a mistake. Sorry“? Yeah, that’s what I thought. This is why a lot of people hate the cops. The “I can do anything I want because I’m a cop and my union and the city will protect me” Is absolutely disgusting.
I must have been 18 yrs old and in my 1st apartment. One morning police knock on my door and I opened it, next the officer asked to come in, I complied. At that point I felt violated because behind that 1st officer was another 6 cops. They each went through all my rooms, drawers, closets, etc… I realized I made a mistake, I was young but I learned that just because I had nothing to hide doesn’t mean I didn’t have rights.
if this does not convince you that you live in a police state I don’t know what will
This man swore an oath to uphold the constitution? Let that sink in a while.
long story short…sounds like they can make up any excuse and enter your house without your consent or warrant
You should have explained how cops trick people into letting them in because the cops don’t specify what kind of warrant, a search warrant and an arrest warrant are two entirely different things. And how an arrest warrant doesn’t give any cop entry into a home unless the cop just saw the person enter the home, or the cop sees the person in the home. Cops will yell, ‘we have a warrant’, but they don’t say it’s an arrest warrant, trying to scare people into opening their door, when they don’t have to open the door. Cops rely on people being ignorant of the law, due process, procedure, etc. If cops say they have a search warrant, they have to show it to you upon request, and it has to have a penned signature by a judge, and it needs to be very specific about where and why. If it has 1 error, then it should be considered null and void.
  • I heard somebody say help so I kicked the door in.
  • I saw somebody moving the house so I kicked the door in. I
  • thought I smelt smoke so I kicked your door in.
  • It was cold outside so I kicked your door in.
Sounds like a warrant is pretty useless to me when all you have to do is make up some bull shit excuse to get in. Never ever talk to the cops they are not your friend…
>> they can lie and they ain’t gonna believe you.
80% of police work is causing people grief over b.s., to collect fines. Policing for profit. 20% is positive and necessary .
Also your “goofy” presentation style and apparently cavalier attitude toward the violation of citizen rights seems to be in line with the way law enforcement treats citizens these days: with disrespect
I love this guy’s stories! Also, thanks for keeping it real with us citizen’s who ate struggling to not offend authorities to the point of incarceration due to wounded ego vs. Expecting privacy of self and property as guaranteed under the 4th amendment.
It’s absolutely a violation of our civil rights to force entry while you wait for a warrant. A homeowner would be perfectly justified to defend themselves against such use of unlawful force. A warrant is the ONLY justification for you to force entry. An officer is sworn to defend our rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. If an officer violates that oath by failing to follow proper due process, he is no longer properly acting as the enforcement arm of the law. At any point that the officer violates his duty to defend and uphold our rights as guaranteed by the Constitution, he ceases to be Constitutionally justified in his actions, and is subject to the same counteracting use of force that any common criminal would be. We have to protect the absolute fail-safe right of We the People to use defensive force against ANY intruder who does not have a proper warrant. Otherwise, you end up with unscrupulous officers using loopholes such as the ones described in the video to enter unlawfully.
Great video and great info. The statements about the officers making decisions to cover their own butts instead of following the law and protecting the rights of the citizens are very sad but true. Also the statements about the cops having a chip on their their shoulder for anyone you does not follow all their “orders” whether those orders are lawfully given or not. People with that sort of ego should not be given a badge and gun. I think we are all going to have to start wearing body cameras to have evidence when these behaviors happen. Unfortunately, it is too easy for an officer to lie about what happened to make it sound like he was right. The DA and the judge will tend to believe him, not the citizen. So the citizen gets screwed.
Well since everyone is sharing, I guess I should too… I lived in Hamilton Ohio with my wife and first child. I was playing on my Xbox 360 and had been for about 2 and a half hrs and suddenly heard someone talking at my window,” are you sure? This guy is sitting here playing a video game.” I instantly tensed up not knowing what was about to happen. I then heard a knock at the door and got up to go answer it. I asked through the door who it was and they said HPD can you open the door so we can speak with you for a moment. So being only 19 at the time I was unaware of my rights regarding entry to my home, I opened the door to have a word and was instantly bulled back by a police officer and pushed on to my ottoman and told not to stand up while being held at gunpoint. 6 other police officers rushed in behind him in swat garb with assault rifles and started searching the house. I asked what was going on and the on who was standing over me with his pistol told me they received a call that a woman was being held hostage by a man with an assault rifles, then he asked me if I had any firearms and if there was anyone else in the house. I told him about my dad’s shotgun in the next room in a locked case and that my wife and daughter were upstairs sleeping. Two officers then went upstairs to wake up my wife and daughter to “make sure they were ok” then promptly left. If that isn’t messed up and illegal idk what is. Note: this was probably around 2-3 am
We’ve investigated ourselves and found no wrong doing.
What about the classic “You open the door and the cop sticks their foot in the door so you can’t close it, tactic.” Why did you leave that part out?
“I smell marijuana.” How does someone overcome this since cops are allowed to lie?
>> Cops are not allowed lie about facts that develop their PC.
>>  @S Campbell  But, they do.
At the beginning you list only 3 ways a cop can enter someone’s house. You left out the one most often used.
COERCION
coercion noun plural noun: coercions
The practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.

>> @Ricky Mellottsr  “either let us in now or we are going to come back with a warrant. if you make us get a warrant you are going to make us mad. when we return with that warrant we will search and destroy your property.” and they will destroy everything.

I appreciate straight-talkers, regardless of what they’re saying or their message. Thank you for your prospective, insight, and this conveyance. It was informative and clear.
So the key is too keep them off the property and keep the door closed. Also by federal law cops cuffing and not arresting you is a battery. Don’t believe me, ask a lawyer. He is also just admitted HE IS A DIRTY COP by saying he books people that he knows haven’t committed a crime and seeing other do so because he and them don’t want to have to justify their use of force. He is exactly what’s wrong with the cops in the US.
Thanks for your information and it’s pretty accurate as far as I can tell. You at least seem like a stand up guy and sincere on your points that are well taken. Nowadays the disconnect comes in when cops over-step their bounds then double down with petty retaliation tactics.THEN the citizens seem to have NO recourse when it’s plain that the cops were wrong and it’s even plain that the “revenge” tactic was done for obvious reasons. Plain and simple fact is ordinary citizens do not like being treated and talked to like they are ALREADY in prison. (Very unprofessional) All due respect to the job, but not to some of these bullies and thugs that we ALL know are out there. Thanks in advance for giving me this platform to air my personal opinion.
In other words, The Fourth Amendment protects nothing.
How is anyone supposed to know that the person banging on your door is an actual cop?
6:59When your working on an exigency situation to get in someones house, Its up to the cop to create that exigency” I have a problem with a lot of this. It is not illegal to not answer the door, even if its a cop. Its not illegal to no not acknowledge the cops even if they see you inside not answering them. I get it, someone called…. Talk to the caller, if they dont say anything that gives exigency to the situation in and of itself then aww well. Do not pass go. Stay the fuck outta my house. I’m in here getting paranoid like a motherfu**er and your killin my buzz from these brownies my aunt made me for Christmas
I found this video to be very disturbing. Something about this video seems to trivializing immorality. First of all, a cop should be intelligent enough and careful enough to NOT go to the WRONG house, especially knowing what the consequences could be. A person could be running in their house for any reason. Perhaps a person is not suitably dressed and runs to put something decent on. Normally people (myself included) don’t expect someone to kick the door of the house so they might hang around the house looking any kind of way. As far as exigency, I need clarification. Is exigency always started for the benefit of the resident or can it be used for other reasons? A neighbor’s call might indicate exigency or not mean anything, especially when people call cops on their neighbors out of spite. The purpose of a welfare check is to benefit the person who’s welfare is at risk. The person who the call was made for or didn’t instantly answer the door should not be abused because “he’s a jerk that pissed off one of our people…” What does that have to do with the welfare of the victim? At this point, the issue is ego and not ‘serving and protecting’. This video was informative but left me feeling very sad and with a little less respect for the police, because as I said it trivialized certain things that don’t need to happen.

The Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I believe in warrants.Yet when cops use warrants and they find nothing.They should be held to accountability.This does not happen now. This is where law on warrants should be changed. Such as there should be folks there with cops , that are trust worthy to watch every move of the cops. Cops are not trust worthy. This is a added accountability for cops to try to keep them honest. If cops are caught by these mediators planting stuff. Then the cops are automatically given twenty years. with out parole. When warrants are issued for wrong address.Then these cops who bust down the door and terrorize a family.Then these thugs should be charged with terroristic tactics. These terrorist should be charged with a felony with at least a minimum of 25 years to life in prison. Cops by nature are dishonest and natural born liars. The system protects these terrorist. Warrant system and blue privelege is what also protects these criminals. Cops are not human they are animals.

 

You’re laughing about entering the wrong residence. You’re laughing about walking away as the lady is frantic because you broke her window. You’re laughing as you say you tell her the city will pay for it. Then, later in your discussion, you joke about entering someone’s residence after chasing the “large black man”, drawing your weapon and scaring the daylights out of innocent people. I’m sure it DEFINITELY wasn’t funny then. Why do you think it’s funny later? What’s funny about that?
This is the kind of logic that’s what’s wrong with this country. You LEO’s somehow believe you’re justified in your actions – despite you ADMITTING you messed up or, later, aiming your weapon at innocent people. WTF?! There’s never been another time in America where citizens have a strong dislike and distrust for police than there is now. Do you really believe talking about your past transgressions in this manner is going to help? And just because someone is a “jerk” to LEO’s doesn’t excuse illegal action. It’s this mindset that somehow, because you have a badge and you’ve been disrespected, you have the “right” to infringe on the rights of others. I do applaud you for educating the public regarding your train of thought and a glimpse into the mind of a LEO. It IS helpful. I just think you could’ve handled it better.
police don’t get into trouble anyways no matter what they do, they always get a slap on the hand .
>> not true, cops lose their job very easy for misconduct and lying, but they have be caught red handed and with video that is getting easier.
>>  even with clear video of them committing crimes like murder and other major violation of the law, some of them only get a light sentence, that amounts to nothing, and some time no jail time just fired ..

>> It may seem that way but being a cop is not easy and there is just so many laws, policies, court cases, use of force rules it is an enormous amount of information to process in a spit second that can mean you either die or live..  the courts and Gov knows if they do not give a lot of protection for the guys doing the job, then it will harder to find people willing do it.  Unless the Gov crashes the economy so the only jobs are in Gov that way no can say no or go against them or they will be without jobs..  Believe me NO cop goes to work thinking yee haw I can do whatever I want and I don’t have any worries…  it is the opposite.

Tucker Carlson Finally Confronted About Fox News Vaccine Mandate

Fox News propagandist Tucker Carlson is finally confronted about Fox News’ own vaccine mandate

 

 

The Trump O’Clock Follies

The President’s mendacious nightly press briefings on the coronavirus will go down in history for their monumental flimflammery.

During the Vietnam War, the United States had the Five O’Clock Follies, nightly briefings at which American military leaders claimed, citing a variety of bogus statistics, half-truths, and misleading reports from the front, to be winning a war that they were, in fact, losing. Richard Pyle, the Associated Press’s Saigon bureau chief, called the press conferences “the longest-playing tragicomedy in Southeast Asia’s theater of the absurd,” which, minus the “Southeast Asia” part, is not a bad description of the scene currently playing out each evening in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room, in the White House. We now have the Trump Follies, the nightly briefings at which President Trump has lied and bragged, lamented and equivocated, about the global pandemic that poses an existential threat to his Presidency. Just as the Vietnam briefings became a standard by which the erosion of government credibility could be measured then, historians of the future will consult the record of Trump’s mendacious, misleading press conferences as an example of a tragic failure of leadership at such a critical moment. There will be much material for them; the transcripts from just the first three days of this week runs to more than forty thousand words.

Since Trump began making the press conferences a daily ritual a couple of weeks ago—an eternity in the pandemic era—his more memorable lines are already featuring in political attacks against him. “I don’t take responsibility at all,” Trump insisted, two weeks ago. When asked to assess his own performance, he said, “I’d rate it a ten.” This Wednesday, with members of his coronavirus task force joining him onstage, he added, “We’ve done one hell of a job. Nobody has done the job that we’ve done. And it’s lucky that you have this group here right now for this problem or you wouldn’t even have a country left.”

The disconnect between Trumpian reality and actual reality has never been on starker display than in the past few days, as the true face of the horror we are facing in the United States has shown itself, in New York City, with overwhelmed morgues and emergency rooms, a governor pleading for ventilators and face masks from the federal government, and heartbreaking first-person accounts reminiscent of the open letters sent from Italy a few weeks back, which warned Americans: this is what is coming for you—don’t make our mistakes. On Tuesday, the World Health Organization said that the United States was emerging as the “epicenter” of the global pandemic, which makes the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room the emerging epicenter of the failure to respond to it.

A couple of weeks ago, it seemed as if maybe that would not be the case. Although the Trump Administration had faltered and delayed and denied through the initial stages of the virus, when it raged outside our borders, it looked like it might finally get its act together and take this public-health menace seriously, now that it was hitting in force inside the U.S. Trump declared a “national emergency,” stepped up testing, and, on March 16th, agreed to his crisis committee’s plan for a fifteen-day countrywide slowdown, in order to “flatten the curve” of the disease’s trajectory. Barely a week into the fifteen days, however, Trump began signalling an abrupt change of course—at just the moment when the disease was accelerating its deadly progress through a wealthy nation that turned out to be surprisingly ill-prepared for it.

Throughout this long, strange March, Trump has often framed the fight against the pandemic in martial terms: a “battle” to be won, a victory to be achieved, a shared sacrifice against “this invisible enemy” which would go on “until we have defeated the virus.” But the Commander-in-Chief did something extraordinary this week: he rebelled against his own clichés, essentially declaring that he no longer wanted to be at war with the virus after all.

On Sunday, he prefigured this pivot, apparently after watching the Fox News host Steve Hilton complain about the treatment—a shut-down country and a cratered economy—being worse than the disease. “WE CANNOT LET THE CURE BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM ITSELF,” Trump tweeted, shortly before midnight. By the Monday-night edition of the Follies, which are usually scheduled for 5 p.m. but often not started until later, Trump was repeating this line over and over again. “We cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself,” he said. “We’re not going to let the cure be worse than the problem.” Later, he added, “We can’t have the cure be worse than the problem,” and also, “We can’t let that happen. . . . We can’t let this continue to go on.” America, he said, would be “open for business” soon.

On Tuesday, which marked a month since a now-infamous tweet in which the President claimed that “the Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA,” Trump was even more specific. He announced that afternoon, on a Fox News special from the White House lawn, that he wanted to get the country reopened and the church pews “packed” by Easter, on April 12th, at just the time when New York and other states were predicted to face the maximum pressure on their overstretched medical facilities. A few hours later, at the nightly press briefing, he was asked about this seemingly arbitrary timetable by CNN’s Kaitlan Collins.

“Who suggested Easter?” Collins asked. “Who suggested that day?”   Trump replied, “I just thought it was a beautiful time. It would be a beautiful time, a beautiful timeline. It’s a great day.”   Collins followed up: “So that wasn’t based on any of the data?”   “I just think it would be a beautiful timeline,” Trump responded.

This was painfully revealing: the President, under questioning by an independent reporter, was admitting that he wanted to do something with no basis in science. In fact, within minutes, some of the nation’s leading experts on pandemics panned the suggestion as dangerous and ill conceived. By Wednesday, Trump was still talking about an Easter deadline, but only promising a new “recommendation” at that time. “I’m not going to do anything rash or hastily,” he said, which is as close to a reassuring statement from the President as he will ever offer.

On Thursday, Trump appeared before the cameras just before 5:30 p.m., minutes after the Times reported that the United States now had more than eighty-one thousand recorded cases of the coronavirus, surpassing China as the world’s No. 1 country in terms of confirmed infections. When asked about the statistic, Trump acted as though this, too, was some sort of an achievement of his to be praised, saying that the high number was “a tribute to our testing.” Despite the day’s grim news, with his Administration reporting a record-high week of unemployment claims, Trump continued his upbeat tone. The world “is going to end up better than ever,” he said, before reading out all the names of the members of the G-20 world leaders with whom he had spoken that morning, listing the provisions of the two-trillion-dollar emergency-aid package that Congress is finalizing, and even reciting the number of gloves that the Federal Emergency Management Agency has sent to individual states. Eventually, he got around to his main point, which is that “we’ve gotta go back to work.” Earlier on Thursday, his Administration had sent a letter to governors, saying it would soon issue new guidelines rating U.S. counties by their varied levels of risk for the disease and suggesting that those with lower risk could resume business more quickly. Trump offered no specifics, but touted it as a needed step. “I think it’s going to happen pretty quickly,” he said. He never mentioned the word “Easter.”

After all that, it was hard not to think of Trump’s whole “beautiful timeline” as yet another monumental act of Presidential flimflammery, a distracting week of misdirection to keep us all occupied while those of us who are still working do so from home. Trump’s open-by-Easter pledge may well be as quickly forgotten as his other lies during the coronavirus crisis thus far, such as when he said that the cases would go down to near zero in a few days, that the disease would simply disappear, and that it would never make it to our shores in significant numbers.

These daily Presidential briefings have understandably become controversial among the national media, which is wary of being played by an attention-seeking President. Neither the Times nor the Washington Post are sending reporters to them, citing the health risk. (A journalist who had attended several of the sessions has reportedly contracted the virus; even still, the President refuses to follow the social-distancing dictates that his government is urging others to practice.) Sources at various television networks have said that the networks were considering no longer airing them, although they have so far continued to do so. The Post columnist Margaret Sullivan has argued that the briefings should not be broadcast live anymore, citing the fact that the President was using them as a platform for “self-aggrandizement,” “media-bashing,” and “exaggeration and outright lies.”

Trump will keep doing them, however, because they work. According to the Times, ratings for Trump’s briefings rival those for “hit reality shows and prime-time football.” Trump, whose star turn on NBC’s “The Apprentice” arguably had as much to do with his election to the Presidency as anything else, is obsessed with ratings. His other metrics are good, too, including a Gallup poll showing him with the highest approval rating of his Presidency (forty-nine per cent, versus a forty-five per cent disapproval rating). Even more striking were the results of a CBS/YouGov poll, released this week, in which respondents were asked what sources of information about the coronavirus they found most credible. Democrats rated medical professionals and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention most highly. Trump came in last among this group, at fourteen per cent. But, for Republicans, Trump came in at the top, with ninety per cent saying that they trusted the President’s information about the coronavirus, making him tied for first place with medical professionals. The poll shows that, even when their own lives are literally at stake, a significant subset of the American population no longer believes in almost anything other than the President.

This, in the end, is why Trump’s nightly Follies matter. Even if he cannot reopen the country by Easter, and governors and mayors ignore him, as they surely will. Even if what he says is so contradictory and at times patently false that his own followers could not possibly heed his advice as a practical guide to action.

In the long course of the Vietnam War, which lasted a full decade, some fifty-eight thousand Americans died. With the pandemic, many scientific models publicized in recent days have projected that U.S. deaths could reach far beyond that figure by the time the coronavirus has run its course, depending at least in part on what decisions Trump and other leaders take in the coming months. But this week’s Follies have shown an irresolute leader who does not want to fight the war or even, on many days, admit that it exists. He is a cartoon caricature of a wartime President, not a real one.

A Vietnam draft-dodger, who used a phony foot problem to get out of that war, Trump this week has reminded us that he would like to be a coronavirus draft-dodger, too. But the fight is not a hoax, no matter how often he suggests it is, and the President, like it or not, is already in the fight. On Tuesday, he told the country that he would soon be reopening it, “as we near the end of our historic battle with the invisible enemy.” By the time you read this, though, the battle will not be over, or even really begun. As soon as Trump finished speaking on Thursday, CNN interrupted the briefing to broadcast the news that it had been the deadliest day yet in the pandemic for the United States, with at least two hundred and thirty-seven dead, and hours more to go.

Doing the Health Care Two-Step

Medium-size reform creates the conditions for bigger things.

Recent state elections — the Democratic landslide in Virginia, followed by Democratic gubernatorial victories in Kentucky and Louisiana — have been bad news for Donald Trump.

Among other things, the election results vindicate polls indicating that Trump is historically unpopular. All of these races were in part referendums on Trump, who put a lot of effort into backing his preferred candidates. And in each case voters gave him a clear thumbs down.

Beyond offering a verdict on Trump, however, I’d argue that the state elections offered some guidance on an issue that has divided Democrats, namely health care. What the results suggested to me was the virtue of medium-size reform: incremental enough to have a good chance of being enacted, big enough to provide tangible benefits that voters don’t want taken away.

Remember, there was a third governor’s race, in Mississippi, in which the G.O.P. held on. True, Mississippi is a very red state, which Trump won by 18 points in 2016. But Louisiana and Kentucky are or were, if anything, even redder, with Trump margins of 20 and 30 points respectively. So what made the difference?

Personalities surely mattered. Louisiana’s re-elected John Bel Edwards was widely liked, Kentucky’s defeated Matt Bevin widely disliked. Demography probably also mattered. Urban and especially suburban voters have turned hard against Trump, but rural voters haven’t, at least so far — and Mississippi is one of the few states left with a majority-rural population.

But there’s another difference among the three states. Kentucky and Louisiana took advantage of the Affordable Care Act to expand Medicaid, leading to steep drops in the number of uninsured residents; Mississippi hasn’t. This meant that voting Democratic in Kentucky and Louisiana meant voting to preserve past policy success, while the same vote in Mississippi was at best about hope for future reform — a much less powerful motivator.

Back in 2010, as Obamacare was about to squeak through Congress, Nancy Pelosi famously declared, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” This line was willfully misrepresented by Republicans (and some reporters who should have known better) as an admission that there was something underhanded about the way the legislation was enacted. What she meant, however, was that voters wouldn’t fully appreciate the A.C.A. until they experienced its benefits in real life.

It took years to get there, but in the end Pelosi was proved right, as health care became a winning issue for Democrats. In the 2018 midterms and in subsequent state elections, voters punished politicians whom they suspected of wanting to undermine key achievements like protection for pre-existing conditions and, yes, Medicaid expansion.

And this political reality has arguably set the stage for further action. At this point, as far as I can tell, all of the contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination are calling for a significant expansion of the government’s role in health care, although they differ about how far and how fast to go.

Which brings me to the latest development in intra-Democratic policy disputes: Elizabeth Warren’s proposal for a two-step approach to health reform. Her idea is to start with actions — some requiring no legislation at all, others requiring only a simple Senate majority — that would greatly expand health insurance coverage. These actions would, if successful, deliver tangible benefits to millions.

They would not, however, amount to the full Bernie, eliminating private insurance and going full single-payer. Warren still says that this is her eventual intention, and has laid out a plan to pay for such a system. But any legislative push would wait three years, giving time for voters to see the benefits of the initial changes.

Sanders supporters are, predictably, crying betrayal. For them it’s all or nothing: a commitment to single-payer has to be in the legislation from Day 1.

The trouble with such demands, aside from the strong probability that proposing elimination of private insurance would be a liability in the general election, is that such legislation would almost certainly fail to pass even a Democratic Senate. So all or nothing would, in practice, mean nothing.

But is Warren giving up on Medicare for All? After all, what she’s offering isn’t really a transition plan in the usual sense, since there’s no guarantee that Step 2 would ever happen.

The lesson I take from the politics of Obamacare, however, is that successful health reform, even if incomplete, creates the preconditions for further reform. What looks impossible now might look very different once tens of millions of additional people have actual experience with expanded Medicare, and can compare it with private insurance.

Although I’ve long argued against making Medicare for All a purity test, there is a good case for eventually going single-payer. But the only way that’s going to happen is via something like Warren’s approach: initial reforms that deliver concrete benefits, and maybe provide a steppingstone to something even bigger.

‘The Five’ on key takeaways from second public impeachment hearing

Republicans and Democrats spar again in the second public impeachment hearing. Former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testified before the House Intelligence Committee impeachment inquiry hearing on President Trump. Reaction and analysis on “The Five.’