{"id":39111,"date":"2025-01-28T13:52:47","date_gmt":"2025-01-28T21:52:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/?p=39111"},"modified":"2025-01-28T13:52:48","modified_gmt":"2025-01-28T21:52:48","slug":"trump-lost-vote-suppression-won","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/2025\/01\/28\/trump-lost-vote-suppression-won\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump Lost. Vote Suppression Won."},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Here are the numbers<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

By Greg Palast for the Thom Hartmann Report

[Chicago, Jan 27]<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
Trump lost.<\/strong> That is, if all legal voters were allowed to vote, if all legal ballots were counted, Trump would have lost the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia. Vice-President Kamala Harris would have won the Presidency with 286 electoral votes.<\/strong>
And, if not for the mass purge of voters of color, if not for the mass disqualification of provisional and mail-in ballots, if not for the new mass \u201cvigilante\u201d challenges in swing states, Harris would have gained at least another 3,565,000 votes, topping Trump\u2019s official popular vote tally by 1.2 million.<\/strong>
Stay with me and I\u2019ll give you the means, methods and, most important, the key calculations.<\/td><\/tr>
 <\/td><\/tr>
Now is not the time to despair and hide under the sofa.  <\/strong>We SHALL overcome\u2014but only if our investigation can continue.  <\/strong>Help us rescue 2026 from the vote suppressors.<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
 <\/td><\/tr>
But if you\u2019re expecting a sexy story about Elon Musk messing with vote-counting software from outer space, sorry, you won\u2019t get that here.
As in Bush v. Gore in 2000, and in too many other miscarriages of Democracy, this election was determined by good old \u201cvote suppression,\u201d the polite term we use for shafting people of color out of their ballot. We used to call it Jim Crow.
Here are key numbers:
4,776,706 voters were wrongly purged from voter rolls<\/strong> according to US Elections Assistance Commission data.
By August of 2024, for the first time since 1946, self-proclaimed \u201cvigilante\u201d voter-fraud hunters challenged the rights of 317,886 voters.<\/strong> The NAACP of Georgia estimates that by Election Day, the challenges exceeded 200,000 in Georgia alone.
No less than 2,121,000 mail-in ballots were disqualified<\/strong> for minor clerical errors (e.g. postage due).
At least 585,000 ballots cast in-precinct were also disqualified<\/strong>.
1,216,000 \u201cprovisional\u201d ballots were rejected<\/strong>, not counted.
3.24 million new registrations were rejected<\/strong> or not entered on the rolls in time to vote.

If the purges, challenges and ballot rejections were random, it wouldn\u2019t matter. It\u2019s anything but random. For example, an audit by the State of Washington found that a Black voter was 400% more likely than a white voter to have their mail-in ballot rejected. Rejection of Black in-person votes, according to a US Civil Rights Commission study in Florida, ran 14.3% or one in seven ballots cast.<\/strong>
There are also the uncountable effects of the explosive growth of voter intimidation tactics including the bomb threats that closed 31 polling stations in Atlanta on Election Day.<\/td><\/tr>
America\u2019s Nasty Little Secret<\/td><\/tr>
The nasty little secret of American democracy is that we <\/strong>don\u2019t count all the votes<\/strong><\/em>. Nor let every citizen vote.<\/strong>
In 2024, especially, after an avalanche of new not-going-to-let-you-vote laws passed in almost every red state, the number of citizens Jim Crow\u2019d out of their vote soared into the millions. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, since the 2020 election, \u201cAt least 30 states enacted 78 restrictive laws\u201d to blockade voting.<\/strong> The race-targeted laws ran the gamut from shuttering drop boxes in Black-majority cities to, for the first time, allowing non-government self-appointed \u201cvote fraud vigilantes\u201d to challenge voters by the hundreds of thousands.
Throughout election seasons, The New York Times and NPR and establishment media write stories and editorials decrying vote suppression tactics, from new ID requirements to new restrictions on mail-in voting. But, notably, the mainstream press never, ever, not once, will say that these ugly racist attacks on voters changed the outcome of an election.
Question: If these vote suppression laws \u2014 notorious example: Georgia\u2019s SB 202 \u2014 had no effect on election outcomes, then why did GOP legislators fight so hard to pass these laws? The answer is clear on the Brennan Center\u2019s map of states that passed restrictive laws. It\u2019s pretty much Trump\u2019s victory map.<\/td><\/tr>
\"\"<\/td><\/tr>
America Goes Postal<\/td><\/tr>
Let\u2019s look at just one vote suppression operation in action.
In 2020, during the pandemic, America went postal. More than 43% of us voted by mail.
But it wasn\u2019t easy. Harris County, Texas, home of Houston, tried to mail out ballots during the COVID epidemic on the grounds that voters shouldn\u2019t die waiting in lines at polling stations. But then, the state\u2019s Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton stopped this life-saving measure.
Why wouldn\u2019t this GOP official let Houstonians vote safely? Maybe it\u2019s because Houston has the largest number of Black voters of any city in America. Indeed, on Steve Bannon\u2019s podcast, Paxton proudly stated, \u201cHad we not done that [stopped Houston from sending out ballots], Donald Trump would\u2019ve lost the election\u201d in Texas. <\/strong>Texas!<\/strong><\/em>
Before the 2024 election, prompted by Trump\u2019s evidence-free attack on mail-in ballots as inherently fraudulent, 22 states, according to the Brennan Center, imposed \u201c38 new restrictions on the ability to vote absentee that were not in place in 2020\u2026likely to most affect or already have disproportionately affected voters of color.\u201d You\u2019re shocked, right?
Texas\u2019 requirement to add ID numbers to an absentee ballot caused the rejection rate to jump from 1% to 12%.
So, here\u2019s the question we need to ask. If restrictions on mail-in balloting swung Texas to Trump, how did all these new restrictions affect the outcome of the vote in other states?
In 2020, an NPR study found the mail-in ballot rejection rate hit 13.8% during the Democratic primaries\u2014a loss of one in seven ballots.
Take Georgia, where the Palast Investigative Fund<\/a> spent months in on-the-ground investigations.
Here are photos of a Georgia voter, career military officer and Pentagon advisor Major Gamaliel Turner (Ret), demonstrating for young voters how to fill out an absentee ballot, emphasizing that it must be mailed in promptly. He did, seven days before the deadline. But we only recently learned that Georgia officials disqualified his ballot as received too late.<\/td><\/tr>
\"\"<\/td><\/tr>
Major Gamaliel Turner (now retired) about to mail in his absentee ballot. The state of Georgia rejected it. (Photo: Palast Investigative Fund, 2024.)<\/td><\/tr>
In 2008, even before the majority of Democrats began voting by mail, when absentee balloting was much rarer, the federal government reported 488,136 mail-in ballots were rejected, almost all on picayune grounds (i.e. middle initial on signature missing etc.). An MIT study put the number of rejected mail-in ballots at 2.9%.
That\u2019s the low-end of MIT\u2019s estimate of mail-in ballots tossed out. Charles Stewart, Distinguished Professor of Political Science, author of the report, notes mail-in ballots requested and never received nor returned could raise the total mail-in ballot loss rate to 21%.
For 2024, that would total 14.1 million ballots that, effectively, vanished from the count.
The \u201cfailure to return\u201d ballot was exacerbated in this election by the steep cut in ballot drop boxes, a method favored by urban (read, \u201cDemocratic\u201d) voters. Black voters in Atlanta used ballot drop boxes extensively because they feared, with good reason, relying on the Post Office [see Major Turner\u2019s story above].
In response, the Republican Governor of Georgia, Brian Kemp, signed SB 202 which slashed the number of drop boxes by 75% <\/strong>only<\/strong><\/em> in Black-majority counties and locked them away at night. These moves slashed mail-in and drop box balloting, used by the majority of Democrats in 2020, by nearly 90% in the 2024 race.<\/strong>
Even if deemed \u201con time,\u201d ballots still face rejection. Marietta, Georgia, first-time voter Andrian Consonery Jr. told me his mail-in ballot was rejected because his signature supposedly didn\u2019t match that on his registration. (I needn\u2019t add, Consonery is Black.) In effect, Consonery was accused of forgery \u2014 a federal crime \u2014 not by the FBI but by self-appointed amateur sleuths. This challenge to mail-in ballots, part of a right-wing campaign, has gone viral.<\/td><\/tr>
\"\"<\/td><\/tr>
Georgian Adrian Consonery Jr.\u2019s mail-in ballot was challenged because of a false claim that his signature was forged. (Photo: Zach D. Roberts for the Palast Investigative Fund, 2024.)<\/td><\/tr>
In 2020, the federal government reported that 157,477 ballots were rejected for supposedly \u201cmis-matched\u201d signatures. That\u2019s quite a crime wave \u2014 but without criminals.
And that\u2019s before we get to the dozens of other attacks on voting that were freshly minted for the 2024 election, attacks aimed at voters of color.
The crucial statistic is that not everyone\u2019s ballot gets disqualified. One study done for the United States Civil Rights Commission found that a Black person, such as Maj. Turner, will be <\/strong>900% more likely to have their mail-in or in-person ballot disqualified than a white voter.<\/strong><\/em>
Now, let\u2019s do some arithmetic. If we take the lowest end of the MIT ballot rejection rate, and only a tenth of the \u201clost\u201d ballot rate, and then apply it to the number of mail-in and drop-box ballots, we can conservatively estimate that 2,121,000 mail-in votes went into the electoral dumpster.<\/strong>
Whose ballots? Democrats are 51% more likely than Republicans to vote by mail<\/strong>; and, given the racial disparity in ballot rejections, Trump\u2019s swing-state margins begin to look shaky.<\/td><\/tr>
 <\/td><\/tr>
Now is not the time to despair and hide under the sofa.  <\/strong>We SHALL overcome\u2014but only if our investigation can continue.  <\/strong>Help us rescue 2026 from the vote suppressors.<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
<\/a><\/td><\/tr>
 <\/td><\/tr>
The KKK Plan and the New Vigilantes<\/td><\/tr>
In 2020, the Palast Investigative Fund uncovered a whole new way to bring Jim Crow back to life: challenges to a citizen\u2019s right to vote by a posse of self-proclaimed vote-fraud hunters.
Four years ago, the GOP took this new suppression method out for a test ride in Georgia when 88 Republican operatives \u2014 remember, these are not government officials \u2014 challenged the rights of over 180,000 Georgians to have their ballots counted. These vigilantes based their scheme on the program originally used by the Ku Klux Klan in 1946.
One challenged voter: Major Turner, the same voter whose mail-in ballot was disqualified in a later election.
In 2020, the Major\u2019s ballot was challenged by the county Chairman of the Republican Party in Southern Georgia, Alton Russell. (Russell likes to dress up as infamous vigilante Doc Holliday, with a loaded six-gun in a holster.) In a (polite) confrontation we filmed between the Major and Russell, the GOP honcho admitted he had no evidence that Maj. Turner, nor any of the 4,000 others he challenged, should be denied the right to have their ballots counted.
Note: The Palast Fund contacted a sample of 800 of these challenged voters and found that, overwhelmingly, they were Americans of color.
In 2020, this KKK plan, adopted by the Trump organization, proved its value. In that election, Trump almost won Georgia, falling short by just 11,779 votes \u2014 only because local elections officials rejected most of the challenges. But for 2024, the Georgia\u2019s Republican-controlled legislature changed the law to make it very difficult for officials to deny the challenges.
That emboldened the Trump-supported organization True the Vote to roll out the challenge to every swing state. In 2024, True the Vote signed up over 40,000 volunteer vigilantes. The organization crowed proudly that, by August of 2024, they\u2019d already challenged a mind-blowing 317,886 voters in dozens of states.<\/strong> By Election Day this November, True the Vote projected it would have challenged over two million voters. In addition, Trump\u2019s lawyer, Cleta Mitchell, founded Eagle AI to challenge hundreds of thousands more including in swing state Pennsylvania.
How many voters ultimately lost their ballots? Almost all voting officials we\u2019ve contacted have refused to answer.<\/td><\/tr>
Placebo Ballots<\/td><\/tr>
Those voters who\u2019d been challenged but mailed in their ballot would be unlikely to know their vote had been lost. Others who showed up in person at a poll would be told they could not vote on a regular ballot. These voters were sent away or forced to vote on a \u201cprovisional\u201d ballot.
If you\u2019ve been challenged or find you\u2019ve been purged off the registration rolls, you\u2019ll be offered one of these provisional ballots, paper ballots you place in a special envelope. Typically, you\u2019ll be promised your registration will be checked and then your ballot will be counted. Bullshit. If you\u2019re challenged, unless you personally contact or go into your county clerk\u2019s office with ID and proof of address, your ballot goes into the electoral dumpster.
A better name for a \u201cprovisional\u201d ballot would be \u201cplacebo\u201d ballot. You think you\u2019ve voted, but chances are, you did not, that is, your ballot wasn\u2019t counted.
Here\u2019s an ugly number: According to the US Elections Assistance Commission (EAC), in 2016, when 2.5 million provisional ballots were cast, a breathtaking <\/strong>42.3% were never counted<\/strong><\/em>.<\/strong> Think about that. Over a million Americans lost their vote \u2014 though, notably, not one was charged attempting to vote illegally. And that was in 2016, before the vigilante challenges and before millions more had been purged from the rolls leading up to the 2024 election.
And here\u2019s the statistic that matters most. Black, Hispanic or Asian-American voters are 300% more likely than white voters to be shunted to a \u201cplacebo\u201d provisional ballot.<\/td><\/tr>
The Great Purge and the Poison Postcard<\/td><\/tr>
The polite term in government agencies is, \u201cList Maintenance.\u201d It\u2019s best known as The Purge \u2014 when voters\u2019 registrations are wiped off the rolls. The EAC keeps track of The Purge. It\u2019s a big business. For example, before the 2022 election, when the data was last available, swing state North Carolina wiped 392,851 voters off the rolls.
The majority of removals were based on questionable, indeed, shockingly faulty information that a voter had moved their residence. I\u2019m not talking about the 4.9 million voters purged because they\u2019re dead, or eight million others whose residential move could be verified, nor those serving time in prison nor those ruled too crazy to vote.
I\u2019m talking about a trick that has been perfected by politicians of both parties to eliminate voters of the wrong persuasion: the Poison Postcard. Here\u2019s how it works: Targeted voters are mailed postcards by state elections officials. (Let\u2019s remember, state voting chiefs, \u201cSecretaries of State,\u201d are almost to a one partisan hacks.) Voters who don\u2019t sign and return the cards, which look like junk mail, will be purged.
The Poison Postcard response rate is close to nothing. In Arizona, according to the EAC, just one in ten postcards are returned. And in Georgia, the vote-saving response is barely above 1%. And that\u2019s the way our partisan voting officials like it.
Were the millions of Americans purged before the 2024 election all fraudsters who should lose their right to vote? Direct marketing expert Mark Swedlund told us, \u201cThis only means that most people, especially young people, the poor and voters of color, simply ignore junk mail.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
With the help of Swedlund and the same experts used by Amazon \u2014 and believe me, Amazon knows exactly<\/em> where you live \u2014 we took a deep dive into two states\u2019 purge operations for the ACLU.
The state of Georgia had purged hundreds of thousands from the voter rolls on grounds they\u2019d moved from their voting addresses. Our experts, going name by name through Georgia\u2019s purge list, working from special data provided us by the US Postal Service, identified 198,351 Georgians who had been purged for moving had, in fact, not moved an inch from their legal voting address.<\/strong><\/a><\/td><\/tr>
In 2020, I testified in federal court for the NAACP and RainbowPUSH, presenting our expert findings to get those voters, overweighted with minorities and young Georgians, back on the rolls. Unfortunately, the Trump\u2019d-up court system now gives huge deference to a state\u2019s voting operations, a trend which first took off in 2013 when the US Supreme Court defenestrated the Voting Rights Act.
The results have been devastating. According to the EAC data, before the 2024 election, 4,776,706 registrants were removed nationwide simply because they failed to return the postcard.<\/strong>
Also in 2020, the Palast Investigative Fund produced a technical report for Black Voters Matter Fund on a proposed purge of 153,779 voters in Wisconsin, a plan pushed by Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, a group financed by right-wing billionaires. For Black Voters Matter, we brought back our team of location experts who proved, name by name, that the proposed purge was wildly riddled with errors.
Notably, we found that the purged was aimed almost exclusively at African-Americans in Milwaukee and at students in Madison. The non-partisan Elections Board agreed with us, allowing those voters to cast ballots, with the result that Biden squeaked by Trump in Wisconsin by 20,682 votes. (Note: It was not our intention to elect Biden, but to allow the voters, not some Purge\u2019n General, to pick our President.)
Unfortunately, before the 2024 election, the Poison Postcard Purge accelerated. This time, a new Elections Board in Wisconsin (10 electoral votes) decided to use the same discredited purge list to knock off 166,433 voters which, this time, we could not stop. Kamala Harris lost that state by just 29,397 votes. In Pennsylvania (19 electoral votes), the Poison Postcards wiped out 360,132 voters, three times Trump\u2019s victory margin.<\/strong>
And before the vote this year, Georgia ramped up the purge, targeting an astonishing 875,000 voters, earning it the #1 ranking for \u201celection integrity\u201d by the ultra-right-wing Heritage Foundation.
I saw the purge in action in Savannah, Georgia, this October, where 900 Savannah voters, most of them Black, were challenged by one single \u201cvigilante,\u201d according to voting expert Carry Smith. Smith, who wrote her doctoral thesis on wrongful purges in Georgia, was herself on the hit list.<\/td><\/tr>
And more<\/td><\/tr>
We haven\u2019t even touched on other ways that voters of color, college students and urban voters have come under attack. These include the rejection of new registrations and rejection of in-person votes as \u201cspoiled\u201d (i.e. rejected as unreadable), costing, according to the EAC, more than a million votes \u2014 rejections which our 25 years of investigations have found are way overweighted against the Democratic demographic.
After the 2012 election, I was able to calculate, with cold certainty, that 2,383,587 new voters had their registrations rejected; 488,136 legitimate absentee ballots were disqualified, and so on. In that election, a total of 5,901,814 citizens were blocked from voting or had their ballots disqualified. These stats were based on the hard data from the EAC which gathers detailed reports from the states.
Today, with new, sophisticated, and well-financed vote suppression operations, the number of voters purged and ballots disqualified are clearly far higher than the suppression count of 2012. Unfortunately, the EAC won\u2019t release data, if it does at all, for at least a year. We\u2019ve put in Open Records requests to the states, but today\u2019s officials are stonewalling and slow-walking our requests for the data. In no other democracy are the vote totals \u2014 or, to be clear, the uncounted ballot totals \u2014 a state secret.
America deserves an answer to this question: Excluding a boost from Jim Crow vote suppression games, did Donald Trump win?<\/em>
From the shockingly huge numbers we\u2019ve discussed here of provisional and mail-in ballots disqualified, the postcard purge operation, the vigilante challenges and so on, we can say, with reasonable certainty, Trump lost \u2014 that is, would have lost both the Electoral College and popular vote totals absent suppression.
By how much?
For those who can\u2019t sleep without my best estimate, let me apply the most conservative methodology possible, as I would do in a government investigation.
I\u2019ve updated the 2012 suppression numbers with the newest available data. Not surprisingly, the suppression number has soared, in part because the number of voters has increased by 41.3 million since 2012. But principally, the votes \u201clost\u201d also zoomed upward because of the massive increase in mail-in balloting by Democrats since 2012, and crucially, the effect of new Jim Crow voting restrictions. Given a minimum two-to-one racial and partisan disparity in voters purged and ballots disqualified, the 2024 \u201csuppression factor\u201d is no less than 4.596% of the total vote.
Those familiar with data mining will note that there is some double-counting in the 9 million voters and their ballots disqualified that I cited at the top of the article. In addition, we must recognize that many voters caught up in the purges and challenges would have cast their ballot for Trump. Therefore, I\u2019ve conservatively cut in half the low end of the range of the calculation of votes suppressed to 2.3% to isolate the effect on Trump\u2019s official victory margin.
In other words, vote suppression cost Kamala Harris no less than 3,565,000 votes. Harris would have topped Trump\u2019s official total by 1.2 million. Most important, this 2.3% suppression factor undoubtedly cost Harris the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia. If not for the wholesale attack on votes and voters, Harris would have won the election with 286 Electoral votes.<\/strong><\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Tech note from a numbers guy \u2014 and Martin Luther King<\/td><\/tr>
Until the Elections Assistance Commission gets updated figures from the states next year (and, under Trump, I doubt we will ever get those numbers), 3,565,000 votes lost to Harris is the estimate I would present in my role as a forensic expert in a courtroom as the lowest conceivable suppression factor.
I rarely make a big deal about my own credentials but, since the election, the Web has been flooded by amateur, arithmetic-defying speculation about computer hacking and other unsupported twaddle. Best to stick to hard, verifiable data. And that\u2019s what I do.
For two decades, I was a forensic economist for government agencies including the US Justice Department; taught statistics at Indiana University; provided expert calculations of vote suppression for the ACLU, NAACP, and RainbowPUSH and won the Global Editors Award for my data journalism on vote suppression measurements for reports done for Al Jazeera, BBC, Rolling Stone and The Guardian. The numbers you get here are exactly what I\u2019d present to a Federal court. In other words, kids, don\u2019t do this at home\u2026calculating the \u201cun-count\u201d requires expertise.
I make this point for another reason: The theory that \u201cElon Musk messed with the voting machines\u201d is, unconsciously, unintentionally racist. With few exceptions, these silly speculations come from those who simply ignore not just the millions of votes officially reported as suppressed, their theories also ignore the horrifically painful experience of Black people turned away from the polls.
Here is a photo of Jessica Lawrence in tears, moments after her 92-year-old grandmother was tossed out of an Atlanta polling station, into a storm, because she\u2019d been wrongfully purged. Any speculation about the nefarious cause of Trump\u2019s must not leave out Jessica\u2019s grandma nor the millions of other citizens of color who were wrongly barred from their ballot.<\/td><\/tr>
\"\"<\/td><\/tr>
Jessica Lawrence at an Atlanta polling station just after her 92-year-old grandmother was denied a ballot. (Photo: David Ambrose for the Palast Investigative Fund, 2018.) See Ms. Jordan and Maj. Turner in the film, Vigilantes Inc: America\u2019s New Vote Suppression Hitmen, available without charge on YouTube.<\/td><\/tr>
Now here\u2019s the good news<\/td><\/tr>
We saw that in 2020 when, despite extreme, even felonious actions by Trump supporters to block, challenge and disqualify voters and ballots, the theft by suppression was defeated.
That was the work of voting rights groups challenging these attacks. The work was done in the courts and, more important, in the precincts, re-registering the purged, challenging the challenges, \u201ccuring\u201d disqualified ballots.
The road is long but victory is certain. After the 2016 election, the Palast team uncovered a cruel, racist purge program called, \u201cInterstate Crosscheck\u201d that cost nearly a million voters, overwhelmingly minorities, their rights. This motivated the Rev. Jesse Jackson to launch a campaign that successfully shut down Crosscheck. Unquestionably, Joe Biden could not have won in 2020 without the Reverend saving literally hundreds of thousands of votes. The point is, they can\u2019t suppress all the votes all the time.<\/strong>
In other words, Democracy can win<\/em>, despite the 2.3% suppression headwind.
And that\u2019s our job as Americans: to end the purges, the vigilante challenges, the ballot rejections and the attitude that this is all somehow OK.
Martin Luther King gave us our marching orders in 1965, in words just as important today.<\/td><\/tr>
\u201cLet us march on ballot boxes, march on ballot boxes until race-baiters disappear from the political arena. I want to say to the people of America and the nations of the world, that we are not about to turn around. We are on the move now.\u201d<\/em><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here are the numbers By Greg Palast for the Thom Hartmann Report [Chicago, Jan 27] Trump lost. That is, if all legal voters were allowed to vote, if all legal ballots were counted, Trump would have lost the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia. Vice-President Kamala Harris would have won the… Continue reading → <\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39111"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=39111"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39111\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":39114,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39111\/revisions\/39114"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39111"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39111"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occupysf.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39111"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}