thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-07--Sinclair Broadcast Group To Pay Record-Setting $48 Million FCC Fine

WASHINGTON , May 6 ( Reuters ) - Sinclair Broadcast Group has agreed to pay a $ 48 million fine to the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) resolving the probe into the company ’ s abandoned deal to buy Tribune Media in what the agency said was its largest-ever civil penalty .
Sinclair Chief Executive Chris Ripley said in a statement on Wednesday the company was pleased with the resolution .
“ Sinclair is committed to continue to interact constructively with all of its regulators to ensure full compliance with applicable laws , rules and regulations , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s president .
“ Sinclair ’ s conduct during its attempt to merge with Tribune was completely unacceptable , ” said FCC Chairman Ajit Pai .
In June 2019 , the FCC disclosed it had opened a new investigation into whether Sinclair engaged in misrepresentations or a lack of candor in the $ 3.9 billion Tribune deal .
The civil penalty also resolves FCC investigations into whether the company met its obligations to negotiate retransmission consent agreements in good faith and its failure to identify the sponsor of content , the FCC said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second-largest television station operator , has agreed to “ abide by a strict compliance plan.
” The penalty is twice the prior record for a broadcaster .
“ Sinclair ’ s conduct during its attempt to merge with Tribune was completely unacceptable , ” said FCC Chairman Ajit Pai .
“ Today ’ s penalty , along with the failure of the Sinclair/Tribune transaction , should serve as a cautionary tale to other licensees seeking commission approval of a transaction in the future.
” Tribune terminated the sale of 42 TV stations in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or operates 191 stations , in August 2018 .
A month earlier the FCC questioned Sinclair ’ s candor over the planned sale of some stations and suggested Sinclair would effectively retain control over them .
The collapse of the deal , which was backed by President Donald Trump , potentially ended Sinclair ’ s hopes of building a national conservative-leaning TV powerhouse that might have rivaled Fox Corp ’ s Fox News .
Democrats accused Sinclair of slanting news coverage in favor of Republicans .
Trump in 2018 criticized the Republican-led FCC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying on Twitter it “ would have been a great and much needed Conservative voice for and of the People.
” In 2017 , the FCC said it was fining Sinclair $ 13.38 million after it failed to properly disclose that paid programming that aired on local TV stations was sponsored by a cancer institute .
That probe was also resolved as part of the settlement .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON, May 6 (Reuters) - Sinclair Broadcast Group has agreed to pay a $48 million fine to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) resolving the probe into the company’s abandoned deal to buy Tribune Media in what the agency said was its largest-ever civil penalty.
Sinclair Chief Executive Chris Ripley said in a statement on Wednesday the company was pleased with the resolution.
Advertisement
“Sinclair is committed to continue to interact constructively with all of its regulators to ensure full compliance with applicable laws, rules and regulations,” said Ripley, who is the company’s president.
“Sinclair’s conduct during its attempt to merge with Tribune was completely unacceptable,” said FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. ASSOCIATED PRESS
In June 2019, the FCC disclosed it had opened a new investigation into whether Sinclair engaged in misrepresentations or a lack of candor in the $3.9 billion Tribune deal. The civil penalty also resolves FCC investigations into whether the company met its obligations to negotiate retransmission consent agreements in good faith and its failure to identify the sponsor of content, the FCC said.
The FCC said Sinclair, the second-largest television station operator, has agreed to “abide by a strict compliance plan.” The penalty is twice the prior record for a broadcaster.
Advertisement
“Sinclair’s conduct during its attempt to merge with Tribune was completely unacceptable,” said FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. “Today’s penalty, along with the failure of the Sinclair/Tribune transaction, should serve as a cautionary tale to other licensees seeking commission approval of a transaction in the future.”
Pai rejected suggestions the FCC revoke Sinclair’s licenses.
Tribune terminated the sale of 42 TV stations in 33 markets to Sinclair, which owns or operates 191 stations, in August 2018. A month earlier the FCC questioned Sinclair’s candor over the planned sale of some stations and suggested Sinclair would effectively retain control over them.
The collapse of the deal, which was backed by President Donald Trump, potentially ended Sinclair’s hopes of building a national conservative-leaning TV powerhouse that might have rivaled Fox Corp’s Fox News.
Nexstar Media Group Inc acquired Tribune in a $4.1 billion deal in September.
Democrats accused Sinclair of slanting news coverage in favor of Republicans. Trump in 2018 criticized the Republican-led FCC for not approving the Tribune deal, saying on Twitter it “would have been a great and much needed Conservative voice for and of the People.”
In 2017, the FCC said it was fining Sinclair $13.38 million after it failed to properly disclose that paid programming that aired on local TV stations was sponsored by a cancer institute. That probe was also resolved as part of the settlement.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-07--Trump Administration Shelves CDC Guide To Reopening Country During Pandemic

It was supposed to be published last Friday , but agency scientists were told the guidance “ would never see the light of day , ” according to a CDC official .
The official was not authorized to talk to reporters and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity .
The Trump administration has been closely controlling the release of guidance and information during the pandemic spurred by a new coronavirus that scientists are still trying to understand , with the president himself leading freewheeling daily briefings until last week .
Traditionally , it ’ s been the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public and local officials guidance and science-based information during public health crises .
During this one , however , the CDC has not had a regular , pandemic-related news briefing in nearly two months .
CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield has been a member of the White House coronavirus task force , but largely absent from public appearances .
“ CDC has always been the public health agency Americans turn to in a time of crisis , ” said Dr. Howard Koh , a Harvard professor and former health official in the Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” pandemic in 2009 .
“ The standard in a crisis is to turn to them for the latest data and latest guidance and the latest press briefing .
That has not occurred , and everyone sees that.
” The Trump administration has instead sought to put the onus on states to handle COVID-19 response .
This approach to managing the pandemic has been reflected in President Donald Trump ’ s public statements , from the assertion that he isn ’ t responsible for the country ’ s lackluster early testing efforts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal government ’ s role as a “ supplier of last resort ” for states in need of testing aid .
The rejected reopening guidance was described by one of the federal officials as a touchstone document that was to be used as a blueprint for other groups inside the CDC who are creating the same type of instructional materials for other facilities .
The guidance contained detailed advice for making site-specific decisions related to reopening schools , restaurants , summer camps , churches , day care centers and other institutions .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and included detailed “ decision trees , ” flow charts to be used by local officials to think through different scenarios .
One page of the document can be found on the CDC website via search engines , but it did not appear to be linked to any other CDC pages .
But the shelved report also said that as restaurants start seating diners again , they should space tables at least 6 feet apart and try to use phone app technology to alert a patron when their table is ready to avoid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s not on the CDC ’ s site now .
“ You can say that restaurants can open and you need to follow social distancing guidelines .
But restaurants want to know , ‘ What does that look like ?
’ States would like more guidance , ” said Dr. Marcus Plescia , chief medical officer of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials .
The White House ’ s own “ Opening Up America Again ” guidelines released last month were more vague than the CDC ’ s unpublished @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governments to reopen in accordance with federal and local “ regulations and guidance , ” and to monitor employees for symptoms of COVID-19 .
The White House guidance also included advice developed earlier in the pandemic that remains important like social distancing and encouraging working from home .
A person close to the White House ’ s coronavirus task force said the CDC documents were never cleared by CDC leadership for public release .
The person said that White House officials don ’ t want to offer detailed guidance for how specific sectors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slippery slope ” because the virus is affecting various parts of the country differently .
Still , behind the scenes , CDC scientists like those who produced the guidance for “ Opening Up America Again″ are working to get information to local governments .
The agency still employs hundreds of the world ’ s most respected epidemiologists and doctors , who in times of crisis are looked to for their expertise , said former CDC director Tom Frieden .
People have clicked on the CDC ’ s coronavirus website more than 1.2 billion @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
GAINESVILLE, Fla. (AP) — A set of detailed documents created by the nation’s top disease investigators meant to give step-by-step advice to local leaders deciding when and how to reopen public places such as mass transit, day care centers and restaurants during the still-raging pandemic has been shelved by the Trump administration.
The 17-page report by a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention team, titled “Guidance for Implementing the Opening Up America Again Framework,” was researched and written to help faith leaders, business owners, educators and state and local officials as they begin to reopen.
Advertisement
It was supposed to be published last Friday, but agency scientists were told the guidance “would never see the light of day,” according to a CDC official. The official was not authorized to talk to reporters and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.
The AP obtained a copy from a second federal official who was not authorized to release it. The guidance was described in AP stories last week, prior to the White House decision to shelve it.
The Trump administration has been closely controlling the release of guidance and information during the pandemic spurred by a new coronavirus that scientists are still trying to understand, with the president himself leading freewheeling daily briefings until last week.
Traditionally, it’s been the CDC’s role to give the public and local officials guidance and science-based information during public health crises. During this one, however, the CDC has not had a regular, pandemic-related news briefing in nearly two months. CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield has been a member of the White House coronavirus task force, but largely absent from public appearances.
Advertisement
The dearth of real-time, public information from the nation’s experts has struck many current and former government health officials as dangerous.
“CDC has always been the public health agency Americans turn to in a time of crisis,” said Dr. Howard Koh, a Harvard professor and former health official in the Obama administration during the H1N1 “swine flu” pandemic in 2009. “The standard in a crisis is to turn to them for the latest data and latest guidance and the latest press briefing. That has not occurred, and everyone sees that.”
The Trump administration has instead sought to put the onus on states to handle COVID-19 response. This approach to managing the pandemic has been reflected in President Donald Trump’s public statements, from the assertion that he isn’t responsible for the country’s lackluster early testing efforts, to his description last week of the federal government’s role as a “supplier of last resort” for states in need of testing aid.
White House spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany echoed that at a briefing Wednesday. “We’ve consulted individually with states, but as I said, it’s (a) governor-led effort. It’s a state-led effort on ... which the federal government will consult. And we do so each and every day.”
The rejected reopening guidance was described by one of the federal officials as a touchstone document that was to be used as a blueprint for other groups inside the CDC who are creating the same type of instructional materials for other facilities.
Advertisement
The guidance contained detailed advice for making site-specific decisions related to reopening schools, restaurants, summer camps, churches, day care centers and other institutions. It had been widely shared within CDC, and included detailed “decision trees,” flow charts to be used by local officials to think through different scenarios. One page of the document can be found on the CDC website via search engines, but it did not appear to be linked to any other CDC pages.
Some of the report’s suggestions already appear on federal websites. But the guidance offered specific, tailored recommendations for reopening in one place.
For example, the report suggested restaurants and bars should install sneeze guards at cash registers and avoid having buffets, salad bars and drink stations. Similar tips appear on the CDC’s site and a Food and Drug Administration page.
But the shelved report also said that as restaurants start seating diners again, they should space tables at least 6 feet apart and try to use phone app technology to alert a patron when their table is ready to avoid touching and use of “buzzers.” That’s not on the CDC’s site now.
“You can say that restaurants can open and you need to follow social distancing guidelines. But restaurants want to know, ‘What does that look like?’ States would like more guidance,” said Dr. Marcus Plescia, chief medical officer of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials.
Advertisement
The White House’s own “Opening Up America Again” guidelines released last month were more vague than the CDC’s unpublished report. They instructed state and local governments to reopen in accordance with federal and local “regulations and guidance,” and to monitor employees for symptoms of COVID-19. The White House guidance also included advice developed earlier in the pandemic that remains important like social distancing and encouraging working from home.
A person close to the White House’s coronavirus task force said the CDC documents were never cleared by CDC leadership for public release. The person said that White House officials don’t want to offer detailed guidance for how specific sectors can reopen, calling it a “slippery slope” because the virus is affecting various parts of the country differently.
CDC is hearing daily from state and county health departments looking for scientifically valid information with which to make informed decisions.
Still, behind the scenes, CDC scientists like those who produced the guidance for “Opening Up America Again″ are working to get information to local governments. The agency still employs hundreds of the world’s most respected epidemiologists and doctors, who in times of crisis are looked to for their expertise, said former CDC director Tom Frieden. People have clicked on the CDC’s coronavirus website more than 1.2 billion times.
States that directly reach out to the CDC can tap guidance that’s been prepared, but that the White House has not released yet.
Advertisement
“I don’t think that any state feels that the CDC is deficient. It’s just the process of getting stuff out,” Plescia said.
___
Stobbe reported from New York. Associated Press writers Darlene Superville and Zeke Miller in Washington contributed to this report.
___
The Associated Press receives support for health and science coverage from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-07--Susan Rice: Trump's Attacks On Obama Are Sign Of His 'Extraordinary Insecurity'

Former national security adviser Susan Rice on Wednesday suggested why President Donald Trump frequently attempts to blame his predecessor , former President Barack Obama , for his own administration ’ s failings .
“ I can only assume and infer that President Trump has some extraordinary insecurity in relation to Barack Obama , ” said Rice , who served in the Obama administration , to CNN ’ s Don Lemon .
“ Everything that Obama stood for ; decency , family values , unity , a country that stood tall and proud , not by dividing but by uniting , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , ” she continued .
“ And he ’ s clearly threatened by it and he clearly likes to use Obama as a foil for all of his failures.
” Rice ’ s comments came as she debunked Trump ’ s oft-repeated claim that the Obama administration had failed to prepare for the country for the coronavirus pandemic that has now killed more than 73,000 people in the U.S. and sickened at least 1.2 million more .
Trump and his officials , who have been widely criticized for their slow and sloppy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ not focused on the reality a pandemic was going to happen sometime , ” she said , with the crisis developing at the same time as Trump ’ s trade deal with China and the high stock market .
“ So they deflected and delayed and didn ’ t take the months of January and February to prepare as they must , ” Rice added .
“ We have lost thousands of lives , and our economy is far worse off than it had otherwise been , had they been on this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not focused on the reality that a pandemic was not just going to happen some time , but could happen any time .
That 's why they were so flat-footed . ''
- Former national security adviser Susan Rice on Pres .
Trump blaming Obama administration for poor coronavirus response pic.twitter.com/V1tddXzdbA — CNN Tonight ( @ CNNTonight ) May 7 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Former national security adviser Susan Rice on Wednesday suggested why President Donald Trump frequently attempts to blame his predecessor, former President Barack Obama, for his own administration’s failings.
“I can only assume and infer that President Trump has some extraordinary insecurity in relation to Barack Obama,” Rice, who served in the Obama administration, told CNN’s Don Lemon.
Advertisement
“Everything that Obama stood for; decency, family values, unity, a country that stood tall and proud, not by dividing but by uniting, is the antithesis of who Donald Trump is,” she continued. “And he’s clearly threatened by it and he clearly likes to use Obama as a foil for all of his failures.”
Rice’s comments came as she debunked Trump’s oft-repeated claim that the Obama administration had failed to prepare for the country for the coronavirus pandemic that has now killed more than 73,000 people in the U.S. and sickened at least 1.2 million more.
Trump and his officials, who have been widely criticized for their slow and sloppy response to the crisis, were simply “not focused on the reality a pandemic was going to happen sometime,” she said, with the crisis developing at the same time as Trump’s trade deal with China and the high stock market.
“So they deflected and delayed and didn’t take the months of January and February to prepare as they must,” Rice added. “We have lost thousands of lives, and our economy is far worse off than it would otherwise have been had they been on this from day one.”
Advertisement
Check out the segment here:


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-07--Ex-Australian Prime Minister Comes Up With Biting New Way To Describe Donald Trump

The world has watched in horror as an American president acts not as the leader of the free world but @ @ @ @ @ unproven “ treatments.
” It has seen what “ America First ” means in practice @ @ @ @ @ to the United States for help in a genuine global crisis , because it can @ @ @ @ @ itself .
Once there was the United States of the Berlin airlift .
Now there @ @ @ @ @ USS Theodore Roosevelt crippled by the virus , reports of the administration trying to take @ @ @ @ @ being developed in Germany , and federal intervention to stop the commercial sale of personal @ @ @ @ @ The world has been turned on its head .

The world has watched in horror as an American president acts not as the leader of the free world but as a quack apothecary recommending unproven “treatments.” It has seen what “America First” means in practice: don’t look to the United States for help in a genuine global crisis, because it can’t even look after itself. Once there was the United States of the Berlin airlift. Now there is the image of the USS Theodore Roosevelt crippled by the virus, reports of the administration trying to take exclusive control of a vaccine being developed in Germany, and federal intervention to stop the commercial sale of personal protective equipment to Canada. The world has been turned on its head.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-06--First Immigrant In ICE Detention Dies Of Coronavirus

A 57-year-old detainee at ICE ’ s Otay Mesa facility , which is run by private contractor CoreCivic , died early Wednesday of complications of the coronavirus disease after being hospitalized since late April , according to San Diego County officials .
This is the first reported COVID-19 death of an immigrant in ICE custody .
Carlos Ernesto Escobar Mejia was from El Salvador , according to a government report obtained by BuzzFeed News .
He ’ d been held by ICE since January and was hospitalized April 24 after exhibiting coronavirus symptoms .
He had hypertension and self-reported diabetes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mid-April by an immigration judge .
Advocates had been warning about unsafe health conditions at the Otay Mesa detention center for weeks .
The facility currently has the biggest outbreak of COVID-19 of any ICE detention center , with at least 132 immigrants and 10 ICE employees testing positive as of last week .
Of nearly 30,000 immigrants in ICE detention centers nationwide , the agency has so far tested only 1,460 for COVID-19 , and more than 705 immigrants have tested positive .
Activists have been calling for the release of all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is no realistic way to keep immigrants safe during a pandemic in such facilities , which have long been reported to have substandard health care and sanitation .
“ For months , public health experts and corrections officials have warned that detention centers would be Petri dishes for the spread of COVID-19 — and a death trap for thousands of people in civil detention , ” she added .
“ Unless ICE acts quickly to release far more people from detention , they will keep getting sick and many more will die.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ filed a lawsuit against ICE , demanding the agency reduce the population at Otay Mesa amid the pandemic .
After a judge ordered ICE and CoreCivic to release those deemed medically vulnerable , ICE identified 130 such cases , but as of Monday had released only two , reported KPBS .
An additional 72 are due to be released by the end of the week .
Immigrants being held in detention in the Otay Mesa facility , just north of the Mexican border , have called out unsafe conditions , including crowding and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In one instance , a Honduran asylum seeker who later tested positive for the coronavirus said in a court declaration that when he first began feeling symptoms of chills and a fever , he was given allergy pills by a nurse and sent back to his cell with eight other men , without being tested .
Another detainee at the facility , a Mexican man , wrote for the San Diego Tribune that he ’ d been given two disposable masks for the whole month of April .
He said it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from his cellmate and others in common areas , and that detainees were being tested for COVID-19 only after showing severe symptoms .
In early April , Sen. Kamala Harris ( D-Calif. ) urged ICE to release all of its “ vulnerable , low-risk ” detainees .
Last month , the senator , who visited the Otay Mesa facility in 2018 , called conditions at the detention center “ horrifying ” and “ unacceptable ” in a news release , and she warned of the risk of “ preventable death ” from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been prevented had U.S. immigration officials heeded the recommendations of medical experts and acted in time , ” Dr. Ranit Mishori , senior medical adviser at Physicians for Human Rights , said in a news release on the death at Otay Mesa .
“ The government can not say it did not know this would happen .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
An immigrant being held in detention at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in San Diego has died of COVID-19.
A 57-year-old detainee at ICE’s Otay Mesa facility, which is run by private contractor CoreCivic, died early Wednesday of complications of the coronavirus disease after being hospitalized since late April, according to San Diego County officials. This is the first reported COVID-19 death of an immigrant in ICE custody.
Advertisement
Carlos Ernesto Escobar Mejia was from El Salvador, according to a government report obtained by BuzzFeed News. He’d been held by ICE since January and was hospitalized April 24 after exhibiting coronavirus symptoms. He had hypertension and self-reported diabetes but was denied release from custody in mid-April by an immigration judge.
ICE confirmed the death Thursday, saying it is “firmly committed to the health and welfare of all those in its custody” and will conduct a review of the incident. A CoreCivic spokesperson told HuffPost that the company was “deeply saddened” by the death and that it had been in “close contact” with ICE about the detainee’s health. The company directed all further inquiries to ICE.
Advocates had been warning about unsafe health conditions at the Otay Mesa detention center for weeks. The facility currently has the biggest outbreak of COVID-19 of any ICE detention center, with at least 132 immigrants and 10 ICE employees testing positive as of last week.
(CoreCivic in mid-April said it had given masks to detainees at Otay Mesa and was quarantining positive cases in “housing pods” and separating those at high medical risk.)
Advertisement
Of nearly 30,000 immigrants in ICE detention centers nationwide, the agency has so far tested only 1,460 for COVID-19, and more than 705 immigrants have tested positive.
Activists have been calling for the release of all people from immigration detention, warning that there is no realistic way to keep immigrants safe during a pandemic in such facilities, which have long been reported to have substandard health care and sanitation.
“This is a terrible tragedy, and it was entirely predictable and preventable,” Andrea Flores, deputy director of immigration policy at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement Wednesday.
“For months, public health experts and corrections officials have warned that detention centers would be Petri dishes for the spread of COVID-19 — and a death trap for thousands of people in civil detention,” she added. “Unless ICE acts quickly to release far more people from detention, they will keep getting sick and many more will die.”
“We filed a lawsuit demanding the immediate release of medically vulnerable people from Otay Mesa weeks ago... Today one of those people has died because ICE refused to release him when he still had a chance to survive this deadly virus." https://t.co/bu3QsFzDtV pic.twitter.com/qkaQENvTOX — ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties (@sdACLU) May 6, 2020
Advertisement
Last month, ACLU San Diego filed a lawsuit against ICE, demanding the agency reduce the population at Otay Mesa amid the pandemic. After a judge ordered ICE and CoreCivic to release those deemed medically vulnerable, ICE identified 130 such cases, but as of Monday had released only two, reported KPBS. An additional 72 are due to be released by the end of the week.
Immigrants being held in detention in the Otay Mesa facility, just north of the Mexican border, have called out unsafe conditions, including crowding and inadequate medical care, reported The Appeal. In one instance, a Honduran asylum seeker who later tested positive for the coronavirus said in a court declaration that when he first began feeling symptoms of chills and a fever, he was given allergy pills by a nurse and sent back to his cell with eight other men, without being tested.
Another detainee at the facility, a Mexican man, wrote for the San Diego Tribune that he’d been given two disposable masks for the whole month of April. He said it was difficult to keep more than 6 feet from his cellmate and others in common areas, and that detainees were being tested for COVID-19 only after showing severe symptoms.
“We fear of not being able to get out of this place healthy and alive,” he wrote.
In early April, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) urged ICE to release all of its “vulnerable, low-risk” detainees. Last month, the senator, who visited the Otay Mesa facility in 2018, called conditions at the detention center “horrifying” and “unacceptable” in a news release, and she warned of the risk of “preventable death” from the coronavirus.
Since March, immigrant detainees have held hunger strikes at detention centers in several states, including Georgia, New Jersey and Louisiana, citing fears of getting the coronavirus.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-07--The 'Most Successful Week' Of Betsy DeVos’ Tenure As Education Secretary

First , DeVos launched a $ 180 million competitive grant program that will give states access to money from the coronavirus stimulus bill ―- known as the CARES Act ― if they apply with a plan to meet students ’ needs amid widespread school closures .
States can apply a plan in one of three categories , including one that would provide “ microgrants ” to families to pay for educational expenses , like tutoring and technology or , if they prefer , private school tuition .
Secondly , DeVos released guidance on how another stream of education funding , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be doled out among schools .
While funding will be provided directly to public school districts mostly based on the proportion of poor students they serve , the guidance says that private schools ― even affluent ones with affluent students ― are also entitled to a slice of the pie .
Public school groups say this new guidance takes critical funds away from public schools at a time when they need it the most .
Her critics say that the two recent moves help prop up private schools at the expense of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ April represented the most “ successful ” one of DeVos ’ tenure when it comes to enacting her agenda , said Sasha Pudelski , advocacy director of the School Superintendents Association .
The microgrants program , according to Pudelski , is just another example of DeVos taking public dollars and trying to redirect it to families for potential use on private school tuition , bolstering such schools at the cost of public ones .
Indeed , a handful of states already have education savings accounts ( ESA ) programs , which provide families @ @ @ @ @ @ @ education expenses of their choice .
“ We should be thinking about what families need and meeting them where they are , ” said Robert Enlow , president and CEO of EdChoice , a non-profit school choice research and advocacy group .
Instead of providing money directly to schools ― or “ buildings ” ― the microgrants will put the power in parents ’ hands , to make the choices they believe best serve them , he said .
HuffPost reached out to several states to ask about their plans to apply .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan to apply for a federal education grant , but did not yet know in which category ( the other two for K-12 grants involve statewide virtual learning programs and “ new , field-initiated models for providing remote education not yet imagined.
” ) A Texas official said the state would apply for the virtual learning component of the grant .
But under DeVos ’ new guidance , private school programs are allowed to take CARES money based on how many students they serve ― not just how many of their students are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ districts that will be providing dollars for these private school services are still only allotted the federal funds based on their numbers of low-income kids .
Groups representing public schools say this violates the intent of the law and is inconsistent with precedent .
Indeed , the CARES Act says that services to students in private schools should be provided aid “ in the same manner ” as federal education law details .
The groups are calling on the guidance to be revised , anticipating public funds getting funneled into affluent buildings serving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Education pushed back on this complaint , noting that “ Congress directed the department to make sure all students are able to be served through the CARES Act , ” according to spokesperson Angela Morabito .
Only providing money for low-income private school students , she said , would place private school teachers and students at an unfair disadvantage .
Myra McGovern , vice president of media for the National Association of Independent Schools , says few of the 1,600 schools her organization works with currently take advantage of Title I money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on their autonomy .
She ’ s unsure if this could change as the coronavirus crisis continues to worsen .

Secretary of Education Betsy Devos. JIM WATSON via Getty Images
During the last week of April, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos made two under-the-radar moves to help bolster private schools ― actions that some school choice proponents praise but that critics say come at the expense of public education.
First, DeVos launched a $180 million competitive grant program that will give states access to money from the coronavirus stimulus bill ― known as the CARES Act ― if they apply with a plan to meet students’ needs amid widespread school closures. States can apply a plan in one of three categories, including one that would provide “microgrants” to families to pay for educational expenses, like tutoring and technology or, if they prefer, private school tuition.
Advertisement
Secondly, DeVos released guidance on how another stream of education funding, also created by the stimulus bill, should be doled out among schools. While funding will be provided directly to public school districts mostly based on the proportion of poor students they serve, the guidance says that private schools ― even affluent ones with affluent students ― are also entitled to a slice of the pie. Public school groups say this new guidance takes critical funds away from public schools at a time when they need it the most.
DeVos has staked her tenure on helping to expand choice programs that provide funding to families to help them pay for private schools. She has unsuccessfully pushed a federal choice program that would provide billions in tax credits to incentivize donations to private school scholarship programs.
Her critics say that the two recent moves help prop up private schools at the expense of public ones. The last week in April represented the most “successful” one of DeVos’ tenure when it comes to enacting her agenda, said Sasha Pudelski, advocacy director of the School Superintendents Association.
“I can’t think of another week where she’s had two major victories like this, in terms of redirecting federal resources to private schools,” Pudelski said.
Advertisement
But private school and school choice boosters insist the moves should not be seen as political, depicting them as ways to help a flailing sector and struggling families amid an unprecedented crisis.
“Divisive, Ideologically Driven Policy Priorities”
The microgrants program, according to Pudelski, is just another example of DeVos taking public dollars and trying to redirect it to families for potential use on private school tuition, bolstering such schools at the cost of public ones. Indeed, a handful of states already have education savings accounts (ESA) programs, which provide families with public dollars to spend on the education expenses of their choice.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) has described the microgrants as “vouchers” by another name. Voucher programs take public funds and funnel them to scholarships for private schools. She said the grant program, meant to provide necessary relief as schools transition to distance learning, promotes “divisive, ideologically driven policy priorities.”
In other words, DeVos is using the response to the coronavirus pandemic to push a notoriously polarizing concept, one that mostly serves to lift up religious schools ― as they’re the typical beneficiary of voucher funds, per a previous HuffPost investigation.
“At best, the secretary is exploiting emergency relief legislation to insert secretarial priorities not outlined in this section of the CARES Act,” DeLauro said in a statement. “At worst, the secretary is deliberately misreading the law to conjure up purposes for these resources that were not provided.”
Advertisement
School choice advocates have lauded the microgrants program as family-centered in a time of crisis.
“We should be thinking about what families need and meeting them where they are,” said Robert Enlow, president and CEO of EdChoice, a nonprofit school choice research and advocacy group. Instead of providing money directly to schools ― or “buildings” ― the microgrants will put the power in parents’ hands, to make the choices they believe best serve them, he said.
HuffPost reached out to several states to ask about their plans to apply. New York and Arizona officials said they plan to apply for a federal education grant, but did not yet know in which category (the other two for K-12 grants involve statewide virtual learning programs and “new, field-initiated models for providing remote education not yet imagined”). A Texas official said the state would apply for the virtual learning component of the grant.
A spokesperson for the Indiana Department of Education ― a state that already has an expansive private school choice system ― said it would apply for a microgrant.
Public Schools On The Brink
DeVos’ second move has the potential to devastate public school finances at a time when the systems are already anticipating draconian cuts, according to public school groups. One group representing big-city districts has estimated layoffs of up to 275,000 teachers without more relief.
Private schools, on the other hand, which only educate about 10% of the nation’s kids, say the funding provides a lifeline at a time when their finances are flailing, as well.
Advertisement
Last Friday, DeVos released guidance regarding the distribution of $13.5 billion in CARES Act education relief. The amount of money school districts receive from this pot is mostly determined through an established Title I formula, which under the nation’s education law gives more federal money to areas serving high proportions of low-income students.
Typically, in a provision of the law called “equitable services,” private school programs are also entitled to a portion of Title I funds provided to their local public school districts, based on the number of poor students the private institutions serve.
But under DeVos’ new guidance, private school programs are allowed to take CARES money based on how many students they serve ― not just how many of their students are in poverty. Meanwhile, the public districts that will be providing dollars for these private school services are still only allotted the federal funds based on their numbers of low-income kids.
Groups representing public schools say this violates the intent of the law and is inconsistent with precedent. Indeed, the CARES Act says that services to students in private schools should be provided aid “in the same manner” as federal education law details. The groups are calling on the guidance to be revised, anticipating public funds getting funneled into affluent buildings serving groups of privileged students.
“Absent these edits, the CARES Act equitable services guidance is inequitable and creates an environment where wealthy children in private schools are counted … at the direct expense of low-income children remaining in public schools,” said a letter sent to DeVos on Tuesday from the School Superintendents Association and the two national teacher unions.
Advertisement
Another letter from the Council of Chief State School Officers to DeVos noted that in one Louisiana parish, “at least 77% of its CARES formula allocation would be directed to non-public schools in the area.”
The Department of Education pushed back on this complaint, noting that “Congress directed the department to make sure all students are able to be served through the CARES Act,” according to spokesperson Angela Morabito. Only providing money for low-income private school students, she said, would place private school teachers and students at an unfair disadvantage.
Private Schools Need A Bailout, Too
At least one group representing private schools said it doesn’t foresee them taking advantage of the new access to funds.
Myra McGovern, vice president of media for the National Association of Independent Schools, says few of the 1,600 schools her organization works with currently take advantage of Title I money, for fear doing so could infringe on their autonomy. She’s unsure if this could change as the coronavirus crisis continues to worsen.
But some private school groups say that they’re also anticipating devastating losses, that the CARES Act is not a Title I program and necessitates a different distribution of funds, and that they, too, need all the help they can get.
Advertisement
“Every kid in public school and private schools is affected [by this crisis], it’s not dependent upon whether they are poor,” said Sister Dale McDonald, director of public policy for the National Catholic Education Association. “Everybody is at risk during this time frame, trying to learn under really trying circumstances.”
McDonald said Catholic schools are hemorrhaging money ― that families are no longer able to pay tuition, that churches haven’t been able to take up collections to help support the schools, that institutions have had to cancel their springtime fundraisers.
She’s already heard from 100 schools that do not believe they’re going to be able to reopen.
“Every school deserves better,” she said.
A HuffPost Guide To Coronavirus


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-07--Trump Justice Department Drops Charges Against Michael Flynn

In an extraordinary departure from the Justice Department ’ s typical handling of criminal cases , the Donald Trump-appointed leadership of the Justice Department on Thursday dropped charges against Michael Flynn , the former White House national security adviser who previously pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russia .
In a court filing , Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney Timothy Shea said that even if Flynn lied about his contact with the Russian ambassador to the United States ahead of Trump ’ s 2017 inauguration , that Flynn ’ s lies were irrelevant to the FBI ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia .
Shea wrote that the FBI ’ s interview with Flynn was “ untethered to , and unjustified by , the FBI ’ s counterintelligence investigation ” into Flynn , and that the DOJ “ is not persuaded that the January 24 , 2017 interview was conducted with a legitimate investigative basis and therefore does not believe Mr. Flynn ’ s statements were material even if untrue.
” Shea wrote that the FBI seemed “ eager ” to interview Flynn “ irrespective of any underlying investigation ” and that the investigation “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn.
” The move came after an extended media campaign by Flynn ’ s attorney Sidney Powell , who has railed against Robert Mueller ’ s special counsel probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election .
Flynn , who previously told a federal judge that he had in fact lied to the FBI , had tried to withdraw his guilty plea in recent months .
So why would Flynn , a man of considerable means , plead guilty to a crime he didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Government ’ s assessment , ” Shea wrote “ he did so without full awareness of the circumstances of the newly discovered , disclosed , or declassified information as to the FBI ’ s investigation of him.
” The news came shortly after Brandon Van Grack , a former prosecutor on the Mueller team whom the Justice Department last year named to lead a unit focused on foreign lobbying , stepped down from the Flynn case .
The Associated Press first reported the news on Thursday .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
In an extraordinary departure from the Justice Department’s typical handling of criminal cases, the Donald Trump-appointed leadership of the Justice Department on Thursday dropped charges against Michael Flynn, the former White House national security adviser who previously pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russia.
In a court filing, Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney Timothy Shea said that even if Flynn lied about his contact with the Russian ambassador to the United States ahead of Trump’s 2017 inauguration, that Flynn’s lies were irrelevant to the FBI’s counterintelligence probe into his communications with Russia.
Advertisement
Shea wrote that the FBI’s interview with Flynn was “untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation” into Flynn, and that the DOJ “is not persuaded that the January 24, 2017 interview was conducted with a legitimate investigative basis and therefore does not believe Mr. Flynn’s statements were material even if untrue.”
Shea wrote that the FBI seemed “eager” to interview Flynn “irrespective of any underlying investigation” and that the investigation “seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn.”
The move came after an extended media campaign by Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell, who has railed against Robert Mueller’s special counsel probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Flynn, who previously told a federal judge that he had in fact lied to the FBI, had tried to withdraw his guilty plea in recent months.
Advertisement
So why would Flynn, a man of considerable means, plead guilty to a crime he didn’t commit? “In the Government’s assessment,” Shea wrote “he did so without full awareness of the circumstances of the newly discovered, disclosed, or declassified information as to the FBI’s investigation of him.”
The news came shortly after Brandon Van Grack, a former prosecutor on the Mueller team whom the Justice Department last year named to lead a unit focused on foreign lobbying, stepped down from the Flynn case. The Associated Press first reported the news on Thursday.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-07--Joe Biden Accuser Tara Reade Speaks Out In First On-Air Interview

Megyn Kelly / Twitter Tara Reade spoke with Megyn Kelly on Thursday afternoon about her accusation of sexual assault against Joe Biden .
Tara Reade , Joe Biden ’ s former Senate staffer who has accused the former vice president of sexually assaulting her in 1993 , gave her first on-air interview on Thursday and called on him to drop out of the 2020 presidential race .
“ You and I were there , Joe Biden , ” Reade said in a clip released by former Fox News host Megyn Kelly , who conducted the interview .
“ Please , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You should not be running on character for the president of the United States.
” Reade said she wishes Biden would step down as the presumptive Democratic nominee for president , although she doesn ’ t believe that will actually happen .
She said she ’ s received death threats because people believe she ’ s a Russian agent .
“ There is a measure of hypocrisy with the campaign saying it ’ s been safe , ” Reade said , referring to the Biden campaign ’ s comment that all women should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fear of retaliation .
“ It ’ s not been safe .
All of my social media has been hacked .
All my personal information has been dragged through [ the mud ] .
” Reade said she would “ absolutely ” go under oath and subject herself to cross-examination .
When Kelly asked if Reade would be open to taking a polygraph test , she said she would only if Biden does as well .
“ What kind of precedent does that set for survivors of violence ?
Does that mean we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all have to take polygraphs ?
” Reade said .
“ I will take once if Joe Biden takes one.
” In March , Reade accused Biden of kissing her and penetrating her with his fingers without her consent when she worked for him in the Senate .
Biden denied the allegation in an interview on “ Morning Joe ” last week , telling anchor Mika Brzenzski : “ It is not true .
I ’ m saying unequivocally it never , never happened.
” The Biden campaign had also previously denied the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ released a written statement in which he requested that the National Archives release any records from the Office of Fair Employment Practices that relate to Reade ’ s claim .
The Senate responded to Biden ’ s request earlier this week , saying they do not have the legal authority to release records related to a potential Reade allegation .
Reade was one of at least eight women last year to publicly accuse Biden of inappropriate touching , although none of the others have accused him of sexual assault .
Reade said in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Senate office when she was in her mid-20s and that he would make her uncomfortable by running his fingers up her neck or putting his hand on her shoulder .
At the time , Reade told reporters her story was about abuse of power , “ not sexual misconduct , ” and did not mention the alleged incident about him kissing and groping her .
A video also surfaced last month of a woman whom Reade identified as her mother calling into a live broadcast of “ Larry King Live ” on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she should do if her daughter had a problem with a “ prominent senator.
” ( The call does not mention sexual assault or harassment . )
A New York Times investigation published in mid-April could not corroborate Reade ’ s allegation with Biden staffers at the time and found “ no pattern of sexual misconduct.
” The Times has since released a statement clarifying that their investigation drew “ no conclusion either way ” on the validity of Reade ’ s story .

Tara Reade spoke with Megyn Kelly on Thursday afternoon about her accusation of sexual assault against Joe Biden. Megyn Kelly / Twitter
Tara Reade, Joe Biden’s former Senate staffer who has accused the former vice president of sexually assaulting her in 1993, gave her first on-air interview on Thursday and called on him to drop out of the 2020 presidential race.
“You and I were there, Joe Biden,” Reade said in a clip released by former Fox News host Megyn Kelly, who conducted the interview. “Please, step forward and be held accountable. You should not be running on character for the president of the United States.”
Advertisement
Reade said she wishes Biden would step down as the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, although she doesn’t believe that will actually happen. She said she’s received death threats because people believe she’s a Russian agent.
MK EXCLUSIVE: #TaraReade responds to #JoeBiden; calls for him to drop out pic.twitter.com/jxHAUYaWVU — Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) May 7, 2020
“There is a measure of hypocrisy with the campaign saying it’s been safe,” Reade said, referring to the Biden campaign’s comment that all women should be able to tell their stories without fear of retaliation. “It’s not been safe. All of my social media has been hacked. All my personal information has been dragged through [the mud].”
Reade said she would “absolutely” go under oath and subject herself to cross-examination. When Kelly asked if Reade would be open to taking a polygraph test, she said she would only if Biden does as well.
Advertisement
“What kind of precedent does that set for survivors of violence? Does that mean we’re presumed guilty, and we all have to take polygraphs?” Reade said. “I will take once if Joe Biden takes one.”
In March, Reade accused Biden of kissing her and penetrating her with his fingers without her consent when she worked for him in the Senate.
Biden denied the allegation in an interview on “Morning Joe” last week, telling anchor Mika Brzenzski: “It is not true. I’m saying unequivocally it never, never happened.” The Biden campaign had also previously denied the accusation.
MK EXCLUSIVE: Will Tara Reade go under oath or take a polygraph? pic.twitter.com/aBXohhg14n — Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) May 7, 2020
The former vice president also released a written statement in which he requested that the National Archives release any records from the Office of Fair Employment Practices that relate to Reade’s claim. The Senate responded to Biden’s request earlier this week, saying they do not have the legal authority to release records related to a potential Reade allegation.
Advertisement
Reade was one of at least eight women last year to publicly accuse Biden of inappropriate touching, although none of the others have accused him of sexual assault.
Reade said in 2019 that she worked in Biden’s Senate office when she was in her mid-20s and that he would make her uncomfortable by running his fingers up her neck or putting his hand on her shoulder.
At the time, Reade told reporters her story was about abuse of power, “not sexual misconduct,” and did not mention the alleged incident about him kissing and groping her.
Since Reade shared the sexual assault allegation in March, more corroborating information has come to light.
An investigative report from Business Insider spoke to Reade’s former neighbor, who said that Reade confided in her about the alleged assault in 1995 or 1996.
Advertisement
Additionally, a former co-worker from a different job, as well as Reade’s brother, have said they remember Reade telling them about the alleged assault.
A video also surfaced last month of a woman whom Reade identified as her mother calling into a live broadcast of “Larry King Live” on CNN in 1993 and asking King what she should do if her daughter had a problem with a “prominent senator.” (The call does not mention sexual assault or harassment.)
A New York Times investigation published in mid-April could not corroborate Reade’s allegation with Biden staffers at the time and found “no pattern of sexual misconduct.” The Times has since released a statement clarifying that their investigation drew “no conclusion either way” on the validity of Reade’s story.
The allegation against Biden has put many sexual assault survivors in a tough spot since the two current candidates for president have both been accused of sexual violence.
Biden has one accusation of sexual assault against him (Reade’s), while Donald Trump has upwards of 60 accusations of sexual misconduct against him, including multiple allegations of rape. Trump has denied these allegations.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-07--Michigan’s GOP Is Using The Pandemic To Strip Power From The Democratic Governor

But the fight is only getting started for the Republicans , who are cooking up two new attempts to strip power from Whitmer and give it to the Legislature .
On Wednesday , Senate and House leadership unveiled a lawsuit that asks a judge to force her to seek approval from lawmakers in extending the emergency order .
On Monday , Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey announced that GOP activists will concurrently attempt to exploit an unusual loophole in the Michigan Constitution that allows the House and Senate to enact so-called citizen-initiated legislation without approval from the governor or voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repeal the 1945 law that gives Michigan governors emergency powers that don ’ t require legislative approval .
“ What they ’ re doing ( now ) is looking for any way they can to cut back on [ Whitmer ’ s ] powers , ” said Mark Brewer , a Michigan attorney who practices constitutional law and is a former head of the state Democratic Party .
“ This is part of an ongoing effort by the GOP and these are things that they would never do to a Republican governor ― @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harder by the coronavirus outbreak than Michigan .
As of Wednesday , the state tallied about 45,000 confirmed cases and more than 4,250 deaths from COVID-19 , the disease caused by the new coronavirus .
Whitmer ’ s executive orders in some ways are among the nation ’ s strictest , though she relaxed some restrictions on April 30 .
The impending legal battle is one of dozens across the country headed for the courts stemming from coronavirus-related restrictions , and it comes just after U.S. Attorney General William Barr tapped a federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitutionality of state and local officials ’ stay-at-home orders .
In Wisconsin , many observers expect a highly partisan state Supreme Court with a Republican majority to rule against Democratic Gov .
Tony Evers in a similar case it ’ s hearing this week .
In Michigan , the sense among constitutional experts is that Republicans are less likely to prevail .
The GOP leaders contend that state law requires Whitmer to seek approval for an extension of her stay-at-home order after 28 days .
But Richard Primus , a constitutional law professor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He said state law clearly doesn ’ t require that and called the GOP case a “ dead-up loser.
” The 1945 law grants Michigan governors the authority to declare a state of emergency , issue executive orders and determine when an emergency is over .
Republicans argue that the state ’ s 1976 Emergency Management Act requires governors to obtain the Legislature ’ s approval to extend an order beyond 28 days .
But Primus noted that the 1976 law gives governors more emergency powers than the 1945 law .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1976 that need the Legislature ’ s approval for an extension , not the state of emergency authority .
Primus pointed to a section of the 1976 act that says it does not “ limit , modify , or abridge ” the governor ’ s authority under the 1945 law .
Well over 100 years of common law also supports Whitmer ’ s order , Brewer said , noting that governors in both parties have used emergency orders during the Civil War , Great Depression and a disturbance over race issues in 1943 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t necessarily favorable to the GOP .
While the party holds a 4-3 advantage on the Michigan Supreme Court , the justices frequently don ’ t rule along party lines .
Republicans may have an easier path through the federal court system .
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan and the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals that handles cases from the state are mostly packed with GOP appointees .
The GOP has another route to try to force change outside the courts .
The state ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ propose amending it via petition drives that put the proposals in front of voters .
If approved , the measures become law .
The citizen-initiated ballot proposal process in 2018 led to the legalization of marijuana and the creation of an independent redistricting commission to address gerrymandering .
The law also allows the Legislature to enact citizen-initiated proposals into law once groups collect enough signatures to get the proposals on the ballot but before they go in front of voters .
In such cases , the Legislature doesn ’ t need approval from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That creates a scenario in which the approximately 400,000 voters needed to sign a petition and the Legislature can work together to enact laws without approval from the governor or the rest of the electorate .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
On the afternoon of April 30, militia members toting assault rifles glared from the Michigan state Capitol’s galleries as the Republican-controlled Senate and House voted to reject Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s proposed extension of her stay-at-home order.
But the show of force failed in its main objective. Though GOP leaders argued that the Democratic governor needed the Legislature’s approval to extend the order, she went ahead that evening and unilaterally extended it through May 28.
Advertisement
“We remain in a state of emergency. That is a fact,” Whitmer said during a virtual town hall, stressing that the order aimed to slow the deadly spread of the coronavirus.
But the fight is only getting started for the Republicans, who are cooking up two new attempts to strip power from Whitmer and give it to the Legislature. On Wednesday, Senate and House leadership unveiled a lawsuit that asks a judge to force her to seek approval from lawmakers in extending the emergency order.
On Monday, Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey announced that GOP activists will concurrently attempt to exploit an unusual loophole in the Michigan Constitution that allows the House and Senate to enact so-called citizen-initiated legislation without approval from the governor or voters. They plan to use it to repeal the 1945 law that gives Michigan governors emergency powers that don’t require legislative approval.
Shirkey did not return a request for comment.
The moves feel like deja vu in a state only 18 months removed from a dramatic lame-duck battle in which the GOP attempted to ram through a series of laws designed to steal power from Democrats as Whitmer readied to replaced a Republican as governor following the 2018 election.
Advertisement
“What they’re doing (now) is looking for any way they can to cut back on [Whitmer’s] powers,” said Mark Brewer, a Michigan attorney who practices constitutional law and is a former head of the state Democratic Party. “This is part of an ongoing effort by the GOP and these are things that they would never do to a Republican governor ― never.”
Whitmer spokeswoman Tiffany Brown called the lawsuit “just another partisan game that won’t distract the governor. Her number one priority is saving lives. She’s making decisions based on science and data, not political or legal pressure.”
Battle In The Courts
Whitmer has refused to lift her stay-at-home order, despite protests and GOP demands. Michigan Office of the Governor/Associated Press, Pool
Few states have been hit harder by the coronavirus outbreak than Michigan. As of Wednesday, the state tallied about 45,000 confirmed cases and more than 4,250 deaths from COVID-19, the disease caused by the new coronavirus. Whitmer’s executive orders in some ways are among the nation’s strictest, though she relaxed some restrictions on April 30.
Her orders drew the attention of President Donald Trump, who praised the armed protestors as “very good people” and urged Whitmer to “make a deal” with them.
Advertisement
The impending legal battle is one of dozens across the country headed for the courts stemming from coronavirus-related restrictions, and it comes just after U.S. Attorney General William Barr tapped a federal attorney based in Michigan to investigate the constitutionality of state and local officials’ stay-at-home orders. In Wisconsin, many observers expect a highly partisan state Supreme Court with a Republican majority to rule against Democratic Gov. Tony Evers in a similar case it’s hearing this week.
In Michigan, the sense among constitutional experts is that Republicans are less likely to prevail. The GOP leaders contend that state law requires Whitmer to seek approval for an extension of her stay-at-home order after 28 days. But Richard Primus, a constitutional law professor at the University of Michigan, disagrees. He said state law clearly doesn’t require that and called the GOP case a “dead-up loser.”
“The mystery is why people argue about it,” Primus said. “It’s possible that they just haven’t read the law carefully. It’s also possible that people do know [how the law reads], but it’s good posturing to claim that the governor is overstepping.”
The 1945 law grants Michigan governors the authority to declare a state of emergency, issue executive orders and determine when an emergency is over. Republicans argue that the state’s 1976 Emergency Management Act requires governors to obtain the Legislature’s approval to extend an order beyond 28 days. But Primus noted that the 1976 law gives governors more emergency powers than the 1945 law. It’s the additional powers granted in 1976 that need the Legislature’s approval for an extension, not the state of emergency authority.
Primus pointed to a section of the 1976 act that says it does not “limit, modify, or abridge” the governor’s authority under the 1945 law. Well over 100 years of common law also supports Whitmer’s order, Brewer said, noting that governors in both parties have used emergency orders during the Civil War, Great Depression and a disturbance over race issues in 1943.
Advertisement
Primus said he philosophically agrees that a governor’s emergency powers should be time-limited and eventually require a legislative check, but added, “Michigan law says something different.”
Moreover, the state court system isn’t necessarily favorable to the GOP. While the party holds a 4-3 advantage on the Michigan Supreme Court, the justices frequently don’t rule along party lines. Republicans may have an easier path through the federal court system. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan and the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals that handles cases from the state are mostly packed with GOP appointees.
A suit filed in federal court on Monday by U.S. Rep. Paul Mitchell (R-Mich.) alleges executive overreach and that Whitmer’s orders violate a wide range of constitutional protections, such as his right to association, because the restrictions bar him from visiting family members.
That suit, said James Hodge, a constitutional law professor at Arizona State University’s Center for Public Health Law and Policy, is “dead on arrival.”
He called the right to assembly claim “ridiculous.”
“We always recognize with every constitutional right that there are limits, and you don’t get to assemble in emergencies or non-emergencies when that could pose a risk to the public’s health,” he said.
Advertisement
While federal case law favors governors, it only takes one unfavorable ruling to spark a legal “wildfire” that could upend the orders, Hodge said. The Michigan and Wisconsin cases are two that could do just that.
A Constitutional Loophole
Michigan state Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey (R) has announced that GOP activists will attempt to exploit a loophole in the Michigan Constitution that allows the Legislature to enact so-called citizen-initiated legislation without approval from the governor or voters. David Eggert/Associated Press
The GOP has another route to try to force change outside the courts. The state’s Constitution allows citizens to initiate legislation or propose amending it via petition drives that put the proposals in front of voters. If approved, the measures become law. The citizen-initiated ballot proposal process in 2018 led to the legalization of marijuana and the creation of an independent redistricting commission to address gerrymandering.
The law also allows the Legislature to enact citizen-initiated proposals into law once groups collect enough signatures to get the proposals on the ballot but before they go in front of voters. In such cases, the Legislature doesn’t need approval from the governor to make the proposals law. That creates a scenario in which the approximately 400,000 voters needed to sign a petition and the Legislature can work together to enact laws without approval from the governor or the rest of the electorate.
Legal experts say the provision exists to streamline the citizen-initiated ballot process by giving the Legislature an option to avoid spending resources for a statewide vote on popular initiatives.
Advertisement
However, conservative activists are using the loophole to ram through unpopular legislation while the GOP controls both legislative chambers. Republicans successfully used the maneuver to repeal Michigan’s popular prevailing wage law in 2018 and are close to successfully enacting some of the nation’s strictest limits of abortion rights.
The 400,000 signatures could be difficult to collect during a pandemic, and the process would also take at least six months. But Brewer noted that the state’s Republican activist network is able to carry out such efforts because it’s well-funded by wealthy donors like the DeVos family (whose members include Betsy DeVos, who heads the Education Department in the Trump administration).
“There’s a lot of money here and they’re not short on resources,” he said.
A HuffPost Guide To Coronavirus


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-07--One Of Trump's Personal Valets Tests Positive For Coronavirus

A personal military valet of President Donald Trump has tested positive for the coronavirus , the White House said Thursday .
“ We were recently notified by the White House Medical Unit that a member of the United States Military , who works on the White House campus , has tested positive for coronavirus , ” deputy White House press secretary Hogan Gidley said in a statement after CNN first reported the news of the valet ’ s infection .
“ The President and the Vice President have since tested negative for the virus , and they remain in great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ member of the U.S. Navy and serves as one of Trump ’ s personal valets , according to CNN .
He is part of an elite military unit that works in the White House and comes into close contact with Trump and his family .
The valet showed “ symptoms ” Wednesday morning , a source told CNN , which also reported that “ the news that someone close to Trump had tested positive for coronavirus was ‘ hitting the fan ’ in the West Wing.
” A White House official told NBC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and that valets have not been wearing masks .
The man ’ s diagnosis raises the possibility that Trump has been exposed to the coronavirus at the same time he and his administration have downplayed the pandemic ’ s magnitude .
The White House appears to be winding down its already insufficient response and is intent on reopening the economy — even as the number of coronavirus cases continues to rise throughout much of the country .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A personal military valet of President Donald Trump has tested positive for the coronavirus, the White House said Thursday.
“We were recently notified by the White House Medical Unit that a member of the United States Military, who works on the White House campus, has tested positive for coronavirus,” deputy White House press secretary Hogan Gidley said in a statement after CNN first reported the news of the valet’s infection. “The President and the Vice President have since tested negative for the virus, and they remain in great health.”
Advertisement
The unidentified man is a member of the U.S. Navy and serves as one of Trump’s personal valets, according to CNN. He is part of an elite military unit that works in the White House and comes into close contact with Trump and his family.
The valet showed “symptoms” Wednesday morning, a source told CNN, which also reported that “the news that someone close to Trump had tested positive for coronavirus was ‘hitting the fan’ in the West Wing.”
A White House official told NBC that the valet serves meals to Trump, and that valets have not been wearing masks.
The man’s diagnosis raises the possibility that Trump has been exposed to the coronavirus at the same time he and his administration have downplayed the pandemic’s magnitude.
Advertisement
The White House appears to be winding down its already insufficient response and is intent on reopening the economy — even as the number of coronavirus cases continues to rise throughout much of the country.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-07--U.S. Supreme Court Overturns New Jersey 'Bridgegate' Scandal Convictions

ASSOCIATED PRESS The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday threw out the criminal convictions of Bridget Anne Kelly , left , and Bill Baroni in the so-called `` Bridgegate '' scandal .
WASHINGTON ( Reuters ) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday threw out the criminal convictions of two associates of former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie involved in the “ Bridgegate ” scandal in a ruling that places new limits on the kinds of political acts that can be prosecuted .
The justices , in a 9-0 decision , sided with Bridget Anne Kelly and Bill Baroni , both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a scheme to engineer traffic chaos on the world ’ s busiest bridge to punish a local mayor who refused to endorse Christie ’ s gubernatorial re-election bid .
“ The evidence the jury heard no doubt shows wrongdoing - deception , corruption , abuse of power .
But the federal fraud statutes at issue do not criminalize all such conduct , ” liberal Justice Elena Kagan wrote on behalf of the court .
Bill Baroni and Bridget Kelly , onetime allies of former New Jersey Gov .
Chris Christie , were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jams on the George Washington Bridge to punish a local mayor .
Kelly , a former Christie deputy chief of staff , and Baroni , a former deputy executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey , were convicted in 2016 of wire fraud and misusing Port Authority resources .
The Supreme Court ruled that their actions did not fit within the definition of fraud under federal law .
Kagan wrote that the laws would be violated only if their aim was “ to obtain the Port Authority ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was an exercise of “ regulatory power ” that does not constitute “ property ” under the fraud laws , Kagan added .
Prosecutors accused Kelly and Baroni of creating days of lane closures on the George Washington Bridge , which connects Fort Lee , New Jersey , to New York City , the most populous U.S. city .
The evidence the jury heard no doubt shows wrongdoing -- deception , corruption , abuse of power .
But the federal fraud statutes at issue do not criminalize all such conduct .
The closures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ punish the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee , Mark Sokolich , after he declined to endorse the Republican Christie for re-election , according to prosecutors .
The traffic was so bad that local authorities at the time called it a threat to public safety because it delayed emergency responders .
Christie denied involvement and was not charged .
The scandal sullied Christie ’ s reputation , damaged his campaign for the 2016 Republican U.S. presidential nomination and contributed to his sagging public approval ratings in New Jersey .
Christie served as an adviser @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump later fired him as the head of his transition team after being elected president .

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday threw out the criminal convictions of Bridget Anne Kelly, left, and Bill Baroni in the so-called "Bridgegate" scandal. ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday threw out the criminal convictions of two associates of former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie involved in the “Bridgegate” scandal in a ruling that places new limits on the kinds of political acts that can be prosecuted.
The justices, in a 9-0 decision, sided with Bridget Anne Kelly and Bill Baroni, both of whom were convicted for their roles in a scheme to engineer traffic chaos on the world’s busiest bridge to punish a local mayor who refused to endorse Christie’s gubernatorial re-election bid.
Advertisement
“The evidence the jury heard no doubt shows wrongdoing - deception, corruption, abuse of power. But the federal fraud statutes at issue do not criminalize all such conduct,” liberal Justice Elena Kagan wrote on behalf of the court.
Bill Baroni and Bridget Kelly, onetime allies of former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, were convicted in a scheme to create traffic jams on the George Washington Bridge to punish a local mayor. ASSOCIATED PRESS
Kelly, a former Christie deputy chief of staff, and Baroni, a former deputy executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, were convicted in 2016 of wire fraud and misusing Port Authority resources. The Supreme Court ruled that their actions did not fit within the definition of fraud under federal law.
Kagan wrote that the laws would be violated only if their aim was “to obtain the Port Authority’s money or property.” The scheme was an exercise of “regulatory power” that does not constitute “property” under the fraud laws, Kagan added.
Advertisement
Prosecutors accused Kelly and Baroni of creating days of lane closures on the George Washington Bridge, which connects Fort Lee, New Jersey, to New York City, the most populous U.S. city.
“The evidence the jury heard no doubt shows wrongdoing -- deception, corruption, abuse of power. But the federal fraud statutes at issue do not criminalize all such conduct.”
The closures caused traffic gridlock and were intended to punish the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee, Mark Sokolich, after he declined to endorse the Republican Christie for re-election, according to prosecutors. The traffic was so bad that local authorities at the time called it a threat to public safety because it delayed emergency responders.
Christie denied involvement and was not charged. The scandal sullied Christie’s reputation, damaged his campaign for the 2016 Republican U.S. presidential nomination and contributed to his sagging public approval ratings in New Jersey.
Christie served as an adviser to President Donald Trump in 2016. Trump later fired him as the head of his transition team after being elected president.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-07--Barack Obama Surprises Locked Down Chicago Teachers On Video Call

There ’ s no limit to the devotion I ’ ve seen in teachers like these @ ChiPubSchools educators .
@ @ @ @ @ parts of who we become .
I couldn ’ t be more thankful for their @ @ @ @ @ shift lessons online to keep students on track during this crisis .
pic.twitter.com/xYECcrAxdE

There’s no limit to the devotion I’ve seen in teachers like these @ChiPubSchools educators. Their dedication shapes the best parts of who we become. I couldn’t be more thankful for their work, especially as they shift lessons online to keep students on track during this crisis. pic.twitter.com/xYECcrAxdE


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-07--The Supreme Court’s ‘Bridgegate’ Ruling Should Be A Wake-Up Call To Congress

Yet again the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion reversing the corruption convictions of public officials .
This time , Justice Elena Kagan of the court ’ s liberal wing authored the 9-0 opinion , in Kelly v. U.S. , overturning the convictions of former New Jersey state officials Bridget Kelly and Bill Baroni for their part in the 2013 “ Bridgegate ” scandal .
Over the past decade , the Supreme Court has made clear that all of its members view the anti-fraud and anti-corruption laws passed by Congress to have a limited reach .
But the tone of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court did not make not a sweeping statement about the definition of corruption .
It merely held that these laws don ’ t cover every act of corruption by public officials .
If Congress wants the federal government to prosecute this kind of corruption , the opinion implies , it should pass new laws .
That wrongdoing became the subject of a major scandal in 2013 , when Kelly , Baroni and another official , David Wildstein , concocted a scheme to punish the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee for refusing to endorse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chris Christie .
The trio of officials , all either appointed by Christie or working for him , used their government positions to shut down two of the three toll lanes on the Fort Lee side of the George Washington Bridge , a heavily trafficked commuter route into Manhattan .
The three officials then attempted to cover up their plot by deploying government employees to conduct a phony traffic study that they claimed was the true reason for the lane closures .
The resulting traffic problems in Fort Lee were so severe that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news .
The fraud statute at issue could not be used to prosecute Kelly and Baroni , the court said , because it is only meant for corrupt acts with the “ aim to obtain money or property.
” Federal prosecutors had argued that Kelly and Baroni defrauded the state of two open toll lanes and state employees of their labor by making them conduct a pointless study .
They framed the closed lanes and the workers ’ labor as “ property ” corruptly taken by Kelly and Baroni ’ s fraud .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kelly and Baroni ’ s actions , while perhaps corrupt , were regulatory in nature : They did not take anyone ’ s money or property , or deprive them of it .
The cost of the employees ’ work was a “ byproduct ” of “ a regulatory choice.
” The ruling does not mean that public corruption can ’ t be punished , although prior court opinions have set tight limits for prosecutors .
Most prominently , the court ’ s unanimous 2016 ruling in McDonnell v. U.S. greatly narrowed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken as part of a quid pro quo arrangement .
That decision concerns Bob McDonnell , who was the Republican governor of Virginia when prosecutors charged him with bribery in 2014 .
He and his wife had received a stream of gifts from businessman Jonnie Williams , and in turn McDonnell helped promote Williams within the government by arranging meetings , hosting events and contacting government officials about studies related to Williams ’ business .
The court determined that none of these constituted “ official acts.
” The sweeping McDonnell opinion led to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. Rep. William Jefferson ( D-La . )
, former New York state Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver ( D ) , former New York state Senate Leader Dean Skelos ( R ) and his son Adam Skelos , and the dismissal of charges against U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez ( D-N.J. ) .
But Silver and Skelos were both retried and convicted after the McDonnell ruling , indicating that anti-corruption convictions are not entirely impossible , even if they ’ ve become harder to achieve .
In this light , the ruling tossing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its view of the limits of existing fraud and corruption laws .
At some point , if the public is upset about how these laws have been interpreted , the onus should be on Congress to fix them and not just the court for its interpretation .
There is at least one member who plans to do that .
Sen. Pat Leahy ( D-Vt. ) , the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee , has repeatedly introduced legislation to fix the problems in federal anti-fraud and anti-corruption laws after Supreme Court rulings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Yet again the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion reversing the corruption convictions of public officials. This time, Justice Elena Kagan of the court’s liberal wing authored the 9-0 opinion, in Kelly v. U.S., overturning the convictions of former New Jersey state officials Bridget Kelly and Bill Baroni for their part in the 2013 “Bridgegate” scandal.
Over the past decade, the Supreme Court has made clear that all of its members view the anti-fraud and anti-corruption laws passed by Congress to have a limited reach. But the tone of the Bridgegate opinion is different.
Advertisement
The court did not make not a sweeping statement about the definition of corruption. It merely held that these laws don’t cover every act of corruption by public officials. If Congress wants the federal government to prosecute this kind of corruption, the opinion implies, it should pass new laws.
“They’re trying to have a dialogue with the other branches,” said Dan Weiner, deputy director of the Election Reform Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.
To that end, Weiner said, Kagan’s opinion is “more explicit here than in past cases” in declaring the corrupt act in question to be corruption.
“The evidence the jury heard no doubt shows wrongdoing — deception, corruption, abuse of power,” Kagan wrote.
Advertisement
That wrongdoing became the subject of a major scandal in 2013, when Kelly, Baroni and another official, David Wildstein, concocted a scheme to punish the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee for refusing to endorse the reelection campaign of Republican Gov. Chris Christie. The trio of officials, all either appointed by Christie or working for him, used their government positions to shut down two of the three toll lanes on the Fort Lee side of the George Washington Bridge, a heavily trafficked commuter route into Manhattan.
“Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee,” Kelly wrote to Wildstein in a now-infamous email.
Officials appointed by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) orchestrated a plot to shut down access lanes to the George Washington Bridge connecting New Jersey and Manhattan as part of a political vendetta. ASSOCIATED PRESS
The three officials then attempted to cover up their plot by deploying government employees to conduct a phony traffic study that they claimed was the true reason for the lane closures. The resulting traffic problems in Fort Lee were so severe that they impeded emergency vehicles and made national news.
However, Kagan argued, “the federal fraud statutes at issue do not criminalize all such conduct.”
In other words, “not every corrupt act by state or local officials is a federal crime.”
The fraud statute at issue could not be used to prosecute Kelly and Baroni, the court said, because it is only meant for corrupt acts with the “aim to obtain money or property.”
Federal prosecutors had argued that Kelly and Baroni defrauded the state of two open toll lanes and state employees of their labor by making them conduct a pointless study. They framed the closed lanes and the workers’ labor as “property” corruptly taken by Kelly and Baroni’s fraud.
Advertisement
The court, however, ruled that Kelly and Baroni’s actions, while perhaps corrupt, were regulatory in nature: They did not take anyone’s money or property, or deprive them of it. The cost of the employees’ work was a “byproduct” of “a regulatory choice.”
With federal fraud laws off the table for this kind of corruption, prosecutors are left with fewer options ― perhaps other federal statutes or state anti-corruption laws; or Congress could update the fraud laws.
The ruling does not mean that public corruption can’t be punished, although prior court opinions have set tight limits for prosecutors. Most prominently, the court’s unanimous 2016 ruling in McDonnell v. U.S. greatly narrowed the definition of an “official act” taken as part of a quid pro quo arrangement.
The Supreme Court unanimously overturned the public corruption convictions of ex-New Jersey state officials Bridget Anne Kelly and Bill Baroni on Thursday. ASSOCIATED PRESS
That decision concerns Bob McDonnell, who was the Republican governor of Virginia when prosecutors charged him with bribery in 2014. He and his wife had received a stream of gifts from businessman Jonnie Williams, and in turn McDonnell helped promote Williams within the government by arranging meetings, hosting events and contacting government officials about studies related to Williams’ business. The court determined that none of these constituted “official acts.”
Advertisement
The sweeping McDonnell opinion led to the reversal of corruption convictions for former U.S. Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.), former New York state Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D), former New York state Senate Leader Dean Skelos (R) and his son Adam Skelos, and the dismissal of charges against U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.). But Silver and Skelos were both retried and convicted after the McDonnell ruling, indicating that anti-corruption convictions are not entirely impossible, even if they’ve become harder to achieve.
In this light, the ruling tossing the Bridgegate convictions looks like the court underlining its view of the limits of existing fraud and corruption laws. At some point, if the public is upset about how these laws have been interpreted, the onus should be on Congress to fix them and not just the court for its interpretation.
There is at least one member who plans to do that. Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has repeatedly introduced legislation to fix the problems in federal anti-fraud and anti-corruption laws after Supreme Court rulings like the one in Kelly v. U.S.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-07--Michigan Gov. Supports Ban On Guns In Capitol Building After Coronavirus Protest

Michigan Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer ( D ) said Wednesday she would support a ban on weapons inside the state Capitol building following a dramatic protest against her coronavirus stay-at-home order by people carrying assault rifles .
Whitmer told NBC News on Wednesday that lawmakers should not be intimidated when they go to work during the pandemic .
More than 45,000 people have been infected with the virus in the state and more than 4,250 have died .
“ There are legislators who are wearing bulletproof vests to go to work , ” Whitmer said .
“ No one should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bringing in an assault rifle into their workplace .
And so there is conversation about changing that law.
” Protestors try to enter the Michigan House of Representative chamber and are being kept out by the Michigan State Police on April 30 , 2020 .
Hundreds of protestors swarmed the state Capitol building last month in opposition to Whitmer ’ s extension of the stay-at-home orders , which had been set to expire on April 30 .
Some carried Confederate flags , swastikas and firearms .
Michigan has been hit with one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which prompted the governor to extend the order until at least May 15 ( although she did ease some of the strictest guidelines ) .
“ The fact of the matter is , we ’ re in a global pandemic , ” Whitmer said after the protests .
“ This isn ’ t something we just negotiate ourselves out of.
” President Donald Trump has been urging states to reopen their economies as soon as possible , even amid warnings from the nation ’ s top medical experts that doing so too soon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surging death toll .
The Governor of Michigan should give a little , and put out the fire .
These are very good people , but they are angry .
They want their lives back again , safely !
See them , talk to them , make a deal .
— Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) May 1 , 2020 “ We saw the governor ignore the law , unilaterally extend the emergency , and write new executive orders , ” Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey said in a statement to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the governor could extend her authority indefinitely .
Michigan citizens can not wait that long for a path forward to regain their lives and their livelihoods.
” Whitmer told NBC on Wednesday that there was “ no question that there ’ s intense pressure to reopen , ” but she refused to apologize for her actions .
“ Whether it ’ s coming from the White House or the people of our state … that ’ s playing out all across the country , ” she said .
“ We are Americans .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and I think in this moment we ’ ve had to ask people to make sacrifice , and people are getting weary of it .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) said Wednesday she would support a ban on weapons inside the state Capitol building following a dramatic protest against her coronavirus stay-at-home order by people carrying assault rifles.
Whitmer told NBC News on Wednesday that lawmakers should not be intimidated when they go to work during the pandemic. More than 45,000 people have been infected with the virus in the state and more than 4,250 have died.
Advertisement
“There are legislators who are wearing bulletproof vests to go to work,” Whitmer said. “No one should be intimidated by someone who’s bringing in an assault rifle into their workplace. And so there is conversation about changing that law.”
She continued: “I think it’s long overdue, and I absolutely support that change.”
A protester carries his rifle at the State Capitol in Lansing, Mich., Thursday, April 30, 2020. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya) ASSOCIATED PRESS
Protestors try to enter the Michigan House of Representative chamber and are being kept out by the Michigan State Police on April 30, 2020. JEFF KOWALSKY via Getty Images
Hundreds of protestors swarmed the state Capitol building last month in opposition to Whitmer’s extension of the stay-at-home orders, which had been set to expire on April 30. Some carried Confederate flags, swastikas and firearms.
Advertisement
Michigan has been hit with one of the worst outbreaks of the coronavirus, which prompted the governor to extend the order until at least May 15 (although she did ease some of the strictest guidelines).
“The fact of the matter is, we’re in a global pandemic,” Whitmer said after the protests. “This isn’t something we just negotiate ourselves out of.”
President Donald Trump has been urging states to reopen their economies as soon as possible, even amid warnings from the nation’s top medical experts that doing so too soon could prove catastrophic and lead to a surging death toll.
Trump has pressured Whitmer on Twitter to “give a little” and “make a deal.”
The Governor of Michigan should give a little, and put out the fire. These are very good people, but they are angry. They want their lives back again, safely! See them, talk to them, make a deal. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 1, 2020
Republican leaders controlling Michigan’s state House and Senate sued Whitmer this week, saying the state of emergency she declared was unlawful.
Advertisement
“We saw the governor ignore the law, unilaterally extend the emergency, and write new executive orders,” Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey said in a statement to CNN. “If left unchecked, the governor could extend her authority indefinitely. Michigan citizens cannot wait that long for a path forward to regain their lives and their livelihoods.”
Whitmer told NBC on Wednesday that there was “no question that there’s intense pressure to reopen,” but she refused to apologize for her actions.