thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-04--DHS Report Accuses China Of Covering Up Virus Outbreak To Hoard Supplies

WASHINGTON ( AP ) — U.S. officials believe China covered up the extent of the coronavirus outbreak — and how contagious the disease is — to stock up on medical supplies needed to respond to it , intelligence documents show .
Chinese leaders “ intentionally concealed the severity ” of the pandemic from the world in early January , according to a four-page Department of Homeland Security intelligence report dated May 1 and obtained by The Associated Press .
The revelation comes as the Trump administration has intensified its criticism of China , with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the spread of disease and must be held accountable .
The sharper rhetoric coincides with administration critics saying the government ’ s response to the virus was slow and inadequate .
President Donald Trump ’ s political opponents have accused him of lashing out at China , a geopolitical foe but critical U.S. trade partner , in an attempt to deflect criticism at home .
Not classified but marked “ for official use only , ” the DHS analysis states that , while downplaying the severity of the coronavirus , China increased imports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It attempted to cover up doing so by “ denying there were export restrictions and obfuscating and delaying provision of its trade data , ” the analysis states .
The report also says China held off informing the World Health Organization that the coronavirus “ was a contagion ” for much of January so it could order medical supplies from abroad — and that its imports of face masks and surgical gowns and gloves increased sharply .
Chinese officials muffled doctors who warned about the virus early on and repeatedly downplayed the threat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Chinese government ’ s missteps appear to have been due to bureaucratic hurdles , tight controls on information , and officials hesitant to report bad news .
There is no public evidence to suggest it was an intentional plot to buy up the world ’ s medical supplies .
In a tweet on Sunday , the president appeared to blame U.S. intelligence officials for not making clearer sooner just how dangerous a potential coronavirus outbreak could be .
Trump has been defensive over whether he failed to act after receiving early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus and its potential impact .
“ Intelligence has just reported to me that I was correct , and that they did NOT bring up the CoronaVirus subject matter until late into January , just prior to my banning China from the U.S. , ” Trump wrote without citing specifics .
“ Also , they only spoke of the Virus in a very non-threatening , or matter of fact , manner.
” Trump had previously speculated that China may have unleashed the coronavirus due to some kind of horrible “ mistake.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ examining a notion put forward by the president and aides that the pandemic may have resulted from an accident at a Chinese lab .
Speaking Sunday on ABC ’ s “ This Week , ” Pompeo said he had no reason to believe that the virus was deliberately spread .
But he added , “ Remember , China has a history of infecting the world , and they have a history of running substandard laboratories.
” “ These are not the first times that we ’ ve had a world exposed to viruses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chinese lab , ” Pompeo said .
“ And so , while the intelligence community continues to do its work , they should continue to do that , and verify so that we are certain , I can tell you that there is a significant amount of evidence that this came from that laboratory in Wuhan.
” The secretary of state appeared to be referring to previous outbreaks of respiratory viruses , like SARS , which started in China .
His remark may be seen as offensive in China .
Still , Pompeo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ via a tweet Sunday afternoon .
Experts say the virus arose naturally in bats , and make it clear that they believe it wasn ’ t man-made .
Many virologists say the chance that the outbreak was caused by a lab accident is very low , though scientists are still working to determine a point at which it may have jumped from animals to humans .
Beijing has repeatedly pushed back on U.S. accusations that the outbreak was China ’ s fault , pointing to many missteps made by American officials in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s public announcement on Jan. 20 that the virus was transmissible from person to person left the U.S. nearly two months to prepare for the pandemic , during which the U.S. government failed to bolster medical supplies and deployed flawed testing kits .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. officials believe China covered up the extent of the coronavirus outbreak — and how contagious the disease is — to stock up on medical supplies needed to respond to it, intelligence documents show.
Chinese leaders “intentionally concealed the severity” of the pandemic from the world in early January, according to a four-page Department of Homeland Security intelligence report dated May 1 and obtained by The Associated Press. The revelation comes as the Trump administration has intensified its criticism of China, with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo saying Sunday that that country was responsible for the spread of disease and must be held accountable.
Advertisement
The sharper rhetoric coincides with administration critics saying the government’s response to the virus was slow and inadequate. President Donald Trump’s political opponents have accused him of lashing out at China, a geopolitical foe but critical U.S. trade partner, in an attempt to deflect criticism at home.
Not classified but marked “for official use only,” the DHS analysis states that, while downplaying the severity of the coronavirus, China increased imports and decreased exports of medical supplies. It attempted to cover up doing so by “denying there were export restrictions and obfuscating and delaying provision of its trade data,” the analysis states.
The report also says China held off informing the World Health Organization that the coronavirus “was a contagion” for much of January so it could order medical supplies from abroad — and that its imports of face masks and surgical gowns and gloves increased sharply.
Those conclusions are based on the 95% probability that China’s changes in imports and export behavior were not within normal range, according to the report.
Advertisement
China informed the WHO of the outbreak on Dec. 31. It contacted the U.S. Centers for Disease Control on Jan. 3 and publicly identified the pathogen as a novel coronavirus on Jan. 8.
Chinese officials muffled doctors who warned about the virus early on and repeatedly downplayed the threat of the outbreak. However, many of the Chinese government’s missteps appear to have been due to bureaucratic hurdles, tight controls on information, and officials hesitant to report bad news. There is no public evidence to suggest it was an intentional plot to buy up the world’s medical supplies.
In a tweet on Sunday, the president appeared to blame U.S. intelligence officials for not making clearer sooner just how dangerous a potential coronavirus outbreak could be. Trump has been defensive over whether he failed to act after receiving early warnings from intelligence officials and others about the coronavirus and its potential impact.
“Intelligence has just reported to me that I was correct, and that they did NOT bring up the CoronaVirus subject matter until late into January, just prior to my banning China from the U.S.,” Trump wrote without citing specifics. “Also, they only spoke of the Virus in a very non-threatening, or matter of fact, manner.”
Trump had previously speculated that China may have unleashed the coronavirus due to some kind of horrible “mistake.” His intelligence agencies say they are still examining a notion put forward by the president and aides that the pandemic may have resulted from an accident at a Chinese lab.
Advertisement
Speaking Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” Pompeo said he had no reason to believe that the virus was deliberately spread. But he added, “Remember, China has a history of infecting the world, and they have a history of running substandard laboratories.”
“These are not the first times that we’ve had a world exposed to viruses as a result of failures in a Chinese lab,” Pompeo said. “And so, while the intelligence community continues to do its work, they should continue to do that, and verify so that we are certain, I can tell you that there is a significant amount of evidence that this came from that laboratory in Wuhan.”
The secretary of state appeared to be referring to previous outbreaks of respiratory viruses, like SARS, which started in China. His remark may be seen as offensive in China. Still, Pompeo repeated the same assertion hours later, via a tweet Sunday afternoon.
Experts say the virus arose naturally in bats, and make it clear that they believe it wasn’t man-made. Many virologists say the chance that the outbreak was caused by a lab accident is very low, though scientists are still working to determine a point at which it may have jumped from animals to humans.
Beijing has repeatedly pushed back on U.S. accusations that the outbreak was China’s fault, pointing to many missteps made by American officials in their own fight against the outbreak. China’s public announcement on Jan. 20 that the virus was transmissible from person to person left the U.S. nearly two months to prepare for the pandemic, during which the U.S. government failed to bolster medical supplies and deployed flawed testing kits.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-04--The Battle Over Birth Control Reaches Trump's Supreme Court

The mandate has been credited with dramatically reducing birth control costs in the U.S .
It has also triggered a litany of lawsuits over the rights of employers who object to contraception on religious grounds .
This is the third time the mandate has reached the Supreme Court , but the first since conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh joined the bench .
If the Trump rules are allowed to stand , advocates said , it will undermine people ’ s autonomy over their reproductive choices and threaten their economic security , which is directly tied to the ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevent pregnancies .
Nearly all women use contraception at some point in their lives .
“ Birth control is incredibly important , ” said Mara Gandal-Powers , senior counsel at the National Women ’ s Law Center .
“ The benefit , which ensures that people get coverage without out-of-pocket costs , has changed the way people are able to access birth control .
When cost isn ’ t a barrier , they can get the method that they decide is right for them.
” Under the Obama administration , houses of worship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mandate .
Other religious nonprofits could seek a workaround so that they didn ’ t have to provide coverage , but employees could still access free contraceptive care .
In those cases , insurance companies would pay for the coverage .
Still , many religious groups were not satisfied with the accommodation , arguing that even if they weren ’ t directly paying for the contraceptive coverage , they would still be complicit in actions that violated their beliefs .
The Supreme Court considered that argument in Zubik v. Burwell , but ultimately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lower courts .
Then Donald Trump got elected .
In 2017 , his administration pushed out expansive new rules granting an exemption to almost any employer that objected to covering contraception services on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions .
It also made it optional for employers to provide an accommodation for employees seeking birth control coverage .
Pennsylvania and New Jersey challenged the rules , arguing that their states would be forced to shoulder the costs of providing birth control to people who lost coverage , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A Philadelphia federal judge blocked the federal rules in 2019 , and the two states won a nationwide injunction .
“ At the heart of this case is that the Trump administration overreached , ” said Josh Shapiro , the attorney general of Pennsylvania , whose team will argue the case on Wednesday .
“ It violated the rule of law and harmed women by denying them the guarantee that Congress gave them to the medicine that they need.
” The Trump administration has defended its decision to skip the notice and comment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the public still had an opportunity to comment before the final rules were issued in 2018 .
But the final version of the rules were ” materially identical ” to the interim rules , lawyers for Pennsylvania and New Jersey countered , suggesting that the comment period was perfunctory .
Being able to plan the size of your family using contraception is considered one of the great public health achievements of the 20th century .
When people have smaller families and longer gaps between births , they and their children are healthier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cost has long been a barrier for people seeking contraception .
The birth control mandate was intended to close that gap , and it has .
In 2013 , the mandate saved U.S. women more than $ 1.4 billion in out-of-pocket expenses for birth control pills , according to a report from the University of Pennsylvania .
“ Allowing employers to exclude all or certain types of contraceptive methods would compromise women ’ s ability to consistently use the methods that work best for them , thus putting them at heightened risk of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to time and space wanted pregnancies , ” the Guttmacher Institute wrote in its brief .
“ That , in turn , would increase the risk of detrimental health outcomes for both women and their children , and would have negative social and economic consequences by interfering with women ’ s ability to achieve their educational , professional and family goals.
” Some business leaders have also come out in opposition to the Trump rules , arguing that contraception allows people to pursue educational and professional goals and contribute to the economy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ half of U.S. jobholders , and their labor accounted for about 40 % of the United States ’ annual gross domestic product in 2017 .

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday will consider whether the Trump administration may allow almost any employer to deny workers access to free birth control by citing religious or moral objections.
Oral arguments will be presented via teleconference ― one of the first times in history ― due to the coronavirus pandemic. The public can listen to the audio in real time on C-SPAN.
Advertisement
The case, Trump v. Pennsylvania, consolidated with Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, centers on the birth control mandate, a hotly disputed regulation under the Affordable Care Act that requires most private health insurance plans to cover Food and Drug Administration-approved forms of birth control without a copay.
The mandate has been credited with dramatically reducing birth control costs in the U.S. It has also triggered a litany of lawsuits over the rights of employers who object to contraception on religious grounds. This is the third time the mandate has reached the Supreme Court, but the first since conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh joined the bench.
In 2017, the Trump administration undercut the Obama-era mandate with new regulations that allowed nearly any private employer, university or insurer to use religious or moral beliefs as a basis for denying contraceptive coverage. Lower courts have temporarily blocked these rules from going into effect.
The effort to roll back birth control coverage comes amid a wider conservative movement to use religious freedom to exempt businesses from laws governing nondiscrimination in hiring, public accommodation, adoption and education.
Advertisement
If the Trump rules are allowed to stand, advocates said, it will undermine people’s autonomy over their reproductive choices and threaten their economic security, which is directly tied to the ability to plan, delay, space and prevent pregnancies. Nearly all women use contraception at some point in their lives.
“Birth control is incredibly important,” said Mara Gandal-Powers, senior counsel at the National Women’s Law Center. “The benefit, which ensures that people get coverage without out-of-pocket costs, has changed the way people are able to access birth control. When cost isn’t a barrier, they can get the method that they decide is right for them.”
Battle Over Birth Control
Under the Obama administration, houses of worship were already exempt from the birth control mandate. Other religious nonprofits could seek a workaround so that they didn’t have to provide coverage, but employees could still access free contraceptive care. In those cases, insurance companies would pay for the coverage.
This accommodation was extended to some for-profit corporations as a result of a landmark Supreme Court decision, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores. In the 2014 case, the court found that requiring family-owned businesses to pay for insurance coverage for birth control violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a federal law protecting religious liberty.
Still, many religious groups were not satisfied with the accommodation, arguing that even if they weren’t directly paying for the contraceptive coverage, they would still be complicit in actions that violated their beliefs. The Supreme Court considered that argument in Zubik v. Burwell, but ultimately punted and sent the case back to the lower courts.
Advertisement
Then Donald Trump got elected. In 2017, his administration pushed out expansive new rules granting an exemption to almost any employer that objected to covering contraception services on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions. It also made it optional for employers to provide an accommodation for employees seeking birth control coverage.
The interim rules, which took effect immediately, were issued without public notice or the opportunity for comment as is generally required.
Pennsylvania and New Jersey challenged the rules, arguing that their states would be forced to shoulder the costs of providing birth control to people who lost coverage, as well as thousands of unplanned pregnancies. A Philadelphia federal judge blocked the federal rules in 2019, and the two states won a nationwide injunction.
“At the heart of this case is that the Trump administration overreached,” said Josh Shapiro, the attorney general of Pennsylvania, whose team will argue the case on Wednesday. “It violated the rule of law and harmed women by denying them the guarantee that Congress gave them to the medicine that they need.”
One of the key questions in front of the court is technical in nature: Are the rules invalid given that the Trump administration initially issued them without giving the public a chance to comment?
Advertisement
“This isn’t just a desire of how the process should play out,” Shapiro said. “This is how the process is legally required to play out.”
The Trump administration has defended its decision to skip the notice and comment period for the interim rules, arguing that the public still had an opportunity to comment before the final rules were issued in 2018. But the final version of the rules were ”materially identical” to the interim rules, lawyers for Pennsylvania and New Jersey countered, suggesting that the comment period was perfunctory.
“So the dispute becomes, did the agency already have a closed mind?” said Brigitte Amiri, deputy director for the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “They put out notice and comment for the final rules, but did they really consider them?”
What’s At Stake
Being able to plan the size of your family using contraception is considered one of the great public health achievements of the 20th century. When people have smaller families and longer gaps between births, they and their children are healthier and their economic circumstances improve.
But cost has long been a barrier for people seeking contraception. The birth control mandate was intended to close that gap, and it has. In 2013, the mandate saved U.S. women more than $1.4 billion in out-of-pocket expenses for birth control pills, according to a report from the University of Pennsylvania.
Advertisement
A cross section of reproductive health groups have filed amicus briefs in the case, urging the justices not to undo the progress that’s been made.
“Allowing employers to exclude all or certain types of contraceptive methods would compromise women’s ability to consistently use the methods that work best for them, thus putting them at heightened risk of unintended pregnancies and interfering with their ability to time and space wanted pregnancies,” the Guttmacher Institute wrote in its brief. “That, in turn, would increase the risk of detrimental health outcomes for both women and their children, and would have negative social and economic consequences by interfering with women’s ability to achieve their educational, professional and family goals.”
Some business leaders have also come out in opposition to the Trump rules, arguing that contraception allows people to pursue educational and professional goals and contribute to the economy. Women in particular make up more than half of U.S. jobholders, and their labor accounted for about 40% of the United States’ annual gross domestic product in 2017.
“American women contribute to economic innovation, productivity, and growth,” the U.S. Women’s Chamber of Commerce and the National Association for Female Executives wrote in an amicus brief. “These outcomes would not be possible without women’s ability to control their own reproductive health, including access to contraception.”
It’s unclear when the justices will issue a ruling, but it will likely be this summer.
The Supreme Court is also poised to rule on another case with wide implications for reproductive rights. A decision in June Medical Services v. Russo, which deals with the constitutionality of a Louisiana law requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, is expected in June.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-04--Nebraska Pushing Ahead With Plans To Hold In-Person Election Amid Pandemic

LINCOLN , Neb .
( AP ) — Nebraska is forging ahead with plans to hold the nation ’ s first in-person election in more than a month , despite health concerns about the coronavirus pandemic and allegations that political motivations are fueling opposition to an all-mail approach .
Barring an unexpected change , Nebraska ’ s primary will take place on May 12 — five weeks after Wisconsin held the last in-person balloting when courts sided with Republican legislators who pushed for that election to go forward .
Republicans who hold all statewide offices and control the Legislature have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballots .
However , they argue state law requires polling sites to be open and that it ’ s important for voters to have a choice for how they vote , even amid health concerns .
As Secretary of State Bob Evnen put it last month , “ I don ’ t think Nebraskans are going to stay away from the polls or not vote because of a microbe.
” Gov .
Pete Ricketts agreed , arguing that to do otherwise would “ disenfranchise voters who want to go to the polls , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held despite wars and pandemics .
Others , however , questioned the motives behind the decision to hold the first statewide election since Wisconsin ’ s much-criticized April 7 primary and expressed doubt voting could safely take place .
Wisconsin health officials say more than 50 people who voted in person or worked the polls during the election have tested positive for COVID-19 .
The primary will decide a Democratic contest to pick a nominee to face Republican Rep. Don Bacon in the Omaha area ’ s 2nd Congressional District , traditionally the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats are competitive .
Voters will also pick candidates in dozens of ostensibly nonpartisan legislative races , which could help determine whether Republicans gain a super-majority in the Legislature .
Nebraska Democrats have asserted for weeks that Republican leaders don ’ t want to hold an all-mail election because of concern it would help Democrats , especially in the urban areas of Omaha and Lincoln .
Republicans have dismissed such claims , but Democrats point to statements by President Donald Trump who has said “ you ’ d never have a Republican elected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states switched to vote-by-mail .
“ The only reason I can see the governor not doing it is for political reasons , ” she said .
“ The Republican playbook is always to suppress the vote .
They know that when fewer people vote , they win elections.
” Sen. Steve Lathrop , an Omaha Democrat , also criticized the decision to hold a polling place election but said that with the primary only a couple of weeks away , it ’ s too late to change course now .
Still , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who watched what happened in Wisconsin , where public health departments reported at least 19 people who voted or worked at the polls have tested positive for the coronavirus .
“ If you ’ re asking me as a public health official whether this increases the risk of transmission , the answer is definitive — yes , ” said Dr. Patrick Remington , director of the University of Wisconsin Madison ’ s Preventative Medicine Residency Program .
“ That is a scientific fact , no matter how much protective equipment people wear.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Civic Nebraska , a group that advocates for statewide voting-by-mail , said the state doesn ’ t have notification or tracking technology to let voters know whether their ballot has been sent , received or counted .
That could lead to ballots getting rejected without voters realizing it and undermining public confidence in voting by mail , he said .
“ As a vote-by-mail advocate , the worst thing that could happen is for our first vote-by-mail election not to go well , ” Miller said .
“ I want it to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has 1,240 precincts statewide but some will be merged into one location to protect vulnerable residents , said Cindi Allen , a spokeswoman for Evnen .
For instance , a polling site normally located in an assisted living facility will likely get moved to another voting site with adequate space , such as a high school gym .
Allen said counties will decide .
Martha Brown , 83 , of Lincoln , said she hasn ’ t yet decided whether to work at the polls as she has done for more than a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her health and partly because she doesn ’ t want to end up having to enforce social-distancing requirements .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — Nebraska is forging ahead with plans to hold the nation’s first in-person election in more than a month, despite health concerns about the coronavirus pandemic and allegations that political motivations are fueling opposition to an all-mail approach.
Barring an unexpected change, Nebraska’s primary will take place on May 12 — five weeks after Wisconsin held the last in-person balloting when courts sided with Republican legislators who pushed for that election to go forward.
Advertisement
Republicans who hold all statewide offices and control the Legislature have encouraged people to cast early, absentee ballots. However, they argue state law requires polling sites to be open and that it’s important for voters to have a choice for how they vote, even amid health concerns.
As Secretary of State Bob Evnen put it last month, “I don’t think Nebraskans are going to stay away from the polls or not vote because of a microbe.”
Gov. Pete Ricketts agreed, arguing that to do otherwise would “disenfranchise voters who want to go to the polls,” and noting that elections were previously held despite wars and pandemics.
Others, however, questioned the motives behind the decision to hold the first statewide election since Wisconsin’s much-criticized April 7 primary and expressed doubt voting could safely take place. Wisconsin health officials say more than 50 people who voted in person or worked the polls during the election have tested positive for COVID-19.
Advertisement
The primary will decide a Democratic contest to pick a nominee to face Republican Rep. Don Bacon in the Omaha area’s 2nd Congressional District, traditionally the only U.S. House seat in Nebraska where Democrats are competitive. Voters will also pick candidates in dozens of ostensibly nonpartisan legislative races, which could help determine whether Republicans gain a super-majority in the Legislature.
Nebraska Democrats have asserted for weeks that Republican leaders don’t want to hold an all-mail election because of concern it would help Democrats, especially in the urban areas of Omaha and Lincoln. Republicans have dismissed such claims, but Democrats point to statements by President Donald Trump who has said “you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again” if all states switched to vote-by-mail.
Jane Kleeb, chairwoman of the Nebraska Democratic Party, said Ricketts and the state GOP are concerned about any change that might boost Democratic turnout.
“The only reason I can see the governor not doing it is for political reasons,” she said. “The Republican playbook is always to suppress the vote. They know that when fewer people vote, they win elections.”
Sen. Steve Lathrop, an Omaha Democrat, also criticized the decision to hold a polling place election but said that with the primary only a couple of weeks away, it’s too late to change course now.
Advertisement
“Given the seriousness of the pandemic, we should have turned this into a vote-by-mail election,” Lathrop said.
Officials plan to provide all poll workers with gloves, masks, hand sanitizer and wipes, and the state has purchased 50 additional ballot drop-off boxes for counties.
Still, the planned election concerns some public health officials who watched what happened in Wisconsin, where public health departments reported at least 19 people who voted or worked at the polls have tested positive for the coronavirus.
“If you’re asking me as a public health official whether this increases the risk of transmission, the answer is definitive — yes,” said Dr. Patrick Remington, director of the University of Wisconsin Madison’s Preventative Medicine Residency Program. “That is a scientific fact, no matter how much protective equipment people wear.”
Still, even some voting-rights advocates say they understand the difficulty of shifting to all-mail voting.
Advertisement
State Sen. Adam Morfeld, a Democrat from Lincoln, said Nebraska “doesn’t have the mechanisms in place” for vote-by-mail.
And Westin Miller, public policy director of Civic Nebraska, a group that advocates for statewide voting-by-mail, said the state doesn’t have notification or tracking technology to let voters know whether their ballot has been sent, received or counted. That could lead to ballots getting rejected without voters realizing it and undermining public confidence in voting by mail, he said.
“As a vote-by-mail advocate, the worst thing that could happen is for our first vote-by-mail election not to go well,” Miller said. “I want it to go as smoothly as possible.”
More than 300,000 Nebraskans have requested absentee ballots, a level Evnen described as “unprecedented.” Given that, officials are predicting among the highest turnouts ever for a Nebraska primary.
What’s less clear is whether enough workers will show up to operate voting sites.
Nebraska has 1,240 precincts statewide but some will be merged into one location to protect vulnerable residents, said Cindi Allen, a spokeswoman for Evnen. For instance, a polling site normally located in an assisted living facility will likely get moved to another voting site with adequate space, such as a high school gym. Allen said counties will decide.
Advertisement
Janice Walker, 73, of Lincoln, said she still plans to work at the polls but hopes for low in-person turnout and that people “use their heads and vote by mail.”
“If we have a nice, slow, boring day, that will be good for me,” she said. “It’s not a good situation for the workers.”
Martha Brown, 83, of Lincoln, said she hasn’t yet decided whether to work at the polls as she has done for more than a decade, partly out of concern for her health and partly because she doesn’t want to end up having to enforce social-distancing requirements.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-04--Ammon Bundy Blames Jews For The Holocaust At Idaho Anti-Lockdown Rally

Bundy , a notorious militia leader who once organized an armed takeover of an Oregon wildlife refuge , made the absurd comparison while speaking at an “ Idaho Is Open For Business ” rally ― one of several anti-lockdown demonstrations held across the country demanding that governors allow businesses to reopen despite the urgent warnings of public health experts .
“ Just look at the pictures of the Holocaust , ” Bundy told the crowd of hundreds , according to a video of the event posted to YouTube .
“ It always amazes me how you see pictures of men @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up and facing a mass grave , where they are shooting them in the back of the head and falling in the grave.
” “ Now the answer to that is not easy ― but it is this , and I have been there and I know for a fact that this is true , ” Bundy continued .
“ When you have faced so much tyranny in your life , there is a point when you would rather line up naked and get shot in the head .
And my friends , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now is to make sure that never happens !
” A major figure in right-wing militia and anti-government extremist circles , Bundy was acquitted in 2016 of federal conspiracy and weapons charges for his role in leading the armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon .
A federal judge also dismissed charges against Bundy stemming from a separate armed standoff with law enforcement in Nevada in 2014 .
Bundy argued Saturday that Jews essentially let themselves be murdered by Nazis because “ they thought that putting their head down and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better way .
They thought that compliance would get them through it , and it was just a period of time that they might just pass through and end up better on the other end.
” “ It was egregious , ” Ward told HuffPost .
“ I mean , it was historical revisionism .
It wasn ’ t a denial of the Holocaust , but it utilized one of the talking points that is often used by Holocaust deniers , which is this idea that Jews were responsible for their own genocide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for their own deaths .
It is disturbing and it is offensive that a major argument point from Holocaust revisionism would be utilized in this moment.
” “ These aren ’ t protests , right ?
” Ward said .
“ These are calls for future violence .
And I think we should all be very clear about what ’ s happening , and what Ammon Bundy is helping to support in this moment.
” The rallies — largely organized on Facebook and funded in part by dark money groups with ties to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carrying big guns and talking about the “ boogaloo , ” a far-right term for civil war .
Last week in Lansing , Michigan , one such armed faction walked into the state Capitol and demanded to confront the legislature , which was set to vote on extending state quarantine orders .
Polls show that a considerable majority of Americans support government measures to slow the spread of the coronavirus , which has already killed nearly 70,000 people in the U.S .
But anti-lockdown protesters have received support from Fox News and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last month tweeted that states needed to be liberated from shutdowns .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Anti-government extremist Ammon Bundy, speaking on the steps of the state Capitol building in Boise, Idaho, on Saturday, compared government measures to slow the spread of the coronavirus to the Nazis’ genocide of Jews during World War II.
Bundy, a notorious militia leader who once organized an armed takeover of an Oregon wildlife refuge, made the absurd comparison while speaking at an “Idaho Is Open For Business” rally ― one of several anti-lockdown demonstrations held across the country demanding that governors allow businesses to reopen despite the urgent warnings of public health experts.
Advertisement
The Boise rally appears to have been organized, in part, by an anti-vaccination conspiracy group called Health Freedom Idaho, together with the Idaho Freedom Foundation, a powerful far-right libertarian organization in the state with ties to right-wing billionaire Charles Koch.
In a speech at Saturday’s rally, Bundy compared the temporary closure of nonessential businesses in America to the systematic torture and murder of 6 million Jews by the Nazis.
“Just look at the pictures of the Holocaust,” Bundy told the crowd of hundreds, according to a video of the event posted to YouTube. “It always amazes me how you see pictures of men and women stripped completely naked, lined up and facing a mass grave, where they are shooting them in the back of the head and falling in the grave.”
“Now the answer to that is not easy ― but it is this, and I have been there and I know for a fact that this is true,” Bundy continued. “When you have faced so much tyranny in your life, there is a point when you would rather line up naked and get shot in the head. And my friends, why we’re here today right now is to make sure that never happens!”
Advertisement
Bundy’s alleged experience of “tyranny” is nothing compared to what European Jews experienced in the 1930s and ’40s.
A major figure in right-wing militia and anti-government extremist circles, Bundy was acquitted in 2016 of federal conspiracy and weapons charges for his role in leading the armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon. A federal judge also dismissed charges against Bundy stemming from a separate armed standoff with law enforcement in Nevada in 2014.
Ammon Bundy speaks to members of the media in front of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge Headquarters on Jan. 6, 2016, near Burns, Oregon. Justin Sullivan via Getty Images
Bundy argued Saturday that Jews essentially let themselves be murdered by Nazis because “they thought that putting their head down and trying to not be noticed was the better way. They thought that compliance would get them through it, and it was just a period of time that they might just pass through and end up better on the other end.”
“And that is a decision that we have to make right now,” Bundy said. “Are we better to just comply?”
Eric Ward, executive director at the Western States Center, a civil rights organization that monitors extremists, said Bundy “crossed a moral line” with his remarks.
Advertisement
“It was egregious,” Ward told HuffPost. “I mean, it was historical revisionism. It wasn’t a denial of the Holocaust, but it utilized one of the talking points that is often used by Holocaust deniers, which is this idea that Jews were responsible for their own genocide, and that is effectively blaming Jews for their own deaths. It is disturbing and it is offensive that a major argument point from Holocaust revisionism would be utilized in this moment.”
Ward added that anti-lockdown protesters like Bundy, who have at times associated with white nationalists, have no “moral ground” to compare themselves to Jews during the Holocaust.
Protesters try to enter the Michigan House of Representatives chamber and are kept out by state police after the American Patriot Rally organized by Michigan United for Liberty in Lansing, Michigan, on April 30, 2020. JEFF KOWALSKY via Getty Images
That Bundy was given a platform to speak at the Boise rally highlights how the anti-lockdown protests have been organized and attended largely by far-right extremists, including heavily armed militias, neo-fascist street gangs, anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and neo-Nazis.
“These aren’t protests, right?” Ward said. “These are calls for future violence. And I think we should all be very clear about what’s happening, and what Ammon Bundy is helping to support in this moment.”
Advertisement
Over the past month, shocking footage has emerged from various state capitols showing hundreds of protesters flouting social distancing guidelines to demand that economies be reopened ― a decision that public health experts say would dramatically increase the death toll in the U.S.
The rallies — largely organized on Facebook and funded in part by dark money groups with ties to billionaire right-wing donors — often include participants carrying big guns and talking about the “boogaloo,” a far-right term for civil war. Last week in Lansing, Michigan, one such armed faction walked into the state Capitol and demanded to confront the legislature, which was set to vote on extending state quarantine orders.
Polls show that a considerable majority of Americans support government measures to slow the spread of the coronavirus, which has already killed nearly 70,000 people in the U.S. But anti-lockdown protesters have received support from Fox News and the president of the United States, who last month tweeted that states needed to be liberated from shutdowns.
Bundy has spearheaded multiple anti-lockdown stunts during the pandemic. Last month he held a crowded Easter Sunday church service in Emmett, Idaho, in defiance of state orders against mass gatherings.
He also led a protest in Meridian, Idaho, outside the home of a police officer who earlier that day had arrested an anti-vaccination conspiracy theorist for trespassing in a public park closed for the pandemic.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-04--Senate Denies Joe Biden's Request To Look For Tara Reade Records

Officials at the U.S. Senate said Monday that they do not have the legal authority to release records related to Tara Reade , who alleges presumptive 2020 Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden sexually assaulted her when she worked for him in the Senate in the early 1990s .
“ Senate Legal Counsel advises that the Secretary has no discretion to disclose any such information , ” Secretary of the Senate Julie Adams said in a statement .
She cited confidentiality procedures laid out in employment and civil rights laws related to Senate and government employees , as well as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate Records is not authorized if prohibited by law.
” Secretary of the Senate responds to Joe Biden ’ s request to review any alleged complaint filed by Tara Reade and release it : No can do .
Office has “ no discretion to disclose any such information.
” pic.twitter.com/IBNfrl4fjm — Susan Davis ( @ DaviSusan ) May 4 , 2020 In a letter Friday , Biden requested that Adams “ direct a search for the alleged complaint and to make public the results of this search .
I would ask that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if one exists , but any and all other documents in the records that relate to the allegation.
” That request followed a contentious interview with “ Morning Joe ” host Mika Brzezinski , in which Biden , after weeks of silence on the issue , denied Reade ’ s allegation and claimed there were no records of the incident or complaint .
Biden initially said any records related to Reade would be housed at the National Archives , and asked the institution to release relevant documents if there were any .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ Any records of Senate personnel complaints from 1993 would have remained under the control of the Senate .
Accordingly , inquiries related to these records should be directed to the Senate.
” When pressed by Brzezinski , Biden also refused to allow a search of his Senate papers , which are housed at the University of Delaware , claiming there were no records of Reade ’ s allegation there .
The school has said the papers will remain sealed until at least the end of 2021 because Biden is still “ @ @ @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Officials at the U.S. Senate said Monday that they do not have the legal authority to release records related to Tara Reade, who alleges presumptive 2020 Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden sexually assaulted her when she worked for him in the Senate in the early 1990s.
“Senate Legal Counsel advises that the Secretary has no discretion to disclose any such information,” Secretary of the Senate Julie Adams said in a statement. She cited confidentiality procedures laid out in employment and civil rights laws related to Senate and government employees, as well as a Senate resolution deeming that “disclosure of Senate Records is not authorized if prohibited by law.”
Advertisement
Secretary of the Senate responds to Joe Biden’s request to review any alleged complaint filed by Tara Reade and release it: No can do.
Office has “no discretion to disclose any such information.” pic.twitter.com/IBNfrl4fjm — Susan Davis (@DaviSusan) May 4, 2020
In a letter Friday, Biden requested that Adams “direct a search for the alleged complaint and to make public the results of this search. I would ask that the public release include not only a complaint if one exists, but any and all other documents in the records that relate to the allegation.”
That request followed a contentious interview with “Morning Joe” host Mika Brzezinski, in which Biden, after weeks of silence on the issue, denied Reade’s allegation and claimed there were no records of the incident or complaint.
Biden initially said any records related to Reade would be housed at the National Archives, and asked the institution to release relevant documents if there were any.
Advertisement
But later Friday, the National Archives said: “Any records of Senate personnel complaints from 1993 would have remained under the control of the Senate. Accordingly, inquiries related to these records should be directed to the Senate.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-04--Senate Set To Reopen Amid Pandemic With Focus On Trump Judicial, Executive Nominees

ASSOCIATED PRESS Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky. , speaks with reporters on Tuesday , April 21 , 2020 , on Capitol Hill in Washington .
( AP Photo/Patrick Semansky ) WASHINGTON ( AP ) — The Senate will gavel in Monday as the coronavirus rages , returning to an uncertain agenda and deepening national debate over how best to confront the deadly pandemic and its economic devastation .
With the House staying away due to the health risks , and the 100 senators convening for the first time since March , the conflicted Congress reflects an uneasy nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hot-spot under stay-home rules .
Senate Republicans are trying to set the terms of debate , frustrated that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was able to fill up earlier aid bills with Democratic priorities .
They ’ re reluctant to unleash federal funds beyond the nearly $ 3 trillion Congress already approved in virus relief .
Instead , Senate Republicans are counting on the country ’ s reopening to kick-start the economy as their best hope to limit a new round of big spending on virus aid .
“ We have to reopen our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as he revised upward his projection for the total U.S. death total to 80,000 or 90,000 .
In making a snap decision to return , Senate Majority Mitch McConnell said the Senate can not “ sit on the sidelines.
” He compared the senators to the essential work force of grocery clerks , truck drivers and others keeping Americans fed during the crisis .
Yet re-opening part of Capitol Hill poses health risks not just for the lawmakers but the cooks , cleaners , police officers and other workers who keep the lights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an extraordinary rebuff , McConnell and Pelosi said in a rare joint statement Saturday that they would “ respectfully decline ” the offer and instead direct resources to the front lines “ where they can do the most good.
” Senators will instead return to a partially reopened Capitol Hill with new guidelines , including the recommendation that senators wear masks — blue face coverings will be available for free — keep their distance and leave most staff at home .
Hand sanitizer is back in stock .
But public access will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Capitol itself remains closed to visitors and tours .
Democrats complain the risks of reopening the Capitol complex is not worth the noticeably light agenda , which is focused on confirming Trump ’ s judicial and executive nominees rather than the virus pandemic .
With more than 65,000 U.S. deaths due to the virus and 30 million Americans suddenly unemployed , Democratic senators say the focus needs to be singular — to ease this crisis and prevent a second wave of infections .
McConnell has loaded up the agenda with hearings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justin Walker , a conservative , McConnell-backed pick to be a federal judge on the U.S. Courts of Appeal in the District of Columbia Circuit , which is seen as a stepping stone to the Supreme Court .
Several committees will meet to debate issues related to the virus outbreak , including the nominee for a new oversight commission .
The Health Committee will hold a session on potential cures and the Commerce Committee a hearing on the airline industry .
Republican senators still plan to sit down for their regular luncheons , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guidance limits them to three to a table .
It was after one of their lunches in March that several senators went into self-quarantine because of their exposure to fellow GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky , who tested positive .

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky., speaks with reporters on Tuesday, April 21, 2020, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky) ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate will gavel in Monday as the coronavirus rages, returning to an uncertain agenda and deepening national debate over how best to confront the deadly pandemic and its economic devastation.
With the House staying away due to the health risks, and the 100 senators convening for the first time since March, the conflicted Congress reflects an uneasy nation. The Washington area remains a virus hot-spot under stay-home rules.
Advertisement
Tops on the Senate agenda is not necessarily the next virus aid package, despite a nationwide jobless rate that’s approaching Great Depression-level heights and pleas from the governors for more money.
“There’s kind of a pause period right now,” said White House’s Larry Kudlow, director of the national economic counsel, on CNN. “Let’s see how it’s doing as we gradually reopen the economy.”
Senate Republicans are trying to set the terms of debate, frustrated that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was able to fill up earlier aid bills with Democratic priorities. They’re reluctant to unleash federal funds beyond the nearly $3 trillion Congress already approved in virus relief.
“We are going to need more help,” Republican Gov. Larry Hogan of Maryland, the chairman of the National Governors Association, said on CNN.
Advertisement
Instead, Senate Republicans are counting on the country’s reopening to kick-start the economy as their best hope to limit a new round of big spending on virus aid.
President Donald Trump, on the eve of the Senate’s return, held a town hall encouraging Americans to get back to work.
“We have to reopen our country,” Trump said, even as he revised upward his projection for the total U.S. death total to 80,000 or 90,000.
The COVID-19 crisis has all but closed Congress since late March, a longer absence than during the 1918 Spanish Flu or the 2001 terror attacks.
In making a snap decision to return, Senate Majority Mitch McConnell said the Senate cannot “sit on the sidelines.” He compared the senators to the essential work force of grocery clerks, truck drivers and others keeping Americans fed during the crisis.
Advertisement
Yet re-opening part of Capitol Hill poses health risks not just for the lawmakers but the cooks, cleaners, police officers and other workers who keep the lights on at the Capitol complex.
Capitol Hill erupted late last week after the attending physician informed top GOP officials the health office did not have the means to perform instant virus tests on returning lawmakers or staff.
Over the weekend, Trump himself offered Congress access to the instant virus test system used to screen visitors to the White House.
But in an extraordinary rebuff, McConnell and Pelosi said in a rare joint statement Saturday that they would “respectfully decline” the offer and instead direct resources to the front lines “where they can do the most good.”
Senators will instead return to a partially reopened Capitol Hill with new guidelines, including the recommendation that senators wear masks — blue face coverings will be available for free — keep their distance and leave most staff at home. Hand sanitizer is back in stock. But public access will be limited, including at public hearings. The Capitol itself remains closed to visitors and tours.
Advertisement
Democrats complain the risks of reopening the Capitol complex is not worth the noticeably light agenda, which is focused on confirming Trump’s judicial and executive nominees rather than the virus pandemic.
With more than 65,000 U.S. deaths due to the virus and 30 million Americans suddenly unemployed, Democratic senators say the focus needs to be singular — to ease this crisis and prevent a second wave of infections.
“If we’re going to go back, let’s do something about COVID,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said.
McConnell has loaded up the agenda with hearings for Trump’s nominees, including Justin Walker, a conservative, McConnell-backed pick to be a federal judge on the U.S. Courts of Appeal in the District of Columbia Circuit, which is seen as a stepping stone to the Supreme Court.
A nomination hearing also is scheduled for John Ratcliffe, the Texas Republican congressman who is Trump’s choice to lead the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Advertisement
Several committees will meet to debate issues related to the virus outbreak, including the nominee for a new oversight commission. The Health Committee will hold a session on potential cures and the Commerce Committee a hearing on the airline industry.
For all that’s changed during the pandemic, some traditions remain in Congress.
Republican senators still plan to sit down for their regular luncheons, though the physician’s social distancing guidance limits them to three to a table. It was after one of their lunches in March that several senators went into self-quarantine because of their exposure to fellow GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who tested positive.
Democrats, who will meet for lunch over conference call, are assessing whether to appear in person for the committee hearings or dial in remotely.
The physician’s office sent guidelines late Friday encouraging Senate offices to minimize staff presence and reschedule any visitors who are visibly ill with “shaking chills” or “vomiting.”
But for Republicans, operating the Senate even in a diminished capacity aligns with Trump’s effort to return to a sense of normalcy, despite the ongoing health risks.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-04--NBC News Chairman Andy Lack Stepping Down

NBC News chairman Andy Lack is stepping down and will “ transition out of the company , ” the network announced Monday .
The move comes as part of a company reorganization that houses NBC News , MSNBC and CNBC under the newly formed NBC Universal News Group .
Cesar Conde , who oversees NBCUniversal International Group , will now lead that department .
Lack has come under fire for not adequately addressing the systemic causes of sexual harassment cases at the network after allegations against Matt Lauer , one of its biggest stars , emerged in 2017 .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harassment allegations in recent months .
Under Lack ’ s leadership , the network was scrutinized for refusing to run Ronan Farrow ’ s landmark story on sexual assault allegations against Harvey Weinstein that year .
Lack later defended that decision , saying Farrow “ had nothing yet fit to broadcast ” when he brought the story to NBC News .
But sources at the network told HuffPost in 2017 that NBC News ’ leaders actively crippled Farrow ’ s reporting , insisting that he could not use an NBC News camera crew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rape and forcing him to pay out of pocket for a camera crew .
More recently , Lack faced workplace sexual harassment allegations of his own in a book Farrow published last fall .
In the book , a representative of Lack denied the accusations .
Lack did not publicly address the issue at the time .
Farrow tweeted Monday he was “ grateful to the sources who spoke.
” “ After a career of enabling sexual abusers , preying on women in the workplace , and silencing stories from survivors , Andy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NBCUniversal ’ s toxic workplace culture , ” the group said in a statement .
“ Lack should have been forced to step down after Ronan Farrow ’ s reporting exposed his role covering up sexual abuse at the network .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
NBC News chairman Andy Lack is stepping down and will “transition out of the company,” the network announced Monday.
The move comes as part of a company reorganization that houses NBC News, MSNBC and CNBC under the newly formed NBC Universal News Group. Cesar Conde, who oversees NBCUniversal International Group, will now lead that department.
Advertisement
Lack has come under fire for not adequately addressing the systemic causes of sexual harassment cases at the network after allegations against Matt Lauer, one of its biggest stars, emerged in 2017. He’s also faced his own sexual harassment allegations in recent months.
Under Lack’s leadership, the network was scrutinized for refusing to run Ronan Farrow’s landmark story on sexual assault allegations against Harvey Weinstein that year. Lack later defended that decision, saying Farrow “had nothing yet fit to broadcast” when he brought the story to NBC News.
But sources at the network told HuffPost in 2017 that NBC News’ leaders actively crippled Farrow’s reporting, insisting that he could not use an NBC News camera crew to interview a woman accusing Weinstein of rape and forcing him to pay out of pocket for a camera crew.
More recently, Lack faced workplace sexual harassment allegations of his own in a book Farrow published last fall. In the book, a representative of Lack denied the accusations. Lack did not publicly address the issue at the time.
Advertisement
Farrow tweeted Monday he was “grateful to the sources who spoke.”
UltraViolet, an online community of women against sexism, also championed Lack’s ouster.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-04--Major Trump Donor Returns $70 Million In Coronavirus Stimulus Aid For Luxury Hotels

A luxury hotel and resort network owned by a major contributor to President Donald Trump and the Republican Party is returning some $ 70 million in taxpayer stimulus money after an outcry .
Texas conservative Monty Bennett ’ s network of companies was one of the largest recipients of funds from the Paycheck Protection Program , touted by lawmakers as help for small businesses amid the COVID-19 crisis .
Bennett has contributed $ 150,000 to Trump ’ s reelection campaign , according to The New York Times , and he spent $ 50,000 to hire two of Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funds , reported Business Insider .
On Friday , Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-N.Y. ) called on the Small Business Administration , which manages the Paycheck Protection Program , to review how Bennett ’ s operations received funding .
Bennett said as recently as Friday that he had no intention of returning the money unless told to do so by the government .
But a day later , a defensive statement from Ashford Inc. , The Ashford Hospitality Trust and Braemer Hotels & Resorts ( Bennett is chairman of all three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ returned because of rules that are being changed “ almost daily , ” and “ inconsistent federal guidance that put the companies at compliance risk.
” The statement said the companies did nothing wrong .
It contended the law was intended to accommodate hotel groups by allowing them to apply property by property .
The statement also emphasized that Ashford applied for the money in “ good faith , ” and that it had “ no intention of crowding out ” other businesses from the funds .
The Paycheck Protection Program , part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to bolster the economy amid the pandemic , has triggered mounting controversy as funds have been scooped by major companies , leaving less for struggling small businesses .
Nearly 300 publicly traded corporations collected $ 1 billion in funds before the first round of PPP payouts ran out in just two weeks .
A second round of payments just ended , but Trump officials have yet to reveal the identities of recipients .
The Trump administration has asked businesses that don ’ t need the money to return it .
Treasury Secretary Steve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should apologize for taking taxpayer aid intended for small businesses .
The loans doled out as part of the program are forgivable , essentially turning them into grants from taxpayers , if the money goes to certain expenses including wages and rent .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A luxury hotel and resort network owned by a major contributor to President Donald Trump and the Republican Party is returning some $70 million in taxpayer stimulus money after an outcry.
Texas conservative Monty Bennett’s network of companies was one of the largest recipients of funds from the Paycheck Protection Program, touted by lawmakers as help for small businesses amid the COVID-19 crisis.
Advertisement
Bennett has contributed $150,000 to Trump’s reelection campaign, according to The New York Times, and he spent $50,000 to hire two of Trump’s fundraisers to lobby the administration for bailout funds, reported Business Insider.
On Friday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called on the Small Business Administration, which manages the Paycheck Protection Program, to review how Bennett’s operations received funding.
Bennett said as recently as Friday that he had no intention of returning the money unless told to do so by the government. But a day later, a defensive statement from Ashford Inc., The Ashford Hospitality Trust and Braemer Hotels & Resorts (Bennett is chairman of all three) noted that the money was being returned because of rules that are being changed “almost daily,” and “inconsistent federal guidance that put the companies at compliance risk.”
The statement said the companies did nothing wrong. It contended the law was intended to accommodate hotel groups by allowing them to apply property by property. The statement also emphasized that Ashford applied for the money in “good faith,” and that it had “no intention of crowding out” other businesses from the funds.
Advertisement
The Paycheck Protection Program, part of the $2.2 trillion CARES Act to bolster the economy amid the pandemic, has triggered mounting controversy as funds have been scooped by major companies, leaving less for struggling small businesses.
Nearly 300 publicly traded corporations collected $1 billion in funds before the first round of PPP payouts ran out in just two weeks. A second round of payments just ended, but Trump officials have yet to reveal the identities of recipients.
The Trump administration has asked businesses that don’t need the money to return it. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said last week that large corporations should apologize for taking taxpayer aid intended for small businesses.
Some publicly traded companies — including Shake Shack and AutoNation ― have agreed to return the money.
The loans doled out as part of the program are forgivable, essentially turning them into grants from taxpayers, if the money goes to certain expenses including wages and rent.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-04--National Security Veterans Urge Democrats To Go Farther In Opposition To Israel's Trump-Approved Lan

National Security Veterans Urge Democrats To Go Farther In Opposition To Israel's Trump-Approved Land Grab

The Democratic Party should use its 2020 platform to encourage a fair end to the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians and to condemn unhelpful moves by Israel , more than 30 former national security officials said in a Monday letter to the Democratic National Committee .
Such language would be a big shift for the Democratic Party , which has been reluctant to criticize Israel , a U.S. ally .
But adding it now is vital both to guide policy and to contrast with President Donald Trump , whose administration has greenlighted hardline Israeli policies , the foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an advance copy of which was shared exclusively with HuffPost .
The group wants the party and its presumptive presidential nominee Joe Biden to loudly oppose unilateral Israeli annexation of land in the West Bank , the area that would be integral to a full-fledged Palestinian state , as well as Israel ’ s military occupation of that region and its policy of building Israeli settlements there .
Crafting a response will be complex for him .
Republicans increasingly claim that the Democratic Party is abandoning Israel .
Trump even said last year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote Democratic , are showing “ either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty.
” Democrats don ’ t want Republicans to seize another chance for an attack , but most want to defend the long-standing American goal of helping create two coexisting states of Israel and Palestine to prevent continued violence , repression and hatred .
“ Past party platforms have rightly stated a commitment to Israel ’ s security and included condemnations of threats and actions against our ally , ” their letter reads .
“ Those platforms have , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rights of Palestinians , on Israeli actions that undermine those rights and the prospects for a two-state solution , and on the need for security for both peoples.
” “ We ask that the platform ... make clear what a comprehensive effort to achieve a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should look like under a future Democratic administration , which includes a commitment to security , democracy , and human rights , ” it continues .
Signatories include Avril Haines and Ben Rhodes , top officials under former President Barack Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ Obama-Biden administration , ” and key advisers to Biden ’ s rivals for the 2020 Democratic nomination , like Doug Wilson , who worked for former South Bend , Indiana , mayor Pete Buttigieg , and aides to Sens .
Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
and Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) .
High-ranking former diplomats who have worked on Israel and Palestine like Martin Indyk and Strobe Talbott are also among the group .
If Democrats do adopt the positions endorsed by the letter in the upcoming conversations about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be breaking with more conservative members of the party who have long argued it ’ s too politically risky to get into specifics on Israel and Palestine .
In 2016 , Democratic Party leaders declined to criticize either the occupation or the settlements .
At the time , former California Rep. Henry Waxman said , “ Those who litigate the particulars of a two-state solution between the Israelis and Palestinians by fighting for controversial language in the Democratic platform are severely misguided.
” As Trump has reshaped U.S. policy to favor Netanyahu @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state that ’ s much reduced from what they have long envisioned , right-wing Israelis and their supporters have become more ambitious in challenging the traditional Middle East peace process .
Meanwhile , the Trump administration ’ s capitulations to Israel and the nation ’ s extreme moves have energized activists who want a more even-handed American approach .
Biden has repeatedly said he will not support annexation and highlighted his concern for Palestinians in messages in recent months to two major groups working on Israel policy , J Street and the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s trying to balance the different parts of his potential coalition of voters .
Last week , he said he would preserve one of Trump ’ s biggest gifts to Netanyahu : U.S. acknowledgement of Jerusalem as Israel ’ s capital , a step that American policymakers have long said should not take place until a peace deal is in place that acknowledges Palestinians ’ claims to the historic city .
Biden ’ s circle includes figures who opposed the 2016 push for a sea change in the platform like former Hillary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activists believe their thinking may have evolved because of Trump ’ s policies and increasing awareness among liberals , encouraged by Sanders , of Netanyahu ’ s often aggressive treatment of the Palestinians .
The Monday message echoed a petition circulated by J Street , a liberal Jewish organization that promotes a two-state solution for the Israelis and Palestinians .
In March , the campaign secured signatures from more than 200 Jewish leaders for the same message and sent it to both the Republican and Democratic national committees .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The Democratic Party should use its 2020 platform to encourage a fair end to the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians and to condemn unhelpful moves by Israel, more than 30 former national security officials said in a Monday letter to the Democratic National Committee.
Such language would be a big shift for the Democratic Party, which has been reluctant to criticize Israel, a U.S. ally. But adding it now is vital both to guide policy and to contrast with President Donald Trump, whose administration has greenlighted hardline Israeli policies, the foreign policy experts argue in their message, an advance copy of which was shared exclusively with HuffPost.
Advertisement
The group wants the party and its presumptive presidential nominee Joe Biden to loudly oppose unilateral Israeli annexation of land in the West Bank, the area that would be integral to a full-fledged Palestinian state, as well as Israel’s military occupation of that region and its policy of building Israeli settlements there.
Biden faces a greater challenge than past Democratic nominees because Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu plans to begin annexation this summer with Trump’s blessing ― making the U.S. role in the Israel-Palestine dispute a major issue in the news just months before the November election.
Crafting a response will be complex for him. Republicans increasingly claim that the Democratic Party is abandoning Israel. Trump even said last year that American Jews, most of whom vote Democratic, are showing “either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty.” Democrats don’t want Republicans to seize another chance for an attack, but most want to defend the long-standing American goal of helping create two coexisting states of Israel and Palestine to prevent continued violence, repression and hatred.
The right strategy is to be clear about what Democrats stand for, the former officials say.
“Past party platforms have rightly stated a commitment to Israel’s security and included condemnations of threats and actions against our ally,” their letter reads. “Those platforms have, however, also been nearly silent on the rights of Palestinians, on Israeli actions that undermine those rights and the prospects for a two-state solution, and on the need for security for both peoples.”
Advertisement
“We ask that the platform ... make clear what a comprehensive effort to achieve a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should look like under a future Democratic administration, which includes a commitment to security, democracy, and human rights,” it continues.
Signatories include Avril Haines and Ben Rhodes, top officials under former President Barack Obama in what the likely Democratic nominee calls the “Obama-Biden administration,” and key advisers to Biden’s rivals for the 2020 Democratic nomination, like Doug Wilson, who worked for former South Bend, Indiana, mayor Pete Buttigieg, and aides to Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). High-ranking former diplomats who have worked on Israel and Palestine like Martin Indyk and Strobe Talbott are also among the group.
If Democrats do adopt the positions endorsed by the letter in the upcoming conversations about the party’s latest platform, they would be breaking with more conservative members of the party who have long argued it’s too politically risky to get into specifics on Israel and Palestine. In 2016, Democratic Party leaders declined to criticize either the occupation or the settlements. At the time, former California Rep. Henry Waxman said, “Those who litigate the particulars of a two-state solution between the Israelis and Palestinians by fighting for controversial language in the Democratic platform are severely misguided.”
For traditionally cautious foreign policy veterans to now advocate for that approach shows the way U.S. political discourse around the issue and Democrats’ expectations of their party have evolved.
As Trump has reshaped U.S. policy to favor Netanyahu and pressure Palestinians to accept a future state that’s much reduced from what they have long envisioned, right-wing Israelis and their supporters have become more ambitious in challenging the traditional Middle East peace process. Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s capitulations to Israel and the nation’s extreme moves have energized activists who want a more even-handed American approach.
Advertisement
Biden has repeatedly said he will not support annexation and highlighted his concern for Palestinians in messages in recent months to two major groups working on Israel policy, J Street and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. But he’s trying to balance the different parts of his potential coalition of voters.
Last week, he said he would preserve one of Trump’s biggest gifts to Netanyahu: U.S. acknowledgement of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, a step that American policymakers have long said should not take place until a peace deal is in place that acknowledges Palestinians’ claims to the historic city.
Biden’s circle includes figures who opposed the 2016 push for a sea change in the platform like former Hillary Clinton aide Jake Sullivan. Still, activists believe their thinking may have evolved because of Trump’s policies and increasing awareness among liberals, encouraged by Sanders, of Netanyahu’s often aggressive treatment of the Palestinians.
The Monday message echoed a petition circulated by J Street, a liberal Jewish organization that promotes a two-state solution for the Israelis and Palestinians. In March, the campaign secured signatures from more than 200 Jewish leaders for the same message and sent it to both the Republican and Democratic national committees.
Similar groups, lawmakers and powerful U.S. allies have warned Netanyahu that annexation threatens international support for Israel.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-04--DOJ Sides With Virginia Church In Lawsuit Over Governor's Coronavirus Orders

“ The Commonwealth can not treat religious gatherings less favorably than other similar , secular gatherings , ” G. Zachary Terwilliger , the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia , said in a statement .
The church ’ s lawsuit stems from a service that Lighthouse pastor Kevin Wilson held on April 5 , Palm Sunday .
Sixteen people attended the service in a sanctuary that seats over 200 people , according to the church ’ s lawyers .
The church reportedly had congregants practice social distancing and had sanitation products on hand .
At the end of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a criminal citation and summons .
In its statement , the DOJ said it is not taking a position on the advisability of in-person gatherings , acknowledging that those standards will vary over time .
But it pointed out that Northam ’ s executive orders allow groups over 10 to gather at “ any non-retail business and an array of retail businesses , including liquor stores , dry cleaners and department stores.
” “ The Commonwealth of Virginia has offered no good reason for refusing to trust congregants who promise to use care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trusts accountants , lawyers , and other workers to do the same , ” Dreiband said .
The review is part of a wider push within the Justice Department to involve itself in religious freedom lawsuits , even if the disputes are small and local .
In its first two years , the Trump administration ’ s DOJ has submitted more amicus curiae briefs , also known as friend-of-the-court briefs , in religious liberty cases than the Obama and Bush administrations did during their first two years , according to an analysis by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s DOJ has also filed briefs at lower-level courts faster than the previous two administrations .
U.S. Attorney General William Barr has directed the Justice Department to review state and local policies to `` ensure that civil liberties are protected during the COVID-19 pandemic , '' according to a statement .
The DOJ has stepped in to defend non-Christian houses of worship in cases involving land use .
However , the majority of its statements of interest and friend-of-the-court briefs are in defense of conservative Christian positions on issues such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ researchers at Columbia University ’ s Law , Rights , and Religion Project .
In weighing in to support churches that want to stay open during the coronavirus pandemic , the DOJ is taking a position that aligns most closely with the views of white evangelical Protestants , some of Trump ’ s most loyal religious supporters .
About one-third of white evangelicals support the idea of allowing churches and other religious organizations to hold in-person services , even in places where the government has issued stay-at-home orders , according to a Public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White evangelicals were more likely than other U.S. religious groups to support granting this religious exemption .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The U.S. Department of Justice has thrown its weight behind a Virginia church engaged in a legal battle against Gov. Ralph Northam’s coronavirus restrictions.
The DOJ filed a “statement of interest” on Sunday defending Lighthouse Fellowship Church, an evangelical Christian church on the state’s eastern shore accused of violating the Democratic governor’s stay-at-home order banning gatherings of over 10 people.
Advertisement
The department views the governor’s restrictions on in-person religious services as a potential violation of the First Amendment.
“The Commonwealth cannot treat religious gatherings less favorably than other similar, secular gatherings,” G. Zachary Terwilliger, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, said in a statement.
The church’s lawsuit stems from a service that Lighthouse pastor Kevin Wilson held on April 5, Palm Sunday. Sixteen people attended the service in a sanctuary that seats over 200 people, according to the church’s lawyers. The church reportedly had congregants practice social distancing and had sanitation products on hand. At the end of the service, Chincoteague police issued Wilson a criminal citation and summons.
People who violate Northam’s restrictions face up to one year in jail and a $2,500 fine.
Lighthouse sued for a preliminary injunction, but that request was denied by a district court on Friday.
Advertisement
Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, wearing a mask, watches as a coronavirus testing site is set up in Richmond on April 28, 2020. Northam has issued executive orders that ban in-person religious services of over 10 people. John McDonnell/The Washington Post via Getty Images
In its statement, the DOJ said it is not taking a position on the advisability of in-person gatherings, acknowledging that those standards will vary over time. But it pointed out that Northam’s executive orders allow groups over 10 to gather at “any non-retail business and an array of retail businesses, including liquor stores, dry cleaners and department stores.”
Eric Dreiband, who leads the DOJ’s civil rights division, said that exercising religion is “essential” for many people of faith, “especially during a crisis.”
“The Commonwealth of Virginia has offered no good reason for refusing to trust congregants who promise to use care in worship in the same way it trusts accountants, lawyers, and other workers to do the same,” Dreiband said.
Advertisement
Attorney General William Barr has tapped Dreiband to lead a nationwide review of state and local policies to “ensure that civil liberties are protected during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
The review is part of a wider push within the Justice Department to involve itself in religious freedom lawsuits, even if the disputes are small and local. In its first two years, the Trump administration’s DOJ has submitted more amicus curiae briefs, also known as friend-of-the-court briefs, in religious liberty cases than the Obama and Bush administrations did during their first two years, according to an analysis by NBC News and Columbia Journalism Investigations. Trump’s DOJ has also filed briefs at lower-level courts faster than the previous two administrations.
U.S. Attorney General William Barr has directed the Justice Department to review state and local policies to "ensure that civil liberties are protected during the COVID-19 pandemic," according to a statement. Alexander Drago / Reuters
The DOJ has stepped in to defend non-Christian houses of worship in cases involving land use. However, the majority of its statements of interest and friend-of-the-court briefs are in defense of conservative Christian positions on issues such as abortion and LGBTQ rights, according to researchers at Columbia University’s Law, Rights, and Religion Project.
In weighing in to support churches that want to stay open during the coronavirus pandemic, the DOJ is taking a position that aligns most closely with the views of white evangelical Protestants, some of Trump’s most loyal religious supporters.
Advertisement
About one-third of white evangelicals support the idea of allowing churches and other religious organizations to hold in-person services, even in places where the government has issued stay-at-home orders, according to a Public Religion Research Institute report published mid-April. White evangelicals were more likely than other U.S. religious groups to support granting this religious exemption.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-04--Carnival Says It Plans To Resume U.S. Cruises By Midsummer

Carnival Cruise Line , one of the world ’ s largest cruise companies , announced Monday that it plans to resume North American trips in midsummer with a very limited fleet .
Starting Aug. 1 , the company is preparing to end its freeze on trips during the coronavirus pandemic , with eight ships embarking on cruises out of Miami , Port Canaveral in central Florida and Galveston , Texas .
“ We are committed to supporting all public health efforts to manage the COVID-19 situation , ” Carnival , which is incorporated offshore in Panama , said in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measured approach , focusing our return to service on a select number of homeports where we have more significant operations that are easily accessible by car for the majority of our guests.
” The planned date to resume cruises falls just a week after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ’ s “ no sail ” order expires on July 24 .
However , the expiration date has been extended before , so there ’ s no guarantee that Carnival ’ s ships will actually be able to sail on Aug. 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have proven to be a significant breeding ground for the coronavirus .
A Carnival-owned Diamond Princess cruise ship that was quarantined at a port in Japan for weeks saw more than 700 confirmed COVID-19 cases and as many as 14 deaths .
It was the first significant outbreak of the virus outside China .
Carnival has come under intense scrutiny for not acting fast enough to curtail the virus ’ s spread .
But President Donald Trump is a close friend of Carnival chairman Micky Arison , whose company was a key sponsor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Apprentice.
” Even though the company is based in Panama and pays almost no U.S. federal income taxes , Trump named Arison to his back-to-work advisory council last month .
Travel experts are divided on whether cruise ships will ever be able to resume business as usual given the stigma of the coronavirus .
While some note cruising ’ s extremely loyal customer base , others say that won ’ t be enough .
“ Cruises won ’ t go away , but they will never return to normal , ” Konrad Waliszewski @ @ @ @ @ @ @ app TripScout , told HuffPost last month .
“ You can ’ t have the world commonly refer to you as ‘ a floating cesspool ’ and ever think you ’ ll thrive in a post-pandemic world .
Destinations were already starting to push back on cruises because of overtourism , and this will only accelerate that .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Carnival Cruise Line, one of the world’s largest cruise companies, announced Monday that it plans to resume North American trips in midsummer with a very limited fleet.
Starting Aug. 1, the company is preparing to end its freeze on trips during the coronavirus pandemic, with eight ships embarking on cruises out of Miami, Port Canaveral in central Florida and Galveston, Texas.
Advertisement
“We are committed to supporting all public health efforts to manage the COVID-19 situation,” Carnival, which is incorporated offshore in Panama, said in a statement. “We are taking a measured approach, focusing our return to service on a select number of homeports where we have more significant operations that are easily accessible by car for the majority of our guests.”
The planned date to resume cruises falls just a week after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s “no sail” order expires on July 24. However, the expiration date has been extended before, so there’s no guarantee that Carnival’s ships will actually be able to sail on Aug. 1.
Important update regarding our sailings: You can also view the latest list of impacted sailings here: https://t.co/ZNUqjhnYhq pic.twitter.com/qi13s72uie — Carnival Cruise Line (@CarnivalCruise) May 4, 2020
Cruise ships and their close quarters have proven to be a significant breeding ground for the coronavirus. A Carnival-owned Diamond Princess cruise ship that was quarantined at a port in Japan for weeks saw more than 700 confirmed COVID-19 cases and as many as 14 deaths. It was the first significant outbreak of the virus outside China.
Advertisement
Carnival has come under intense scrutiny for not acting fast enough to curtail the virus’s spread. But President Donald Trump is a close friend of Carnival chairman Micky Arison, whose company was a key sponsor of the Trump reality show “The Apprentice.” Even though the company is based in Panama and pays almost no U.S. federal income taxes, Trump named Arison to his back-to-work advisory council last month.
Travel experts are divided on whether cruise ships will ever be able to resume business as usual given the stigma of the coronavirus. While some note cruising’s extremely loyal customer base, others say that won’t be enough.
“Cruises won’t go away, but they will never return to normal,” Konrad Waliszewski, co-founder and CEO of the travel app TripScout, told HuffPost last month. “You can’t have the world commonly refer to you as ‘a floating cesspool’ and ever think you’ll thrive in a post-pandemic world. Destinations were already starting to push back on cruises because of overtourism, and this will only accelerate that.”