thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-29--Are 'Shy Trump Voters' Skewing The Polls?

There ’ s little question right now that former Vice President Joe Biden has the polling advantage over President Donald Trump .
That hasn ’ t stopped many people from questioning the polls .
In recent weeks , both gunshy Democrats and defensive Republicans have resurfaced an oft-heard theory from the last presidential election : that Trump ’ s backers are disproportionately likely to conceal their support from pollsters only to turn around and vote for him on Election Day .
It ’ s hard to disprove a negative or to gauge in advance how accurate current polls will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t yet happened .
What we do know , however , is that researchers spent a lot of time in the aftermath of the 2016 presidential vote looking for evidence of a cadre of “ shy Trump voters ” big enough to swing an election .
Most didn ’ t come away with much evidence to show for the idea .
The potential effect of such voters was a major focus of a postelection postmortem conducted by the American Association for Public Opinion Research , a professional organization for pollsters , as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who made up their minds in the last week before the 2016 election , the AAPOR report concludes , broke heavily toward Trump , especially in the key states of Michigan , Wisconsin , Pennsylvania and Florida .
In another survey , when voters were asked both before and after the election whom they supported , those who gave inconsistent answers disproportionately moved toward Trump .
Theoretically , that could indicate that many of those supposed late deciders were instead Trump supporters concealing their stance until the last minute .
Were Trump Voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
From looking at past campaigns , we know that this isn ’ t a systematic issue for all polling on Republican candidates ― in 2012 , for instance , polling overestimated support for Mitt Romney .
If support for Trump was uniquely stigmatized , you ’ d expect him to outperform his polls more than other Republican candidates did theirs .
An analysis of 24 live-caller surveys in the AAPOR report , however , found Trump outperformed his estimates by an average 1.4 percentage points in 2016 , compared with a virtually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Under the shy Trump voter theory , you ’ d also expect to see a pattern in how Trump ’ s numbers were affected by the mode in which a poll was conducted .
Specifically , his support should have been consistently lower in polls that used live interviewers ( in which Trump voters would need to admit their support out loud to another person ) and higher in those conducted online or using automated phone calls ( in which Trump voters merely had to click a button ) .
This , however @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was there any evidence of a relationship in the polls between support for Trump and the rates of voters saying they were undecided or were refusing to answer .
Voters might also have been less inclined to divulge their support for Trump to female or non-white interviewers than to white male ones .
There was no evidence for this , either .
As the report notes , none of this is conclusive evidence against the shy Trump voter hypothesis , but it is “ inconsistent with expectations ” of the theory .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2016 election , found that Trump performed 1 percentage point better among the online respondents , a result that was “ statistically insignificant and within the poll ’ s margin of error.
” ( It did , however , find that the difference was “ especially pronounced among people with a college degree or people who make more than $ 50,000.
” ) In effect , those pollsters concluded , while an added sliver of general-election Trump voters existed , it wasn ’ t enough to swing an election .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office in 2017 , people giving their answers to a live person were likelier to claim they were very satisfied with their family life and to deny facing financial troubles .
But on four questions about Trump ― his approval rating , his favorability rating and whether he was trustworthy or a strong leader ― there were no significant differences .
In contrast to all this , the research supporting the existence of a significant shy Trump vote count is far more limited .
One set of 2016 surveys from Cornell University , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported themselves as undecided also , if pushed to weigh in on which candidate was “ more truthful , ” disproportionately sided with Trump ― a finding that the authors argue suggests they were “ hesitant to voice their support for Trump.
” Were Trump Voters Just Not Taking Polls At All ?
Non-response bias , which occurs when some types of people are more likely than others to answer surveys , is a known hazard in polling .
Ideally , that ’ s corrected through weighting the results .
But the fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to respond to polls and to dislike Trump ― and that polls weren ’ t always weighted to address that ― was , in fact , likely a serious factor in why those polls missed his 2016 victory in key states .
With the 2016 election now a few years in the rearview mirror , we have a better idea of what did happen ― as we wrote earlier , “ a perfect storm of small but compounding problems ” that led polls to miss the mark , significantly , in key states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weighting issues , are fixable .
Others , like late-deciding voters breaking hard in one direction , are simply a part of the uncertainty inherent in even good surveys .
Since then , many pollsters have implemented a number of changes , both in their methodology and in the way they characterize results .
During the 2018 midterms , polling had , by historical standards , a pretty strong year .
And though the current race is far from over , Biden ’ s current lead is considerably wider than Hillary Clinton ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if it holds , it would take a more substantial polling error to overcome it .
Polls are neither a guaranteed forecast of what ’ s going to happen nor a pinpoint-precise measurement of what people think now .
They are , however , a pretty good gauge for the basic state of an election at the time they ’ re taken .
And though all surveys are inherently subject to some degree of uncertainty and error , there ’ s not a lot of evidence to suggest that Trump voters lying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .

The shadow of President Donald Trump falls on a flag during a Feb. 20 campaign rally in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Evan Vucci/ASSOCIATED PRESS
There’s little question right now that former Vice President Joe Biden has the polling advantage over President Donald Trump. That hasn’t stopped many people from questioning the polls. In recent weeks, both gunshy Democrats and defensive Republicans have resurfaced an oft-heard theory from the last presidential election: that Trump’s backers are disproportionately likely to conceal their support from pollsters only to turn around and vote for him on Election Day.
In a recent poll of Pennsylvanians, 57% of voters said they believed that there were at least some “secret” Trump supporters in their community.
Advertisement
It’s hard to disprove a negative or to gauge in advance how accurate current polls will be at predicting an election that hasn’t yet happened. What we do know, however, is that researchers spent a lot of time in the aftermath of the 2016 presidential vote looking for evidence of a cadre of “shy Trump voters” big enough to swing an election. Most didn’t come away with much evidence to show for the idea.
The potential effect of such voters was a major focus of a postelection postmortem conducted by the American Association for Public Opinion Research, a professional organization for pollsters, as well as a few additional experiments. Voters who made up their minds in the last week before the 2016 election, the AAPOR report concludes, broke heavily toward Trump, especially in the key states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida. In another survey, when voters were asked both before and after the election whom they supported, those who gave inconsistent answers disproportionately moved toward Trump. Theoretically, that could indicate that many of those supposed late deciders were instead Trump supporters concealing their stance until the last minute.
But a number of other tests conducted to assess that possibility, the report found, “yielded no evidence to support it.”
Were Trump Voters Embarrassed To Tell Interviewers Whom They Supported?
The most common version of the shy Trump voter theory rests on the idea of social desirability bias ― that a significant bloc of Trump voters was uncomfortable enough about sharing opinions with pollsters to either feign indecision or to lie about their preferences.
Advertisement
From looking at past campaigns, we know that this isn’t a systematic issue for all polling on Republican candidates ― in 2012, for instance, polling overestimated support for Mitt Romney. If support for Trump was uniquely stigmatized, you’d expect him to outperform his polls more than other Republican candidates did theirs. An analysis of 24 live-caller surveys in the AAPOR report, however, found Trump outperformed his estimates by an average 1.4 percentage points in 2016, compared with a virtually identical 1.3 points for GOP Senate candidates
Under the shy Trump voter theory, you’d also expect to see a pattern in how Trump’s numbers were affected by the mode in which a poll was conducted. Specifically, his support should have been consistently lower in polls that used live interviewers (in which Trump voters would need to admit their support out loud to another person) and higher in those conducted online or using automated phone calls (in which Trump voters merely had to click a button). This, however, didn’t happen. Nor was there any evidence of a relationship in the polls between support for Trump and the rates of voters saying they were undecided or were refusing to answer.
Voters might also have been less inclined to divulge their support for Trump to female or non-white interviewers than to white male ones. There was no evidence for this, either. As the report notes, none of this is conclusive evidence against the shy Trump voter hypothesis, but it is “inconsistent with expectations” of the theory.
Pollsters from Politico/Morning Consult and Pew Research tested the effects of survey mode through more direct experiments. Both divided respondents into two groups, assigning half to be interviewed by another person and the rest to take the same poll online.
The Politico/Morning Consult survey, taken just before the 2016 election, found that Trump performed 1 percentage point better among the online respondents, a result that was “statistically insignificant and within the poll’s margin of error.” (It did, however, find that the difference was “especially pronounced among people with a college degree or people who make more than $50,000.”) In effect, those pollsters concluded, while an added sliver of general-election Trump voters existed, it wasn’t enough to swing an election.
Advertisement
In the Pew poll, conducted after Trump took office in 2017, people giving their answers to a live person were likelier to claim they were very satisfied with their family life and to deny facing financial troubles. But on four questions about Trump ― his approval rating, his favorability rating and whether he was trustworthy or a strong leader ― there were no significant differences.
Additionally, though Trump has at times fared better in online polls than in live-interviewer polls during the current election cycle, the difference has not been consistent in either direction.
It’s possible that many Trump voters were, contrary to expectations, equally unwilling to express their true opinions online. But another online survey, from political scientist Alexander Coppock, used a technique called a list experiment that allowed respondents to express their support for theoretically controversial statements without having to endorse them outright. That approach didn’t yield evidence of a shy Trump voter either.
In contrast to all this, the research supporting the existence of a significant shy Trump vote count is far more limited. One set of 2016 surveys from Cornell University, however, did find that voters who reported themselves as undecided also, if pushed to weigh in on which candidate was “more truthful,” disproportionately sided with Trump ― a finding that the authors argue suggests they were “hesitant to voice their support for Trump.”
Were Trump Voters Just Not Taking Polls At All?
There’s another reason polls might underestimate Trump voters: If, rather than being prone to answering polls untruthfully, these voters were simply more unlikely to answer polls at all. For an industry battling ever-decreasing response rates, this is, as the AAPOR report puts it, an “alarming possibility.”
Advertisement
Non-response bias, which occurs when some types of people are more likely than others to answer surveys, is a known hazard in polling. Ideally, that’s corrected through weighting the results. But the fact that college-educated Americans were disproportionately likely both to respond to polls and to dislike Trump ― and that polls weren’t always weighted to address that ― was, in fact, likely a serious factor in why those polls missed his 2016 victory in key states.
Still, the AAPOR report concluded that “staunchly pro-Trump areas,” at least, were not underrepresented in polls. A subsequent Pew study on non-response, using actual voting data, concluded that Democratic-leaning adults weren’t any likelier to respond to a survey than were Republican-leaning ones. Research from CBS returned similar findings.
More broadly, although non-response to telephone polls has risen sharply over the past few decades, election polls haven’t seen a correspondingly steep decrease in accuracy.
Can Polls Be Trusted?
With the 2016 election now a few years in the rearview mirror, we have a better idea of what did happen ― as we wrote earlier, “a perfect storm of small but compounding problems” that led polls to miss the mark, significantly, in key states. Some of those problems, like weighting issues, are fixable. Others, like late-deciding voters breaking hard in one direction, are simply a part of the uncertainty inherent in even good surveys.
Since then, many pollsters have implemented a number of changes, both in their methodology and in the way they characterize results. During the 2018 midterms, polling had, by historical standards, a pretty strong year. And though the current race is far from over, Biden’s current lead is considerably wider than Hillary Clinton’s was in 2016, meaning that, if it holds, it would take a more substantial polling error to overcome it.
Advertisement
Polls are neither a guaranteed forecast of what’s going to happen nor a pinpoint-precise measurement of what people think now. They are, however, a pretty good gauge for the basic state of an election at the time they’re taken. And though all surveys are inherently subject to some degree of uncertainty and error, there’s not a lot of evidence to suggest that Trump voters lying to pollsters is a major source of it.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-28--Progressive Senators Ready To Help Confirm 2 Anti-Choice Trump Judges

WASHINGTON ― Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth are progressive Illinois senators who support abortion rights .
They both scored the full 100 points on NARAL Pro-Choice America ’ s 2019 congressional scorecard .
And in the coming weeks , they are ready to help confirm two of President Donald Trump ’ s judicial nominees who have records of hostility to women ’ s reproductive rights and Roe v. Wade .
The Democratic senators praised Stephen McGlynn and David Dugan when Trump nominated them to lifetime federal court seats last December and February , respectively .
Both have been picked for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Southern District of Illinois .
“ We are pleased that the President has nominated Judge Stephen McGlynn , ” Durbin and Duckworth said in a joint statement last December .
“ He has the qualifications , integrity , and judgment to serve with distinction as a district court judge in the Southern District of Illinois .
We appreciate the Administration ’ s willingness to work with us and with our nonpartisan screening committee to reach consensus on nominees who will serve the people of Illinois well .
We look forward to guiding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Duckworth are certainly hampered in choosing federal judicial nominees .
By Senate custom , senators and presidents work together in naming federal district court judges for each senator ’ s state .
Under the agreed-upon selection process for Illinois , the president ’ s party gets to pick candidates for three out of every four district court vacancies , the other party picks the fourth candidate , and both parties agree to a package where all four nominees move forward together .
That ’ s the context for McGlynn and Dugan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a package of four district court nominees .
( The other two nominees are GOP pick Iain Johnston and Democratic pick Franklin Valderrama for seats on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois . )
“ Some have argued it should have been someone else .
It was not my choice nor the choice of Sen. Duckworth , ” Durbin said in opening remarks at McGlynn and Dugan ’ s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in June .
“ It was a decision by [ Illinois GOP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delegation that led to these nominees.
” McGlynn , who is currently an Illinois state judge , was a member of the Illinois Federation for Right to Life in 2007 , a nonprofit group that describes itself as “ working to end abortion ” since 1973 .
As a candidate for a state judicial seat in 2012 , McGlynn was endorsed by the Illinois Federation for Right-to-Life PAC and the Illinois Citizens for Life PAC .
McGlynn also chaired the platform and resolution committee for the Illinois Republican Party in 2004 .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stated , “ From the first beat of a heart to the last breath drawn , we recognize each individual ’ s dignity and worth .
Government is obligated , by law and by deed , to protect and defend each individual ’ s right to life , not only from government action , but also against a threat from another .
The right to life is of such primacy that no government entity nor any person shall be allowed to take another ’ s life without due process of law and only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Government must defend and protect those who by age , disability or other affliction can not protect themselves .
This includes the protection of the unborn child.
” Asked about this language last month by Sen. Richard Blumenthal ( D-Conn. ) , a member of the Judiciary Committee , McGlynn said the platform was a political document with input from lots of GOP officials .
But Charlie Johnston , a conservative blogger in Illinois and friend of McGlynn ’ s , wrote in 2008 that “ it was McGlynn who did the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most comprehensively pro-life platform in the nation.
” Dugan , also currently an Illinois state judge , wrote in a 2018 judicial candidate survey for Illinois Right to Life Action that he had “ been deeply involved in various organizations as a pro-life advocate ” and that he questioned the Supreme Court ’ s decision in Roe v. Wade .
“ For a number of reasons , the case of Roe v. Wade is sorely misplaced , ” he continued .
The Supreme Court decision is established law , he said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do not believe that the Illinois Constitution , independent of the United States Constitution , provides a sound basis for expansion of the right of privacy to the same extent ” as laid out in Roe v. Wade .
Asked about his past comments on Roe v. Wade during his June confirmation hearing , Dugan said , “ You do have my word and you do have my record that I will follow precedent and I will follow the law and I always have .
”

Illinois Sens. Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth, both Democrats, are usually strong advocates for women's reproductive rights. Joe Raedle via Getty Images
WASHINGTON ― Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth are progressive Illinois senators who support abortion rights. They both scored the full 100 points on NARAL Pro-Choice America’s 2019 congressional scorecard. And in the coming weeks, they are ready to help confirm two of President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees who have records of hostility to women’s reproductive rights and Roe v. Wade.
The Democratic senators praised Stephen McGlynn and David Dugan when Trump nominated them to lifetime federal court seats last December and February, respectively. Both have been picked for seats on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
Advertisement
“We are pleased that the President has nominated Judge Stephen McGlynn,” Durbin and Duckworth said in a joint statement last December. “He has the qualifications, integrity, and judgment to serve with distinction as a district court judge in the Southern District of Illinois. We appreciate the Administration’s willingness to work with us and with our nonpartisan screening committee to reach consensus on nominees who will serve the people of Illinois well. We look forward to guiding his nomination through the Senate.”
They issued a similar joint statement for Dugan in February.
But their public support glosses over McGlynn’s and Dugan’s opposition to abortion rights, which is odd considering that both senators are known for being strong supporters of women’s rights.
Durbin and Duckworth are certainly hampered in choosing federal judicial nominees. By Senate custom, senators and presidents work together in naming federal district court judges for each senator’s state. Under the agreed-upon selection process for Illinois, the president’s party gets to pick candidates for three out of every four district court vacancies, the other party picks the fourth candidate, and both parties agree to a package where all four nominees move forward together. That’s the context for McGlynn and Dugan, both of whom were picked by Republicans in a package of four district court nominees. (The other two nominees are GOP pick Iain Johnston and Democratic pick Franklin Valderrama for seats on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.)
What’s surprising, though, is that the Democratic senators agreed to this package and will help confirm two lifetime federal judges strongly opposed by reproductive rights groups.
Advertisement
“Some have argued it should have been someone else. It was not my choice nor the choice of Sen. Duckworth,” Durbin said in opening remarks at McGlynn and Dugan’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in June. “It was a decision by [Illinois GOP Rep. John] Shimkus and the Republican delegation that led to these nominees.”
Requests for comment from the senators’ offices were not returned.
McGlynn, who is currently an Illinois state judge, was a member of the Illinois Federation for Right to Life in 2007, a nonprofit group that describes itself as “working to end abortion” since 1973. As a candidate for a state judicial seat in 2012, McGlynn was endorsed by the Illinois Federation for Right-to-Life PAC and the Illinois Citizens for Life PAC.
McGlynn also chaired the platform and resolution committee for the Illinois Republican Party in 2004. That year, the party’s platform stated, “From the first beat of a heart to the last breath drawn, we recognize each individual’s dignity and worth. Government is obligated, by law and by deed, to protect and defend each individual’s right to life, not only from government action, but also against a threat from another. The right to life is of such primacy that no government entity nor any person shall be allowed to take another’s life without due process of law and only under the most compelling and grave circumstances. Government must defend and protect those who by age, disability or other affliction cannot protect themselves. This includes the protection of the unborn child.”
Asked about this language last month by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, McGlynn said the platform was a political document with input from lots of GOP officials. But Charlie Johnston, a conservative blogger in Illinois and friend of McGlynn’s, wrote in 2008 that “it was McGlynn who did the writing” and that it was “the most comprehensively pro-life platform in the nation.”
Dugan, also currently an Illinois state judge, wrote in a 2018 judicial candidate survey for Illinois Right to Life Action that he had “been deeply involved in various organizations as a pro-life advocate” and that he questioned the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade.
Advertisement
“My belief is that life begins at conception and that from that moment forward, taking that child’s life is the taking of a human life,” Dugan said.
“For a number of reasons, the case of Roe v. Wade is sorely misplaced,” he continued. The Supreme Court decision is established law, he said, but “even with that, I do not believe that the Illinois Constitution, independent of the United States Constitution, provides a sound basis for expansion of the right of privacy to the same extent” as laid out in Roe v. Wade.
Dugan also said in the survey that he supported restrictions on young women’s access to abortion because they may be “presumably very emotional and maybe even irrational.”
The judge was a co-founder of Illinois Vision 2020, a nonprofit whose goal is to “end abortion in Illinois by 2020” and which partners with the Illinois Federation for Right to Life.
Asked about his past comments on Roe v. Wade during his June confirmation hearing, Dugan said, “You do have my word and you do have my record that I will follow precedent and I will follow the law and I always have.”
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-29--Paul Krugman: 'One Way Or Another, The Economy Is Going To Lock Down Again’

“ One way or another , the economy is going to lock down again , ” warned Paul Krugman on Tuesday night .
“ This is where we ’ ve gotten to , ” the noted economist lamented to CNN ’ s Don Lemon .
“ We squandered the chance to actually bring this thing ( the coronavirus ) under control , ” he said , pointing to the premature reopening of states ( encouraged by President Donald Trump ) , which led to a devastating resurgence of COVID-19 .
Krugman predicted a new lockdown would come about either “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says ‘ OK , we screwed it up , we need to do it over again ’ or just because people are too afraid ” to go out and resume business as usual .
The economist , awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics in 2008 , also cast doubt on Trump ’ s upbeat assessment of the economy .
Krugman , who earlier this month slammed the Trump administration ’ s handling of the public health crisis with an analogy about the Titanic , noted how “ every indicator we have is @ @ @ @ @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
“One way or another, the economy is going to lock down again,” warned Paul Krugman on Tuesday night.
“This is where we’ve gotten to,” the noted economist lamented to CNN’s Don Lemon. “We squandered the chance to actually bring this thing (the coronavirus) under control,” he said, pointing to the premature reopening of states (encouraged by President Donald Trump), which led to a devastating resurgence of COVID-19.
Krugman predicted a new lockdown would come about either “because governors and hopefully the president finally says ‘OK, we screwed it up, we need to do it over again’ or just because people are too afraid” to go out and resume business as usual.
Advertisement
The economist, awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics in 2008, also cast doubt on Trump’s upbeat assessment of the economy.
Krugman, who earlier this month slammed the Trump administration’s handling of the public health crisis with an analogy about the Titanic, noted how “every indicator we have is that the recovery has stalled.”
Check out the full interview here:


thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-29--Millions Of Americans Are About To Be Homeless, And It’s Totally Preventable

If Congress doesn ’ t step in , these people could be evicted come September .
And the worst part is that this looming crisis is completely avoidable .
All lawmakers need to do is take quick and decisive action by extending the moratorium and additional unemployment benefits as the pandemic crisis continues .
But that ’ s yet to happen .
“ Senate Republicans have proposed giveaways to big banks and defense contractors but almost no support to help families keep their homes , ” added Warren , who last month introduced legislation that would extend the eviction moratorium @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relief package must include my bill to extend and expand the eviction moratorium.
” Even before coronavirus hit , millions of families lived paycheck to paycheck , with more than 20 million struggling to pay rent .
Now , with COVID-19 killing thousands and putting even more out of work , the effects on Americans ’ abilities to pay rent have been devastating .
“ It ’ s scary right now , ” Laurin Scarpelli , an Arizona mother of two , told HuffPost .
Scarpelli said she is unable to return to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ child care and is at high risk for COVID-19 complications .
“ The safest place to be is at home .
If you ’ re going to lose your home , what do you have ?
” Just over 30 % of U.S. households were not able to pay their July rent on time , according to a recent report from Apartment List .
Of those , the majority were young and low-income renters in urban areas .
As many as 23 million renters could be evicted by the end of September , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with Latinx and Black renters affected the most .
That ’ s around the same percentage of households who believe they won ’ t be able to make their next monthly rent or mortgage payment , a Census Bureau survey found .
“ If the federal eviction moratorium is not extended , if the state and local eviction moratoriums that are scheduled to expire in the coming weeks do , and if no emergency rental assistance is provided , then from the end of August through fall , millions of Americans will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she added .
Some states that implemented and then lifted rent moratoriums during the pandemic have seen an uptick in eviction cases .
When Wisconsin lifted its state moratorium on rent increases in May , Milwaukee saw a 13 % increase in eviction cases by the end of June , two-thirds of which were in majority Black communities .
As families lose their homes , they ’ re forced to live in more densely populated places , whether it ’ s in shelters , on the streets or doubling up on housing arrangements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easily contracted .
States currently experiencing a record number of coronavirus cases are also expected to face high rates of evictions in the coming months .
In Florida , which recently shattered the U.S. record for most coronavirus cases in a day , 51 % of renter households are at risk of eviction , according to a CNBC analysis .
In Texas , a state that has also seen an alarming rise in cases , 48 % of residents are at risk of eviction .
The current crisis is “ like nothing we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pollock , coordinator of the National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel , told CNBC .
In 2016 , there were 2.3 million evictions , according to Princeton University ’ s Eviction Lab , which tracks evictions in the U.S. “ There could be that many evictions in August , ” Pollock said .
For individuals who are evicted , it can have a ripple effect that will last much longer than the pandemic .
“ Evictions inhibit your ability to find future housing , they spoil your credit , they often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exacerbate health problems , and lead to increased reports of stress , depression and suicidal ideation , ” Hepburn said .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The federal moratorium on evictions expired last Friday, ending protections for nearly 12 million Americans. This Friday, 25 million people will stop receiving an extra $600 in weekly coronavirus relief in their unemployment benefits.
And on Saturday, rent is due for millions of Americans who won’t be able to pay.
If Congress doesn’t step in, these people could be evicted come September. And the worst part is that this looming crisis is completely avoidable. All lawmakers need to do is take quick and decisive action by extending the moratorium and additional unemployment benefits as the pandemic crisis continues. But that’s yet to happen.
Advertisement
On Monday, Senate Republicans unveiled a new COVID-19 relief package that did not include an eviction moratorium, in spite of urging from Democrats. While negotiations are ongoing, time is running out.
“We have the power to stop the coming avalanche of evictions during this pandemic that will hit Black, brown and poor communities the worst ― and we’ve already waited too long to act,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) told HuffPost on Tuesday evening.
“Senate Republicans have proposed giveaways to big banks and defense contractors but almost no support to help families keep their homes,” added Warren, who last month introduced legislation that would extend the eviction moratorium until March 2021. “The next relief package must include my bill to extend and expand the eviction moratorium.”
Even before coronavirus hit, millions of families lived paycheck to paycheck, with more than 20 million struggling to pay rent. Now, with COVID-19 killing thousands and putting even more out of work, the effects on Americans’ abilities to pay rent have been devastating.
Advertisement
“It’s scary right now,” Laurin Scarpelli, an Arizona mother of two, told HuffPost. Scarpelli said she is unable to return to work because she doesn’t have child care and is at high risk for COVID-19 complications. “The safest place to be is at home. If you’re going to lose your home, what do you have?”
“We have the power to stop the coming avalanche of evictions during this pandemic that will hit Black, brown and poor communities the worst.” - Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)
Just over 30% of U.S. households were not able to pay their July rent on time, according to a recent report from Apartment List. Of those, the majority were young and low-income renters in urban areas.
As many as 23 million renters could be evicted by the end of September, according to the COVID-19 Eviction Defense Project, with Latinx and Black renters affected the most. That’s around the same percentage of households who believe they won’t be able to make their next monthly rent or mortgage payment, a Census Bureau survey found.
The looming eviction crisis is both “completely predictable and entirely preventable,” said Diane Yentel, president and CEO of National Low Income Housing Coalition.
Advertisement
“If the federal eviction moratorium is not extended, if the state and local eviction moratoriums that are scheduled to expire in the coming weeks do, and if no emergency rental assistance is provided, then from the end of August through fall, millions of Americans will be evicted from their homes,” she added.
Some states that implemented and then lifted rent moratoriums during the pandemic have seen an uptick in eviction cases. When Wisconsin lifted its state moratorium on rent increases in May, Milwaukee saw a 13% increase in eviction cases by the end of June, two-thirds of which were in majority Black communities.
In contrast, Ithaca, New York, where 70% of residents rent, became the first city to pass a resolution giving the mayor approval to cancel rent. The proposal, which is awaiting approval from Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D), would also ban evictions.
Tenants and housing activists gather for a rally and march in Brooklyn's Bushwick neighborhood, demanding that city administrators cancel rent immediately as the financial situation for many New Yorkers remains dire amid the coronavirus pandemic. Erik McGregor via Getty Images
“Evictions disproportionately target Black renters, especially Black women with children,” said Peter Hepburn, an Eviction Lab-Princeton University researcher. “A wave of eviction serves to exacerbate entrenched racial inequalities in this country.”
Advertisement
As families lose their homes, they’re forced to live in more densely populated places, whether it’s in shelters, on the streets or doubling up on housing arrangements ― conditions in which COVID-19 is more easily contracted. States currently experiencing a record number of coronavirus cases are also expected to face high rates of evictions in the coming months. In Florida, which recently shattered the U.S. record for most coronavirus cases in a day, 51% of renter households are at risk of eviction, according to a CNBC analysis. In Texas, a state that has also seen an alarming rise in cases, 48% of residents are at risk of eviction.
The current crisis is “like nothing we’ve ever seen,” John Pollock, coordinator of the National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel, told CNBC. In 2016, there were 2.3 million evictions, according to Princeton University’s Eviction Lab, which tracks evictions in the U.S. “There could be that many evictions in August,” Pollock said.
A surge of evictions could undermine the rental housing market, Hepburn said, which could easily create a crisis “that would make the Great Recession look insignificant.”
For individuals who are evicted, it can have a ripple effect that will last much longer than the pandemic. “Evictions inhibit your ability to find future housing, they spoil your credit, they often lead to job loss, they can exacerbate health problems, and lead to increased reports of stress, depression and suicidal ideation,” Hepburn said.
Over the next several days or weeks, Congress and the White House will have to decide whether they’re willing to let that happen.
Advertisement
Larry Kudlow, White House economic adviser, recently said he plans to “lengthen” the four-month federal eviction moratorium but later said the extension will only apply to federally financed housing, not rentals.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other Democrats criticized the GOP plan for lacking an eviction moratorium. Given many Republicans’ opposition to an additional large spending bill on COVID-19 relief and Democratic control of the House, the Democratic Party will be vital in getting a package passed.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-29--Joe Biden's Child Care Plan Is As Much About The Messenger As It Is About The Message

The main goal of Biden ’ s plan is to make sure every family can access affordable , high-quality child care .
It calls for a complex mix of spending and regulations that could help millions of families , though a debate over its particulars would raise plenty of criticisms from both left and right .
Child care has been getting more attention in politics lately , partly because the COVID-19 pandemic has left so many working parents in the lurch .
Large numbers of providers have shut down already , and as many as half might never reopen , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been struggling to find child care since long before COVID-19 came along .
Proposals to address the problem with major federal action have never gone far , in part because the largely male political establishment has never taken those proposals seriously .
The most obvious and probably the best way to change that would be to elect more women .
But it would also help to elect more men who consider child care a priority .
Biden could be one of them , if last week ’ s announcement is indicative .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Care Biden might seem like an unlikely champion for child care , given his age .
Younger men are a lot more accustomed to a world where women have independent work lives and where fathers , as well as mothers , have to change diapers , cook meals and struggle with the tensions between work and family .
These days , on average , fathers put about eight hours a week into caring for children , according to data from Pew Research .
In 1965 , they were putting in only 2.5 hours @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot less parenting than mothers , they ’ re doing a lot more than the men of Biden ’ s generation typically did .
Even though I had a lot more support than a lot of people going through tough times today , it was hard .
Joe Biden , on the years when he was raising two children on his own But Biden was a single father for several years in the 1970s , following the car accident that took the life of his wife and young daughter .
That tragic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think about parenting in a way that few men of his generation do .
“ Even though I had a lot more support than a lot of people going through tough times today , it was hard , ” Biden said last week in his speech introducing the caregiving agenda .
“ If I didn ’ t have my mom , my sister and my brother , I don ’ t know how I ’ d been able to afford it.
” Many end up losing income or leaving their kids in less-than-ideal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be physically hazardous .
This has all kinds of negative effects on society , and it ’ s possible to measure them , whether it ’ s poorer health among adults who didn ’ t get nurturing care when they were very young or lost productivity among working parents ― again , mostly working mothers ― who are passing up job opportunities and promotions .
COVID-19 appears to be making these problems more severe .
Among parents in two-income households , one-third of mothers report they are the only ones watching over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are , according to a study from researchers at the University of Southern California .
Experts like Betsey Stevenson , a University of Michigan labor economist , are warning that the effects could be long-lasting .
“ When parents step out of the labor force for five years , they pay a hefty penalty in terms of lost wages and promotions when they return , ” Stevenson told HuffPost .
“ The United States must invest more in children if we are going to help today ’ s adults succeed in the labor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do even better.
” What Biden Proposes To Do Key features of the plan include subsidized child care for young children , free pre-kindergarten for 3- and 4-year-olds , and tax credits that parents could use to offset the care for children of any age up to 13 .
The level of federal assistance would depend on the program and vary by income .
“ If you say we want more credentials , we want more training , but we don ’ t provide the pay , then those people are just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other opportunities where they can make more money , ” said Katie Hamm , who provided input on the Biden plan and is vice president for early childhood policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund .
The program as a whole would require several hundred billion dollars in new federal spending over 10 years , according to the campaign .
That is a lot of money , at least by historical standards , but probably not enough to make decent child care available for everybody who needs it .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden last week rolled out a “caregiving agenda” that, among other things, envisions an ambitious new federal child care initiative.
That initiative deserves a lot more attention than it’s getting.
The main goal of Biden’s plan is to make sure every family can access affordable, high-quality child care. It calls for a complex mix of spending and regulations that could help millions of families, though a debate over its particulars would raise plenty of criticisms from both left and right.
Advertisement
But the real significance of Biden’s plan may be the message it sends about the changing politics of child care ― and which leaders should be talking about it.
Child care has been getting more attention in politics lately, partly because the COVID-19 pandemic has left so many working parents in the lurch. Large numbers of providers have shut down already, and as many as half might never reopen, according to one study.
Even Republicans, traditionally reluctant to spend big money on federal child care programs, put $15 billion of extra subsidies into their new coronavirus response package ― although, advocates warned, the money wouldn’t be nearly enough.
But parents have been struggling to find child care since long before COVID-19 came along. Proposals to address the problem with major federal action have never gone far, in part because the largely male political establishment has never taken those proposals seriously.
Advertisement
The most obvious and probably the best way to change that would be to elect more women. But it would also help to elect more men who consider child care a priority. Biden could be one of them, if last week’s announcement is indicative.
What Biden Seems To Get About Child Care
Biden might seem like an unlikely champion for child care, given his age. Younger men are a lot more accustomed to a world where women have independent work lives and where fathers, as well as mothers, have to change diapers, cook meals and struggle with the tensions between work and family.
These days, on average, fathers put about eight hours a week into caring for children, according to data from Pew Research. In 1965, they were putting in only 2.5 hours. Although fathers today are still doing a lot less parenting than mothers, they’re doing a lot more than the men of Biden’s generation typically did.
“Even though I had a lot more support than a lot of people going through tough times today, it was hard.” - Joe Biden, on the years when he was raising two children on his own
But Biden was a single father for several years in the 1970s, following the car accident that took the life of his wife and young daughter. That tragic, defining episode may have made him think about parenting in a way that few men of his generation do.
Advertisement
“Even though I had a lot more support than a lot of people going through tough times today, it was hard,” Biden said last week in his speech introducing the caregiving agenda. “If I didn’t have my mom, my sister and my brother, I don’t know how I’d been able to afford it.”
That is still the reality for many American families, whether it’s single parents or dual-earner couples. Their ability to take care of kids depends heavily on help from relatives and neighbors because it’s so hard to find decent, affordable child care outside the home.
Many end up losing income or leaving their kids in less-than-ideal arrangements, the worst of which can be physically hazardous. This has all kinds of negative effects on society, and it’s possible to measure them, whether it’s poorer health among adults who didn’t get nurturing care when they were very young or lost productivity among working parents ― again, mostly working mothers ― who are passing up job opportunities and promotions.
COVID-19 appears to be making these problems more severe. Among parents in two-income households, one-third of mothers report they are the only ones watching over the kids, while just one-tenth of fathers are, according to a study from researchers at the University of Southern California.
Experts like Betsey Stevenson, a University of Michigan labor economist, are warning that the effects could be long-lasting. “When parents step out of the labor force for five years, they pay a hefty penalty in terms of lost wages and promotions when they return,” Stevenson told HuffPost. “The United States must invest more in children if we are going to help today’s adults succeed in the labor force and prepare tomorrow’s adults to do even better.”
Advertisement
What Biden Proposes To Do
Key parts of Biden’s plan overlap with legislation that Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) has been championing for years. It also has a lot in common with plans that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made centerpieces of their respective presidential campaigns.
Key features of the plan include subsidized child care for young children, free pre-kindergarten for 3- and 4-year-olds, and tax credits that parents could use to offset the care for children of any age up to 13. The level of federal assistance would depend on the program and vary by income.
Quality is another big focus. To get federal funding, programs would have to meet standards for class size and curriculum. Caregivers would need more training, but they’d also get higher pay, putting them on a par with similarly qualified grade school teachers.
“If you say we want more credentials, we want more training, but we don’t provide the pay, then those people are just going to go to elementary schools and other opportunities where they can make more money,” said Katie Hamm, who provided input on the Biden plan and is vice president for early childhood policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
The program as a whole would require several hundred billion dollars in new federal spending over 10 years, according to the campaign. That is a lot of money, at least by historical standards, but probably not enough to make decent child care available for everybody who needs it.
Advertisement
Progressives might wonder why Biden doesn’t propose spending more ― and, perhaps, making child care totally free, as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) proposed in his 2020 Democratic presidential campaign. Others, from a variety of political perspectives, might prefer a plan that included more help for parents who stay at home.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-28--Top Democrats Hope To Extend Superdelegate Reforms Through 2024 Primary

If they succeed , the Democrats ’ effort would ensure that , among other things , the elected officials and party insiders known as superdelegates would remain bound by the preference of their state ’ s primary voters or caucus-goers until the second ballot at the party ’ s national convention .
The resolution to extend those reforms , which the Democratic National Convention ’ s rules committee is set to consider Thursday , would also require the Democratic National Committee ’ s Rules and Bylaws Committee to formally review the effectiveness of the 2018 reforms .
The resolution ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process clears the way for permanent adoption of those reforms .
But the resolution also has the support of at least four state party chairs from a range of political and ideological backgrounds : Washington state ’ s Tina Podlodowski , Minnesota ’ s Ken Martin , Nebraska ’ s Jane Kleeb and South Carolina ’ s Trav Robertson .
( Martin is also chair of the Association of State Democratic Committees , the umbrella group for state parties . )
“ My hope is that virtually everybody on the committee will vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about continuing to build faith with Democratic voters , particularly younger voters , ” Cohen said .
“ This sets an important tone for Vice President Biden in this election and for his presidency ― that democratizing the rules inside and outside the party in order to achieve change in this country is part of his agenda , ” Cohen said .
If a minority of 25 % or more of the committee ’ s members approves the resolution , it also proceeds to a vote on the convention floor , though presumably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
HuffPost reached out to a number of rules committee members aligned with Biden but received few definitive responses about how they plan to vote .
Former Rep. Joe Garcia of Florida said he was “ leaning ” toward voting for the resolution .
Jeff Weaver , a rules committee member and top Sanders adviser who has represented the senator in talks with the Biden campaign , said that discussions between the two campaigns on the question of locking in the 2018 reforms , in particular , have been “ constructive.
” Although @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eager to note that the nominating reforms are non-ideological and enjoy broad party buy-in , there is no disputing that were it not for Sanders ’ 2016 presidential run , they would never have been adopted .
After losing the presidential primary to Hillary Clinton , Sanders pressed forward with his case for diminishing the role of superdelegates , whose power had long been a sore point among his supporters .
Though superdelegates never gave Clinton her margin over Sanders ― she won soundly among pledged delegates ― enjoying the endorsement of so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials gave her an air of inevitability that hobbled Sanders , according to Sanders partisans .
For example , news outlets consistently included superdelegate support in their official convention delegate counts for either candidate .
As a compromise aimed at appeasing Sanders supporters before the 2016 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia , Clinton ’ s camp agreed to sanction the creation of an independent commission that would assess changes to the presidential nominating process after the election .
More than two years and dozens of meetings later , the entire membership of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changes to the party ’ s nominating process .
The reforms , in effect through the 2020 presidential primary , included the elimination of superdelegate privileges on the first convention ballot and measures designed to open up primaries and caucuses to new voters .
The fact that Democrats more aligned with Sanders retain an influential say in whether those changes persist for a second election cycle attests to the lasting legacy of the Vermont senator ’ s White House runs , notwithstanding his far weaker showing in the 2020 race .
In recognition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party , Biden agreed in late April to strike a deal with Sanders enabling him to maintain representation proportional to his performance among convention delegates and on the convention ’ s standing committees .
Ordinarily , losing presidential candidates forfeit about one-third of their convention delegates to the winning candidate .
WHEREAS , following the 2016 election , the Democratic National Committee ( “ DNC ” ) , under the leadership of Chair Tom Perez , took substantial steps to ensure a more accessible , transparent , and inclusive 2020 Democratic presidential nominating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which encouraged many states to move from caucuses to more inclusive primaries , led to an unprecedented level of voter participation in presidential primary contests across the country , allowing more Democratic voters to make their voices heard and increasing voter confidence in our nominating system ; WHEREAS , these reforms helped inspire the largest and most diverse field in our Party ’ s history to seek the Democratic Party ’ s nomination for President ; WHEREAS , the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the DNC ( “ RBC ” ) was instrumental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made the 2020 presidential nominating process the most dynamic and successful in our Party ’ s history ; WHEREAS , the Democratic Party needs to continue to build off the successes of the 2020 primary reforms in creating the rules of the 2024 primary process and Democratic National Convention ; THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED , that the RBC must protect and continue the work started in 2017 to make improvements to the 2024 nominating process and Democratic National Convention and build on the successes achieved this cycle .
With the purpose and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , transparency , and inclusion in our Party , the RBC shall conduct a comprehensive and structured review of the presidential nominating reforms adopted by the DNC for the 2020 primaries to evaluate where even further reforms are needed , while maintaining the advances that have been made .
This review should include considerations of the successes of each of the reforms adopted in 2018 in achieving the DNC ’ s goals , empowering rank and file Democrats , and strengthening and unifying the Democratic Party in the lead up to the general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the RBC should take steps to ensure public and stakeholder engagement in the process , including at least one public hearing and an opportunity to submit comments .
This review and accounting should be completed by March 31 , 2021 .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A coalition of Democratic officials is pushing for a rule change that would lock in the presidential nominating process reforms the party adopted in 2018 to extend them through the 2024 election cycle.
If they succeed, the Democrats’ effort would ensure that, among other things, the elected officials and party insiders known as superdelegates would remain bound by the preference of their state’s primary voters or caucus-goers until the second ballot at the party’s national convention.
Advertisement
The resolution to extend those reforms, which the Democratic National Convention’s rules committee is set to consider Thursday, would also require the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee to formally review the effectiveness of the 2018 reforms. The resolution’s co-sponsors hope that such a review process clears the way for permanent adoption of those reforms.
Larry Cohen, a rules committee member and former union leader who supported the presidential runs of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), formally introduced the resolution Monday.
But the resolution also has the support of at least four state party chairs from a range of political and ideological backgrounds: Washington state’s Tina Podlodowski, Minnesota’s Ken Martin, Nebraska’s Jane Kleeb and South Carolina’s Trav Robertson. (Martin is also chair of the Association of State Democratic Committees, the umbrella group for state parties.)
“My hope is that virtually everybody on the committee will vote for the resolution because this is really about continuing to build faith with Democratic voters, particularly younger voters,” Cohen said.
Advertisement
Former Vice President Joe Biden's presidential campaign declined to comment on a proposed extension of reforms to the presidential nominating process that the party adopted in 2018. Mark Makela/Getty Images
Cohen argued that passage of the rule change would be a promising start to former Vice President Joe Biden’s tenure as the Democratic Party’s standard-bearer.
“This sets an important tone for Vice President Biden in this election and for his presidency ― that democratizing the rules inside and outside the party in order to achieve change in this country is part of his agenda,” Cohen said.
If a majority of the 180 members of the rules committee approves the resolution, it goes to a vote among the broader pool of 3,979 convention delegates.
If a minority of 25% or more of the committee’s members approves the resolution, it also proceeds to a vote on the convention floor, though presumably with a far lower chance of ratification.
Advertisement
HuffPost reached out to a number of rules committee members aligned with Biden but received few definitive responses about how they plan to vote. Former Rep. Joe Garcia of Florida said he was “leaning” toward voting for the resolution.
The Biden campaign would not comment on how it was instructing its appointees to the committee to vote.
Jeff Weaver, a rules committee member and top Sanders adviser who has represented the senator in talks with the Biden campaign, said that discussions between the two campaigns on the question of locking in the 2018 reforms, in particular, have been “constructive.”
“I anticipate that there will be a positive resolution,” he said.
Although Sanders allies like Weaver and Cohen are eager to note that the nominating reforms are non-ideological and enjoy broad party buy-in, there is no disputing that were it not for Sanders’ 2016 presidential run, they would never have been adopted.
After losing the presidential primary to Hillary Clinton, Sanders pressed forward with his case for diminishing the role of superdelegates, whose power had long been a sore point among his supporters. Though superdelegates never gave Clinton her margin over Sanders ― she won soundly among pledged delegates ― enjoying the endorsement of so many members of Congress and other party officials gave her an air of inevitability that hobbled Sanders, according to Sanders partisans. For example, news outlets consistently included superdelegate support in their official convention delegate counts for either candidate.
Advertisement
As a compromise aimed at appeasing Sanders supporters before the 2016 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, Clinton’s camp agreed to sanction the creation of an independent commission that would assess changes to the presidential nominating process after the election.
More than two years and dozens of meetings later, the entire membership of the DNC approved sweeping, though temporary, changes to the party’s nominating process. The reforms, in effect through the 2020 presidential primary, included the elimination of superdelegate privileges on the first convention ballot and measures designed to open up primaries and caucuses to new voters.
The fact that Democrats more aligned with Sanders retain an influential say in whether those changes persist for a second election cycle attests to the lasting legacy of the Vermont senator’s White House runs, notwithstanding his far weaker showing in the 2020 race.
In recognition of the support Sanders enjoys within the party, Biden agreed in late April to strike a deal with Sanders enabling him to maintain representation proportional to his performance among convention delegates and on the convention’s standing committees. Ordinarily, losing presidential candidates forfeit about one-third of their convention delegates to the winning candidate.
Below is the complete text of the resolution.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-29--Fatal Great White Shark Attack Turns Woman's Laughter Into Screams

A neighbor who watched the horror unfold told the Portland Press Herald that he heard Holowach , a New York @ @ @ @ @ the area , “ giggling and laughing.
” But seconds later , she “ just @ @ @ @ @ ” said Tom Whyte , who saw the incident through binoculars from a building overlooking @ @ @ @ @ of a sudden , Julie went under , ” he said .
“ It looked @ @ @ @ @ .
”

A neighbor who watched the horror unfold told the Portland Press Herald that he heard Holowach, a New York City resident who summered in the area, “giggling and laughing.” But seconds later, she “just started screaming for help,” said Tom Whyte, who saw the incident through binoculars from a building overlooking Mackerel Cove.
“All of a sudden, Julie went under,” he said. “It looked like she was pulled under.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-29--New York Daily News Editorial Board Spells Out What 4 More Years Of Trump Would Mean

The New York Daily News delivered a biting critique of President Donald Trump in an editorial published Tuesday , warning that “ America is doomed to spiral ever further apart ” under his leadership .
Trump is “ constitutionally incapable of uniting the nation , ” argued the board of the tabloid newspaper , which has used multiple eye-catching front pages to criticize and mock the president throughout his presidency .
The editorial called out Trump ’ s failure to pay respects to the late Rep. John Lewis ( D-Ga. ) as his body lies in state at the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our list of 99 reasons he mustn ’ t be reelected : The one American who must find a way to be a bigger man , our president , is constitutionally incapable of doing so , ” the editorial continued , slamming Trump for being “ unable to give respect ” or “ foster a climate of mutual respect.
” “ With a tone from the top of bitterness and bile , America is doomed to spiral ever apart .
Young Americans see in the highest office a nasty , swaggering , payback-obsessed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s attacks on the late Sen. John McCain ( R-Ariz. ) and Rep. John Dingell ( D-Mich. ) .
Important conversations are happening now .
Add your voice !
Join HuffPost Today !

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The New York Daily News delivered a biting critique of President Donald Trump in an editorial published Tuesday, warning that “America is doomed to spiral ever apart” under his leadership.
Trump is “constitutionally incapable of uniting the nation,” argued the board of the tabloid newspaper, which has used multiple eye-catching front pages to criticize and mock the president throughout his presidency.
Advertisement
The editorial called out Trump’s failure to pay respects to the late Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) as his body lies in state at the U.S. Capitol.
“Reason number three in our list of 99 reasons he mustn’t be reelected: The one American who must find a way to be a bigger man, our president, is constitutionally incapable of doing so,” the editorial continued, slamming Trump for being “unable to give respect” or “foster a climate of mutual respect.”
“With a tone from the top of bitterness and bile, America is doomed to spiral ever apart. Young Americans see in the highest office a nasty, swaggering, payback-obsessed bully,” it cautioned, recalling Trump’s attacks on the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.).


thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-29--'The Fight' Goes Behind The Scenes Of Pivotal Legal Battles Against Trump

The last few years of American politics have been nightmarish , exhausting and mind-numbing , so reliving them through a documentary might seem like the least appealing thing to do right now .
“ The Fight , ” which will be released Friday , begins just days after President Donald Trump ’ s 2017 inauguration when demonstrators around the country packed streets and airports to protest the initial version of his Muslim ban .
From there , the documentary is a whirlwind , covering some of the biggest , gravest and best-known civil rights cases of the last three years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration separating families at the U.S.-Mexico border and its banning transgender soldiers from the military .
But told through the stories of five attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union as they take on these and other major legal battles , “ The Fight ” goes beyond the headlines , press conferences and cable news footage .
By giving the audience a behind-the-scenes view of the lawyers ’ work , directors Elyse Steinberg , Josh Kriegman and Eli Despres have crafted an engaging and candid portrait of the ways politics can be deeply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us excited about telling these stories is just viewing these big epic events through the personal lens , ” Steinberg said in an interview .
“ Who are these people at the front line ?
What does this fight for civil rights really look like from the inside ?
” It turns out these people are experienced civil rights lawyers at one of the most prominent legal organizations in the country — and also human beings just trying to do their best .
Dale Ho , director of the ACLU ’ s Voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump administration ’ s attempt to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census , which was decided by the Supreme Court last year .
In the film , when Ho reveals this is the first time he ’ s ever argued before the high court , there ’ s a look of sheer terror on his face .
The night before the oral argument , we see him in front of his hotel room mirror , practicing his opening statement over and over again , swearing when he flubs his lines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fight ” is a sharp contrast from the filmmakers ’ previous work , “ Weiner , ” which chronicled the attempted comeback of former U.S. representative and then-New York mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner and his infamous sexting scandal .
Released in early 2016 , “ Weiner ” now feels like a tale from several lifetimes ago .
Its focus on the performative bombast of politics is a very different angle from that of “ The Fight , ” which is more concerned with procedure and the way progress is often won in increments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filmmakers deeply admire the attorneys ’ work , they don ’ t shy away from at least touching on some of the ACLU ’ s more contentious stands , which don ’ t always fall along ideological lines .
In 2017 , when the filmmakers were following the lawyers , the ACLU chose to defend the protest rights of the neo-Nazis and white supremacists who went on to lead that summer ’ s violent rally in Charlottesville , Virginia .
As seen in the documentary , the decision caused much internal tension among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , introspection and , at times , levity are what make “ The Fight ” compelling , and not simply a grim summary of our political hellscape .
Naturally , there ’ s a lot of drama and suspense watching these events unfold .
But the filmmakers also chose to include many seemingly mundane instances and “ very relatable struggles , ” as Steinberg described them .
Throughout the film , we see the lawyers call their clients while parenting their children , deal with various modes of transportation , duck into Starbucks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and refresh SCOTUSBlog for the latest Supreme Court decisions .
What helped , Despres said , was that the ACLU attorneys “ were not sort of your Brooks Brothers buttoned-up law firm lawyers.
” The filmmakers were able to build the documentary around these personal moments because the attorneys didn ’ t hold back when the cameras were rolling , expressing how they were really feeling and wearing their emotions on their sleeves .
“ When I became a lawyer , there weren ’ t that many trans lawyers .
So then I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different types of things , ” he says .
“ It was like , go do this legislative advocacy , go learn how to be on TV , go do this , go do that.
” While the attorneys in “ The Fight ” have taken center stage in some of the biggest legal disputes of our time , they ’ re also clear-eyed about how they ’ re a few among many more players on a much larger stage .
Late in the film , Ho refers to how the ACLU has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resistance ” against Trump .
“ A lot of people have been running up to us , saying things like , you know , ‘ You ’ re our hope against the forces that have put Trump in power , and you ’ re going to be what ’ s going to stop this thing.
’ And I think that ’ s wrong .
Like , we ’ re not gon na be able to stop this thing ourselves .
I mean , we ’ re like two and a half floors of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
” he says .
“ It ’ s not going to be lawyers and courts .
It ’ s going to be people who turn the ship around .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The last few years of American politics have been nightmarish, exhausting and mind-numbing, so reliving them through a documentary might seem like the least appealing thing to do right now.
“The Fight,” which will be released Friday, begins just days after President Donald Trump’s 2017 inauguration when demonstrators around the country packed streets and airports to protest the initial version of his Muslim ban. From there, the documentary is a whirlwind, covering some of the biggest, gravest and best-known civil rights cases of the last three years, including the disputes over the Trump administration separating families at the U.S.-Mexico border and its banning transgender soldiers from the military.
Advertisement
But told through the stories of five attorneys at the American Civil Liberties Union as they take on these and other major legal battles, “The Fight” goes beyond the headlines, press conferences and cable news footage. By giving the audience a behind-the-scenes view of the lawyers’ work, directors Elyse Steinberg, Josh Kriegman and Eli Despres have crafted an engaging and candid portrait of the ways politics can be deeply personal.
ACLU attorneys Brigitte Amiri (left) and Dale Ho at the organization's headquarters in New York, in a scene from the new documentary "The Fight." Magnolia Pictures
“The thing that makes us excited about telling these stories is just viewing these big epic events through the personal lens,” Steinberg said in an interview. “Who are these people at the front line? What does this fight for civil rights really look like from the inside?”
It turns out these people are experienced civil rights lawyers at one of the most prominent legal organizations in the country — and also human beings just trying to do their best.
Advertisement
Dale Ho, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, led the case against the Trump administration’s attempt to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, which was decided by the Supreme Court last year. In the film, when Ho reveals this is the first time he’s ever argued before the high court, there’s a look of sheer terror on his face. The night before the oral argument, we see him in front of his hotel room mirror, practicing his opening statement over and over again, swearing when he flubs his lines.
Ho stands on the Supreme Court steps on the day he argued the case against the Trump administration's effort to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, in a scene from "The Fight." Magnolia Pictures
On the surface, “The Fight” is a sharp contrast from the filmmakers’ previous work, “Weiner,” which chronicled the attempted comeback of former U.S. representative and then-New York mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner and his infamous sexting scandal. Released in early 2016, “Weiner” now feels like a tale from several lifetimes ago. Its focus on the performative bombast of politics is a very different angle from that of “The Fight,” which is more concerned with procedure and the way progress is often won in increments.
Yet as documentarians, they approached the two films with a similar vision, aiming to take viewers beyond “the mediated view of the world, the television version, the news cycle version,” Despres said.
While it’s clear the filmmakers deeply admire the attorneys’ work, they don’t shy away from at least touching on some of the ACLU’s more contentious stands, which don’t always fall along ideological lines. In 2017, when the filmmakers were following the lawyers, the ACLU chose to defend the protest rights of the neo-Nazis and white supremacists who went on to lead that summer’s violent rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. As seen in the documentary, the decision caused much internal tension among ACLU leaders.
Advertisement
These moments of candor, introspection and, at times, levity are what make “The Fight” compelling, and not simply a grim summary of our political hellscape. Naturally, there’s a lot of drama and suspense watching these events unfold. But the filmmakers also chose to include many seemingly mundane instances and “very relatable struggles,” as Steinberg described them. Throughout the film, we see the lawyers call their clients while parenting their children, deal with various modes of transportation, duck into Starbucks to charge a rapidly dying phone, and refresh SCOTUSBlog for the latest Supreme Court decisions.
What helped, Despres said, was that the ACLU attorneys “were not sort of your Brooks Brothers buttoned-up law firm lawyers.” The filmmakers were able to build the documentary around these personal moments because the attorneys didn’t hold back when the cameras were rolling, expressing how they were really feeling and wearing their emotions on their sleeves.
In one scene, Chase Strangio reflects on the weight he feels as one of the few prominent transgender civil rights lawyers and what the lack of trans representation has meant for him.
“When I became a lawyer, there weren’t that many trans lawyers. So then I had to be doing a lot of different types of things,” he says. “It was like, go do this legislative advocacy, go learn how to be on TV, go do this, go do that.”
After a pause, he quietly adds: “Go train the ACLU on what it means to be trans.”
ACLU attorneys Josh Block (left) and Chase Strangio, who led the case against the Trump administration's ban on transgender soldiers, in a scene from "The Fight." Magnolia Pictures
Advertisement
While the attorneys in “The Fight” have taken center stage in some of the biggest legal disputes of our time, they’re also clear-eyed about how they’re a few among many more players on a much larger stage. Late in the film, Ho refers to how the ACLU has become a popular symbol of “the resistance” against Trump.
“A lot of people have been running up to us, saying things like, you know, ‘You’re our hope against the forces that have put Trump in power, and you’re going to be what’s going to stop this thing.’ And I think that’s wrong. Like, we’re not gonna be able to stop this thing ourselves. I mean, we’re like two and a half floors of a building in New York, right?” he says. “It’s not going to be lawyers and courts. It’s going to be people who turn the ship around.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-29--Hugh Jackman Uses Emmy Nomination As Opportunity To Dunk On Ryan Reynolds

There ’ s no way Hugh Jackman would let a big life moment go by without finding a way to wield it against his frenemy , Ryan Reynolds .
Case in point , when Jackman woke on Tuesday to the news that he ’ d received an Emmy nomination , he wasted no time in using it as fuel for the long-running faux feud .
“ I don ’ t think he ’ s going to get out of bed for three days , ” Jackman told The Associated Press .
“ There could be a lot of bitterness and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to be a tough day for him.
” Jackman received his fifth Emmy nomination on Tuesday in the Outstanding Lead Actor in a Limited Series or TV Movie category for his performance in HBO ’ s “ Bad Education.
” He portrayed Frank Tassone , a former superintendent who went to prison for embezzling $ 11.2 million from the Roslyn , N.Y. school district .
As anticipated , Reynolds reacted in shades of green , as seen in this snarky “ congratulations ” video : Jackman said he was stoked about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the business maybe 25 , 26 years ?
So I know it doesn ’ t come around all that often , ” he told AP .
And as followers of this fun feud know , at least 10 of those years were occupied by these two plotting against each other .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
There’s no way Hugh Jackman would let a big life moment go by without finding a way to wield it against his frenemy, Ryan Reynolds.
Case in point, when Jackman woke on Tuesday to the news that he’d received an Emmy nomination, he wasted no time in using it as fuel for the long-running faux feud.
Advertisement
“I don’t think he’s going to get out of bed for three days,” Jackman told The Associated Press. “There could be a lot of bitterness and anger seeping through. It’s going to be a tough day for him.”
The funny feud between @RealHughJackman and @VancityReynolds continues with Jackman joking that his #Emmy nomination might leave pal Reynolds feeling bitter. pic.twitter.com/Ga8sJYqdcU — AP Entertainment (@APEntertainment) July 29, 2020
Jackman received his fifth Emmy nomination on Tuesday in the Outstanding Lead Actor in a Limited Series or TV Movie category for his performance in HBO’s “Bad Education.” He portrayed Frank Tassone, a former superintendent who went to prison for embezzling $11.2 million from the Roslyn, N.Y. school district.
As anticipated, Reynolds reacted in shades of green, as seen in this snarky “congratulations” video:
Advertisement
Jackman said he was stoked about the nomination.
“I’ve been in the business maybe 25, 26 years? So I know it doesn’t come around all that often,” he told AP.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-29--Don Lemon Shares Grim 'Secret' About Trump's 'New Tone' On Coronavirus

CNN host Don Lemon let viewers in on “ a little secret ” on Tuesday after President Donald Trump reverted to sharing false information about the coronavirus just days after shifting to what some pundits called a “ new tone ” on the pandemic .
“ There is no pivot .
There is no ‘ new tone.
’ There is no turning over a new leaf , ” Lemon said on “ CNN Tonight ” “ There is one Donald Trump , and he never changes .
Do not get it twisted.
” “ This is a president who , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t even stay on script to save American lives ― or his own political skin , which is what he really cares about , ” he added .
“ He just can not do it because this is Donald Trump we ’ re talking about.
” “ There is no new tone .
...
This is a President who , even with almost 150,000 Americans dead , can ’ t even stay on script to save American lives.
” @ donlemon discusses the WH coronavirus briefing and a video Trump retweeted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 claims .
pic.twitter.com/OhPEHCJ4Hx — CNN ( @ CNN ) July 29 , 2020 On Monday , Trump and his son Donald Trump Jr. retweeted a video pushing an unproven coronavirus treatment and incorrectly claiming that people don ’ t need to wear face masks .
Twitter , Facebook and YouTube removed the clip due to its misleading contents .
Trump also retweeted more than a dozen other posts plugging hydroxychloroquine , the malaria drug he ’ s long hailed as a COVID-19 treatment , despite numerous studies that found it was not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also had potentially dangerous side effects .
It came just days after Trump demonstrated a more sober tone on the pandemic amid a severe resurgence of coronavirus cases across the country , along with plummeting approval ratings over the president ’ s handling of the health crisis .
Last week , in his first coronavirus task force briefing in months , he finally urged people in the U.S. to wear masks and admitted that the situation would likely get worse before it got better .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
CNN host Don Lemon let viewers in on “a little secret” on Tuesday after President Donald Trump reverted to sharing false information about the coronavirus just days after shifting to what some pundits called a “new tone” on the pandemic.
“There is no pivot. There is no ‘new tone.’ There is no turning over a new leaf,” Lemon said on “CNN Tonight” “There is one Donald Trump, and he never changes. Do not get it twisted.”
Advertisement
“This is a president who, even with almost 150,000 Americans dead, can’t even stay on script to save American lives ― or his own political skin, which is what he really cares about,” he added.
“He just cannot do it because this is Donald Trump we’re talking about.”
“There is no new tone. ... This is a President who, even with almost 150,000 Americans dead, can’t even stay on script to save American lives.”@donlemon discusses the WH coronavirus briefing and a video Trump retweeted featuring a group of doctors making false Covid-19 claims. pic.twitter.com/OhPEHCJ4Hx — CNN (@CNN) July 29, 2020
On Monday, Trump and his son Donald Trump Jr. retweeted a video pushing an unproven coronavirus treatment and incorrectly claiming that people don’t need to wear face masks. Twitter, Facebook and YouTube removed the clip due to its misleading contents.
Trump also retweeted more than a dozen other posts plugging hydroxychloroquine, the malaria drug he’s long hailed as a COVID-19 treatment, despite numerous studies that found it was not only ineffective against the virus but it also had potentially dangerous side effects.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-29--NYPD Under Scrutiny After Videos Show Officers Pulling Protester Into Unmarked Van

The New York City Police Department has come under scrutiny after videos showed officers pulling a protester into an unmarked van during a demonstration Tuesday in Manhattan against racism and police brutality .
The Gothamist , citing the protester ’ s friends , identified her as an 18-year-old transgender woman .
Videos shared on social media show the demonstrator being restrained by several NYPD officers before being pulled into the van .
“ They grabbed [ her ] like she was rag doll , ” a protester and witness told The Gothamist .
“ They had her arms on her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is deeply troubling .
Plainclothes NYPD officers yanked a protester off the street — identified by her friends as an 18-year old homeless trans person .
Where is she ?
# WhereIsNikki Cc : @ NYCMayor https : //t.co/ZdpvbVPij7 — Human Rights Campaign ( @ HRC ) July 29 , 2020 The NYPD said in a statement that the woman had been arrested after “ damaging police cameras during 5 separate criminal incidents ” in and around City Hall Park .
It added that the arresting officers were “ assaulted with rocks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woman into custody .
Protesters told journalist Michelle Lhooq , who was at the scene , that the woman had put stickers on police cameras during Occupy City Hall , a weeks-long protest occupation that was dismantled last week in a police raid .
Lhooq documented other arrests made during Tuesday ’ s protest and wrote of aggressive confrontations between demonstrators and police .
Protesters said police used pepper spray and batons against them .
When officers from the Warrant Squad took the woman into custody in a gray NYPD minivan this evening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bottles .
The Warrant Squad uses unmarked vehicles to effectively locate wanted suspects .
— NYPD NEWS ( @ NYPDnews ) July 29 , 2020 Several city officials have since questioned the NYPD ’ s handling of the woman ’ s arrest .
Council member Carlina Rivera called for an independent review of the incident , and the city ’ s comptroller , Scott Stringer , said he was “ deeply concerned ” by videos of the encounter .
“ With anxiety about what ’ s happening in Portland , the NYPD deploying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ street arrests of protestors feels more like provocation than public safety , ” Councilman Brad Lander said , alluding to similar tactics used by federal officers against protesters in Oregon .
I just spoke to the CO of the 13th who said `` the NYPD 's Detective Bureau Warrant Division identified a wanted person & carried out an arrest . ''
Clearly we need an ind .
review + an immediate explanation for why an unmarked van full of officers was anywhere near a peaceful protest .
https : //t.co/j4OKqp3MRv — Carlina Rivera @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 2020 Agree with @ CarlinaRivera here : with anxiety about what ’ s happening in Portland , the NYPD deploying unmarked vans with plainclothes cops to make street arrests of protestors feels more like provocation than public safety .
https : //t.co/UDfiJOWWUW — Brad Lander ( @ bradlander ) July 29 , 2020 Rivera said early Wednesday that the protester had been released .
I ’ ve been working to get details on why a young woman was arrested & pulled into an unmarked van in my District .
Right now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ & awaiting her desk appearance ticket .
We ’ ve shared this info w/advocates & believe she ’ ll be released in next hour or so .
— Carlina Rivera 利華娜 ( @ CarlinaRivera ) July 29 , 2020 Nikki is currently waiting to be released from the 1st Precinct w/ supporters there on-site .
It ’ s clear that using an unmarked van and plainclothes officers to make an arrest for vandalism ( in the middle of a peaceful protest ) is a massive overstep .
I 'm exploring legislation .
— @ @ @ @ @ @ @ July 29 , 2020 We ’ ve just received confirmation that Nikki has been released .
Thank you to all the advocates who have been bringing support and attention .
Now it ’ s time to hear from @ NYCMayor about how he will address this arrest and the future of unidentifiable policing in NYC .
— Carlina Rivera 利華娜 ( @ CarlinaRivera ) July 29 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The New York City Police Department has come under scrutiny after videos showed officers pulling a protester into an unmarked van during a demonstration Tuesday in Manhattan against racism and police brutality.
The Gothamist, citing the protester’s friends, identified her as an 18-year-old transgender woman. Videos shared on social media show the demonstrator being restrained by several NYPD officers before being pulled into the van.
Advertisement
“They grabbed [her] like she was rag doll,” a protester and witness told The Gothamist. “They had her arms on her neck and then they drove off.”
This is deeply troubling. Plainclothes NYPD officers yanked a protester off the street — identified by her friends as an 18-year old homeless trans person. Where is she? #WhereIsNikki
Cc: @NYCMayor https://t.co/ZdpvbVPij7 — Human Rights Campaign (@HRC) July 29, 2020
The NYPD said in a statement that the woman had been arrested after “damaging police cameras during 5 separate criminal incidents” in and around City Hall Park.
It added that the arresting officers were “assaulted with rocks and bottles” as they took the woman into custody.
Advertisement
Protesters told journalist Michelle Lhooq, who was at the scene, that the woman had put stickers on police cameras during Occupy City Hall, a weeks-long protest occupation that was dismantled last week in a police raid.
Lhooq documented other arrests made during Tuesday’s protest and wrote of aggressive confrontations between demonstrators and police.
Protesters said police used pepper spray and batons against them.
When officers from the Warrant Squad took the woman into custody in a gray NYPD minivan this evening, they were assaulted with rocks and bottles. The Warrant Squad uses unmarked vehicles to effectively locate wanted suspects. — NYPD NEWS (@NYPDnews) July 29, 2020
Several city officials have since questioned the NYPD’s handling of the woman’s arrest.
Council member Carlina Rivera called for an independent review of the incident, and the city’s comptroller, Scott Stringer, said he was “deeply concerned” by videos of the encounter.
“With anxiety about what’s happening in Portland, the NYPD deploying unmarked vans with plainclothes cops to make street arrests of protestors feels more like provocation than public safety,” Councilman Brad Lander said, alluding to similar tactics used by federal officers against protesters in Oregon.
Advertisement
I’m deeply concerned by the videos circulating of a protester being thrown into an unmarked van.
We need answers immediately. https://t.co/k8hUe4QLTC — Scott M. Stringer (@NYCComptroller) July 29, 2020
I just spoke to the CO of the 13th who said "the NYPD's Detective Bureau Warrant Division identified a wanted person & carried out an arrest."
Clearly we need an ind. review + an immediate explanation for why an unmarked van full of officers was anywhere near a peaceful protest. https://t.co/j4OKqp3MRv — Carlina Rivera 利華娜 (@CarlinaRivera) July 29, 2020
Agree with @CarlinaRivera here: with anxiety about what’s happening in Portland, the NYPD deploying unmarked vans with plainclothes cops to make street arrests of protestors feels more like provocation than public safety. https://t.co/UDfiJOWWUW — Brad Lander (@bradlander) July 29, 2020
Rivera said early Wednesday that the protester had been released.
I’ve been working to get details on why a young woman was arrested & pulled into an unmarked van in my District.
Right now, we know she’s been fingerprinted & awaiting her desk appearance ticket. We’ve shared this info w/advocates & believe she’ll be released in next hour or so. — Carlina Rivera 利華娜 (@CarlinaRivera) July 29, 2020
Nikki is currently waiting to be released from the 1st Precinct w/ supporters there on-site.
It’s clear that using an unmarked van and plainclothes officers to make an arrest for vandalism (in the middle of a peaceful protest) is a massive overstep. I'm exploring legislation. — Carlina Rivera 利華娜 (@CarlinaRivera) July 29, 2020
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-07-29--Nancy Pelosi To Make Masks Mandatory In House Chamber

On the heels of a mask-defying lawmaker testing positive for COVID-19 , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Wednesday that everyone must wear masks whenever they ’ re in the House chamber .
“ Members and staff will be required to wear masks at all times in the Hall of the House , except that members may remove their masks temporarily when recognized , ” the California Democrat said on a call with other members of the House , carving out an exception for when people take the podium to speak .
Protective face masks are one of the most effective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus , public health officials have said .
Dr. Robert Redfield , director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , said earlier this month that if everyone wore a mask right now , the U.S. could get the pandemic under control in as little as four weeks .
“ The chair expects all members and staff to adhere to this requirement as a sign of respect to the health , safety and well-being of others present in the chamber and surrounding areas , ” she added .
Masks will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forgot one , she said .
Refusing to comply will be considered a “ serious breach of decorum ” and could result in that person ’ s removal .
The mask rule will reportedly be extended to all House office buildings and the House side of the Capitol , Politico and Fox News reported .
Previously , there was only a strong suggestion to wear masks and a requirement to do so while in committee rooms , but several Republican lawmakers have defied that in both spaces .
Pelosi ’ s new policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirmed he ’ d tested positive for the coronavirus .
The Texas lawmaker has repeatedly been seen without a mask in public spaces and had dismissed their efficacy .
In a video he released about his diagnosis , he claimed that wearing a mask recently and touching it with his hands may have caused him to contract COVID-19 .
“ I can ’ t help wonder if that puts some germs in the mask , ” he said .
In reality , the CDC has concluded that direct contact with infected people is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with surface contamination being a much smaller risk .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
On the heels of a mask-defying lawmaker testing positive for COVID-19, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Wednesday that everyone must wear masks whenever they’re in the House chamber.
“Members and staff will be required to wear masks at all times in the Hall of the House, except that members may remove their masks temporarily when recognized,” the California Democrat said on a call with other members of the House, carving out an exception for when people take the podium to speak.
Advertisement
Protective face masks are one of the most effective ways to stop the spread of the coronavirus, public health officials have said. Dr. Robert Redfield, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said earlier this month that if everyone wore a mask right now, the U.S. could get the pandemic under control in as little as four weeks.
“The chair expects all members and staff to adhere to this requirement as a sign of respect to the health, safety and well-being of others present in the chamber and surrounding areas,” she added.
Masks will be made available at entrances for anyone who forgot one, she said. Refusing to comply will be considered a “serious breach of decorum” and could result in that person’s removal.
The mask rule will reportedly be extended to all House office buildings and the House side of the Capitol, Politico and Fox News reported.
Advertisement
Previously, there was only a strong suggestion to wear masks and a requirement to do so while in committee rooms, but several Republican lawmakers have defied that in both spaces.
Pelosi’s new policy comes hours after GOP Rep. Louie Gohmert confirmed he’d tested positive for the coronavirus. The Texas lawmaker has repeatedly been seen without a mask in public spaces and had dismissed their efficacy. In a video he released about his diagnosis, he claimed that wearing a mask recently and touching it with his hands may have caused him to contract COVID-19.
“I can’t help wonder if that puts some germs in the mask,” he said.