thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-13--Democratic Plan Would Give Workers More Time To File Legal Claims Due To Pandemic

The legislation would lengthen the typical deadlines to account for any overlap with the pandemic , as determined by the federal government ’ s emergency declarations .
It would add another 90 days on top of that as well .
The lawmakers said doing so would address the unusual barriers created by the coronavirus , which has closed or reduced services at many federal courthouses and apparently has overwhelmed many employment lawyers fielding calls from workers .
“ Because of COVID-19 , workers already facing terrible health risks are also confronting increased barriers to legal representation and worried the clock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Warren said in a statement .
“ Our bill will make sure workers ’ rights aren ’ t thrown off to the side because of a public health emergency by extending the period of time workers have to file claims.
” The move draws a clear contrast with congressional Republicans , who are trying to rein in workers ’ legal rights during the pandemic .
GOP members are hoping to give companies immunity from lawsuits filed by workers and consumers stemming from the coronavirus .
The Senate held a hearing on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( R-Texas ) said shielding corporations would relieve a “ stressed ” economy .
Democrats have opposed the broad-based immunity pushed by Republicans , though their new bill does not address that issue in particular .
Instead , it focuses on claims made under wage-and-hour , civil rights , collective bargaining and occupational health laws .
The coronavirus has created an unprecedented workplace safety crisis , and it ’ s likely that workers will be filing a raft of complaints claiming they were retaliated against for reporting unsafe working conditions .
Under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have 30 days to file such a claim , but Democrats say the unusual circumstances of the pandemic call for more time .
Similarly , workers who say they were discriminated against for supporting a union have six months to file a charge with the National Labor Relations Board ― a timeframe that would also be extended by the Democratic plan .
Many workers have already claimed their employers used the pandemic as a pretext to get rid union supporters in their ranks .
Under the Democratic plan , any statute-of-limitations time that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back once the federal government declares the national emergency to be over , along with the extra 90 days .
DeLauro said in a statement that lengthening the statute of limitations to account for the pandemic “ is the right thing to do.
” The Democratic proposal has the backing of left-leaning groups such as the National Employment Law Project , the Economic Policy Institute and the National Women ’ s Law Center , along with the National Employment Lawyers Association .
It is certain to draw pushback from employer-friendly Republicans who want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and faces dim prospects in the GOP-controlled Senate .
The Congressional Research Service , the nonpartisan research arm of Congress , issued a paper in late March that bolsters Democrats ’ case that workers face unique legal hurdles because of the pandemic .
CRS found that court closures and other factors “ may impede litigants and their counsel from pursuing cases in a timely manner , ” and that there were steps lawmakers could take to address the problem .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Congressional Democrats are hoping to bolster workers’ legal rights during the coronavirus pandemic by extending the amount of time they have to file employment lawsuits.
A proposal from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), Sen. Tina Smith (Minn.) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.) on Wednesday would temporarily increase the statute of limitations for filing complaints related to wage theft, discrimination, safety whistleblowing and other workplace issues.
Advertisement
The legislation would lengthen the typical deadlines to account for any overlap with the pandemic, as determined by the federal government’s emergency declarations. It would add another 90 days on top of that as well.
The lawmakers said doing so would address the unusual barriers created by the coronavirus, which has closed or reduced services at many federal courthouses and apparently has overwhelmed many employment lawyers fielding calls from workers.
“Because of COVID-19, workers already facing terrible health risks are also confronting increased barriers to legal representation and worried the clock will run out on seeking relief,” Warren said in a statement. “Our bill will make sure workers’ rights aren’t thrown off to the side because of a public health emergency by extending the period of time workers have to file claims.”
The move draws a clear contrast with congressional Republicans, who are trying to rein in workers’ legal rights during the pandemic. GOP members are hoping to give companies immunity from lawsuits filed by workers and consumers stemming from the coronavirus. The Senate held a hearing on the issue Tuesday, and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said shielding corporations would relieve a “stressed” economy.
Advertisement
Democrats have opposed the broad-based immunity pushed by Republicans, though their new bill does not address that issue in particular. Instead, it focuses on claims made under wage-and-hour, civil rights, collective bargaining and occupational health laws.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren and other Democrats want to lengthen the statute of limitations for worker lawsuits due to the pandemic. AMANDA SABGA via Getty Images
The coronavirus has created an unprecedented workplace safety crisis, and it’s likely that workers will be filing a raft of complaints claiming they were retaliated against for reporting unsafe working conditions. Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, workers have 30 days to file such a claim, but Democrats say the unusual circumstances of the pandemic call for more time.
Similarly, workers who say they were discriminated against for supporting a union have six months to file a charge with the National Labor Relations Board ― a timeframe that would also be extended by the Democratic plan. Many workers have already claimed their employers used the pandemic as a pretext to get rid union supporters in their ranks.
Under the Democratic plan, any statute-of-limitations time that elapsed during the pandemic would be added back once the federal government declares the national emergency to be over, along with the extra 90 days.
Advertisement
DeLauro said in a statement that lengthening the statute of limitations to account for the pandemic “is the right thing to do.”
The Democratic proposal has the backing of left-leaning groups such as the National Employment Law Project, the Economic Policy Institute and the National Women’s Law Center, along with the National Employment Lawyers Association. It is certain to draw pushback from employer-friendly Republicans who want to limit workers’ legal recourse, and faces dim prospects in the GOP-controlled Senate.
The Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan research arm of Congress, issued a paper in late March that bolsters Democrats’ case that workers face unique legal hurdles because of the pandemic. CRS found that court closures and other factors “may impede litigants and their counsel from pursuing cases in a timely manner,” and that there were steps lawmakers could take to address the problem.
“If Congress wished to provide courts with additional leeway to respond to the current crisis it could enact legislation to relax existing limits on filing deadlines,” the paper noted.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-13--Progressive Demands Get Shelved In House Democrats’ COVID-19 Relief Bill

The HEROES Act , unveiled Tuesday , is the biggest coronavirus emergency relief bill yet .
It proposes extending unemployment insurance through 2021 , giving a second round of $ 1,200 direct payments , bolstering the fund for small business loans and providing aid to state and local governments .
It includes funding for vote-by-mail , and food assistance , would give an extra $ 13 per hour in hazard pay for essential workers , and beef up health and safety standards for health care professionals — one of the nurses ’ union biggest priorities .
The measure also reflects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assistance , and it would prohibit water , energy , telephone and internet shut-offs , expand family and medical leave , and fund child care assistance .
The co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus ( CPC ) , Reps. Pramila Jayapal ( D-Wash. ) and Mark Pocan ( D-Wis. ) sent a letter to Pelosi on Tuesday requesting that a vote on the bill be delayed until next week so lawmakers have “ more time to determine what is in and what is not in this legislation.
” Progressive leaders are also whipping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has nearly 100 members , to tell House leadership they are undecided on supporting the bill .
Sean McElwee , a co-founder of the think tank Data for Progress , said he is especially excited about the $ 1 trillion in funding that the bill lays out for state and local governments .
He noted that none of the more ambitious progressive priorities , like Medicare for All and free public college , are possible if state and local governments are forced to dramatically scale back their spending .
Included in the act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state and local tax deduction cap , giving a tax break to mostly wealthy individuals .
The bill also would clear the way for trade associations that lobby the federal government on behalf of multiple corporations to get access to small business loans even if their member companies are already eligible for bailout money .
And it would enable debt collectors that provide some relief to borrowers to get access to emergency Federal Reserve loans .
It includes a list of health care provisions , including expanding how much the federal government chips @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act and making free treatment for COVID-19 , the disease caused by the new coronavirus .
But House Democrats ’ big idea to cover millions of Americans with health insurance is to subsidize at 100 % COBRA , the federal program that allows recently unemployed people to continue their employer-sponsored health insurance plans at personal cost .
That would mean individuals wouldn ’ t pay premiums for the plans previously covered by their employers , and it would serve as a welcomed stop-gap measure while people remain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the left became apparent weeks ago when Ocasio-Cortez unexpectedly announced she planned to vote against an interim stimulus package on a press conference call intended to show progressive unity behind a core set of relief priorities .
Her position angered some of her colleagues who believed she had put them in an awkward position , according to several people familiar with the matter .
In the end , she was the only Democrat to vote “ no ” on the bill .
“ As of right now , there are lots of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Congress , but there is no center of gravity for all the efforts , ” said Max Berger , a former adviser to the presidential bid by Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
who tried to orchestrate a coordinated progressive response behind the scenes .
“ That ’ s a big need .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
House Democrats’ new $3-trillion proposal to address the economic and public health fallout from the coronavirus pandemic pushed several progressive proposals to the sidelines once again.
The HEROES Act, unveiled Tuesday, is the biggest coronavirus emergency relief bill yet. It proposes extending unemployment insurance through 2021, giving a second round of $1,200 direct payments, bolstering the fund for small business loans and providing aid to state and local governments. It includes funding for vote-by-mail, and food assistance, would give an extra $13 per hour in hazard pay for essential workers, and beef up health and safety standards for health care professionals — one of the nurses’ union biggest priorities. The measure also reflects progressive’s demands for utility payment assistance, and it would prohibit water, energy, telephone and internet shut-offs, expand family and medical leave, and fund child care assistance.
Advertisement
In short, it proposes a litany of Democratic goals.
But on a number of key issues, progressive lawmakers and activists saw their ideas ignored — snubs they said were particularly notable in a bill designed to represent an idealistic opening bid in talks with the Republicans who control the Senate. The legislation is expected to pass the House on a party-line vote, not serve as some sort of compromise.
“Good side is long, but for a Dem messaging bill, why is there a bad side?” tweeted the policy director for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).
Hill staffers furiously putting together lists with a good (hazard pay, state/local funding, immigrants can get stimulus checks) and bad side (K street bailout, SALT cap repeal, no automatic stabilizers).
Good side is long, but for a Dem messaging bill, why is there a bad side? — Every Billionaire Is A Policy Failure (@DanRiffle) May 12, 2020
The House is the sole bastion of Democratic power in Washington and had limited leverage in the crafting two of previous massive relief bills in March and April, since most of the details were hashed out by Republican Senate leaders with the Trump administration.
Advertisement
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) promised this time it would be different, because the House would move first and force the Senate to respond to its priorities.
In critical ways though, the bill still appears to temper its goals with an eye toward what Republicans ― or even corporate actors ― might find acceptable. The final bill, if the Senate even chooses to act on one, will be significantly more conservative than what the left already regards as Tuesday’s imperfect product.
“An opening bid should be as strong as possible,” said David Segal, executive director of Demand Progress, which is urging Democrats to withhold support for the bill without major changes to it. “This is a message bill and it’s a too-weak message bill somehow.”
The co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) sent a letter to Pelosi on Tuesday requesting that a vote on the bill be delayed until next week so lawmakers have “more time to determine what is in and what is not in this legislation.” Progressive leaders are also whipping members of their diverse caucus, which has nearly 100 members, to tell House leadership they are undecided on supporting the bill.
Late on Wednesday, CPC leaders went further, developing a plan to threaten to stop a vote on the bill if Democratic leaders don’t improve paycheck protections and health care provisions, according to an aide to Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), the CPC’s whip. The caucus estimates that it needs 18 votes to defeat the rule teeing up the bill for a vote, which it might assemble by reaching out to allies in the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus.
Advertisement
Segal, who previously served as a member of the progressive caucus in the Rhode Island state House, encouraged rank-and-file CPC members to heed their leaders’ call to stand their ground on the bill until more demands are met. “Now is a great moment to show they are not going to get played,” he said.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), a co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, is calling for more time to consider the latest COVID-19 relief bill. Alex Edelman/Pool/Getty Images
Jayapal reportedly had a tense exchange with Pelosi in advance of the bill’s unveiling, questioning why Democratic leaders refused to include payroll protection in its final text — a proposal to have the federal government cover 100% of workers’ salaries up to $100,000 to keep them on company’s payroll and out of unemployment.
Pelosi told the Progressive Caucus chairwoman she would only consider the proposal when Jayapal had actual text ready for the proposal (her office has only released a white paper on it). But members of Democratic leadership had already backed the Employee Retention Tax Credit, a more moderate and less expensive proposal implemented under the last emergency bill, the CARES Act.
A House aide pointed to a backlog at the Legislative Counsel’s office, the federal lawyers who work with lawmakers to write bill text. The office prioritizes its work based on seniority, heeding foremost to leadership’s preference.
Advertisement
“If Democratic leadership wanted to do something about it, they could have,” one House Democratic aide said.
By their nature, omnibus bills like this one cram an array of policies into a single piece of legislation that will inevitably be loved by some and hated by others. Some provisions in the HEROES Act — like hazard pay, though voluntary, for essential workers and stronger federal health and safety standards — are favored by progressives and moderates alike.
Sean McElwee, a co-founder of the think tank Data for Progress, said he is especially excited about the $1 trillion in funding that the bill lays out for state and local governments. He noted that none of the more ambitious progressive priorities, like Medicare for All and free public college, are possible if state and local governments are forced to dramatically scale back their spending.
He was also pleased with the inclusion of undocumented immigrants in the proposal for a new round of $1,200 stimulus checks. (Data for Progress encouraged lawmakers to do so in a recent memo.)
But slipped into the bill are also provisions that the most liberal members are arguing are not in line with Democrats’ priorities.
Advertisement
Included in the act is a provision to roll back a state and local tax deduction cap, giving a tax break to mostly wealthy individuals. The bill also would clear the way for trade associations that lobby the federal government on behalf of multiple corporations to get access to small business loans even if their member companies are already eligible for bailout money. And it would enable debt collectors that provide some relief to borrowers to get access to emergency Federal Reserve loans.
“There is nothing standing in the way of an increasingly radical concentration of corporate power over our economy and our democracy.” - Sarah Miller, American Economic Liberties Project
The bill also didn’t include a moratorium on corporate mergers during the pandemic, which antitrust experts predict is likely to let giant corporations and private equity funds further consolidate corporate power as the economic slowdown puts strain on smaller companies. The absence of anti-merger language was enough to convince the anti-monopoly group, the American Economic Liberties Project, to call for members of Congress to vote it down.
“There is nothing standing in the way of an increasingly radical concentration of corporate power over our economy and our democracy,” said Sarah Miller, the American Economic Liberties Project’s executive director.
What’s more, the bill garnered criticism from progressive figures for how it addresses health care.
It includes a list of health care provisions, including expanding how much the federal government chips in on Medicaid payments, a special enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act and making free treatment for COVID-19, the disease caused by the new coronavirus. But House Democrats’ big idea to cover millions of Americans with health insurance is to subsidize at 100% COBRA, the federal program that allows recently unemployed people to continue their employer-sponsored health insurance plans at personal cost. That would mean individuals wouldn’t pay premiums for the plans previously covered by their employers, and it would serve as a welcomed stop-gap measure while people remain out of work.
Advertisement
But progressives pointed out that subsidizing COBRA is an expensive way to expand health care coverage that serves to benefit private insurance companies and health care providers more than individuals. It would direct federal funds toward private insurance companies that pay higher rates than public programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
“This new guidance puts profits over people,” Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, tweeted about the proposal when it was first floated in April. “Frontline workers deserve better than this.”
Some activists have also worried that subsidizing COBRA and expanding Medicaid assistance for states would still leave many people without adequate coverage during the pandemic. They hoped that Democratic leadership would at least supplement it with measures to expand Medicaid and Medicare.
Jayapal had sponsored two bills to expand Medicare. Her more progressive legislation would empower Medicare to cover Americans’ out-of-pocket medical costs for the duration of the pandemic. She introduced a more moderate bill with Rep. Joe Kennedy (D-Mass.) to allow Americans who have filed for unemployment benefits since the onset of the pandemic to be temporarily eligible for Medicare. The HEROES Act contained neither plan
Under the legislation, “a person could still go bankrupt from medical bills if they have COVID,” said a progressive strategist backing Medicare expansion, who requested anonymity for professional reasons.
Advertisement
Shortly after the bill’s text became public, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), a progressive member of the freshman quartet known as “the Squad,” labeled it a “massive giveaway to for-profit insurance companies.”
“We need to expand Medicare to everyone who lost a job now,” Omar, who is also in the CPC’s leadership ranks, wrote on Twitter.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez cast the lone vote against an interim relief package in late April, reflecting the left's lack of a unified strategy to shape COVID-19 legislation. Scott Heins/Getty Images
Unemployment rates jumped to 14.7% this month, the worst they’ve been since the Great Depression. The Department of Labor reported that 20.5 million people have lost their jobs; a loss of benefits makes them eligible for the Affordable Care Act and COBRA, or in some cases Medicaid. But even for those with insurance, reports have surfaced of massive hospital bills for coronavirus treatment.
Little political consensus has emerged around addressing the cost of health care during the pandemic beyond making testing for coronavirus free. The Trump administration decided against reopening enrollment for the ACA. And while President Donald Trump pledged to cover coronavirus treatment costs for uninsured Americans with a fund for hospitals, the administration hasn’t set up a system to do so. Republicans in Congress have made it clear they see no urgency in addressing the matter.
Advertisement
But progressives’ disappointment with the House bill is about more than just short-term policy concerns.
Negotiations showed how little power the left is capable of wielding in Congress. Unlike the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, which functioned as a bloc to exercise leverage over Republican leaders, the large and ideologically broad progressive caucus has rarely been able to move cohesively enough to play hardball with Democratic leadership. Notably, Jayapal and Pocan were the only names on the letter to Pelosi and some CPC mmbers learned of it through the press.
Meanwhile, the activist left hasn’t been able to unite outside groups. As Jayapal and Pocan tried to muster leverage to influence the bill on Tuesday, a coalition of progressive groups that included MoveOn, the Center for Popular Democracy Action and Indivisible issued a statement heralding its release.
“Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats have proposed legislation that is responsive to the needs of the people, regardless of immigration status,” they said.
This disjointedness on the left became apparent weeks ago when Ocasio-Cortez unexpectedly announced she planned to vote against an interim stimulus package on a press conference call intended to show progressive unity behind a core set of relief priorities. Her position angered some of her colleagues who believed she had put them in an awkward position, according to several people familiar with the matter. In the end, she was the only Democrat to vote “no” on the bill.
Advertisement
“As of right now, there are lots of people doing good work to build progressive power in Congress, but there is no center of gravity for all the efforts,” said Max Berger, a former adviser to the presidential bid by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) who tried to orchestrate a coordinated progressive response behind the scenes. “That’s a big need.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-13--Trump Called This Election ‘Rigged.’ Data Indicates Otherwise.

But without the additional vote center , residents of the ethnically diverse California city of Lancaster would have had to travel , on average , roughly twice as far as voters elsewhere in the district , according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of in-person vote center locations and voter file data provided by L2 , a national nonpartisan data provider .
California ’ s 25th District congressional election is being conducted primarily by mail , but state law requires in-person voting options .
Adding the vote center , which Los Angeles County election officials announced on Friday at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mayor , reduced the travel distance for Lancaster voters closer to that of voters living elsewhere in the district , the Public Integrity analysis found .
The spat over a single in-person voting center in a special election being conducted primarily by mail anyway is a small window into a larger war over voting that ’ s raging ahead of the November general election .
Republicans and Democrats are vying to shape how people cast their ballots while exchanging explosive charges of voter fraud , election tampering and disenfranchisement of minority voters .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing was going to blow up the way it did , ” said Lancaster Mayor R. Rex Parris in an interview Tuesday , adding that he had spoken off the cuff when requesting the vote center after being told by a reporter that the neighboring city of Palmdale had them — and Lancaster did not .
Afterward , Parris explained , Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder Dean Logan called him and offered to add a vote center in Lancaster , a city of about 160,000 , a chunk of which falls in the 25th @ @ @ @ @ @ @ director of the Los Angeles County Democratic Party , said Democrats had also separately advocated for an additional vote center in Lancaster , where , he pointed out , many voters are people of color .
Prior to the addition of a vote center at the National Soccer Center , the nearest in-person location for most residents in Lancaster was the Pampered Pooch Pet Hotel or the Palmdale Elk ’ s Lodge — both in the neighboring city of Palmdale .
“ Our argument was not that we are expecting people to run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ But we did want to make sure that people had their voting center accessible to them.
” Parris , a lawyer who has worked on Voting Rights Act cases in California , said the incident has him thinking about how decisions such as the location of vote centers could be used to influence the outcome of an election .
He said Republicans objecting have a legitimate point , even though he stressed he expects few voters to cast ballots in person .
Election officials need to carefully consider how such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
Election officials sent every registered voter a mail-in ballot and expected most voters participating in the election to use them rather than vote in person .
About one voter out of every three has returned a mail ballot , ballot tracking data shows .
Under California law , election officials are required to offer safe , in-person voting options for those who need or choose them , such as voters with disabilities , those who need language help , or those taking advantage of same-day registration .
The congressional district includes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of Ventura County .
In Los Angeles County , officials had planned to offer in-person voting at nine vote centers available to any voter in the county .
The southern portion of Lancaster is in the district .
Our analysis used locations of vote centers from Los Angeles and Ventura ( the two counties that constitute California ’ s 25th Congressional District ) and voter-file data from L2 Political , a non-partisan data vendor .
The ethnicity estimates used in this analysis are based on modeled data provided by L2 .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we calculated the distance ( “ as the crow flies ” ) to their closest vote-center before and after the addition of the vote-center at Lancaster National Soccer Center .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
This story is from the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit, nonpartisan investigative media organization in Washington, D.C.
President Donald Trump fumed that a California special congressional election is a “Rigged Election!” because local officials opened an additional polling center to better accommodate voters who do not — or cannot — vote by mail.
Advertisement
Their “votes must not count,” Trump tweeted.
But without the additional vote center, residents of the ethnically diverse California city of Lancaster would have had to travel, on average, roughly twice as far as voters elsewhere in the district, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of in-person vote center locations and voter file data provided by L2, a national nonpartisan data provider.
California’s 25th District congressional election is being conducted primarily by mail, but state law requires in-person voting options. Adding the vote center, which Los Angeles County election officials announced on Friday at the behest of Lancaster’s Republican mayor, reduced the travel distance for Lancaster voters closer to that of voters living elsewhere in the district, the Public Integrity analysis found.
The spat over a single in-person voting center in a special election being conducted primarily by mail anyway is a small window into a larger war over voting that’s raging ahead of the November general election. Republicans and Democrats are vying to shape how people cast their ballots while exchanging explosive charges of voter fraud, election tampering and disenfranchisement of minority voters.
“I didn’t know this thing was going to blow up the way it did,” said Lancaster Mayor R. Rex Parris in an interview Tuesday, adding that he had spoken off the cuff when requesting the vote center after being told by a reporter that the neighboring city of Palmdale had them — and Lancaster did not.
Advertisement
“I just kneejerked it,” Parris said.
Afterward, Parris explained, Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder Dean Logan called him and offered to add a vote center in Lancaster, a city of about 160,000, a chunk of which falls in the 25th District. Drexel Heard II, executive director of the Los Angeles County Democratic Party, said Democrats had also separately advocated for an additional vote center in Lancaster, where, he pointed out, many voters are people of color.
Both Heard and Parris said they were initially unaware of the other’s request.
Prior to the addition of a vote center at the National Soccer Center, the nearest in-person location for most residents in Lancaster was the Pampered Pooch Pet Hotel or the Palmdale Elk’s Lodge — both in the neighboring city of Palmdale.
“Our argument was not that we are expecting people to run to the voting centers,” Heard said. “But we did want to make sure that people had their voting center accessible to them.”
Parris, a lawyer who has worked on Voting Rights Act cases in California, said the incident has him thinking about how decisions such as the location of vote centers could be used to influence the outcome of an election. He said Republicans objecting have a legitimate point, even though he stressed he expects few voters to cast ballots in person. Election officials need to carefully consider how such decisions are made before November, he said.
“We seem to be becoming a society that sees a conspiracy around every corner, and that’s really not what happened here,” Parris said.
Advertisement
Public Integrity’s analysis estimates the Lancaster vote center will be the closest vote center for roughly 40 percent of African-American voters in the congressional district.
Election officials sent every registered voter a mail-in ballot and expected most voters participating in the election to use them rather than vote in person. About one voter out of every three has returned a mail ballot, ballot tracking data shows.
Under California law, election officials are required to offer safe, in-person voting options for those who need or choose them, such as voters with disabilities, those who need language help, or those taking advantage of same-day registration.
The congressional district includes parts of northern Los Angeles County and part of Ventura County. In Los Angeles County, officials had planned to offer in-person voting at nine vote centers available to any voter in the county. The southern portion of Lancaster is in the district.
Two candidates, Democratic state assemblywoman Christy Smith and Republican businessman Mike Garcia, are seeking to replace former Rep. Katie Hill, a Democrat who resigned last fall, leaving the seat vacant.
Advertisement
Partial results Wednesday morning showed Garcia with a lead. The two will face off again in November, seeking election for a full term. Both have weighed in on Twitter about the vote center fracas.
In response to a request for comment, Michael Sanchez, a spokesman for the Los Angeles County registrar-recorder’s office, said his office could not confirm the Public Integrity analysis.
But given social distancing orders related to the pandemic, he said his office had looked for locations with large exterior lots that could safely serve as vote centers.
“We geographically placed vote centers throughout Congressional District 25 that could accommodate the largest eligible voting population,” Sanchez said in an email, also noting that the district covers a large geographic area.
“The COVID-19 pandemic has limited a lot of activity and options, but we have demonstrated that we can provide safe and secure in-person voting options for those who need or choose them,” he said.
Advertisement
METHODOLOGY


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-14--Barack Obama Speaks Out After Mitch McConnell Tells Him To Keep His 'Mouth Shut'

Former President Barack Obama on Wednesday urged a better government response to the coronavirus pandemic , just days after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told him he “ should ’ ve kept his mouth shut ” about the issue .
Obama hasn ’ t publicly criticized Trump by name and didn ’ t do so on Wednesday .
Instead , he urged “ better policy decisions ” to fight the infections and protect people from the economic fallout as he shared a Vox report with expert ideas on countering the COVID-19 virus .
Despite all the time that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real progress against the virus , protect people from the economic fallout , and more safely approach something closer to normal if we start making better policy decisions now.https : //t.co/pfokyI8GiB — Barack Obama ( @ BarackObama ) May 13 , 2020 Trump has repeatedly blamed his predecessor for his own administration ’ s slow response to the pandemic , which has now killed more than 84,000 people in the United States .
At one point , he blamed the Obama administration for leaving him “ bad , broken tests ” for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t exist until last year .
In a private phone call with former members of his administration last week , the former president did name Trump , however , as he slammed the president ’ s response to the pandemic as “ an absolute chaotic disaster , ” as reported by Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News .
But publicly , without mentioning Trump ’ s name , Obama has called out the lack of “ a coherent national plan to navigate this pandemic ” and warned of “ the consequences of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ I think President Obama should ’ ve kept his mouth shut , ” the Kentucky Republican said in an interview with Lara Trump , the president ’ s daughter-in-law and an adviser to his reelection campaign .
“ I think it ’ s a little bit classless , frankly , to critique an administration that comes after you , ” he said .
“ You had your shot .
You were there for eight years.
” McConnell drew criticism from both sides of the aisle , including from the former chair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ telling Obama to shut up .
I 'm sure Mitch is aware that a grown ass black man who happens to be a former president has agency to speak his mind on how his successor is managing this crisis , especially since his successor has yet to keep `` his mouth shut '' about him .
And `` classless '' ?
https : //t.co/kx6yyH8n4k — Michael Steele ( @ MichaelSteele ) May 12 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Former President Barack Obama on Wednesday urged a better government response to the coronavirus pandemic, just days after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told him he “should’ve kept his mouth shut” about the issue.
McConnell also called Obama “classless” for criticizing President Donald Trump.
Obama hasn’t publicly criticized Trump by name and didn’t do so on Wednesday.
Instead, he urged “better policy decisions” to fight the infections and protect people from the economic fallout as he shared a Vox report with expert ideas on countering the COVID-19 virus.
Advertisement
Despite all the time that’s been lost, we can still make real progress against the virus, protect people from the economic fallout, and more safely approach something closer to normal if we start making better policy decisions now.https://t.co/pfokyI8GiB — Barack Obama (@BarackObama) May 13, 2020
Trump has repeatedly blamed his predecessor for his own administration’s slow response to the pandemic, which has now killed more than 84,000 people in the United States.
At one point, he blamed the Obama administration for leaving him “bad, broken tests” for the coronavirus despite the fact that the virus didn’t exist until last year.
In a private phone call with former members of his administration last week, the former president did name Trump, however, as he slammed the president’s response to the pandemic as “an absolute chaotic disaster,” as reported by Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News.
Advertisement
McConnell earlier this week said Obama should be silent.
“I think President Obama should’ve kept his mouth shut,” the Kentucky Republican said in an interview with Lara Trump, the president’s daughter-in-law and an adviser to his reelection campaign.
“I think it’s a little bit classless, frankly, to critique an administration that comes after you,” he said. “You had your shot. You were there for eight years.”
McConnell drew criticism from both sides of the aisle, including from the former chair of the Republican National Committee, for telling Obama to shut up.
I'm sure Mitch is aware that a grown ass black man who happens to be a former president has agency to speak his mind on how his successor is managing this crisis, especially since his successor has yet to keep "his mouth shut" about him.
And "classless"?https://t.co/kx6yyH8n4k — Michael Steele (@MichaelSteele) May 12, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-13--Trump Again Undermines Dr. Anthony Fauci, Pushes For Schools To Reopen

President Donald Trump urged schools across the nation to reopen “ as soon as possible ” even as the coronavirus continues to spread , saying infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci ’ s ongoing calls for caution were “ not an acceptable answer.
” “ I was surprised by his answer , actually , ” Trump later added , “ because you know it ’ s just to me , it ’ s not an acceptable answer , especially when it comes to schools.
” Trump was referencing Fauci ’ s testimony to the Senate earlier this week , where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country too soon could lead to “ suffering and death that could be avoided.
” When Sen. Rand Paul ( R-Ky. ) pressed Fauci about his resistance to kickstarting the economy , the doctor directly pointed to the unknown effects infections of COVID-19 could have on children .
“ I think we better be careful , if we are not cavalier , in thinking that children are completely immune to the deleterious effects , ” Fauci told the Senate Committee on Health , Education , Labor and Pensions .
“ You ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in general , do much , much better than adults and the elderly and particularly those with underlying conditions .
But I am very careful and hopefully humble in knowing that I don ’ t know everything about this disease.
” “ I think they should open the schools , absolutely , ” the president said , according to a pool report from the White House .
“ I think they should .
It ’ s had very little impact on young people .
And I think that if you ’ re an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ teacher , a professor over a certain age , like let ’ s say 65 , or maybe even if you want to be conservative , 60 , perhaps you want to stay out for a little while longer.
” He continued : “ It ’ s had very little impact on young people , and I would strongly say they should open .
It ’ s up to the governors , it ’ s the governors ’ choice , but their state is not open if the schools aren ’ t open.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Senate committee this week , saying the U.S. runs `` the risk of having a resurgence ” of the coronavirus if it reopens schools and businesses prematurely .
Trump has regularly pushed back against medical experts ’ advice in his bid to see the country reopen and rein in some of the economic devastation wrought by the pandemic .
The White House released a three-phase plan that governors could follow to reopen , but the president has cheered on states that have moved forward without meeting those guidelines .
A vaccine for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , top health officials say , and some states have begun investigating a string of rare illnesses they worry may be linked to the disease .
New York state said this week it was probing a string of 102 cases of an unusual inflammatory syndrome in children that can cause life-threatening symptoms .
An official at the World Health Organization also stressed that any hope for a vaccine should be tempered , saying the unprecedented effort to develop one could turn out to be a “ moonshot.
” COVID-19 is usually mild when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is still spreading throughout the country .
More than 1.3 million people have tested positive for the coronavirus and more than 83,000 have died .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump urged schools across the nation to reopen “as soon as possible” even as the coronavirus continues to spread, saying infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci’s ongoing calls for caution were “not an acceptable answer.”
“He wants to play all sides of the equation,” the president said on Wednesday of Fauci, a leading figure on the White House’s coronavirus task force.
Advertisement
“I was surprised by his answer, actually,” Trump later added, “because you know it’s just to me, it’s not an acceptable answer, especially when it comes to schools.”
Trump was referencing Fauci’s testimony to the Senate earlier this week, where the doctor warned lawmakers that reopening the country too soon could lead to “suffering and death that could be avoided.” When Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) pressed Fauci about his resistance to kickstarting the economy, the doctor directly pointed to the unknown effects infections of COVID-19 could have on children.
“I think we better be careful, if we are not cavalier, in thinking that children are completely immune to the deleterious effects,” Fauci told the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. “You’re right in the numbers that children, in general, do much, much better than adults and the elderly and particularly those with underlying conditions. But I am very careful and hopefully humble in knowing that I don’t know everything about this disease.”
But Trump appeared to reject that concern in remarks to reporters on Wednesday.
“I think they should open the schools, absolutely,” the president said, according to a pool report from the White House. “I think they should. It’s had very little impact on young people. And I think that if you’re an instructor, if you’re a teacher, a professor over a certain age, like let’s say 65, or maybe even if you want to be conservative, 60, perhaps you want to stay out for a little while longer.”
Advertisement
He continued: “It’s had very little impact on young people, and I would strongly say they should open. It’s up to the governors, it’s the governors’ choice, but their state is not open if the schools aren’t open.”
Dr. Anthony Fauci testified remotely to a Senate committee this week, saying the U.S. runs "the risk of having a resurgence” of the coronavirus if it reopens schools and businesses prematurely. Win McNamee via Getty Images
Trump has regularly pushed back against medical experts’ advice in his bid to see the country reopen and rein in some of the economic devastation wrought by the pandemic. The White House released a three-phase plan that governors could follow to reopen, but the president has cheered on states that have moved forward without meeting those guidelines.
A vaccine for the coronavirus is still many months away, top health officials say, and some states have begun investigating a string of rare illnesses they worry may be linked to the disease. New York state said this week it was probing a string of 102 cases of an unusual inflammatory syndrome in children that can cause life-threatening symptoms.
An official at the World Health Organization also stressed that any hope for a vaccine should be tempered, saying the unprecedented effort to develop one could turn out to be a “moonshot.”
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-14--Eric Trump Confuses Cliches And Becomes A Twitter Laughingstock

Eric Trump is , quite possibly , the only person to have ever used the phrase `` the chips are @ @ @ @ @ the internet other than someone posting on the official forums of The Bold and the @ @ @

Eric Trump is, quite possibly, the only person to have ever used the phrase "the chips are starting to crumble" on the internet other than someone posting on the official forums of The Bold and the Beautiful. pic.twitter.com/MCtfeug8QK


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-14--'Trump Death Clock' In Times Square Is Grim Reminder Of Preventable Virus Deaths

A digital billboard in New York City ’ s Times Square targeting President Donald Trump ’ s early inaction on coronavirus reached a grave milestone on Wednesday , as it ticked over to an estimated 50,000 preventable deaths .
The “ Trump Death Clock ” projects a running count of deaths , which according to two leading epidemiologists , could have been avoided had social distancing measures been implemented earlier .
Eugene Jarecki , the Emmy and Peabody award-winning director behind political documentaries , such as “ Why We Fight ” and “ The House I Live In ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the counter was in the same “ symbolic spirit ” as the National Debt Clock , which already hangs in the city .
The Death Clock , he said , measures “ the cost in human lives of President Trump and his team ’ s reckless handling of the coronavirus pandemic.
” Epidemiologists Dr. Britta L. Jewell and Nicolas P. Jewell estimated a 60 % reduction in deaths had mitigation measures been enacted on March 9 .
Although experts sounded the alarm as early as January , Trump was still downplaying the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the March 9 milestone he was comparing it with “ the common flu.
” The goal is to let numbers speak for themselves .
They cut through the noise and circus of propaganda in the news cycles ... What the numbers do to him [ POTUS ] is they demand accountability .
In a pandemic every second counts .
- @ EugeneJarecki https : //t.co/wNzcxf0Wce # TrumpDeathClock — TrumpDeathClock ( @ TrumpDeathClock ) May 13 , 2020 On Wednesday , as the U.S. approached 85,000 reported deaths , the clock displayed an estimate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been saved .
Jarecki said he hoped the numbers will speak for themselves .
“ Reports show that as early as January , the president was advised by both his own experts and the intelligence services of the need for urgent mitigation measures against the spread of the virus , ” Jarecki wrote in an op-ed for The Washington Post .
“ Instead , he engaged in petty political feuds and pollyannish predictions minimizing its significance .
Finally , on March 16 , he reversed his previously dismissive stance and announced ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ” But by that time , Jarecki wrote , it was too late .
The U.S. was already leading the world in its rate of infection and has since tallied many more deaths than any other country .
Jarecki said that with the pandemic ongoing , he hopes “ the lives already unnecessarily lost demand we seek more responsible crisis leadership.
” “ Just as the names of fallen soldiers are etched on memorials to remind us of the cost of war , quantifying the lives lost to the president ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public function , ” he added .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A digital billboard in New York City’s Times Square targeting President Donald Trump’s early inaction on coronavirus reached a grave milestone on Wednesday, as it ticked over to an estimated 50,000 preventable deaths.
The “Trump Death Clock” projects a running count of deaths, which according to two leading epidemiologists, could have been avoided had social distancing measures been implemented earlier.
Advertisement
Eugene Jarecki, the Emmy and Peabody award-winning director behind political documentaries, such as “Why We Fight” and “The House I Live In” and the sign’s creator, said the counter was in the same “symbolic spirit” as the National Debt Clock, which already hangs in the city. The Death Clock, he said, measures “the cost in human lives of President Trump and his team’s reckless handling of the coronavirus pandemic.”
Epidemiologists Dr. Britta L. Jewell and Nicolas P. Jewell estimated a 60% reduction in deaths had mitigation measures been enacted on March 9. Although experts sounded the alarm as early as January, Trump was still downplaying the coronavirus at the end of February and on the March 9 milestone he was comparing it with “the common flu.”
The goal is to let numbers speak for themselves. They cut through the noise and circus of propaganda in the news cycles... What the numbers do to him [POTUS] is they demand accountability. In a pandemic every second counts. -@EugeneJarecki https://t.co/wNzcxf0Wce #TrumpDeathClock — TrumpDeathClock (@TrumpDeathClock) May 13, 2020
On Wednesday, as the U.S. approached 85,000 reported deaths, the clock displayed an estimate of more than 50,700 lives that could have been saved. Jarecki said he hoped the numbers will speak for themselves.
Advertisement
“Reports show that as early as January, the president was advised by both his own experts and the intelligence services of the need for urgent mitigation measures against the spread of the virus,” Jarecki wrote in an op-ed for The Washington Post. “Instead, he engaged in petty political feuds and pollyannish predictions minimizing its significance. Finally, on March 16, he reversed his previously dismissive stance and announced ‘new guidelines for every American to follow.’”
But by that time, Jarecki wrote, it was too late. The U.S. was already leading the world in its rate of infection and has since tallied many more deaths than any other country.
Jarecki said that with the pandemic ongoing, he hopes “the lives already unnecessarily lost demand we seek more responsible crisis leadership.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-14--Anderson Cooper: Donald Trump's Latest Coronavirus Ploy Is 1 Of His Most Offensive Yet

CNN ’ s Anderson Cooper on Wednesday rebuked President Donald Trump and members of his administration who suggest the coronavirus death toll is lower than the reported number as they argue to reopen the economy .
The host of “ Anderson Cooper 360 ” said he couldn ’ t think “ of anything more offensive to a family than to have the death of their loved one , the reason for the death of their loved one , you know , rewritten by the White House or the administration in order for whatever political purpose that may be.
” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do that , ” he added .
CNN ’ s chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta earlier told Cooper that Trump and some of his senior aides now feel the death “ number may be overcounted at this point.
” Acosta , citing a senior administration official , noted “ the grim death toll obviously guides their policy ” and “ they can ’ t be in as much of a hurry to reopen these states and schools and all other facets of daily life if those numbers are weighing down those decisions.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the coronavirus in the U.S. , more than any other country in the world .
Public health experts believe the true death toll may actually be even higher due to inconsistencies in testing and reporting .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Wednesday rebuked President Donald Trump and members of his administration who suggest the coronavirus death toll is lower than the reported number as they argue to reopen the economy.
The host of “Anderson Cooper 360” said he couldn’t think “of anything more offensive to a family than to have the death of their loved one, the reason for the death of their loved one, you know, rewritten by the White House or the administration in order for whatever political purpose that may be.”
Advertisement
“It’s so fundamentally wrong to do that,” he added.
CNN’s chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta earlier told Cooper that Trump and some of his senior aides now feel the death “number may be overcounted at this point.”
Acosta, citing a senior administration official, noted “the grim death toll obviously guides their policy” and “they can’t be in as much of a hurry to reopen these states and schools and all other facets of daily life if those numbers are weighing down those decisions.”
More than 85,000 people have died from the coronavirus in the U.S., more than any other country in the world. Public health experts believe the true death toll may actually be even higher due to inconsistencies in testing and reporting.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-14--Disagreeing With Fed Chair, Trump Again Touts Negative Interest Rates

WASHINGTON , May 13 ( Reuters ) ― President Donald Trump on Wednesday said he still strongly believes the Federal Reserve should have negative interest rates , but gave a modicum of approval to Fed Chair Jerome Powell who said earlier in the day the central bank would not lower rates beyond zero .
Trump said Powell , whom he frequently criticizes , has improved in his performance as the Fed ’ s head , but he still disagrees with Powell when it comes to the lending rate set by the central bank .
Powell earlier on Wednesday said the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rates below zero , and instead pushed lawmakers to use spending to boost the economy during the deadly coronavirus pandemic .
“ The committee ’ s view on negative rates really has not changed .
This is not something that we are looking at , ” Powell said in answer to a question during an event hosted by the Peterson Institute for International Economics , as he referenced the Fed ’ s policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee ( FOMC ) .
A number of major central banks ― including the Bank of Japan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ negative-rate policies in the years since the 2007-2009 financial crisis because their sluggish economies have failed to produce the desired level of inflation .
Last week for the first time ever , fed funds futures began reflecting a small chance that negative rate policy would find its way to U.S. shores .
The futures market is used both to hedge for and bet outright on the level of the Fed ’ s benchmark overnight interest rate as far as three years down the road .
... .The USA should always be paying the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is only the naïveté of Jay Powell and the Federal Reserve that doesn ’ t allow us to do what other countries are already doing .
A once in a lifetime opportunity that we are missing because of “ Boneheads.
” — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) September 11 , 2019 “ As a former real estate developer , the idea of being able to borrow at low or negative rates suits Trump ’ s mindset , ” said Mark Sobel , a longtime former U.S. Treasury and International Monetary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The strong dollar has given him a lever to push for that.
” But Powell , along with several other U.S. policymakers , have rebuffed the idea that a sub-zero policy is on the table .
At least six of the 12 presidents of the Fed ’ s regional banks have shot the idea down , and Powell noted during Wednesday ’ s event that disregard for it has been the subject of rare unanimity among policymakers .
Officials most recently discussed it during last October ’ s meeting , Powell said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all FOMC participants ― and that ’ s not a sentence you get to say very often ― all FOMC participants currently did not judge that negative rates ... appear to be an attractive monetary policy tool in the United States.
” Powell said policymakers prefer alternatives such as forward guidance ― or hard signals of how long current policy will remain in place ― and large-scale asset purchases , also known as quantitative easing , or QE .
“ We ’ ve said that we continue to rely on those tools that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a part of our toolkit , ” he said .
Rate futures tempered the pricing for negative rates somewhat after Powell ’ s remarks .
However , a dozen contracts that mature from April 2021 through March 2022 are priced to reflect a fed funds rate of between minus 0.01 % and minus 0.025 % at contract expiration .
Subadra Rajappa , head of U.S. rates strategy at Societe Generale in New York , said while futures markets “ are still pricing it in ... we ’ re looking at very small volumes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Even then you are looking at negative rates of one or two basis points , so it ’ s not in any way suggestive of a policy move that the market is pricing in .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON, May 13 (Reuters) ― President Donald Trump on Wednesday said he still strongly believes the Federal Reserve should have negative interest rates, but gave a modicum of approval to Fed Chair Jerome Powell who said earlier in the day the central bank would not lower rates beyond zero.
Trump said Powell, whom he frequently criticizes, has improved in his performance as the Fed’s head, but he still disagrees with Powell when it comes to the lending rate set by the central bank.
Advertisement
Powell earlier on Wednesday said the Fed is still not looking at setting rates below zero, and instead pushed lawmakers to use spending to boost the economy during the deadly coronavirus pandemic.
“The committee’s view on negative rates really has not changed. This is not something that we are looking at,” Powell said in answer to a question during an event hosted by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, as he referenced the Fed’s policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC).
A number of major central banks ― including the Bank of Japan and European Central Bank ― have implemented negative-rate policies in the years since the 2007-2009 financial crisis because their sluggish economies have failed to produce the desired level of inflation.
Last week for the first time ever, fed funds futures began reflecting a small chance that negative rate policy would find its way to U.S. shores. The futures market is used both to hedge for and bet outright on the level of the Fed’s benchmark overnight interest rate as far as three years down the road.
Advertisement
....The USA should always be paying the the lowest rate. No Inflation! It is only the naïveté of Jay Powell and the Federal Reserve that doesn’t allow us to do what other countries are already doing. A once in a lifetime opportunity that we are missing because of “Boneheads.” — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 11, 2019
Trump has frequently called negative rates a way to limit dollar strength and keep U.S. exports competitive, calling the Fed “Boneheads” last September for failing to pursue the policy.
“As a former real estate developer, the idea of being able to borrow at low or negative rates suits Trump’s mindset,” said Mark Sobel, a longtime former U.S. Treasury and International Monetary Fund official and currency policy expert. “The strong dollar has given him a lever to push for that.”
But Powell, along with several other U.S. policymakers, have rebuffed the idea that a sub-zero policy is on the table. At least six of the 12 presidents of the Fed’s regional banks have shot the idea down, and Powell noted during Wednesday’s event that disregard for it has been the subject of rare unanimity among policymakers.
Officials most recently discussed it during last October’s meeting, Powell said, “and the minutes said that all FOMC participants ― and that’s not a sentence you get to say very often ― all FOMC participants currently did not judge that negative rates ... appear to be an attractive monetary policy tool in the United States.”
Advertisement
Powell said policymakers prefer alternatives such as forward guidance ― or hard signals of how long current policy will remain in place ― and large-scale asset purchases, also known as quantitative easing, or QE.
“We’ve said that we continue to rely on those tools that are tried, and they are now a part of our toolkit,” he said.
Rate futures tempered the pricing for negative rates somewhat after Powell’s remarks. However, a dozen contracts that mature from April 2021 through March 2022 are priced to reflect a fed funds rate of between minus 0.01% and minus 0.025% at contract expiration.
Some analysts threw cold water on the notion that the market was seriously pricing in negative rates.
Subadra Rajappa, head of U.S. rates strategy at Societe Generale in New York, said while futures markets “are still pricing it in ... we’re looking at very small volumes in fed funds futures out the curve. Even then you are looking at negative rates of one or two basis points, so it’s not in any way suggestive of a policy move that the market is pricing in.”
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-13--Joe Biden Calls For Rent Forgiveness During The Coronavirus Pandemic

Former Vice President Joe Biden believes rent and mortgage payments should be forgiven during the coronavirus pandemic , he said in an interview published Wednesday morning , though his campaign was sparse on details about a proposal .
Asked by journalist Peter Hamby whether it was possible for there to be “ some kind of federal rent bailout , ” Biden replied : “ Absolutely .
There is .
And we should .
We should.
” “ There should be rent forgiveness and there should be mortgage forgiveness now in the middle of this crisis , ” Biden said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ forgiveness .
It ’ s critically important to people who are in the lower-income strata.
” The Biden campaign said it did not have any further details on how he would implement a rent and mortgage forgiveness plan but noted that Biden had previously called to freeze rent for people who had lost their jobs and for a ban on evictions during the pandemic .
Biden has moved to the left on a variety of issues since the end of the primary , arguing they are necessary to respond to the pandemic and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aftermath .
More than 20 million people have lost their jobs since the start of the pandemic , and the unemployment rate has spiked to 14.7 % .
The coronavirus aid package that won bipartisan support in Congress and was signed by President Donald Trump in March gave homeowners with federally backed mortgages the right to ask for reduced or delayed payments for up to 180 days .
Rep. Ilhan Omar ( D-Minn. ) and other progressives have pushed an aggressive bill to cancel all rent and mortgage payments from March 2020 until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House Democrats did not include the proposal in their most recent coronavirus response legislation , which is expected to pass the House in the coming days .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Former Vice President Joe Biden believes rent and mortgage payments should be forgiven during the coronavirus pandemic, he said in an interview published Wednesday morning, though his campaign was sparse on details about a proposal.
Asked by journalist Peter Hamby whether it was possible for there to be “some kind of federal rent bailout,” Biden replied: “Absolutely. There is. And we should. We should.”
Advertisement
“There should be rent forgiveness and there should be mortgage forgiveness now in the middle of this crisis,” Biden said. “Forgiveness. Not paid later, forgiveness. It’s critically important to people who are in the lower-income strata.”
A transcript of the interview, conducted for Snapchat’s series “Good Luck America,” was published in Vanity Fair.
A man wearing a face mask walks past signs Monday in Alexandria, Virginia, for Joe Biden's 2020 presidential campaign amid the coronavirus outbreak. OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images
The Biden campaign said it did not have any further details on how he would implement a rent and mortgage forgiveness plan but noted that Biden had previously called to freeze rent for people who had lost their jobs and for a ban on evictions during the pandemic.
Advertisement
Biden has moved to the left on a variety of issues since the end of the primary, arguing they are necessary to respond to the pandemic and build a stronger middle class in its aftermath. More than 20 million people have lost their jobs since the start of the pandemic, and the unemployment rate has spiked to 14.7%.
The coronavirus aid package that won bipartisan support in Congress and was signed by President Donald Trump in March gave homeowners with federally backed mortgages the right to ask for reduced or delayed payments for up to 180 days.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-14--Wisconsin Gov. Slams Ruling That Overturns Stay-At-Home Order: We’ll Have More Deaths

Wisconsin Gov .
Tony Evers ( D ) on Wednesday warned the state is now “ in the Wild West ” after the state Supreme Court blocked his bid to extend the state ’ s stay-at-home order aimed at slowing the spread of the coronavirus .
“ At this point in time , there is no orders , there ’ s nothing that ’ s compelling people to do anything other than having chaos here , ” Evers told MSNBC ’ s Ali Velshi .
“ We ’ re going to have more cases .
We ’ re going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sad occasion for the state , ” he warned .
Evers said the “ good progress ” made by the state ’ s citizens amid the lockdown , which had resulted in “ one of the lowest numbers of cases per capita in the Midwest , ” had been thrown “ into chaos ” in “ one fell swoop ” by Wednesday ’ s 4-3 ruling of the conservative-controlled high court .
He also noted how the Tavern League of Wisconsin had , following the ruling , told businesses via a statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ OPEN IMMEDIATELY !
” People visited reopened bars in the immediate aftermath of the ruling , reported the Green Bay Press Gazette .
Some counties then took the decision , however , to reimpose the stay-at-home orders until later in the month .
Gov .
Evers echoed his frustration and anger during an interview with CNN ’ s Don Lemon .
He warned the end of the lockdown will “ cause us to have spikes ” of the deadly contagion that ’ s killed more than 85,000 people nationwide , “ no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a good place as a state , the people of Wisconsin are the ones that should be very upset , ” Evers noted , later adding : “ We were doing a good job , that ’ s what ’ s so frustrating.
” Evers said it may now take at least two weeks to agree a plan on how to tackle the pandemic with the state ’ s GOP-controlled legislature , which brought the case to the Supreme Court , while many businesses are free to reopen as they wish .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ overturning the order for a week in order to get a plan in place , reported the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel , but the Supreme Court ’ s Justices ruled it should take immediate effect .
I am disappointed in this decision , but our top priority has been and will remain doing what we can and what we have to do to protect the health and safety of our state .
After months of unproductive posturing , I hope the folks in the Legislature are ready to do the same .
— Governor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 14 , 2020 And just because the Supreme Court says it ’ s okay to open , doesn ’ t mean that science does .
We need everyone to continue doing their part to keep our families , our neighbors and our communities safe by continuing to stay safer at home , practice social distancing , and limit travel .
— Governor Tony Evers ( @ GovEvers ) May 14 , 2020 Up to now , we were in a pretty good place in our battle against # COVID19 .
We had reached @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had opened up small businesses across the state , putting folks back to work , and that was because of the good work of Wisconsinites across our state .
— Governor Tony Evers ( @ GovEvers ) May 14 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D) on Wednesday warned that the state is now “in the Wild West” after the state Supreme Court blocked his bid to extend the statewide stay-at-home order aimed at slowing the spread of the coronavirus.
“At this point in time, there is no orders. There’s nothing that’s compelling people to do anything other than having chaos here,” Evers told MSNBC’s Ali Velshi. “We’re going to have more cases. We’re going to have more deaths, and it’s a sad occasion for the state.”
Advertisement
The governor said the “good progress” that residents had made during the lockdown, resulting in “one of the lowest numbers of cases per capita in the Midwest,” had been thrown “into chaos” by Wednesday’s 4-3 ruling of the conservative-controlled high court.
He also noted that following the ruling, the trade association Tavern League of Wisconsin told businesses in a statement and on its website that they could “OPEN IMMEDIATELY!”
People began to visit reopened bars immediately after the ruling, the Green Bay Press Gazette reported. However, some counties made the decision to reimpose the stay-at-home orders until later in the month.
Check out Evers’ MSNBC interview here:
Advertisement
Evers echoed his frustration and anger during another interview Wednesday with CNN’s Don Lemon. He warned that ending the lockdown will “cause us to have spikes” in cases of the deadly disease that’s killed more than 85,000 people nationwide.
“We were in a good place as a state. The people of Wisconsin are the ones that should be very upset,” Evers said, later adding, “We were doing a good job, that’s what’s so frustrating.”
One silver lining: Schools in the state will remain closed until fall.
“That’s the one thing they didn’t touch, and that’s a good thing,” he said.
The governor said it may take at least two weeks to agree on a plan for how to tackle the pandemic with the state’s GOP-controlled legislature, which brought the case to the Supreme Court, while many businesses are free to reopen as they wish.
The legislature had initially wanted to delay overturning the order for a week in order to get a plan in place, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported, but the Supreme Court’s justices ruled that it should take immediate effect.
Check out that interview here:
"It's a bad day for Wisconsin."
Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers tells CNN's @DonLemon that the state's Supreme Court decision to overturn his administration's stay-at-home order "puts our state into chaos." https://t.co/vgyCXPk4mM pic.twitter.com/13HYKOpnFV — CNN Tonight (@CNNTonight) May 14, 2020
Advertisement
On Twitter, Evers explained why he was “disappointed” with the ruling:
I am disappointed in this decision, but our top priority has been and will remain doing what we can and what we have to do to protect the health and safety of our state. After months of unproductive posturing, I hope the folks in the Legislature are ready to do the same. — Governor Tony Evers (@GovEvers) May 14, 2020
And just because the Supreme Court says it’s okay to open, doesn’t mean that science does. We need everyone to continue doing their part to keep our families, our neighbors and our communities safe by continuing to stay safer at home, practice social distancing, and limit travel. — Governor Tony Evers (@GovEvers) May 14, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-13--How California Is Preparing For Wildfire Season Amid Coronavirus

“ We got ta walk and chew gum at the same time , ” Newsom said , describing his office ’ s dual missions of fighting wildfires and preventing further spread of COVID-19 .
Newsom spoke in a news conference in El Dorado County , near Sacramento .
“ This year ’ s fire season will be ferocious , ” Newsom warned , noting that there has been little precipitation so far this year , creating dryer conditions that could contribute to fires that start easier and spread farther and faster .
California has experienced record-breaking wildfires that have only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been 1,130 wildfires so far this year — about 60 % more than in the same period last year .
The governor plans to release a revised state budget on Thursday that includes a proposed increase of $ 85 million to go to CalFire to hire hundreds of additional much-needed firefighters across the state .
Newsom also hopes to dedicate about $ 50 million in grants to local counties to help mitigate the effects of power outages meant to prevent fires .
Last year , massive outages by Pacific Gas and Electric @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were being forced to evacuate wildfires .
Mark Ghilarducci , director of California ’ s office of emergency services , said his team is working on new protocols to evacuate people from fire zones safely given the coronavirus threat and the need to maintain social distancing .
“ Evacuating in a COVID management situation , it would look different , ” Ghilarducci said , adding that his team will work through options “ in real time.
” Challenges include how to separate COVID-positive evacuees from others .
Rather than placing cots side by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gyms or Red Cross tent shelters as in the past , officials may have to install partitions and air purifiers or even secure hotel rooms for evacuees .
“ People are still dying from this virus .
… People must take this seriously , ” Newsom said , adding that people taking actions to stem the spread of the virus could save the lives of first responders such as firefighters and medical personnel on the front lines of fire emergencies .
“ Those out there who think they ’ re immune , … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first responders , the heroes of this community , because we ’ re not out of the woods with this virus , ” Newsom said .
As wildfire season in California looms in the summer and fall , Newsom said he was “ mindful ” of the threat and of the “ understandable anxiety this time of year presents for people , in addition to what ’ s going on with COVID-19.
” Californians every year have to deal with the stress of wondering whether wildfires will hit their communities .
Of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four happened this decade alone .
In 2017 , wildfires near Santa Rosa killed 44 people ― the deadliest at the time , at least until the Camp Fire the following year surpassed it , killed 85 people and ravaged the town of Paradise .
In recent months , California has faced a persistent threat from the coronavirus , with more than 72,000 confirmed cases and nearly 3,000 deaths as of Wednesday .
The number of new cases and deaths has plateaued in the state for “ many , many weeks now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has not yet seen a significant decline in its COVID-19 figures .
Much of the state remains under strict stay-at-home orders to prevent further spread of the virus .
But this week , 10 rural counties with fewer cases — including El Dorado and Butte counties in Northern California — have been allowed to reopen businesses , including restaurants .
Asked how Newsom plans to pay for the state ’ s spending on wildfire prevention and coronavirus response , Newsom provided grim numbers .
The state has gone from a projected $ 6 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ projected deficit .
Newsom ’ s revised budget includes some cuts in proposed spending compared to his January proposal on CalFire and the office of emergency services .
These are part of the “ sobering and deep challenges we have to address head-on , ” Newsom said .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
California Gov. Gavin Newsom laid out Wednesday how the state will prepare for the inevitable: an upcoming season of potentially disastrous wildfires and the ongoing coronavirus public health emergency.
“We gotta walk and chew gum at the same time,” Newsom said, describing his office’s dual missions of fighting wildfires and preventing further spread of COVID-19. Newsom spoke in a news conference in El Dorado County, near Sacramento.
Advertisement
“This year’s fire season will be ferocious,” Newsom warned, noting that there has been little precipitation so far this year, creating dryer conditions that could contribute to fires that start easier and spread farther and faster.
California has experienced record-breaking wildfires that have only gotten worse in recent years. There have been 1,130 wildfires so far this year — about 60% more than in the same period last year.
The governor plans to release a revised state budget on Thursday that includes a proposed increase of $85 million to go to CalFire to hire hundreds of additional much-needed firefighters across the state.
Newsom also hopes to dedicate about $50 million in grants to local counties to help mitigate the effects of power outages meant to prevent fires. Last year, massive outages by Pacific Gas and Electric left millions without power just as many were being forced to evacuate wildfires.
Advertisement
State lawmakers will vote on the budget later this year.
Mark Ghilarducci, director of California’s office of emergency services, said his team is working on new protocols to evacuate people from fire zones safely given the coronavirus threat and the need to maintain social distancing.
“Evacuating in a COVID management situation, it would look different,” Ghilarducci said, adding that his team will work through options “in real time.” Challenges include how to separate COVID-positive evacuees from others.
Rather than placing cots side by side in big open spaces such as gyms or Red Cross tent shelters as in the past, officials may have to install partitions and air purifiers or even secure hotel rooms for evacuees.
“People are still dying from this virus. … People must take this seriously,” Newsom said, adding that people taking actions to stem the spread of the virus could save the lives of first responders such as firefighters and medical personnel on the front lines of fire emergencies.
“Those out there who think they’re immune, … I hope you’ll consider our first responders, the heroes of this community, because we’re not out of the woods with this virus,” Newsom said.
Advertisement
From January to May 10 last year we had 675 wildfires.
From January to May 10 this year we’ve had 1,130 wildfires.
A 60% increase.
As we continue to fight #COVID19 we can’t pull back on priorities that keep us safe. We will continue invest, prepare & fight wildfires across CA. — Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) May 13, 2020
As wildfire season in California looms in the summer and fall, Newsom said he was “mindful” of the threat and of the “understandable anxiety this time of year presents for people, in addition to what’s going on with COVID-19.”
Californians every year have to deal with the stress of wondering whether wildfires will hit their communities. Of the five largest wildfires in California history, four happened this decade alone.
In 2017, wildfires near Santa Rosa killed 44 people ― the deadliest at the time, at least until the Camp Fire the following year surpassed it, killed 85 people and ravaged the town of Paradise.
In recent months, California has faced a persistent threat from the coronavirus, with more than 72,000 confirmed cases and nearly 3,000 deaths as of Wednesday. The number of new cases and deaths has plateaued in the state for “many, many weeks now,” Newsom said, and the state has not yet seen a significant decline in its COVID-19 figures.
Advertisement
Much of the state remains under strict stay-at-home orders to prevent further spread of the virus. But this week, 10 rural counties with fewer cases — including El Dorado and Butte counties in Northern California — have been allowed to reopen businesses, including restaurants.
Asked how Newsom plans to pay for the state’s spending on wildfire prevention and coronavirus response, Newsom provided grim numbers. The state has gone from a projected $6 billion surplus to tens of billions in projected deficit.
Newsom’s revised budget includes some cuts in proposed spending compared to his January proposal on CalFire and the office of emergency services. These are part of the “sobering and deep challenges we have to address head-on,” Newsom said.
“These deficits are so pronounced for one thing: COVID-19,” Newsom added, calling for the federal government to “do more to support states.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-14--9 States Sue EPA For Easing Pollution Monitoring Requirements During Pandemic

WASHINGTON ( Reuters ) ― Nine states on Wednesday filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for relaxing a range of companies ’ compliance and monitoring requirements with federal clean air and water laws in response to the coronavirus pandemic , arguing the policy is too broad and not transparent .
Under the temporary policy announced on March 26 , the EPA said it would not seek penalties for violations of routine compliance monitoring , integrity testing , sampling , laboratory analysis , training , and reporting or certification obligations in situations where the EPA agrees that COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ led by New York Attorney General Letitia James , argued that the EPA issued a broad and open-ended policy that gives polluters too much leeway instead of using enforcement discretion “ as authorized by law.
” “ The policy ’ s effective waiver of these requirements , which are foundational to our federal environmental laws , exceeds EPA ’ s authority , ” the attorneys general said .
EPA chief Andrew Wheeler said earlier this year that he expected “ regulated facilities to comply with regulatory requirements , where reasonably practicable ” amid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nine states ― New York , California , Illinois , Maryland , Michigan , Minnesota , Oregon , Vermont and Virginia ― argue that the EPA lacks legal authority to waive “ critical monitoring and reporting obligations that inform regulators and the general public of pollution hazards ” and failed to weigh the impacts the relaxation policy will have on public health amid the coronavirus pandemic .
Their lawsuit comes a month after more than a dozen environmental groups led by the Natural Resources Defense Council , whose president is former Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenge in the same New York federal court .
Former Obama EPA enforcement chief Cynthia Giles , who filed a brief last week supporting the environmental group lawsuit , told Reuters that the agency has never applied this kind of policy so broadly .
“ In the past , EPA has only eased compliance obligations in a targeted way to address specific problems , such as Superstorm Sandy , ” she said .
Current EPA chief Andrew Wheeler told reporters in March that the coronavirus outbreak was an unprecedented national crisis and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with regulatory requirements , where reasonably practicable .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON (Reuters) ― Nine states on Wednesday filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for relaxing a range of companies’ compliance and monitoring requirements with federal clean air and water laws in response to the coronavirus pandemic, arguing the policy is too broad and not transparent.
Under the temporary policy announced on March 26, the EPA said it would not seek penalties for violations of routine compliance monitoring, integrity testing, sampling, laboratory analysis, training, and reporting or certification obligations in situations where the EPA agrees that COVID-19 was the cause.
Advertisement
The states, led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, argued that the EPA issued a broad and open-ended policy that gives polluters too much leeway instead of using enforcement discretion “as authorized by law.”
“The policy’s effective waiver of these requirements, which are foundational to our federal environmental laws, exceeds EPA’s authority,” the attorneys general said.
EPA chief Andrew Wheeler said earlier this year that he expected “regulated facilities to comply with regulatory requirements, where reasonably practicable” amid the coronavirus pandemic. Reuters
The coalition of the nine states ― New York, California, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont and Virginia ― argue that the EPA lacks legal authority to waive “critical monitoring and reporting obligations that inform regulators and the general public of pollution hazards” and failed to weigh the impacts the relaxation policy will have on public health amid the coronavirus pandemic.
Advertisement
Their lawsuit comes a month after more than a dozen environmental groups led by the Natural Resources Defense Council, whose president is former Obama EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy filed their own challenge in the same New York federal court.
Former Obama EPA enforcement chief Cynthia Giles, who filed a brief last week supporting the environmental group lawsuit, told Reuters that the agency has never applied this kind of policy so broadly.
“In the past, EPA has only eased compliance obligations in a targeted way to address specific problems, such as Superstorm Sandy,” she said.
Current EPA chief Andrew Wheeler told reporters in March that the coronavirus outbreak was an unprecedented national crisis and that he expected “regulated facilities to comply with regulatory requirements, where reasonably practicable.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-13--Liz Cheney Praises Dr. Anthony Fauci, Urges Americans To Thank Him: 'He Is Not A Partisan'

Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming strongly defended White House coronavirus task force member Anthony Fauci as one of the “ finest public servants we have ever had ” and urged Americans to thank him “ every day.
” Cheney tweeted her praise of the U.S. government ’ s top infectious disease expert on Tuesday after Fauci testified in the Senate ’ s first hearing on the coronavirus outbreak since March .
Cheney is the third-highest-ranking representative in GOP House leadership .
Dr. Fauci is one of the finest public servants we have ever had .
He is not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives .
We need his expertise and his judgment to defeat this virus .
All Americans should be thanking him .
Every day .
— Liz Cheney ( @ Liz_Cheney ) May 13 , 2020 “ My concern that if some areas ― cities , states or what have you ― jump over those various checkpoints and prematurely open up , without having the capability of being able to respond effectively and efficiently , my concern is we will start to see little spikes that might turn into outbreaks , ” Fauci testified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labor and Pensions Committee .
Fauci added that there is “ real risk that you will trigger an outbreak that you may not be able to control , which in fact , paradoxically , will set you back , not only leading to some suffering and death that could be avoided but could even set you back on the road to try to get economic recovery.
” Cheney ’ s tweet directly contradicted comments by Sen. Rand Paul ( R-Ky. ) challenging Fauci ’ s testimony .
Paul argued that , outside of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ relatively benign course ” and that schools must reopen in the fall .
“ As much as I respect you , Dr. Fauci , I don ’ t think you ’ re the end-all , ” Paul said .
“ I don ’ t think you ’ re the one person that gets to make a decision .
We can listen to your advice , but there are people on the other side saying there ’ s not going to be a surge and that we can safely open the economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out .
But if we keep kids out of school for another year , what ’ s going to happen is , the poor and unprivileged kids who don ’ t have a parent that ’ s able to teach them at home are not going to learn for a full year.
” Fauci responded to Paul ’ s remarks by saying that he “ never made myself out to be the end-all ” or the “ only voice ” during the pandemic .
“ I ’ m a scientist , a physician @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fauci said .
“ I give advice according to the best scientific evidence.
” He added that he only gives advice on public health and not “ economic things.
” Fauci stressed that we don ’ t know everything about COVID-19 and that we need to be “ very careful , particularly when it comes to children.
” “ I think we better be careful if we are not cavalier in thinking that children are completely immune to the deleterious effects , ” Fauci said .
Fauci added that while he thinks Paul @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus does not affect young people as badly as older or immunocompromised people , he stressed that he is “ very careful ” because of the unknowns .
“ You ’ re right , in the numbers that children , in general , do much , much better than adults and the elderly , and particularly those with underlying conditions , ” Fauci said .
“ But I am very careful and hopefully humble that I don ’ t know everything about this disease , and that ’ s why I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming strongly defended White House coronavirus task force member Anthony Fauci as one of the “finest public servants we have ever had” and urged Americans to thank him “every day.”
Cheney tweeted her praise of the U.S. government’s top infectious disease expert on Tuesday after Fauci testified in the Senate’s first hearing on the coronavirus outbreak since March. Cheney is the third-highest-ranking representative in GOP House leadership.
Advertisement
Dr. Fauci is one of the finest public servants we have ever had. He is not a partisan. His only interest is saving lives. We need his expertise and his judgment to defeat this virus. All Americans should be thanking him. Every day. — Liz Cheney (@Liz_Cheney) May 13, 2020
Fauci offered guidance about stay-at-home orders and expressed his concerns in the hearing, which was titled “COVID-19: Safely Getting Back to Work and School.”
“My concern that if some areas ― cities, states or what have you ― jump over those various checkpoints and prematurely open up, without having the capability of being able to respond effectively and efficiently, my concern is we will start to see little spikes that might turn into outbreaks,” Fauci testified before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
Fauci added that there is “real risk that you will trigger an outbreak that you may not be able to control, which in fact, paradoxically, will set you back, not only leading to some suffering and death that could be avoided but could even set you back on the road to try to get economic recovery.”
Advertisement
Cheney’s tweet directly contradicted comments by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) challenging Fauci’s testimony. Paul argued that, outside of New England, the virus has had a “relatively benign course” and that schools must reopen in the fall.
“As much as I respect you, Dr. Fauci, I don’t think you’re the end-all,” Paul said. “I don’t think you’re the one person that gets to make a decision. We can listen to your advice, but there are people on the other side saying there’s not going to be a surge and that we can safely open the economy. And the facts will bear this out. But if we keep kids out of school for another year, what’s going to happen is, the poor and unprivileged kids who don’t have a parent that’s able to teach them at home are not going to learn for a full year.”
Sen. Paul argues school decisions should be made district by district, tells Dr. Fauci: “I don't think you're the end all.”
Fauci: "I'm a scientist... I think we better be careful if we are not cavalier in thinking that children are completely immune to the deleterious effects." pic.twitter.com/GQuDXkPR3N — MSNBC (@MSNBC) May 12, 2020
Fauci responded to Paul’s remarks by saying that he “never made myself out to be the end-all” or the “only voice” during the pandemic.
“I’m a scientist, a physician and a public health official,” Fauci said. “I give advice according to the best scientific evidence.” He added that he only gives advice on public health and not “economic things.”
Advertisement
Fauci stressed that we don’t know everything about COVID-19 and that we need to be “very careful, particularly when it comes to children.”
“I think we better be careful if we are not cavalier in thinking that children are completely immune to the deleterious effects,” Fauci said.
Fauci added that while he thinks Paul is correct in his thinking that the virus does not affect young people as badly as older or immunocompromised people, he stressed that he is “very careful” because of the unknowns.
“You’re right, in the numbers that children, in general, do much, much better than adults and the elderly, and particularly those with underlying conditions,” Fauci said. “But I am very careful and hopefully humble that I don’t know everything about this disease, and that’s why I’m very reserved in making broad predictions.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-14--FBI Seizes Cellphone From Sen. Richard Burr In Probe Over Stock Trades: Reports

Federal investigators seized a cellphone belonging to Sen. Richard Burr ( R-N.C. ) in connection with their probe into a series of stock trades he made as the coronavirus pandemic began to spread around the country , according to the Los Angeles Times and CBS News .
Agents served a search warrant at Burr ’ s home in the Washington , D.C. , area on Wednesday night , and he turned over the device , according to the Los Angeles Times , which first reported the news .
Burr , the powerful Republican chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ March that he dumped between $ 628,000 and $ 1.72 million worth of holdings in 33 transactions on Feb. 13 .
The stock trades came shortly after Congress began receiving regular intelligence briefings about the threat of the coronavirus , which has since infected more than 1.3 million people in the U.S. and caused economic havoc .
The lawmaker ’ s office denied any impropriety , and Burr called on the Senate Ethics Committee to investigate the reports in late March .
Reports emerged days later that the Justice Department was investigating the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to comment on the report .
The Department of Justice did not immediately reply to HuffPost ’ s request for comment .
The Los Angeles Times noted that the search warrant reflected a dramatic escalation in the investigation and would require agents to present top Justice Department officials and a judge with probable cause of wrongdoing .
“ This is a very , very big deal , ” former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara wrote on Twitter .
“ This is not something the FBI or DOJ does lightly .
It requires layers of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and consideration of severe reputational harm ” to a senator .
This is a very , very big deal .
This is not something the FBI or DOJ does lightly .
It requires layers of review , the blessing of a judge , and consideration of severe reputational harm to a sitting US Senator .
https : //t.co/PtETZtPPbz — Preet Bharara ( @ PreetBharara ) May 14 , 2020 Several other lawmakers have come under scrutiny over the timing of their financial transactions .
Sen. Kelly Loeffler ( R-S.C. ) , whose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York Stock Exchange , also sold between $ 1,275,000 and $ 3,100,000 in stock in a series of transactions in mid-February .
She had denied any wrongdoing and said after the trades that she and her husband would divest from all individual holdings .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Federal investigators seized a cellphone belonging to Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) in connection with their probe into a series of stock trades he made as the coronavirus pandemic began to spread around the country, according to the Los Angeles Times and CBS News.
Agents served a search warrant at Burr’s home in the Washington, D.C., area on Wednesday night, and he turned over the device, according to the Los Angeles Times, which first reported the news.
Advertisement
Burr, the powerful Republican chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is under scrutiny after ProPublica reported in March that he dumped between $628,000 and $1.72 million worth of holdings in 33 transactions on Feb. 13. The stock trades came shortly after Congress began receiving regular intelligence briefings about the threat of the coronavirus, which has since infected more than 1.3 million people in the U.S. and caused economic havoc.
The lawmaker’s office denied any impropriety, and Burr called on the Senate Ethics Committee to investigate the reports in late March. Reports emerged days later that the Justice Department was investigating the trades.
Burr’s office declined to comment on the report. The Department of Justice did not immediately reply to HuffPost’s request for comment.
The Los Angeles Times noted that the search warrant reflected a dramatic escalation in the investigation and would require agents to present top Justice Department officials and a judge with probable cause of wrongdoing.
Advertisement
“This is a very, very big deal,” former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara wrote on Twitter. “This is not something the FBI or DOJ does lightly. It requires layers of review, the blessing of a judge, and consideration of severe reputational harm” to a senator.
This is a very, very big deal. This is not something the FBI or DOJ does lightly. It requires layers of review, the blessing of a judge, and consideration of severe reputational harm to a sitting US Senator. https://t.co/PtETZtPPbz — Preet Bharara (@PreetBharara) May 14, 2020
Several other lawmakers have come under scrutiny over the timing of their financial transactions. Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.), whose husband is the chairman of the New York Stock Exchange, also sold between $1,275,000 and $3,100,000 in stock in a series of transactions in mid-February.
She had denied any wrongdoing and said after the trades that she and her husband would divest from all individual holdings.
CORRECTION: This article previously misidentified the state represented by Loeffler as South Carolina; she is the senator from Georgia.