thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-11--Tesla Reopens California Car Factory, Defying County Coronavirus Orders

Car company Tesla restarted production at its factory in Fremont , California , on Monday , going against Alameda County ’ s restrictions for businesses during the coronavirus pandemic .
“ I will be on the line with everyone else , ” the billionaire businessman posted .
“ If anyone is arrested , I ask that it only be me.
” Tesla is restarting production today against Alameda County rules .
I will be on the line with everyone else .
If anyone is arrested , I ask that it only be me .
— Elon Musk ( @ elonmusk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s parking lot was filled with employees ’ cars on Monday , the San Francisco Chronicle reported , and unnamed workers told the outlet that production had begun over the weekend .
California Gov .
Gavin Newsom ( D ) said in a press conference Monday that while the state has lifted restrictions on manufacturers , it “ respects the right ” of counties to put stricter orders in place .
On Tesla defying county orders , Newsom said he was “ not aware of the details ” of the company ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office did not immediately respond to HuffPost ’ s request for further comment .
Alameda County spokesperson Neetu Balram , who told reporters Friday that Tesla “ must not reopen ” under the current orders , said in a statement Monday that the county had “ notified ” the company that it could still only maintain “ minimum basic operations ” — which include things like building security , inventory delivery and remote work , but not a return to production .
“ We hope that Tesla will ... comply without further enforcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the county has been in conversation with Tesla since April 30 on a safety plan for reopening , and it was still “ working through steps , ” including improving health screening for employees .
Several unnamed Tesla workers from the Fremont factory told Business Insider that they were afraid of losing their jobs at Tesla if they didn ’ t return to work , with one saying the company told them they ’ d lose benefits and the ability to apply for unemployment if they didn ’ t come in .
Over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the company ’ s California factory to another state and filed a lawsuit against the Alameda County over its restrictions preventing his factory from reopening .
In a “ return to work ” plan posted on Tesla ’ s website on Saturday , the company said it was “ resuming operations ” with workers ’ “ health and safety in mind.
” Its safety guidelines include temperature checks for some employees and providing gloves and masks to some .
“ I have great reverence for their technology , ” Newsom said , noting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for “ many years.
” “ I have great expectations that we can work through at the county level the issue with this particular county and this company in the next couple of days .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Car company Tesla restarted production at its factory in Fremont, California, on Monday, going against Alameda County’s restrictions for businesses during the coronavirus pandemic.
Tesla founder Elon Musk, who railed against “fascist” COVID-19 shutdown orders in an earnings call last month, tweeted Monday that his company was reopening “against Alameda County rules.”
Advertisement
“I will be on the line with everyone else,” the billionaire businessman posted. “If anyone is arrested, I ask that it only be me.”
Tesla is restarting production today against Alameda County rules. I will be on the line with everyone else. If anyone is arrested, I ask that it only be me. — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 11, 2020
The company’s parking lot was filled with employees’ cars on Monday, the San Francisco Chronicle reported, and unnamed workers told the outlet that production had begun over the weekend.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said in a press conference Monday that while the state has lifted restrictions on manufacturers, it “respects the right” of counties to put stricter orders in place. On Tesla defying county orders, Newsom said he was “not aware of the details” of the company’s reopening. The governor’s office did not immediately respond to HuffPost’s request for further comment.
Advertisement
Alameda County spokesperson Neetu Balram, who told reporters Friday that Tesla “must not reopen” under the current orders, said in a statement Monday that the county had “notified” the company that it could still only maintain “minimum basic operations” — which include things like building security, inventory delivery and remote work, but not a return to production.
“We hope that Tesla will ... comply without further enforcement measures,” Balram wrote, saying the county has been in conversation with Tesla since April 30 on a safety plan for reopening, and it was still “working through steps,” including improving health screening for employees.
Across the country, workplace factory settings, like Amazon’s warehouses and meatpacking processing plants, have become sites of COVID-19 outbreaks.
Several unnamed Tesla workers from the Fremont factory told Business Insider that they were afraid of losing their jobs at Tesla if they didn’t return to work, with one saying the company told them they’d lose benefits and the ability to apply for unemployment if they didn’t come in.
Tesla did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
California had more than 67,500 confirmed coronavirus cases as of Monday and over 2,700 deaths.
Tesla's Fremont plant in California, with a parking lot full of cars, on May 11, 2020. ASSOCIATED PRESS
Advertisement
Over the weekend, Musk threatened to move the company’s California factory to another state and filed a lawsuit against the Alameda County over its restrictions preventing his factory from reopening.
In a “return to work” plan posted on Tesla’s website on Saturday, the company said it was “resuming operations” with workers’ “health and safety in mind.” Its safety guidelines include temperature checks for some employees and providing gloves and masks to some.
In the California governor’s press conference Monday, Newsom said he had “long been a strong advocate and supporter” of the tech company.
“I have great reverence for their technology,” Newsom said, noting that he’s known founder Musk for “many years.” “I have great expectations that we can work through at the county level the issue with this particular county and this company in the next couple of days.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-12--Ex-GOP Strategist: ‘If Obama Was President, This Would Not Have Happened’

Former GOP strategist Steve Schmidt on Monday rebuked President Donald Trump ’ s fumbling response to the coronavirus pandemic , suggesting the United States would not be facing “ catastrophe ” if former President Barack Obama was still in office .
“ If Barack Obama was the president of the United States , this would not have happened , ” the political analyst declared to MSNBC ’ s Ari Melber as the nationwide death toll from the public health crisis topped 81,000 .
“ We would have had competent professional people .
We would have done what we needed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who imagined how the federal response would have unfurled under the Obama administration .
“ What would have happened is what happened during the Ebola crisis , ” said Schmidt , a member of conservative attorney George Conway ’ s anti-Trump group The Lincoln Project that aims to defeat Trump in the 2020 election .
“ We would have someone like Ron Klain in charge of it , not the confederacy of dunces that we see running around the West Wing , ” he added .
Schmidt , who quit the GOP in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fully the party of Trump , ” warned “ no amount of gaslighting , delusion , fantasy happy talk ” from the president would change the fact it will take years to recover from the pandemic .
Check out the clip above and the full interview below :

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Former GOP strategist Steve Schmidt on Monday rebuked President Donald Trump’s fumbling response to the coronavirus pandemic, suggesting the United States would not be facing “catastrophe” if former President Barack Obama were still in office.
“If Barack Obama was the president of the United States, this would not have happened,” the political analyst told MSNBC’s Ari Melber. The nationwide death toll from the public health crisis has now topped 81,000.
Advertisement
“We would have had competent professional people. We would have done what we needed to do early,” said Schmidt, who imagined how the federal response would have unfurled under the Obama administration.
“What would have happened is what happened during the Ebola crisis,” said Schmidt, a member of conservative attorney George Conway’s anti-Trump group, the Lincoln Project, which aims to defeat Trump in the 2020 election.
“We would have had someone like Ron Klain in charge of it, not the confederacy of dunces that we see running around the West Wing,” he added.
Schmidt, who quit the GOP in 2018, saying it had become “fully the party of Trump,” warned that “no amount of gaslighting, delusion, fantasy happy talk” from the president would change the fact it will take years to recover from the pandemic.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-11--DNC Panel To Set Stage For Virtual Democratic Convention Amid Coronavirus Concerns

Members of the Democratic National Committee will vote on a proposal Tuesday that could allow a remote convention this summer should the coronavirus pandemic continue to wreak havoc around the nation , according to multiple reports .
The DNC ’ s rules and bylaws committee is expected to vote on the resolution during a virtual meeting , which would give the party ’ s presidential nominating convention team the wide authority to “ plan a safe event that guarantees every delegate can accomplish their official business without putting their own health at risk , ” reported Axios , which obtained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The changes , which are expected to be approved , could allow convention delegates to participate even if they were not there in person but give organizers “ maximum flexibility ” to do what they saw fit to hold the event in a safe environment .
The Washington Post notes under the provisions it could also lead to a much smaller event than usual rather than the mass gathering that sees 5,000 voting delegates and thousands of other attendees gather to choose a party nominee .
“ This resolution provides our team with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ensure that every delegate is able to accomplish their official business without putting their own health at risk , and enables us to chart the most appropriate course forward as we work to launch our nominee to victory in November , ” Joe Solomonese , the chief executive of the Democratic National Convention , told the Post in a statement .
The Democratic National Convention usually brings tens of thousands of people together to choose the party 's candidate , as seen here during the 2016 event in Philadelphia .
The new rules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the full DNC in the coming weeks if they are passed .
The move reflects an abrupt about-face for the party after DNC Chairman Tom Perez said earlier this month that he expected the party to hold an in-person convention , saying he was “ optimistic ” it would happen .
“ We ’ re not going to put our public health head in the sand , but I ’ m optimistic that we can do so because we ’ ve put it off for five weeks , ” Perez told ABC News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re working with all of the public health experts — state , federal , local — and I ’ m excited about Milwaukee .
I ’ m excited about this election , and I ’ m excited about making sure that Joe Biden has an opportunity to show what he ’ s fighting for.
” Former Vice President Joe Biden and the DNC announced a substantial fundraising haul on Monday despite the ongoing pandemic , saying they jointly raised more than $ 60 million in April .
The presumptive presidential nominee entered into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the end of last month after Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) dropped out of the race .
The figure is notable in that it came from a fully virtual campaign as the country is shut down amid the spread of the virus and both Biden and Trump have canceled any planned events .
“ I am especially humbled because I know what a sacrifice it is to give in economic times as difficult as the one we ’ re in , ” Biden wrote in a letter to supporters on Monday .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic uncertainty , you chose to put your money behind me .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Members of the Democratic National Committee will vote on a proposal Tuesday that could allow a remote convention this summer should the coronavirus pandemic continue to wreak havoc around the nation, according to multiple reports.
The DNC’s rules and bylaws committee is expected to vote on the resolution during a virtual meeting, which would give the party’s presidential nominating convention team the wide authority to “plan a safe event that guarantees every delegate can accomplish their official business without putting their own health at risk,” reported Axios, which obtained a copy of an internal memo.
Advertisement
The changes, which are expected to be approved, could allow convention delegates to participate even if they were not there in person but give organizers “maximum flexibility” to do what they saw fit to hold the event in a safe environment. The Washington Post notes under the provisions it could also lead to a much smaller event than usual rather than the mass gathering that sees 5,000 voting delegates and thousands of other attendees gather to choose a party nominee.
“This resolution provides our team with increased flexibility to adjust our plans, ensure that every delegate is able to accomplish their official business without putting their own health at risk, and enables us to chart the most appropriate course forward as we work to launch our nominee to victory in November,” Joe Solomonese, the chief executive of the Democratic National Convention, told the Post in a statement.
The Democratic National Convention usually brings tens of thousands of people together to choose the party's candidate, as seen here during the 2016 event in Philadelphia. Michael Robinson Chavez/The Washington Post via Getty Images
The new rules would still need to be approved by the full DNC in the coming weeks if they are passed.
Advertisement
The Democratic nominating convention is scheduled to begin Aug. 17 in Milwaukee after being pushed back from its initial date in July.
The move reflects an abrupt about-face for the party after DNC Chairman Tom Perez said earlier this month that he expected the party to hold an in-person convention, saying he was “optimistic” it would happen.
“We’re not going to put our public health head in the sand, but I’m optimistic that we can do so because we’ve put it off for five weeks,” Perez told ABC News at the time. “We’re working with all of the public health experts — state, federal, local — and I’m excited about Milwaukee. I’m excited about this election, and I’m excited about making sure that Joe Biden has an opportunity to show what he’s fighting for.”
Former Vice President Joe Biden and the DNC announced a substantial fundraising haul on Monday despite the ongoing pandemic, saying they jointly raised more than $60 million in April. The presumptive presidential nominee entered into a joint-fundraising arrangement with the party at the end of last month after Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) dropped out of the race.
The figure is notable in that it came from a fully virtual campaign as the country is shut down amid the spread of the virus and both Biden and Trump have canceled any planned events.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-12--Fauci Testifies U.S. Coronavirus Death Toll Is Likely Underreported

Dr. Anthony Fauci , the nation ’ s leading expert on infectious diseases , told the Senate Health Committee on Tuesday that the true coronavirus death toll is likely higher than what has been reported so far and cautioned Americans that going back to normal life too soon could lead to major spikes in cases .
“ If you think we have it completely under control , we don ’ t , ” he said later , contradicting President Donald Trump ’ s previous assertion that the virus is “ well contained.
” “ I think we ’ re going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right direction does not mean we are in control , ” he told Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass ) .
Failing to respond “ in an adequate way ” would “ without a doubt ” result in a resurgence of the virus in the fall , Fauci said .
More people have probably died of the virus in New York City in particular , Fauci said , considering the extent the city ’ s health care system has been bogged down .
“ There may have been people who died at home who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as COVID because they had not gotten to the hospital , ” he said .
The public health officials said a COVID-19 vaccine will probably not be ready by the fall , but Fauci is “ cautiously optimistic ” that one or more of the eight vaccines currently in development will be proven effective .
Vaccine trials have moved so swiftly that Fauci expects to know by late fall or early winter whether they are successful .
Researchers are looking at several antiviral treatments in addition to remdesivir , the one drug recently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patients .
Plasma treatments are also being researched , as it is believed that plasma from people who have recovered can help people still suffering from the virus ’ s effects .
With widespread testing and contact tracing , the officials hope states will be able to prevent new outbreaks as they work toward reopening economies and sending students back to class in the fall .
But Fauci strongly cautioned against failing to take seriously the guidelines put out by the White House coronavirus task force , which stipulate that states should see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loosening restrictions .
Several states , including Georgia and Tennessee , have been relaxing restrictions for weeks without having met that first milestone .
At one point , Sen. Rand Paul ( R-Ky. ) pushed back against the overall message of caution , saying that rural states that have not yet seen major outbreaks ― and their school districts , in particular ― should be exempt from the national strategy .
“ As much as I respect you , Dr. Fauci , I don ’ t think you ’ re the end-all , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impact of coronavirus outside of New England has been “ benign.
” Fauci stressed that school systems should exercise caution in reopening .
In recent weeks , rare and dangerous inflammatory symptoms linked to the virus have been seen in children ― some of whom have died .
“ I think we ’ ve got to be careful if we are not cavalier in thinking that children are completely immune to the deleterious effects , ” he said .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s leading expert on infectious diseases, told the Senate Health Committee on Tuesday that the true coronavirus death toll is likely higher than what has been reported so far and cautioned Americans that going back to normal life too soon could lead to major spikes in cases.
“I don’t know the exact precent that it’s higher, but certainly, it’s higher,” Fauci said of the death toll in response to a question from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
Advertisement
“If you think we have it completely under control, we don’t,” he said later, contradicting President Donald Trump’s previous assertion that the virus is “well contained.”
“I think we’re going in the right direction, but the right direction does not mean we are in control,” he told Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass). Failing to respond “in an adequate way” would “without a doubt” result in a resurgence of the virus in the fall, Fauci said.
The U.S. death toll stands at nearly 81,000 deaths so far, with more than 1.3 million infections.
More people have probably died of the virus in New York City in particular, Fauci said, considering the extent the city’s health care system has been bogged down.
“There may have been people who died at home who did have COVID who were not counted as COVID because they had not gotten to the hospital,” he said.
Advertisement
Fauci, as well as CDC Director Robert Redfield, FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn and Assistant Secretary for Health Adm. Brett Giroir, answered senators’ questions on the federal government’s response to the crisis in a session conducted largely via remote videoconferencing.
The public health officials said a COVID-19 vaccine will probably not be ready by the fall, but Fauci is “cautiously optimistic” that one or more of the eight vaccines currently in development will be proven effective. Vaccine trials have moved so swiftly that Fauci expects to know by late fall or early winter whether they are successful.
Researchers are looking at several antiviral treatments in addition to remdesivir, the one drug recently granted emergency approval for use in hospitalized patients. Plasma treatments are also being researched, as it is believed that plasma from people who have recovered can help people still suffering from the virus’s effects.
With widespread testing and contact tracing, the officials hope states will be able to prevent new outbreaks as they work toward reopening economies and sending students back to class in the fall.
But Fauci strongly cautioned against failing to take seriously the guidelines put out by the White House coronavirus task force, which stipulate that states should see a 14-day decline in new cases before loosening restrictions. Several states, including Georgia and Tennessee, have been relaxing restrictions for weeks without having met that first milestone.
Advertisement
If leaders reopen local economies too quickly, Fauci said, “the consequences could be really serious.”
At one point, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) pushed back against the overall message of caution, saying that rural states that have not yet seen major outbreaks ― and their school districts, in particular ― should be exempt from the national strategy.
“As much as I respect you, Dr. Fauci, I don’t think you’re the end-all,” Paul said, arguing that the impact of coronavirus outside of New England has been “benign.”
“I never made myself out to be the end-all and the only voice in this,” Fauci responded. “I’m a scientist, a physician and a public health official.”
Fauci stressed that school systems should exercise caution in reopening. In recent weeks, rare and dangerous inflammatory symptoms linked to the virus have been seen in children ― some of whom have died.
Advertisement
“I think we’ve got to be careful if we are not cavalier in thinking that children are completely immune to the deleterious effects,” he said.
Fauci added: “I don’t know everything about this disease, and that’s why I’m very reserved in making broad predictions.”
The disease expert’s message generally conflicted with that of the White House and Trump, who warned about the risk of permanent economic damage and additional suicide deaths associated with broad coronavirus restrictions.
Paul continued to make the case after the hearing that the country should begin to reopen, including by allowing children to go back to school.
“We ought to consider mortality in children ― virtually zero. We should get our kids back in school. I also don’t think you need a gazillion tests,” Paul said.
Advertisement
While most cases of coronavirus in kids are mild, experts worry that allowing children to go back to school risks them possibly bringing the disease home to more vulnerable family members.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-12--Supreme Court Could Restrain Congress While Also Upholding Subpoenas For Trump's Records

For over a year , Congress has been pursuing President Donald Trump ’ s financial records in order to investigate the personal finances that Trump has gone to great lengths to conceal .
A court fight over subpoenas for those records reached the Supreme Court on Tuesday in Trump v. Mazars USA LLP .
This case could result in a major separation-of-powers ruling that changes whether , or how , Congress can investigate the president .
The main question that arose during Tuesday ’ s argument was what limits could exist when Congress subpoenas the personal records of the president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump intervened in court to block the subpoenas with a sweeping argument that Congress has practically no authority to investigate the president , even related to things that happened before he assumed office .
These arguments were rejected by judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and the D.C .
Circuit Court of Appeals .
Justices appear interested in two key questions during Tuesday ’ s arguments .
First , they asked lawyers for Trump and the Department of Justice why they should not simply defer to Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subpoenas .
Second , justices asked the counsel for the House of Representatives whether there was any limit on subpoenas for personal records Congress could issue .
Both sides had trouble answering these questions .
But it was the second question that had both conservative and liberal justices grasping for an answer .
Whether the court rules against Trump may very well hinge on whether a majority on the court can thread a needle that places limits on Congress ’ subpoena power when targeting the president while also upholding these particular subpoenas .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court with two of his appointees to keep his tax and other financial records from being turned over to House lawmakers .
Such a ruling may look like the one Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in 2012 to uphold the Affordable Care Act by keeping the law intact while moving legal precedents in a more conservative direction .
In this case , such a ruling would expand executive power at the expense of the legislative branch without striking down these particular subpoenas .
The four liberal justices ― Ruth Bader Ginsburg , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kagan ― followed up on this line of questioning to ask what limiting principle existed to prevent Congress from simply harassing the president with subpoenas for private records .
Letter could not provide a clear limit to what constitutes a “ valid legislative purpose.
” He argued that these subpoenas did not constitute harassment of the president as they were issued to third parties and the president would not have to review or respond to them .
Justice Samuel Alito said he was “ baffled by your answer to Justice Ginsburg about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” He argued that the lack of a limiting principle would enable Congress to engage in endless harassment of the president going forward , and wanted to know what limit the House thought existed on its subpoena power .
The courts would adjudicate that , as the Supreme Court ruled in the 1998 Clinton v. Jones case , Letter argued .
They would judge whether there is a valid legislative purpose for the subpoena .
“ You were not able to give the chief justice even one example of a subpoena that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purpose , were you ?
” Alito replied .
Letter admitted that there could be executive and state secrets privileges that could limit some subpoena requests for private records of the president , depending on the documents requested .
But in this case , Letter said , “ there has been no privilege claim and no claim there has been a burden [ on the president ] .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
For over a year, Congress has been pursuing President Donald Trump’s financial records in order to investigate the personal finances that Trump has gone to great lengths to conceal. A court fight over subpoenas for those records reached the Supreme Court on Tuesday in Trump v. Mazars USA LLP. This case could result in a major separation-of-powers ruling that changes whether, or how, Congress can investigate the president.
The main question that arose during Tuesday’s argument was what limits could exist when Congress subpoenas the personal records of the president, or anyone else for that matter.
Advertisement
In the spring of 2019, three House committees issued subpoenas to Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars, and lenders Deutsche Bank and Capital One, as part of its investigations into international money laundering and executive branch disclosure laws.
Trump intervened in court to block the subpoenas with a sweeping argument that Congress has practically no authority to investigate the president, even related to things that happened before he assumed office. These arguments were rejected by judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Justices appear interested in two key questions during Tuesday’s arguments. First, they asked lawyers for Trump and the Department of Justice why they should not simply defer to Congress to explain its reasoning for pursuing the subpoenas. Second, justices asked the counsel for the House of Representatives whether there was any limit on subpoenas for personal records Congress could issue. Both sides had trouble answering these questions.
But it was the second question that had both conservative and liberal justices grasping for an answer. Whether the court rules against Trump may very well hinge on whether a majority on the court can thread a needle that places limits on Congress’ subpoena power when targeting the president while also upholding these particular subpoenas.
Advertisement
President Donald Trump hopes to persuade a Supreme Court with two of his appointees to keep his tax and other financial records from being turned over to House lawmakers. ASSOCIATED PRESS
Such a ruling may look like the one Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in 2012 to uphold the Affordable Care Act by keeping the law intact while moving legal precedents in a more conservative direction. In this case, such a ruling would expand executive power at the expense of the legislative branch without striking down these particular subpoenas.
Almost every justice pressed House general counsel Douglas Letter for a limit on what records Congress could subpoena as a case study for considering relevant legislation. He repeatedly stumbled to provide an answer.
Roberts asked for a “plausible example that you think is beyond any legislation that Congress would write.”
The courts had previously ruled that Congress could not do so if there was no clear legislative purpose undergirding the subpoenas, Letter argued.
Advertisement
“Your test is not much of a test,” Roberts said, adding that Letter was not taking into consideration the separation-of-powers question at issue.
The four liberal justices ― Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan ― followed up on this line of questioning to ask what limiting principle existed to prevent Congress from simply harassing the president with subpoenas for private records.
Letter could not provide a clear limit to what constitutes a “valid legislative purpose.” He argued that these subpoenas did not constitute harassment of the president as they were issued to third parties and the president would not have to review or respond to them.
Justice Samuel Alito said he was “baffled by your answer to Justice Ginsburg about the use of subpoenas to harass a president.” He argued that the lack of a limiting principle would enable Congress to engage in endless harassment of the president going forward, and wanted to know what limit the House thought existed on its subpoena power.
The courts would adjudicate that, as the Supreme Court ruled in the 1998 Clinton v. Jones case, Letter argued. They would judge whether there is a valid legislative purpose for the subpoena.
Advertisement
“You were not able to give the chief justice even one example of a subpoena that would not be pertinent to some conceivable legislative purpose, were you?” Alito replied.
“That’s correct, because this court has said Congress’ power to legislate is extremely broad,” Letter replied.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-12--California Churches Pledge To Reopen At End Of May, Regardless Of Governor's Orders

“ We are feeling like we aren ’ t counting as critical at any level , ” Carroll said earlier this month at a press conference .
“ We ’ re doing all the essential things to care for people behind the scenes but when it comes to worshipping together , we ’ re restricted and not allowed to do that.
” “ We ’ re not here to be activists , we ’ re not here to be rebels ; we ’ re here to be helpers , ” Carroll added as he announced the pastors ’ initiative to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ May .
Newsom said Thursday that churches might be able to reopen earlier than initially expected .
But officials are still concerned about the possibility of large groups of people gathering together in closed spaces .
“ I take very seriously those concerns about people of faith and I ’ m very sensitive to those who want to get back to church , ” he said , according to the Orange County Register .
“ But the health of those communities is foundational.
” In their open letter to Newsom and California ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ― who are mostly evangelical Christians and claim to represent 1,500 churches in the state ― say the mandated shutdown of houses of worship has been detrimental and argue churches should be considered “ essential.
” Hibbs said the date May 31 came to him while he was praying , adding that other pastors he has spoken to have had similar experiences .
May 31 is the Day of Pentecost , which commemorates a Bible story about Jesus ’ followers gathering together after his death and being given the gift of the Holy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the moment when the church was formed .
“ Maybe God is saying that he ’ s going to restart the church in his house on Pentecost Sunday as we gather together in one heart and in one mind , ” Hibbs said .
The pastors are being represented by two conservative Christian legal groups , Advocates for Faith & Freedom and The National Center for Law and Policy .
Daniel Bennett , a scholar of religion and the law at John Brown University , said these two nonprofits are smaller players in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeks to advance and protect conservative religious values .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Several California pastors have pledged to reopen their churches on May 31 “or sooner,” regardless of whether their plan lines up with a schedule put forth by Gov. Gavin Newsom.
The pastors released a letter Thursday arguing that churches are “essential” during the pandemic and that people of faith have a right to worship in person.
Advertisement
Dan Carroll, the senior pastor of Fontana’s 20,000-member Water of Life Community Church, said he thinks Californians of faith feel like they’ve been “kicked to the curb” and “marginalized.”
“We are feeling like we aren’t counting as critical at any level,” Carroll said earlier this month at a press conference. “We’re doing all the essential things to care for people behind the scenes but when it comes to worshipping together, we’re restricted and not allowed to do that.”
“We’re not here to be activists, we’re not here to be rebels; we’re here to be helpers,” Carroll added as he announced the pastors’ initiative to open their churches by the end of May.
Pastor Dan Carroll and other pastors gather at Water of Life Community Church in Fontana, California, on May 7, for a press conference announcing their plans to reopen this month. YouTube Screenshot / shilohtc
Advertisement
A federal judge ruled on May 5 that Newsom had the right to ban church assemblies during the coronavirus outbreak, in response to a lawsuit filed by an evangelical church in Lodi.
Newsom said Thursday that churches might be able to reopen earlier than initially expected. But officials are still concerned about the possibility of large groups of people gathering together in closed spaces.
“I take very seriously those concerns about people of faith and I’m very sensitive to those who want to get back to church,” he said, according to the Orange County Register. “But the health of those communities is foundational.”
California moved into the second phase of Newsom’s four-part reopening plan on Friday, which meant business including bookstores, florists and clothing stores could reopen. Churches are part of Phase 3 of Newsom’s plan, as are salons, gyms and movie theaters.
Carroll said the pastors in his group feel they should have been included in Phase 2 of the recovery plan.
Advertisement
In their open letter to Newsom and California’s public health officer, the pastors ― who are mostly evangelical Christians and claim to represent 1,500 churches in the state ― say the mandated shutdown of houses of worship has been detrimental and argue churches should be considered “essential.”
Demonstrators hold signs on May 1 during a rally in San Diego against California's stay-at-home directives. SANDY HUFFAKER via Getty Images
Calvary Chapel Chino Hills plans to hold outdoor public prayer meetings on its megachurch property on the Sundays leading up to May 31, while implementing measures such as requiring face masks, distancing between family groups, and setting up hand-sanitizing stations.
In a video message urging other California clergy to join the movement, Pastor Jack Hibbs expressed frustration that churches haven’t received a firm date from state authorities about when they will be allowed to reopen.
“The church, like a can, is getting kicked down the road,” said Hibbs, who signed the open letter to Newsom.
Advertisement
Hibbs said the date May 31 came to him while he was praying, adding that other pastors he has spoken to have had similar experiences. May 31 is the Day of Pentecost, which commemorates a Bible story about Jesus’ followers gathering together after his death and being given the gift of the Holy Spirit. Some consider this to be the moment when the church was formed.
“Maybe God is saying that he’s going to restart the church in his house on Pentecost Sunday as we gather together in one heart and in one mind,” Hibbs said.
A woman help up a sign depicting a church as hundreds of people gathered earlier this month to protest the stay-at-home orders outside the state Capitol building in Sacramento. JOSH EDELSON via Getty Images
The pastors are being represented by two conservative Christian legal groups, Advocates for Faith & Freedom and The National Center for Law and Policy. Daniel Bennett, a scholar of religion and the law at John Brown University, said these two nonprofits are smaller players in the conservative Christian legal movement, which seeks to advance and protect conservative religious values.
During the pandemic, many conservative Christian legal groups have pushed for houses of worship to be deemed “essential” and be allowed to function with minimal restrictions.
Advertisement
Liberty Counsel, a Florida-based conservative Christian law firm, is backing a call for churches across the country to resume in-person worship. Other conservative religious legal groups have signed up to represent churches that want to reopen.
“By encouraging churches to open, this effort is attempting to rally Christians in what would amount to civil disobedience,” Bennett told HuffPost. “Given the narrative of Christian persecution among some in this community, disobedience of this sort could be framed as evidence of a strong and confident faith.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-12--The Long, Strange History of Bill Gates Population Control Conspiracy Theories

ASSOCIATED PRESS Bill Gates has been a frequent target of protesters opposed to stay-at-home orders and other restrictions imposed to combat the coronavirus pandemic .
A New War Over Birth Control In Africa But the strategy exploited the real and painful history of medical abuses against people of color in the U.S. , from compulsory or coercive sterilization campaigns from the 1910s to ’ 60s ( including the sterilization of a third of all Puerto Rican mothers between 20 and 49 years old by 1965 ) to unsafe contraceptives marketed to poor women of color from the 1970s to ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abuses could be profound .
One 2016 study found that the notorious Tuskegee Study , wherein hundreds of black men were left with untreated syphilis so U.S. government researchers could track the progress of the disease , led to such mistrust of the medical establishment that it reduced the life expectancy of a generation of black men by more than a year .
Back in the U.S. , Fosu also worked with C-Fam to lobby delegates from African nations , with some success .
After a meeting of the Commission on the Status @ @ @ @ @ @ @ African countries released an unprecedented statement expressing concerns over “ harmful contraceptives , ” echoing specific claims by Fosu and his allies .
The next month , at the Commission on Population and Development , delegates couldn ’ t agree on an outcome document for the first time in the commission ’ s 48 years — the result , conservative advocates claimed , of African and other developing nations ’ frustration with “ the profusion of references to population control , adolescent sexual activity , abortion , and comprehensive sexuality education .
”

This story was reported in partnership with Type Investigations.
Three months into the global coronavirus pandemic, Bill Gates has displaced George Soros as the chief bogeyman of the right.
In April, dozens of Texans crowded around Infowars host Alex Jones at an anti-shutdown demonstration in Austin, Texas, chanting “arrest Bill Gates.” A New York-based tech nonprofit falsely rumored to be working with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to implant vaccine microchips in people received so many death threats that it contacted the FBI. And a White House petition demanding the billionaire’s foundation be investigated for “medical malpractice and crimes against humanity” amassed half-a-million signatures in three weeks.
Advertisement
Gates, who has announced that his $40 billion-foundation will shift its “total attention” to fighting COVID-19, has been accused of a range of misdeeds, from scheming to profit off a vaccine to creating the virus itself. On April 8, Fox News host Laura Ingraham and Attorney General Bill Barr speculated about whether Gates would use digital certificates to monitor anyone who got vaccinated.
A Christian Right broadcaster, Brannon Howse of “Worldview Watch,” warned that Gates and the “medical globalist deep state” were using the crisis to regulate people’s fertility depending on their worldview, through “procreation tickets” and microchips. On Instagram, anti-vaccination activist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., posted a video featuring a “1984”-style audience listening to Gates, with text declaring that the Microsoft Corp. co-founder “is conducting global social and medical experimentation,” via the World Health Organization. The New York Times noted that misinformation about Gates has become “the most widespread of all coronavirus falsehoods” trending online.
But while these themes have fed the imagination of QAnon, Pizzagate and anti-vaccination proponents since January, conspiracy theories involving Gates actually have a much longer history. Accusations that he has sinister plans to control or experiment on the public under the guise of medical charity date back at least a decade, including to an obscure and different political fight in Ghana.
Advertisement
Gates speaking to the Gavi Alliance, a public-private partnership to increase immunization in the world's poorest countries. Paul Hackett via Getty Images
A New War Over Birth Control In Africa
In 2010, a former staffer with a government health initiative in Ghana made a shocking claim: a project partially funded by the Gates Foundation had tested the contraceptive Depo-Provera on unsuspecting villagers in the remote region of Navrongo, as part of an illicit “population experiment.” The woman making the charge was the Ghanian-born, U.S.-educated communications officer for another Gates-funded initiative by the Ghanaian government and Columbia University to use mobile phones to improve health care access for rural women and children. She had previously attempted to sue her employer for a multi-million dollar settlement when, after repeated clashes with her boss, her contract wasn’t renewed.
The lawsuit fizzled, but with help from a small U.S. nonprofit called the Rebecca Project for Human Rights, she shopped a series of stories to Ghana’s tabloid press. The Depo-Provera story caused a national scandal. Although it was denounced by Ghanaian health professionals and traditional leaders as libelous—the Navrongo project hadn’t tested any medications— so many death threats were directed at the project that some staff had to be evacuated across the Burkina Faso border.
The episode would mark the opening shot in a new war over birth control in Africa. It also reflected an evolution in the U.S. anti-abortion movement’s strategy in which it started to co-opt the language of women’s and civil rights used by progressives. There were fewer bloody fetus posters and more talk about how abortion and contraception violated women’s safety and impeded racial justice.
Anti-abortion groups hired black activists and highlighted uglier aspects of the history of reproductive health care — in particular, the courting of the eugenics movement by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger in the early part of the 20th century. A right-wing documentary, Maafa 21: Black Genocide in 21st Century America, used a Swahili word that refers to the holocaust of African enslavement to denounce Planned Parenthood as racist. Billboards in Atlanta and Manhattan carried messages like, “The most dangerous place for an African American is in the womb.” And federal and state legislators proposed a series of bills banning race- and sex-selective abortions in order to insinuate that abortion providers deliberately target communities of color.
Advertisement
An anti-abortion billboard in Atlanta in 2010. ASSOCIATED PRESS
As black feminists pointed out, these groups cared little for women’s or civil rights in general, or black women’s well-being in particular. (A 2009 U.S. House bill titled the “Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act” was co-sponsored by a champion of the Confederate flag.)
But the strategy exploited the real and painful history of medical abuses against people of color in the U.S., from compulsory or coercive sterilization campaigns from the 1910s to ’60s (including the sterilization of a third of all Puerto Rican mothers between 20 and 49 years old by 1965) to unsafe contraceptives marketed to poor women of color from the 1970s to ’90s. And the legacy of those abuses could be profound. One 2016 study found that the notorious Tuskegee Study, wherein hundreds of black men were left with untreated syphilis so U.S. government researchers could track the progress of the disease, led to such mistrust of the medical establishment that it reduced the life expectancy of a generation of black men by more than a year.
The Rebecca Project, a small, Washington-based nonprofit focused on issues disproportionately affecting women of color, hadn’t been involved on either side of the abortion fight. But in 2011, the group released a thinly-sourced report titled “Non-Consensual Research in Africa: The Outsourcing of Tuskegee,” outlining what it claimed was a series of unethical U.S.-backed medical experiments in Africa.
Some of the examples were documented stories of legitimate concern — for instance, HIV-positive women in southern Africa had been pressured into sterilization procedures by local health care entities. The report attempted to link them to shakier allegations of USAID funding being used for coercive sterilization campaigns in other countries. But the report’s real target, it seemed, was the Gates-backed health initiative in Navrongo. Later, the report’s lead author would suggest that people involved with the project should be charged with attempted genocide.
Advertisement
“The new narrative was that Gates was waging “chemical warfare on poor women” in a neocolonial effort to suppress African births.”
The report had numerous factual problems. Its author ― the Rebecca Project’s chief financial officer, Kwame Fosu ― also hadn’t disclosed a significant conflict of interest: The employee who’d leveled the charges against the Ghana project was the mother of his child. The fallout wound up splitting the organization, as one of its founders and several staff departed, taking with them all the Rebecca Project’s funding. Left with the group’s name, Fosu doubled down on his conspiratorial claims.
In 2013, Fosu published another report, “Depo-Provera: Deadly Reproductive Violence Against Women.” Drawing heavily on unnamed sources, paranoid accusations and the rhetoric of right-wing anti-abortion groups, this report used the Ghana story to anchor claims of a massive international conspiracy, led by the Gates Foundation, to push dangerous contraceptives on poor black women as a means of decreasing African births and advancing “population control ideology.” Fosu brought the Rebecca Project into alliance with a network of conservative Catholic nonprofits, like C-Fam and the Population Research Institute (PRI), that had long focused on fighting reproductive rights in developing nations or at the United Nations.
His new allies began publicizing Fosu’s claims to a large audience of conservative activists, arguing that he had uncovered the smoking gun confirming their long-held suspicions. As the head of PRI put it, “The population controllers will stop at nothing to stop African women from having children.” By 2014, the Rebecca Project was focusing full-time on the scourge of Depo-Provera. At the same time, the Gates Foundation was undertaking a new mission to radically expand contraceptive access to women in Africa, including with a new, low-dose adaptation of Depo-Provera.
The foundation’s family planning campaign had already drawn predictable backlash from religious groups. But as U.S. anti-abortion groups and websites circulated the Rebecca Project’s allegations, the opposition was no longer dominated by complaints that Gates was tempting African women to defy their faith. The new narrative was that Gates was waging “chemical warfare on poor women” in a neocolonial effort to suppress African births.
Advertisement
Soon, powerful figures across Africa were making similar claims, undermining vital public health projects in the process. In 2014, Zimbabwe’s Registrar General, Tobaiwa Mudede — the official responsible for overseeing the country’s dubious elections — warned women to avoid modern contraceptives because they caused cancer and were a Western ploy to limit African population growth. In 2015, Mudede told parliamentarians, “Western countries are bent on curtailing the population of the darker races of the world.” According to a parliamentary committee, Mudede’s campaign panicked Zimbabwean women, who flooded into clinics to have contraceptive implants removed.
In Kenya, all 27 members of the nation’s Conference of Catholic Bishops declared that a WHO/UNICEF campaign to administer neonatal tetanus vaccines to women of childbearing age was really “a disguised population control programme.” According to the bishops, the vaccines were laced with a hormone that would cause repeated miscarriages and eventual sterility.
The same conservative Catholic network the Rebecca Project had allied itself with published numerous stories amplifying the bishops’ accusations and casting doubt on the government’s response. The Kenyan Parliament was forced to have the vaccine tested repeatedly. But by the time the claims were debunked, priests around Kenya had already instructed their congregants to refuse the vaccine.
Back in the U.S., Fosu also worked with C-Fam to lobby delegates from African nations, with some success. After a meeting of the Commission on the Status of Women, a regional grouping of African countries released an unprecedented statement expressing concerns over “harmful contraceptives,” echoing specific claims by Fosu and his allies. The next month, at the Commission on Population and Development, delegates couldn’t agree on an outcome document for the first time in the commission’s 48 years — the result, conservative advocates claimed, of African and other developing nations’ frustration with “the profusion of references to population control, adolescent sexual activity, abortion, and comprehensive sexuality education.”
One of the protester's at a recent anti-lockdown, anti-vaccine, anti-5G protest near Scotland Yard in London. ASSOCIATED PRESS
Advertisement
Undermining Confidence In A Coronavirus Vaccine
The Rebecca Project has long since faded into obscurity. But the current attacks on Gates and his foundation are now broadcasting the same themes to a massive global audience.
In April, Trump boosters Diamond & Silk vowed they would never take a vaccine created by Gates because he’d sought to make Africans “guinea pigs.” (This claim was helped along by erroneous media reporting that falsely suggested Gates planned to test his vaccine in South Africa.) “I have a problem receiving any vaccine from any entity, especially anybody like Bill Gates who pushed for population control. The same thing that Margaret Sanger pushed for,” Diamond said. “Abortions! Genocide!” Silk explained.
In response to these and other conspiracy theories, including their contention that the virus was a “plandemic,” Fox Nation reportedly cut ties with the pair. But Diamond and Silk weren’t alone.
Conservative commentator Candace Owens tweeted in April that “vaccine-criminal Bill Gates” had used “African & Indian tribal children to experiment w/ non-FDA approved drug vaccines.” Last week, she declared “that under no circumstances will I be getting any #coronavirus vaccine that becomes available. Ever. No matter what.”
An Infowars video suggested that Gates was the successor of eugenicist population controllers from Sanger to Nazi collaborators, and asked whether viewers would “allow your government to impose forced vaccines.” In a viral sermon, Rev. Danny Jones, the pastor of a 250-member Georgia church, echoed similar accusations while predicting that Gates would use vaccines to usher in a new world order under which Christians might be forced to accept biometric tattoos.
Advertisement
On Twitter, hundreds of posts claimed that the billionaire had publicly said that vaccines could be used to lower the population by 10% to 15%. This was an old misrepresentation of Gates’ suggestion that increasing vaccination rates in the developing world could slow population growth, since families in which more children survive to adulthood might have fewer children overall.
Doctored photographs falsely suggesting the Gates Foundation runs a “Center for Human Population Reduction” spread so widely that both Reuters and Snopes published articles debunking them. Anti-vaxxer and Pizzagate proponents began sharing old C-Fam articles as proof that Gates “Thinks There Are Too Many Africans.” And the White House petition resurrected the old Kenyan controversy, informing new believers that Gates has “already been credibly accused of intentionally sterilizing Kenyan children through the use of a hidden HCG antigen in tetanus vaccines.”
By Saturday, the Gates-population control narrative had made its way onto conservative network One American News, quoting an anti-social distancing protester who charged,“This is not about COVID or about a virus. This is about gaining control over the human race and limiting population.”
“In the U.S. alone, nearly a third of Americans say they’ll refuse a coronavirus vaccine.”
Anti-Gates theories have resurfaced in Africa, as well. Unfounded rumors that Gates had bribed Nigerian lawmakers to pass a compulsory vaccination bill sparked a legislative investigation there. African Twitter influencers posted threads linking him not just to population control but the entire history of colonialist medical violence. One described the foundation’s family planning work “as genocide in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Another suggested that Gates would turn to “toxic Covid-19 vaccines” to depopulate South Africa next, since it had become “clear that this Depo is not working fast enough.”
Advertisement
Nancy Rosenblum, author of “A Lot of People are Saying: The New Conspiracism and the Assault on Democracy,” said that some people may simply see the proliferation of these conspiracy narratives as a vehicle to advance their agenda, exploiting the swirling outrage around Gates to introduce fringe arguments to a much larger audience. To Quassim Cassam, author of the book “Conspiracy Theories,” the anti-Gates attacks reflect a larger global trend towards populism, characterized by profound distrust of the establishment and experts.
“If you say it’s Gates or big corporations who are responsible for developing coronavirus via 5G, these are all ways of expressing anti-elitist sentiment,” Cassam said. “They’re fantasies, but they’re fantasies that give expression to real things in their lives.”
The potential impact of such fantasies could be dire. The legacy of medical abuses against people of color helped give rise to HIV/AIDS conspiracy theories, Rosenblum noted, from claims that it was a government-crafted bioweapon to charges that life-saving medications were poison. After the latter theory was adopted by South Africa’s former president, Thabo Mbeki, Harvard University researchers found it was responsible for more than 330,000 unnecessary deaths.
The Gates Foundation has already committed $300 million to fighting the coronavirus and finding a vaccine. Tens of millions of that sum are dedicated to ensuring that vaccines are distributed in poor countries. Conspiracy theories suggesting an eventual vaccine is part of a nefarious plot could leave many of the world’s most vulnerable at greater risk; in the U.S. alone, a late April survey found, nearly a third of Americans say they’ll refuse a vaccine.
Of course, the same side that is accusing Gates of planning an imminent eugenicist attack is also loudly pushing to reopen the economy, even though this will almost undoubtedly come at the cost of thousands of lives, overwhelmingly people of color. Rather than reckon with that reality, Republican leaders have argued that “there are more important things than living” and the public will “have to accept” massive new casualties.
Advertisement
Wisconsin’s chief justice dismissed superclusters of infection in the minority-staffed meatpacking industry as distinct from the threat posed to “regular folks.” One local California official mused that allowing the virus to “run rampant” through the ranks of the homeless, the old, the sick and the poor, represents a “natural” process of culling the “herd” that could lighten Social Security and health care burdens and free up jobs and housing.
Against this backdrop, right-wing claims of eugenics or population control begin to seem not just disingenuous, but like the most amoral form of projection.
A HuffPost Guide To Coronavirus


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-12--Democrats Unveil Giant New Coronavirus Relief Bill

Of importance to most Americans : The bill , called the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions , or HEROES , Act , includes a second wave of $ 1,200 payments to the vast majority of U.S. households — this time with even more inclusive eligibility rules than the previous payments .
Benefits would go to immigrants and would be protected from garnishment by banks and other debt collectors .
The bill also extends the extra $ 600 per week for unemployment through the end of the year .
The extra $ 600 from the federal government — designed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 33 million unemployed — is currently scheduled to expire at the end of July , and Republicans have said they ’ ll oppose any effort to keep the full amount past then out of concern that it disincentives work .
Democrats are also offering to undo one of the few tax increases Republicans implemented in their 2017 tax bill with a provision allowing homeowners to write off state and local taxes ( SALT ) above $ 10,000 .
That tax cut would be highly regressive ; the Tax Policy Center estimates that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 56 % of the benefit of that change , and the top 5 % would get 80 % .
The so-called SALT deduction tax increase angered even some Republican and independent voters in richer parts of the country , and it was a key reason Democrats were able to win many long-held GOP seats in areas like New York and Orange County , California .
But it ’ s less than the most important priority in a coronavirus response bill , though it could set up another partisan blame game if it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provision .
Access to affordable health insurance has largely been left out of negotiations between the White House and Congress , leaving millions of recently unemployed Americans — and previously uninsured Americans — in the lurch during a public health crisis .
This bill would make treatment for the novel coronavirus free for individuals , as well as open a special enrollment period for previously uninsured individuals to buy into the Affordable Care Act ’ s exchanges .
It also would increase how much the federal government pitches in for state Medicaid programs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that lets recently laid-off Americans continue their former employer ’ s health insurance plan at personal cost .
COBRA is rarely an affordable option for recently unemployed Americans because of the high costs of private insurance , which are typically subsidized by employers .
This proposal would cover the entire cost of an individual ’ s private insurance premium with federal dollars .
It ’ s unclear whether these proposals will have much bipartisan support .
Republicans have shown little appetite to negotiate on another relief package .
The Trump administration decided against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days of the pandemic in March , and despite promising to cover health care costs for uninsured Americans through a hospital fund , the administration has yet to set up a system to do so .
The legislation also includes a subtle change in language that would make some Washington lobbying firms eligible for forgivable loans from the Paycheck Protection Program , which is designed to help small businesses retain their employees despite the economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic .
Specifically , the bill allows a host of previously excluded nonprofits , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 501 ( c ) ( 4 ) s and trade associations that lobby for groups of corporations , to access those PPP small business loans .
Anti-corruption advocates lament the inclusion of trade associations in the new bill because the corporations and other institutions that bankroll them are often already eligible for federal bailout money .
The organizations , which enjoy significant clout in Washington , had been pushing for the change with the support of some Democratic lawmakers .
The bill is also a disappointment for many progressives on another key piece @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again : child care .
Advocates and some lawmakers were looking for an additional $ 50 billion to stabilize child care providers , many of whom are struggling to survive amid closures .
The bill released Tuesday would provide just $ 7 billion .
Trying Again On Leave Workers at companies with more than 500 employees were blocked from getting paid sick or family leave through the law , and very small companies were allowed to voluntarily opt out of providing leave .
That meant that up to 83 % of the workforce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off through that bill , according to one recent analysis from the National Partnership for Women and Families .
This new bill would cover everyone , offering two weeks of paid time off for workers battling coronavirus and 12 weeks time off — capped at two-thirds of pay — for a variety of reasons .
And these provisions would be extended through the end of 2021 , a year past the expiration date set in the previous bill .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Democrats released yet another proposal for a coronavirus economic relief package on Tuesday — a $3 trillion bill with more money for enhanced unemployment benefits, money for state and local governments, and funding for a host of other Democratic priorities.
Of importance to most Americans: The bill, called the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions, or HEROES, Act, includes a second wave of $1,200 payments to the vast majority of U.S. households — this time with even more inclusive eligibility rules than the previous payments. Benefits would go to immigrants and would be protected from garnishment by banks and other debt collectors.
Advertisement
Previous income thresholds would remain the same, but instead of $500 per dependent like the last round, the new proposal offers $1,200 ― with the amount families are receiving capped at $6,000.
And the proposal would give an extra $13 per hour in hazard pay to essential workers in health care, food retail, public safety and transportation.
The bill also extends the extra $600 per week for unemployment through the end of the year. The extra $600 from the federal government — designed as a lifeline to many of the 33 million unemployed — is currently scheduled to expire at the end of July, and Republicans have said they’ll oppose any effort to keep the full amount past then out of concern that it disincentives work.
This bill, almost certain not to be the final legislation that will become law, is an opening offer from Democrats. On past coronavirus relief bills, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) negotiated in private with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin.
Advertisement
This time, with McConnell saying he doesn’t see the “urgency” for another measure, Democrats are moving forward with their own bill — one that more closely hews to their priorities.
For instance, Democrats are again trying to pass real paid sick leave provisions, after seeing their proposals gutted by Senate Republicans and the White House back in March. They aim to provide state and local governments with $1 trillion, and set aside $200 billion for essential workers.
But the bill isn’t entirely focused on helping the most needy or deserving.
Democrats are also offering to undo one of the few tax increases Republicans implemented in their 2017 tax bill with a provision allowing homeowners to write off state and local taxes (SALT) above $10,000. That tax cut would be highly regressive; the Tax Policy Center estimates that the richest 1% of households would receive 56% of the benefit of that change, and the top 5% would get 80%.
The so-called SALT deduction tax increase angered even some Republican and independent voters in richer parts of the country, and it was a key reason Democrats were able to win many long-held GOP seats in areas like New York and Orange County, California. But it’s less than the most important priority in a coronavirus response bill, though it could set up another partisan blame game if it’s Republicans who insist on stripping that provision.
Of course, the bill is not all politics.
Proposals To Combat COVID
House Democrats are proposing a number of common-sense ideas to help combat the actual coronavirus pandemic. They aim to pour money into hospitals, and they want to expand health care benefits past the free coronavirus testing Congress passed in March.
Advertisement
Access to affordable health insurance has largely been left out of negotiations between the White House and Congress, leaving millions of recently unemployed Americans — and previously uninsured Americans — in the lurch during a public health crisis. This bill would make treatment for the novel coronavirus free for individuals, as well as open a special enrollment period for previously uninsured individuals to buy into the Affordable Care Act’s exchanges.
It also would increase how much the federal government pitches in for state Medicaid programs and subsidizes COBRA, the federal program that lets recently laid-off Americans continue their former employer’s health insurance plan at personal cost. COBRA is rarely an affordable option for recently unemployed Americans because of the high costs of private insurance, which are typically subsidized by employers. This proposal would cover the entire cost of an individual’s private insurance premium with federal dollars.
It’s unclear whether these proposals will have much bipartisan support. Republicans have shown little appetite to negotiate on another relief package. The Trump administration decided against reopening the Obamacare exchanges during the early days of the pandemic in March, and despite promising to cover health care costs for uninsured Americans through a hospital fund, the administration has yet to set up a system to do so.
Criticism From The Left
But already, Democrats are facing criticism from progressives for focusing their health care subsidies through COBRA, which would direct federal funds toward more expensive private insurance plans, rather than expanding public programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which pay health care providers much lower rates.
The absence of a more robust expansion of health care is one of several provisions in the bill that is already disappointing progressive lawmakers and activists.
Advertisement
The legislation also includes a subtle change in language that would make some Washington lobbying firms eligible for forgivable loans from the Paycheck Protection Program, which is designed to help small businesses retain their employees despite the economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, the bill allows a host of previously excluded nonprofits, including the political advocacy groups known as 501(c)(4)s and trade associations that lobby for groups of corporations, to access those PPP small business loans.
Anti-corruption advocates lament the inclusion of trade associations in the new bill because the corporations and other institutions that bankroll them are often already eligible for federal bailout money. The organizations, which enjoy significant clout in Washington, had been pushing for the change with the support of some Democratic lawmakers.
“Including trade associations as eligible for PPP loans is in many cases allowing double-dipping in the federal assistance program,” said Craig Holman, a lobbyist for Public Citizen, which monitors corporate influence in Washington.
The bill is also a disappointment for many progressives on another key piece of getting the economy up and running again: child care. Advocates and some lawmakers were looking for an additional $50 billion to stabilize child care providers, many of whom are struggling to survive amid closures. The bill released Tuesday would provide just $7 billion.
More Stimulus Checks
But overall, there is plenty for liberals to like in a bill that would cost an estimated $3 trillion.
Advertisement
There is $175 billion for housing assistance to help eligible people pay rents and mortgages, $25 billion for the struggling postal service, and a 15% increase in food benefits provided under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
The additional round of stimulus checks will likely make the legislation popular with many Americans, and items like expanded unemployment and paid sick leave could be an important salvation for many.
Specifically, the new bill would close the immense loopholes on paid sick leave and family leave that the White House and Senate Republicans put into the second stimulus bill, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act.
Trying Again On Leave
Workers at companies with more than 500 employees were blocked from getting paid sick or family leave through the law, and very small companies were allowed to voluntarily opt out of providing leave. That meant that up to 83% of the workforce was unable to actually get paid time off through that bill, according to one recent analysis from the National Partnership for Women and Families.
The lackluster provisions led to many workers simply leaving their jobs to deal with COVID-related issues.
Advertisement
This new bill would cover everyone, offering two weeks of paid time off for workers battling coronavirus and 12 weeks time off — capped at two-thirds of pay — for a variety of reasons. And these provisions would be extended through the end of 2021, a year past the expiration date set in the previous bill.
Paid leave advocates told HuffPost they were thrilled to see House Democrats try again to pass these measures.
“Big picture, it restores all the things we wanted,” said Shilpa Phadke, the vice president of the Women’s Initiative at the Center for American Progress, who’s been pushing to close the loopholes in the previous stimulus packages.
A strong paid sick leave provision is going to be critical in reopening the economy, Phadke pointed out.
No one is going to want to work at a place where employees are forced to work through illness ― and people aren’t going to want to shop at stores, or eat in restaurants, where workers are coming in sick, either. “There’s a basic confidence issue here,” she said.
Advertisement
When McConnell was asked about the legislation Tuesday, during a time of massive unemployment and more than 1,000 deaths a day due to the coronavirus, he had a simple message.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-12--Mitt Romney Says U.S. Coronavirus Testing Record Is 'Nothing To Celebrate'

“ I understand that politicians are going to frame data in a way that ’ s most positive politically , ” Romney said Tuesday during a virtual Senate committee hearing on how the U.S. could “ safely ” return to work and school amid the COVID-19 pandemic .
“ Yesterday you celebrated that we had done more tests per capita even than South Korea , ” Romney added , referring to comments President Donald Trump and testing coordinator Adm. Brett Giroir had made the day before at the White House ’ s coronavirus briefing .
“ But you ignored the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beginning of the outbreak , while we treaded water during February and March.
” As the number of cases in the U.S. began to climb in March , governors and public health experts called out the Trump administration for the lack of available tests .
The U.S. had conducted about 2,000 tests by March 6 , Romney noted Tuesday .
South Korea had administered more than 140,000 at that point .
Romney also pointed to the countries ’ death tolls : South Korea had nearly 11,000 confirmed cases and 258 deaths as of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world with over 1.3 million confirmed cases and more than 81,000 deaths .
Dr. Anthony Fauci , the nation ’ s leading expert on infectious diseases , told the Senate on Tuesday that the true coronavirus death toll is “ certainly ” higher than what has been reported .
“ I find our testing record nothing to celebrate whatsoever , ” said Romney , who is a frequent Trump critic .
( Trump , in turn , didn ’ t invite Romney to join a congressional committee on reopening the economy ; he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . )
“ The fact is their test numbers are going down , down , down , down now , because they don ’ t have the kind of outbreak we have , ” the senator said about South Korea .
“ Ours are going up , up , up , up , as they have to .
I think that ’ s an important lesson for us as we think about the future.
” '' I find our testing record nothing to celebrate whatsoever , '' Sen. Mitt Romney says , pointing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rates go down because they do n't have the kind of outbreak seen in the U.S. https : //t.co/OxeN3yh9Q7 pic.twitter.com/2rgNN08wTk — CBS News ( @ CBSNews ) May 12 , 2020 Trump has repeatedly touted his administration ’ s response to the coronavirus , including celebrating testing numbers .
As of Monday , the U.S. had tested nearly 400,000 people in a day , a new high , per the COVID Tracking Project .
But experts say the U.S. has to administer far more tests daily , as well as implement effective contact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without spurring new outbreaks — but such a comprehensive nationwide program appears unlikely .
Meanwhile , several states have reopened businesses in recent days — often going against the advice of public health experts and doing so before seeing a steadily declining number of coronavirus cases .
Trump , however , has pushed for the economy to reopen .
“ If you think we have it completely under control , we don ’ t , ” Fauci said , contradicting the president ’ s previous assertion that the virus was “ well contained @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) slammed the United States’ record on testing for the coronavirus, saying it was “nothing to celebrate whatsoever.”
“I understand that politicians are going to frame data in a way that’s most positive politically,” Romney said Tuesday during a virtual Senate committee hearing on how the U.S. could “safely” return to work and school amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
Advertisement
“Yesterday you celebrated that we had done more tests per capita even than South Korea,” Romney added, referring to comments President Donald Trump and testing coordinator Adm. Brett Giroir had made the day before at the White House’s coronavirus briefing. “But you ignored the fact that they accomplished theirs at the beginning of the outbreak, while we treaded water during February and March.”
As the number of cases in the U.S. began to climb in March, governors and public health experts called out the Trump administration for the lack of available tests. The U.S. had conducted about 2,000 tests by March 6, Romney noted Tuesday. South Korea had administered more than 140,000 at that point.
Romney also pointed to the countries’ death tolls: South Korea had nearly 11,000 confirmed cases and 258 deaths as of Tuesday, while the U.S. led the world with over 1.3 million confirmed cases and more than 81,000 deaths. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s leading expert on infectious diseases, told the Senate on Tuesday that the true coronavirus death toll is “certainly” higher than what has been reported.
“I find our testing record nothing to celebrate whatsoever,” said Romney, who is a frequent Trump critic. (Trump, in turn, didn’t invite Romney to join a congressional committee on reopening the economy; he was the only Senate Republican left out.)
Advertisement
“The fact is their test numbers are going down, down, down, down now, because they don’t have the kind of outbreak we have,” the senator said about South Korea. “Ours are going up, up, up, up, as they have to. I think that’s an important lesson for us as we think about the future.”
"I find our testing record nothing to celebrate whatsoever," Sen. Mitt Romney says, pointing out that other nations will have testing rates go down because they don't have the kind of outbreak seen in the U.S. https://t.co/OxeN3yh9Q7 pic.twitter.com/2rgNN08wTk — CBS News (@CBSNews) May 12, 2020
Trump has repeatedly touted his administration’s response to the coronavirus, including celebrating testing numbers. As of Monday, the U.S. had tested nearly 400,000 people in a day, a new high, per the COVID Tracking Project.
But experts say the U.S. has to administer far more tests daily, as well as implement effective contact tracing, in order to reopen economies without spurring new outbreaks — but such a comprehensive nationwide program appears unlikely.
Advertisement
Meanwhile, several states have reopened businesses in recent days — often going against the advice of public health experts and doing so before seeing a steadily declining number of coronavirus cases. Trump, however, has pushed for the economy to reopen.
On Tuesday, Fauci cautioned Americans, saying that going back to normal life too early could lead to a significant increase in coronavirus cases.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-12--Activists Leave Body Bags In State Capitals To Protest Reopenings

Each demonstration featured an activist dressed as the Grim Reaper standing over the body bags , which was meant to represent the 81,000 Americans who have already been killed by COVID-19 , the disease caused by the virus , and the many more who could die if governors rush to lift stay-at-home orders .
The coordinated action was meant to urge the states ’ respective governors to “ listen to medical experts and not cave to pressure to open the state too fast , risking more lives , ” according to a statement from Indivisible .
Texas Gov .
Greg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the state , including malls , on May 1 .
The state has since seen a rise in coronavirus cases .
There have been nearly 40,000 confirmed cases of the virus in Texas , and about 1,100 deaths .
Florida Gov .
Ron DeSantis ( R ) also started reopening businesses earlier this month .
There had been nearly 42,000 confirmed cases of the virus in the state as of Tuesday , including 1,779 deaths , according to the state health department .
Arizona started reopening some businesses last week , per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( R ) .
The governor made the order even though Arizona had failed to meet guidelines put forth by the White House and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , which say states should see a 14-day decline in new cases before loosening lockdown measures .
As of Tuesday , the COVID-19 death count in Arizona had grown to 562 .
“ We need to properly combat the spread of coronavirus so that we can ensure a safe reopening of businesses , public spaces and schools so we don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” said protester Sharli Schaitberger , a retired health care worker at the Phoenix demonstration , according to a report from The Arizona Republic .
“ A pandemic like this was always a given to those of us on the front lines , so we would teach and talk all day long with people about what we were going to do and how we would protect ourselves , ” Schaitberger said .
“ Now , it seems like that didn ’ t even matter because we have a government that is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ World Health Organization.
” Tuesday ’ s demonstrations follow weeks of protests at state Capitols across the country , many of which have been organized by far-right extremists and anti-vaccination conspiracy theorists .
Protesters have demanded that governors reopen state economies despite the desperate warnings of state health officials .
Some of those protests have featured armed militias .
Dr. Anthony Fauci , the nation ’ s leading expert on infectious diseases , delivered startling testimony before the Senate Health Committee on Tuesday , cautioning Americans against going back to business as usual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to spikes in the number of infections and deaths .

Protesters in Texas, Florida and Arizona laid body bags outside statehouses and a governor’s mansion on Tuesday to protest plans to reopen businesses during the coronavirus pandemic.
Activists with local chapters of the national grassroots progressive organization Indivisible arranged body bags outside the gate of the governor’s mansion in Austin:
Indivisible
Advertisement
Indivisible members did the same on the steps of the Old Capitol building in Tallahassee:
Indivisible
Indivisible
Indivisible
Protesters also placed body bags on the lawn outside the state Capitol building in Phoenix:
Indivisible
Advertisement
Each demonstration featured an activist dressed as the Grim Reaper standing over the body bags, which was meant to represent the 81,000 Americans who have already been killed by COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus, and the many more who could die if governors rush to lift stay-at-home orders.
The coordinated action was meant to urge the states’ respective governors to “listen to medical experts and not cave to pressure to open the state too fast, risking more lives,” according to a statement from Indivisible.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbot (R) started reopening businesses in the state, including malls, on May 1. The state has since seen a rise in coronavirus cases. There have been nearly 40,000 confirmed cases of the virus in Texas, and about 1,100 deaths.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) also started reopening businesses earlier this month. There had been nearly 42,000 confirmed cases of the virus in the state as of Tuesday, including 1,779 deaths, according to the state health department.
Arizona started reopening some businesses last week, per an order by Gov. Doug Ducey (R). The governor made the order even though Arizona had failed to meet guidelines put forth by the White House and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which say states should see a 14-day decline in new cases before loosening lockdown measures. As of Tuesday, the COVID-19 death count in Arizona had grown to 562.
Advertisement
“We need to properly combat the spread of coronavirus so that we can ensure a safe reopening of businesses, public spaces and schools so we don’t wind up with another 532 body bags,” said protester Sharli Schaitberger, a retired health care worker at the Phoenix demonstration, according to a report from The Arizona Republic.
Indivisibles in Phoenix have a very important message for their Governor today - unless he wants blood on his hands, he should stand up for Arizonans, listen to public health officials, and keep Arizona closed. pic.twitter.com/PTsZNGdmMo — Indivisible Guide (@IndivisibleTeam) May 12, 2020
“A pandemic like this was always a given to those of us on the front lines, so we would teach and talk all day long with people about what we were going to do and how we would protect ourselves,” Schaitberger said. “Now, it seems like that didn’t even matter because we have a government that is not even listening to the recommendations of the World Health Organization.”
Tuesday’s demonstrations follow weeks of protests at state Capitols across the country, many of which have been organized by far-right extremists and anti-vaccination conspiracy theorists. Protesters have demanded that governors reopen state economies despite the desperate warnings of state health officials. Some of those protests have featured armed militias.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s leading expert on infectious diseases, delivered startling testimony before the Senate Health Committee on Tuesday, cautioning Americans against going back to business as usual. He said reopening economies could lead to spikes in the number of infections and deaths.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-12--Ex-GOP Strategist: If Obama Were President, 'This Would Not Have Happened’

Former GOP strategist Steve Schmidt on Monday rebuked President Donald Trump ’ s fumbling response to the coronavirus pandemic , suggesting the United States would not be facing “ catastrophe ” if former President Barack Obama were still in office .
“ If Barack Obama was the president of the United States , this would not have happened , ” the political analyst told MSNBC ’ s Ari Melber .
The nationwide death toll from the public health crisis has now topped 81,000 .
“ We would have had competent professional people .
We would have done what we needed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who imagined how the federal response would have unfurled under the Obama administration .
“ What would have happened is what happened during the Ebola crisis , ” said Schmidt , a member of conservative attorney George Conway ’ s anti-Trump group , the Lincoln Project , which aims to defeat Trump in the 2020 election .
“ We would have had someone like Ron Klain in charge of it , not the confederacy of dunces that we see running around the West Wing , ” he added .
Schmidt , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it had become “ fully the party of Trump , ” warned that “ no amount of gaslighting , delusion , fantasy happy talk ” from the president would change the fact it will take years to recover from the pandemic .
Check out the clip above and the full interview below :