thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-12--Democrats Pin Hopes On Social Security In Iowa Senate Race

Caroline Brehman/Getty Images Theresa Greenfield is the odds-on front-runner in the Iowa Democratic primary , which will decide who takes @ @ @ @ @ November .

Theresa Greenfield, 56, grew up on a farm that went under during the 1980s farm crisis, lost her first husband in an industrial accident and later ran a family-owned real estate firm in Des Moines.
Greenfield’s story is one that Democratic strategists normally only dream about. But when the front-runner for Iowa’s Democratic Senate nomination tells her tale of rural roots, perseverance and business savvy, she is also keen to emphasize the social solidarity that made it all possible.
Advertisement
Greenfield reminds voters that when husband Rodney Wirtjes, an electrical lineman, was electrocuted in June 1988, his union ― the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ― was there for her. The union’s health care benefits ensured that she and their kids were covered, its members shoveled her driveway that winter, and union officials informed her about Social Security’s survivors benefits for widows with small children. Greenfield’s first son was 18 months old at the time and she was pregnant with her second child.
“You don’t get rich on Social Security, but you’re not supposed to,” Greenfield told HuffPost. “It’s an earned benefit for hardworking families so they can get back on their feet and people don’t go into poverty, and that’s exactly what it did for me.”
The candidate has a cheerful, plain-spoken way of talking, even when it’s a subject that inspires sadness or anger.
“When it comes to Social Security, it’s one of those fights that I’ll carry in my heart,” she said, sounding excited by the prospect of a brawl to protect the social insurance program.
Advertisement
Social Security is at the heart of Greenfield’s kitchen-table-focused pitch to Iowans, over 1 in 5 of whom receive its benefits. Greenfield is vying to unseat Republican Sen. Joni Ernst, 49, who is seeking a second term and has made comments suggesting she is open to cutting benefits.
“If voters really value Social Security, they will elect a leader who values Social Security,” Greenfield said.
“In times like these, where people’s economic situation is uncertain and feels very perilous, a message on retirement security ― whether that be Social Security or Medicare ― is very potent.” - Tyler Law, a Democratic consultant
Democrats have been running as guardians of Social Security virtually from the moment the party created the program in 1935. But the issue tends to be most effective for Democrats when they can point to a clear, looming threat to the program’s benefits like in the 2006 midterm elections. Now, Democrats believe that Republicans have made just enough noise to give credence to claims that the GOP is targeting the program again.
The economic havoc wrought by the coronavirus pandemic and governments’ response to it is likely to make running on Social Security that much more effective, according to Tyler Law, a Democratic consultant who was previously a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
Advertisement
“In times like these, where people’s economic situation is uncertain and feels very perilous, a message on retirement security ― whether that be Social Security or Medicare ― is very potent,” he said.
To get her shot at Ernst, Greenfield first needs to dispatch three Democratic rivals in the June 2 primary: businessman Eddie Mauro, retired Navy Adm. Mike Franken and progressive attorney Kimberly Graham.
Most Iowa politics watchers believe Greenfield has already locked up the nomination, however. Thanks in part to the early endorsement of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, she has nearly $3 million more in cash than Mauro, her closest competitor. She is also backed by virtually all of the state’s prominent elected Democrats, labor unions and reproductive rights groups.
Referring to the support she received from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers after her first husband’s death, Greenfield said that unions have “given me a hand up and I’m going to have their back as the next senator here in Iowa.”
President Barack Obama speaks to campaign volunteers in Davenport, Iowa, in October 2012. He won the state twice, but President Donald Trump also won there handily in 2016. MANDEL NGA/Getty Images
Advertisement
Turning Iowa Blue
In Democrats’ discussions of how to retake the Senate, Iowa doesn’t quite rank in the top tier of possible pickups like Colorado, Arizona, Maine and North Carolina.
But it’s a solid runner-up alongside states like Montana.
“Iowa is a really strong offensive opportunity for us,” said Stewart Boss, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which is the official campaign arm of Senate Democrats. “It could be a critical path to the majority.”
Given some recent losses, it’s easy to forget that Iowa, where Democratic presidential candidates recently spent months courting caucus-goers, was once a state where Democrats were regularly competitive in statewide and national races.
President Barack Obama won Iowa twice. Then, in 2016, Donald Trump took the state by nearly 10 percentage points ― part of an electoral streak that won over historically Democratic voters across the industrial Midwest.
But unlike in Ohio, where Trump had been victorious by a similar margin, Democrats had enormous success in Iowa House races during the 2018 midterm elections. The party flipped two House seats and nearly defeated Republican Rep. Steve King in the state’s most conservative district. And while Democrats narrowly lost the governorship, they took control of the state auditor’s office.
Advertisement
Suburban voters, who have been shifting away from Republicans under Trump, powered Democrats’ surge in Iowa two years ago. The party also recouped some of its traditional blue-collar constituency in manufacturing communities along the Mississippi River.
In this election cycle, the contests for all four of the state’s House seats, including two where incumbent Democrats are running for reelection, are due to be competitive, potentially providing upstream momentum ― or “reverse coattails” ― for Greenfield.
“That movement is going to continue in 2020,” predicted Jeff Link, a Des Moines-based Democratic strategist. “That is really troubling for Ernst and it’s troubling for Trump.”
Indeed, at this point in the 2018 cycle, Iowa Republicans had a voter registration edge of over 48,000. As of May 1, though, there were over 9,000 more registered Democrats in the state.
Sen. Joni Ernst talks to voters at the Iowa State Fair last August. Democrats are trying to capitalize on her suggestion that lawmakers reform Social Security "behind closed doors." Caroline Brehman/Getty Images
Advertisement
The Social Security Edge?
Greenfield, who has an Upper Midwest accent that hints at her roots across the border in Minnesota, said her experience with Social Security is an instant source of connection with prospective voters across Iowa. She estimates that at least one person at each of her more than 100 campaign events has told her that Social Security survivors benefits were a vital lifeline for them too when they lost a spouse or a parent.
“I get these stories truly almost everywhere I go across the state so I know that Social Security has been unifying in keeping them out of poverty and giving them that hand up,” she said.
Adopting the preservation of Social Security as a core priority is a no-brainer for Greenfield ― and not just because of her personal story. The New Deal program is also the subject of a major political flub by Ernst. The incumbent senator told constituents at a town hall meeting last September that members of Congress from both parties should discuss reforming Social Security “behind closed doors.”
Democrats immediately seized on her remarks as code for the kind of back-room “grand bargain” that was fashionable to push in the years immediately after the 2008 financial crisis but that has since fallen out of favor in both parties.
What’s more, Ernst had spoken favorably about partially or completely privatizing Social Security during her 2014 Senate run. At a primary debate in May 2014, she discussed the need to look at “transitioning our younger workers onto individual plans or individual savings accounts.” She was more explicit at a forum for seniors in September of that year, saying, “I have talked about privatizing Social Security as an option.”
Advertisement
A broad range of people on the ideological left and right have criticized proposals to allow Americans to invest their payroll tax contributions to Social Security on their own ― and thus, to privatize the program. These critics maintain that shifting the risk of market investments away from the government and onto individuals could jeopardize Americans’ retirement income by making it more dependent on swings in the stock market and the fees of fund managers. A 2005 proposal by President George W. Bush to partially privatize Social Security died amid political backlash, helping hand Congress to Democrats in the 2006 midterm elections.
Ernst’s campaign did not respond to detailed requests for comment. But in September, spokeswoman Kelsi Daniell told The Washington Post that the senator meant to highlight how even discussing changes to Social Security has become taboo.
“Just as Senator Ernst predicted, we can’t have honest conversations about solving problems anymore without liberals and their media allies trying to demonize it and create a faux controversy,” Daniell said in a statement to the Post. “Senator Ernst has always and will continue to stand up and fight to protect Social Security now and for generations to come.”
In keeping with an approach that is moderate by national standards, Greenfield has not signed on to some of the more ambitious Social Security expansion bills circulating in Congress. She is instead a supporter of the Swift Act, a bill introduced by Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) that would expand eligibility for survivors benefits, including for disabled widows and widowers. She also wants to protect Social Security Administration offices, which are especially valued in rural communities, from administrative budget cuts that have prompted dozens of office closures in the past decade.
“The wealthiest in this nation, the biggest corporations need to pay their fair share.” - Theresa Greenfield, a Democratic Iowa Senate candidate
Advertisement
As for plugging Social Security’s funding gap, which is due to force automatic benefit cuts in 2035 absent congressional action, Greenfield keeps her recommendations broad but progressive.
“The wealthiest in this nation, the biggest corporations need to pay their fair share,” she said.
The combination of Ernst’s comments and Greenfield’s connection to the program prompted Social Security Works PAC, which supports candidates committed to expanding Social Security, to make its first endorsement in a contested Democratic primary. Jon Bauman, president of the PAC and the former “Sha Na Na” singer known as Bowzer, joined Greenfield for a rally via video chat in late April. (Plans for a musical tour of the state to promote Greenfield are tentatively on hold due to the COVID-19 pandemic.)
“Theresa Greenfield has literally lived the value of Social Security survivors benefits,” Bauman told HuffPost. “She is able to connect with her voters in a way that you can’t without that personal story.”
Democrats contend that Republicans are now eyeing cutbacks to the popular program. In particular, they note that the Trump tax cuts contributed $2 trillion to the national debt and thereby created the fiscal conditions for Republicans to make their case for restricting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Then-House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) appeared to validate Democrats’ fears with his remarks in December 2017 calling for “entitlement reform” shortly after the tax cuts passed.
Four months later, Democrat Conor Lamb won a special election for a southwest Pennsylvania House district where Trump had won by almost 20 points in 2016. Lamb had seized on Ryan’s comments in a 30-second TV ad, saying that Ryan used the term “entitlement reform” to “talk about Social Security and Medicare as if it’s undeserved or it’s some form of welfare, but it’s not any of those things.”
Advertisement
National Democrats saw Lamb’s successful connection of the Trump tax cuts to the possibility of future Social Security reductions as a test run for the 2018 midterms, when dozens of other Democrats would wield similar arguments to help the party take control of the House.
And while Trump promised as a candidate that he would protect Social Security from cuts, he told a CNBC interviewer this January that “at some point” he would “look” at making unspecified changes to Social Security and Medicare. Now some White House economic officials are floating the idea of allowing Americans to get as much as $5,000 in stimulus money that they would pay for by delaying their eligibility for Social Security benefits.
Social Security Works, the nonprofit arm of the PAC that Bauman runs, called the plan “cruel and ridiculous” in a Monday tweet.
“Social Security is not a piggy bank,” the group said.
Theresa Greenfield hugs an attendee at a Democratic Party picnic this past August. Everywhere she goes, people come forward with their own stories about Social Security, the candidate said. Caroline Brehman/Getty Images
Holding Together A Tenuous Coalition
Iowa Democrats are increasingly concentrated in metropolitan Des Moines and a handful of other cities. The party’s two previous candidates for the governorship and Senate were partly hobbled by a sense that they were out of touch with the state’s vast rural regions.
Advertisement
Greenfield, a current Des Moines resident and successful businesswoman, nonetheless expresses a passion for rural issues that she credits to her upbringing as the daughter of a farmer and crop duster.
“So many small towns, like the one I grew up by and all of them in that area, they’re really struggling and they’ve been hollowed out,” she said.
Greenfield worries about the twin pressures on Iowa farmers of a trade war that has obstructed their access to Chinese markets and the Trump administration’s efforts to relax rules requiring oil refineries to use corn-based ethanol and other biofuels to make gasoline. Reversing both policies would be a top priority for her in Congress.
Asked whether tougher enforcement of antitrust laws against giant agriculture companies, which a new movement of experts and activists blames for squeezing family farms, is part of her agenda, Greenfield said it was a longer-term priority.
“We’ve got to level that playing field and make sure that we rebuild those markets for our farmers so they can compete and they have choices too for their inputs, their sales,” she said. “But right now, honestly, the number one thing I hear from them is, ‘We need our markets back,’ so they can just start turning a profit and then can go on to have some of these other fights that they want to have.”
Advertisement
Greenfield is not exactly an heir to the prairie populism of Iowa legend Tom Harkin, the last Democrat to represent the Hawkeye State in the Senate. When asked why she thinks farmers and other working families have seen key living costs go up for the past three decades even as their incomes have stagnated, Greenfield did not have a diagnosis. “I’m not going to sit here and guess why or who or how,” she said.
And Greenfield is unafraid to break with the activist left’s newer touchstones. She prefers a public health care option to “Medicare for All” and dismisses the Green New Deal as a non-starter.
That could matter in a state where Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) won the popular vote in the Democratic caucuses in February.
“National Democrats really just haven’t been able to generate any enthusiasm behind their candidate.” - Jesse Hunt, a National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesman
National Republicans hope that intra-party resentment at the Democratic establishment’s effort to anoint Greenfield over a more progressive contender like Kimberly Graham makes it harder for her to generate the turnout she needs in November.
Advertisement
The GOP points to Greenfield’s reliance on the support of Democratic leadership PACs that accept corporate donations, despite her refusal to accept corporate funds directly. Iowa Voices, an independent Democratic group that has looser disclosure requirements, has also managed to pour untold sums into ripping Ernst on television.
“National Democrats really just haven’t been able to generate any enthusiasm behind their candidate,” said Jesse Hunt, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the Senate Republicans’ campaign arm. “They’re spending a lot of special interest money to try to push Theresa Greenfield on Iowa voters.”
Conservative outlets and Democratic rival Eddie Mauro have also tried to shine a light on some controversial elements of Greenfield’s business record.
Thus far, though, there’s little evidence that Iowa’s most progressive voters are prepared to abandon the Democratic Party if Greenfield is the nominee.
Bob Morrison, a retired union machinist in the industrial town of Burlington, was active in Sanders’ 2020 bid and now supports Graham. But Greenfield’s ties to organized labor have inspired him to feel warmly toward her as well.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-12--Indiana Attorney General's Law License Suspended For Groping

ASSOCIATED PRESS Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill , seen in October , has had his law license suspended for 30 days after accused of drunkenly groping four women at a party .
INDIANAPOLIS ( AP ) — Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill , who has sought national attention as an anti-abortion and tough-on-crime crusader , will have his law license suspended for 30 days over allegations that he drunkenly groped a state lawmaker and three other women during a party , the state Supreme Court ruled Monday .
But the court gave the Republican attorney general a less serious punishment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days recommended by a hearing officer for his actions during a party marking the end of the 2018 legislative session .
Hill , who has resisted calls for his resignation from Republican Gov .
Eric Holcomb and other state GOP leaders , said in a statement he accepted the court ’ s decision with “ humility and respect.
” He named his chief deputy to oversee the attorney general ’ s office until his suspension ends June 17 .
“ I offer my deepest gratitude to my family , friends and the entire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ General , ” Hill said .
“ My staff has worked tirelessly and without interruption and will continue to do so on behalf of all Hoosiers.
” Hill has denied doing anything wrong , testifying during a hearing in October that he briefly touched Democratic Rep. Mara Candelaria Reardon ’ s back while leaning in to hear what she was saying during the party and was startled to realize she was wearing a backless dress .
Hill said “ absolutely not ” when asked whether he grabbed Reardon ’ s buttocks .
Reardon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and with glassy eyes , was holding a drink in his right hand and put his left hand on her shoulder , then slid his hand down her dress to clench her buttocks .
“ A squeeze , a firm grasp , ” she said .
Hill , 59 , also refuted testimony from three female legislative staffers — ages 23 to 26 at the time — that he inappropriately touched their backs or buttocks and made unwelcomed sexual comments during the party .
“ The long , lingering , and meandering touches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the various reactions of those who experienced or observed those touches , and the numerous other accounts of ( Hill ’ s ) conduct at the bar , all offer ample support for the hearing officer ’ s ultimate finding on this point , ” the ruling said .
Hill ’ s attorneys questioned whether his actions were misinterpreted during the party , where alcohol was flowing along with loud music and conversation .
They also argue that he didn ’ t do anything improper as a lawyer and shouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prosecutor declined to file criminal charges against him .
The court ’ s order directs Hill to not undertake any legal matters beginning May 18 for 30 days .
The order allows Hill for automatic reinstatement of Hill ’ s license , differing from the hearing officer ’ s recommendation that Hill go through a reinstatement process that could have taken a year to complete .
It is unclear how the decision impacts Hill ’ s ability to serve as state government ’ s top lawyer .
State law requires the attorney general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law in Indiana , ” but it doesn ’ t specify whether the person can continue serving after facing professional disciplinary action .
The Supreme Court ’ s ruling doesn ’ t address whether he continues as attorney general .
Holcomb said Monday that he still believes Hill should resign from office .
He said his legal staff was researching whether he could appoint a new attorney general even though the disciplinary charges were first filed against Hill more than a year ago .
Hill has aimed to build support among social conservatives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ burial more than 2,400 fetuses found at Chicago-area properties linked to a deceased Indiana abortion doctor and appearances on Fox News to discuss topics such as San Francisco ’ s troubles with homelessness .

Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill, seen in October, has had his law license suspended for 30 days after accused of drunkenly groping four women at a party. ASSOCIATED PRESS
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill, who has sought national attention as an anti-abortion and tough-on-crime crusader, will have his law license suspended for 30 days over allegations that he drunkenly groped a state lawmaker and three other women during a party, the state Supreme Court ruled Monday.
The unanimous court decision said that the state’s attorney disciplinary commission “proved by clear and convincing evidence that (Hill) committed the criminal act of battery.”
Advertisement
But the court gave the Republican attorney general a less serious punishment than a suspension of at least 60 days recommended by a hearing officer for his actions during a party marking the end of the 2018 legislative session.
Hill, who has resisted calls for his resignation from Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb and other state GOP leaders, said in a statement he accepted the court’s decision with “humility and respect.” He named his chief deputy to oversee the attorney general’s office until his suspension ends June 17.
Hill’s statement released by his office made no mention of the allegations or the women who accused him of groping them.
Gabrielle McLemore, left, Niki DaSilva left center, Rep. Mara Candelaria Reardon, right center, and Samantha Lozano are seen last June. The four women accused the attorney general of drunkenly groping them at a party. ASSOCIATED PRESS
Advertisement
“I offer my deepest gratitude to my family, friends and the entire staff of the Office of the Attorney General,” Hill said. “My staff has worked tirelessly and without interruption and will continue to do so on behalf of all Hoosiers.”
Hill has denied doing anything wrong, testifying during a hearing in October that he briefly touched Democratic Rep. Mara Candelaria Reardon’s back while leaning in to hear what she was saying during the party and was startled to realize she was wearing a backless dress. Hill said “absolutely not” when asked whether he grabbed Reardon’s buttocks.
Reardon testified that Hill, smelling of alcohol and with glassy eyes, was holding a drink in his right hand and put his left hand on her shoulder, then slid his hand down her dress to clench her buttocks. “A squeeze, a firm grasp,” she said.
Hill, 59, also refuted testimony from three female legislative staffers — ages 23 to 26 at the time — that he inappropriately touched their backs or buttocks and made unwelcomed sexual comments during the party.
The court agreed with a finding from the hearing officer, former state Supreme Court Justice Myra Selby, that Hill crossed a line.
Advertisement
“The long, lingering, and meandering touches described by the four women and others, the various reactions of those who experienced or observed those touches, and the numerous other accounts of (Hill’s) conduct at the bar, all offer ample support for the hearing officer’s ultimate finding on this point,” the ruling said.
Hill’s attorneys questioned whether his actions were misinterpreted during the party, where alcohol was flowing along with loud music and conversation. They also argue that he didn’t do anything improper as a lawyer and shouldn’t face law license sanctions because a special prosecutor declined to file criminal charges against him.
The court’s order directs Hill to not undertake any legal matters beginning May 18 for 30 days. The order allows Hill for automatic reinstatement of Hill’s license, differing from the hearing officer’s recommendation that Hill go through a reinstatement process that could have taken a year to complete.
It is unclear how the decision impacts Hill’s ability to serve as state government’s top lawyer. State law requires the attorney general to be “duly licensed to practice law in Indiana,” but it doesn’t specify whether the person can continue serving after facing professional disciplinary action. The Supreme Court’s ruling doesn’t address whether he continues as attorney general.
Holcomb said Monday that he still believes Hill should resign from office. He said his legal staff was researching whether he could appoint a new attorney general even though the disciplinary charges were first filed against Hill more than a year ago.
Advertisement
“I am seeking a quick turnaround on those questions to be answered,” Holcomb said.
Hill, who had been viewed as a rising African American star in the Republican Party, is seeking election to a second term this year.
Hill has aimed to build support among social conservatives with actions such as presiding over the burial more than 2,400 fetuses found at Chicago-area properties linked to a deceased Indiana abortion doctor and appearances on Fox News to discuss topics such as San Francisco’s troubles with homelessness.
Two Republicans are challenging Hill for the party’s attorney general nomination, which is to be decided during the GOP state convention scheduled for June 20.
Some Republicans argue nominating Hill puts the GOP’s hold on the office in jeopardy even though Democrats last won a statewide election in 2012.
A top official of the Indiana Democratic Party called Hill a “disgrace” whose conduct was “repulsive.”
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-12--Trump Tweets Support For Tesla Reopening During Deadly Pandemic

Even as reported coronavirus cases spike in multiple U.S. states , President Donald Trump has expressed support for people and businesses that break local social distancing guidelines and defy the advice of health officials in his own administration .
Trump ’ s support for these businesses tracks with reporting from various outlets that his administration believes a swift end to social distancing measures will revive the faltering economy and improve his reelection chances .
On Tuesday morning , Trump posted a tweet supporting Tesla founder Elon Musk , who reopened a factory in Fremont , California , on Monday despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reopening if they “ do not permit physical distancing or have high-touch equipment.
” Musk has previously served on multiple economic advisory committees for the Trump administration .
“ California should let Tesla & @ elonmusk open the plant , NOW .
It can be done Fast & Safely !
” Trump claimed on Monday .
The San Francisco Chronicle reported that the Tesla parking lot was filled with employees ’ cars on Monday , but an Alameda County spokesperson said Tesla could only resume “ minimum basic operations ” such as building @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — not production .
“ If anyone is arrested , I ask that it only be me , ” Musk tweeted Monday .
In recent years , multiple employees have publicly complained about working conditions at the Alameda Tesla factory , and in 2019 , a judge ruled that Musk had illegally tried to sabotage efforts to unionize there .
Nonetheless , Musk ’ s purported willingness to be arrested is apiece with attempts by Trump , conservative media and conservative businesses to appropriate the vocabulary of revolutionary movements in describing their aims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a deadly pandemic .
In April , Trump posted tweets calling for the “ liberation ” of Minnesota , Michigan and Virginia as sparse groups of protestors ― some of whom were armed ― gathered in each state to demand an end to social distancing guidelines .
On May 5 , Trump said Americans “ should think of themselves as warriors ” as he encouraged them to return to work .
“ Our country has to open , ” he said .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Even as reported coronavirus cases spike in multiple U.S. states, President Donald Trump has expressed support for people and businesses that break local social distancing guidelines and defy the advice of health officials in his own administration.
Trump’s support for these businesses tracks with reporting from various outlets that his administration believes a swift end to social distancing measures will revive the faltering economy and improve his reelection chances.
Advertisement
On Tuesday morning, Trump posted a tweet supporting Tesla founder Elon Musk, who reopened a factory in Fremont, California, on Monday despite rules in Alameda County restricting businesses from reopening if they “do not permit physical distancing or have high-touch equipment.” Musk has previously served on multiple economic advisory committees for the Trump administration.
“California should let Tesla & @elonmusk open the plant, NOW. It can be done Fast & Safely!” Trump claimed on Monday.
The San Francisco Chronicle reported that the Tesla parking lot was filled with employees’ cars on Monday, but an Alameda County spokesperson said Tesla could only resume “minimum basic operations” such as building security, inventory delivery and remote work — not production.
“If anyone is arrested, I ask that it only be me,” Musk tweeted Monday.
In recent years, multiple employees have publicly complained about working conditions at the Alameda Tesla factory, and in 2019, a judge ruled that Musk had illegally tried to sabotage efforts to unionize there.
Advertisement
Nonetheless, Musk’s purported willingness to be arrested is apiece with attempts by Trump, conservative media and conservative businesses to appropriate the vocabulary of revolutionary movements in describing their aims to “reopen” the economy during a deadly pandemic.
In April, Trump posted tweets calling for the “liberation” of Minnesota, Michigan and Virginia as sparse groups of protestors ― some of whom were armed ― gathered in each state to demand an end to social distancing guidelines.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-12--Trump Administration Tells States To Yank Benefits From Those Who Won't Return To Work

Congress created special unemployment benefits so that laid-off workers could stay home while the coronavirus pandemic rages outside , but the Trump administration wants states to make sure that nobody ’ s getting benefits if they could be at work .
The U.S. Department of Labor has told states , which implement unemployment insurance programs according to federal rules , that they should ask employers to notify the state if someone turns down an offer to come back to work .
In a guidance memo on Monday evening , the Labor Department said “ states are strongly encouraged to request @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to return to their jobs for reasons that do not support their continued eligibility for benefits.
” The guidance comes as President Donald Trump is calling on states to lift restrictions on commerce so that the economy might get back on track ahead of the November election , even though the national death toll from COVID-19 is still rising at a brisk pace .
Several Republican-led states have already said business can resume and specifically warned that workers can ’ t receive unemployment benefits if their employer wants them back .
At the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the basic task of distributing benefits .
Several laid-off workers have told HuffPost that they ’ re still waiting for payments , including some who filed their claims more than a month ago .
Millions of workers have probably not been paid , said Andrew Stettner , a senior fellow at The Century Foundation , a progressive think tank .
The government ’ s “ responsibility is to pay for weeks of unemployment compensation when the payments are due , ” Stettner said , noting that the federal standard for acceptable performance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paid within 21 days ― a standard that has likely not been met .
More than 30 million Americans have applied for unemployment benefits in the last six weeks , an unprecedented surge in claims .
The Coronavirus Aid , Relief and Economic Security Act provided an extra $ 600 per week in unemployment compensation and made independent contractors and the self-employed eligible for benefits for the first time .
The new policies forced states to attempt to quickly update antiquated computer systems .
Employers are generally encouraged to report anyone on unemployment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work ” ― this is not a new feature of the program .
But the Labor Department is asking for a crackdown on people who decline work offers when it ’ s not clear if the definition of “ suitable ” includes risking exposure to a highly contagious , brand-new virus that is still mysterious to doctors and that has killed more than 82,000 Americans in a matter of weeks .
“ If this guidance is going up that people need to be reported for refusing suitable work , then the department should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t be offering unsafe work and considering it suitable , ” said Michele Evermore , a senior researcher and policy analyst at the National Employment Law Project .
In an April letter , NELP asked for clarification on the parameters of “ suitable work , ” pointing to a longstanding regulation that says “ a position shall not be deemed to be suitable for an individual if the circumstances present any unusual risk to the health , safety , or morals of the individual.
” In a followup letter on Tuesday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including the AFL-CIO and the NAACP , called on the Labor Department to clarify the meaning of “ suitable work , ” saying the department ’ s “ limited and misleading statements on the issue will require countless vulnerable workers to choose between their livelihood and the threat of contracting COVID-19 or exposing their loved ones to the deadly disease.
” The Labor Department has previously said that someone can refuse work and still be eligible for unemployment benefits if they ’ ve been diagnosed with COVID-19 or if someone at their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Merely refusing to work as a precaution , however , would make a person ineligible for benefits unless a medical professional has advised the person to self-quarantine .
( The department has an eligibility Q & A on its website . )
“ Donald Trump has no plan to fight the virus , which is why his administration is pushing workers to view themselves as ‘ warriors ’ and put their lives on the line for the president ’ s political benefit , ” Sen. Ron Wyden ( D-Ore. ) said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between their health and their ability to keep food on the table.
” HuffPost reader : Has your former employer asked you to come back to work instead of receiving unemployment benefits ?
Tell us about it ― email arthur @ huffpost.com .
Include your phone number if you ’ re willing to be interviewed .

Congress created special unemployment benefits so that laid-off workers could stay home while the coronavirus pandemic rages outside, but the Trump administration wants states to make sure that nobody’s getting benefits if they could be at work.
The U.S. Department of Labor has told states, which implement unemployment insurance programs according to federal rules, that they should ask employers to notify the state if someone turns down an offer to come back to work.
Advertisement
In a guidance memo on Monday evening, the Labor Department said “states are strongly encouraged to request employers to provide information when workers refuse to return to their jobs for reasons that do not support their continued eligibility for benefits.”
The guidance comes as President Donald Trump is calling on states to lift restrictions on commerce so that the economy might get back on track ahead of the November election, even though the national death toll from COVID-19 is still rising at a brisk pace.
“We have to be warriors,” Trump said last week. “We can’t keep our country closed down for years.”
Several Republican-led states have already said business can resume and specifically warned that workers can’t receive unemployment benefits if their employer wants them back. At the same time, states are still struggling with the basic task of distributing benefits.
Several laid-off workers have told HuffPost that they’re still waiting for payments, including some who filed their claims more than a month ago. Millions of workers have probably not been paid, said Andrew Stettner, a senior fellow at The Century Foundation, a progressive think tank.
Advertisement
The government’s “responsibility is to pay for weeks of unemployment compensation when the payments are due,” Stettner said, noting that the federal standard for acceptable performance is that 87% of benefits are paid within 21 days ― a standard that has likely not been met.
More than 30 million Americans have applied for unemployment benefits in the last six weeks, an unprecedented surge in claims. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act provided an extra $600 per week in unemployment compensation and made independent contractors and the self-employed eligible for benefits for the first time. The new policies forced states to attempt to quickly update antiquated computer systems.
To reduce its backlog of claims, California tried suspending a requirement that claimants repeatedly certify that they are still eligible for benefits. Monday’s Labor Department guidance, however, said states can’t cut people any slack on certification.
Employers are generally encouraged to report anyone on unemployment who refuses an offer of “suitable work” ― this is not a new feature of the program. But the Labor Department is asking for a crackdown on people who decline work offers when it’s not clear if the definition of “suitable” includes risking exposure to a highly contagious, brand-new virus that is still mysterious to doctors and that has killed more than 82,000 Americans in a matter of weeks.
“If this guidance is going up that people need to be reported for refusing suitable work, then the department should also make it clear that you shouldn’t be offering unsafe work and considering it suitable,” said Michele Evermore, a senior researcher and policy analyst at the National Employment Law Project.
Advertisement
In an April letter, NELP asked for clarification on the parameters of “suitable work,” pointing to a longstanding regulation that says “a position shall not be deemed to be suitable for an individual if the circumstances present any unusual risk to the health, safety, or morals of the individual.”
In a followup letter on Tuesday, NELP and more than 200 liberal groups, including the AFL-CIO and the NAACP, called on the Labor Department to clarify the meaning of “suitable work,” saying the department’s “limited and misleading statements on the issue will require countless vulnerable workers to choose between their livelihood and the threat of contracting COVID-19 or exposing their loved ones to the deadly disease.”
The Labor Department has previously said that someone can refuse work and still be eligible for unemployment benefits if they’ve been diagnosed with COVID-19 or if someone at their workplace has received such a diagnosis. Merely refusing to work as a precaution, however, would make a person ineligible for benefits unless a medical professional has advised the person to self-quarantine. (The department has an eligibility Q&A on its website.)
“Donald Trump has no plan to fight the virus, which is why his administration is pushing workers to view themselves as ‘warriors’ and put their lives on the line for the president’s political benefit,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said. “Workers should not be forced to choose between their health and their ability to keep food on the table.”
HuffPost readers: Has your former employer asked you to come back to work instead of receiving unemployment benefits? Tell us about it ― email arthur@huffpost.com. Include your phone number if you’re willing to be interviewed.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-12--Biden Blasts Trump's Michael Flynn Crusade: 'This Is All About Diversion'

Former Vice President Joe Biden on Tuesday slammed President Donald Trump for obsessing over the Michael Flynn case during the coronavirus crisis , accusing the president of seeking to divert attention from his inadequate response to the pandemic .
“ This is all about diversion , ” Biden told ABC ’ s “ Good Morning America.
” “ This is a game this guy plays all the time .
The country is in crisis ...
He should stop trying to always divert attention from the real concerns of the American people.
” “ The American people are worried with good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continued .
“ We don ’ t have coronavirus because of him , but we have the devastating impact of it because of his lack of a policy , his lack of action.
” Asked if DOJ was justified in dropping charges against Michael Flynn @ JoeBiden tells @ GStephanopoulos : `` I think there 's nothing there ... but it 's not a surprise that , in fact , the Justice Dept .
decided anybody who was an ally of the president did n't do anything wrong ever anyway '' pic.twitter.com/eSHX96xScG — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ May 12 , 2020 In a shocking turn of events last week , the Justice Department dropped charges against Flynn , the former White House national security adviser who pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to the FBI about his contacts with a Russian official .
Flynn had tried to withdraw his guilty plea in recent months , claiming he ’ d been illegally entrapped by the FBI agents who ’ d questioned him .
A federal judge rejected that argument in December .
But in a court filing last week , U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , said the investigation “ seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn.
” Trump fired Flynn in February 2017 for lying to Vice President Mike Pence and the FBI , but has since reversed course on the matter .
In recent months , he ’ s defended Flynn , a retired Army lieutenant general , as a “ war hero ” who was steamrolled by “ dirty cops.
” Sen. Chuck Grassley ( R-Iowa ) , a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to know what Obama and Biden knew about the Flynn probe and when .
But he stopped short of calling on Congress to investigate the former president .
Asked Tuesday what he knew about the probe and whether anything improper was done , Biden told “ Good Morning America ” host George Stephanopoulos that he knows “ nothing about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn.
” “ I thought you asked me whether or not I had anything to do with him being prosecuted .
I ’ m sorry , ” Biden said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked for an investigation .
But that ’ s all I know about it , and I don ’ t think anything else.
” Stephanopoulos then asked whether the Justice Department was right to drop the charges against Flynn .
Biden pointed to an open letter signed by roughly 2,000 former Justice Department officials calling for Attorney General William Barr to resign over the department ’ s handling of the Flynn case .
“ I have been absolutely stunned by the way in which he has not conducted the office properly , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t know the detail of where we are right now .
My point is a simple one : Focus on what ’ s in front of us .
You have plenty of time to investigate this issue.
” “ I think there ’ s nothing there there , ” he continued .
“ But it ’ s not a surprise that in fact the Justice Department decided anybody who was an ally of the president didn ’ t do anything wrong ever anyway .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Former Vice President Joe Biden on Tuesday slammed President Donald Trump for obsessing over the Michael Flynn case during the coronavirus crisis, accusing the president of seeking to divert attention from his inadequate response to the pandemic.
“This is all about diversion,” Biden told ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “This is a game this guy plays all the time. The country is in crisis ... He should stop trying to always divert attention from the real concerns of the American people.”
Advertisement
“The American people are worried with good reason,” the former vice president continued. “We don’t have coronavirus because of him, but we have the devastating impact of it because of his lack of a policy, his lack of action.”
Asked if DOJ was justified in dropping charges against Michael Flynn @JoeBiden tells @GStephanopoulos: "I think there's nothing there...but it's not a surprise that, in fact, the Justice Dept. decided anybody who was an ally of the president didn't do anything wrong ever anyway" pic.twitter.com/eSHX96xScG — Good Morning America (@GMA) May 12, 2020
In a shocking turn of events last week, the Justice Department dropped charges against Flynn, the former White House national security adviser who pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to the FBI about his contacts with a Russian official.
Flynn had tried to withdraw his guilty plea in recent months, claiming he’d been illegally entrapped by the FBI agents who’d questioned him. A federal judge rejected that argument in December.
Advertisement
But in a court filing last week, U.S. Attorney Timothy Shea, a Trump appointee, said the investigation “seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn.”
Trump fired Flynn in February 2017 for lying to Vice President Mike Pence and the FBI, but has since reversed course on the matter. In recent months, he’s defended Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general, as a “war hero” who was steamrolled by “dirty cops.”
This week, Trump accused both former President Barack Obama and Biden, the presumptive 2020 Democratic nominee, of acting illegally when the Justice Department began investigating Flynn in late 2016.
“OBAMAGATE makes Watergate look small time!” Trump tweeted Monday.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, suggested Monday that he would like to know what Obama and Biden knew about the Flynn probe and when. But he stopped short of calling on Congress to investigate the former president.
Asked Tuesday what he knew about the probe and whether anything improper was done, Biden told “Good Morning America” host George Stephanopoulos that he knows “nothing about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn.”
Advertisement
Stephanopoulos cited accounts that Biden and Obama were briefed during a Jan. 5, 2017, meeting with intelligence officials on the FBI’s plan to question Flynn.
“I thought you asked me whether or not I had anything to do with him being prosecuted. I’m sorry,” Biden said. “I was aware that they asked for an investigation. But that’s all I know about it, and I don’t think anything else.”
Stephanopoulos then asked whether the Justice Department was right to drop the charges against Flynn. Biden pointed to an open letter signed by roughly 2,000 former Justice Department officials calling for Attorney General William Barr to resign over the department’s handling of the Flynn case.
“I have been absolutely stunned by the way in which he has not conducted the office properly,” Biden said. “But look, I don’t know the detail of where we are right now. My point is a simple one: Focus on what’s in front of us. You have plenty of time to investigate this issue.”
“I think there’s nothing there there,” he continued. “But it’s not a surprise that in fact the Justice Department decided anybody who was an ally of the president didn’t do anything wrong ever anyway.”
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-12--Stacey Abrams Endorses Joe Biden

Stacey Abrams Endorses Joe Biden

WASHINGTON , May 12 ( Reuters ) - Former Georgia state minority leader Stacey Abrams , a possible Democratic vice presidential pick , endorsed presumptive nominee Joe Biden for U.S. president on Tuesday , citing his stance on climate change , economic recovery and voting rights .
Abrams , a rising Democratic Party star , gained a national profile in her failed bid to become Georgia ’ s governor in 2018 and is a leading voting rights advocate in the southern state .
Biden , the former U.S. vice president , has vowed to pick a woman to join his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a running mate .
“ Vice President Biden is the leader America needs — a leader who will restore dignity , competence and compassion to the Oval Office while restoring America ’ s moral leadership around the world , ” Abrams said in a statement .
.
@ JoeBiden is the leader America needs .
I look forward to continuing my strong support for his candidacy and doing all I can to make sure he is elected this November .
pic.twitter.com/2FA5AHjZzQ — Stacey Abrams ( @ staceyabrams ) May 12 , 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fighting climate change , pushing for an economic recovery for all , and protecting every American ’ s right to vote .
“ While marginalized communities struggle under Donald Trump ’ s failed leadership and people of color face disproportionate consequences of COVID-19 , Joe Biden will take no one for granted , ” Abrams said .
Other candidates likely being considered are Biden ’ s former rivals for the 2020 Democratic nomination , Senators Kamala Harris , Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren .
Others include Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer , who has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protests during the coronavirus outbreak and Representative Val Demings of Florida , a key battleground state .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON, May 12 (Reuters) - Former Georgia state minority leader Stacey Abrams, a possible Democratic vice presidential pick, endorsed presumptive nominee Joe Biden for U.S. president on Tuesday, citing his stance on climate change, economic recovery and voting rights.
Abrams, a rising Democratic Party star, gained a national profile in her failed bid to become Georgia’s governor in 2018 and is a leading voting rights advocate in the southern state.
Advertisement
Biden, the former U.S. vice president, has vowed to pick a woman to join his ticket and suggested he would consider her as a running mate.
“Vice President Biden is the leader America needs — a leader who will restore dignity, competence and compassion to the Oval Office while restoring America’s moral leadership around the world,” Abrams said in a statement.
.@JoeBiden is the leader America needs. I look forward to continuing my strong support for his candidacy and doing all I can to make sure he is elected this November. pic.twitter.com/2FA5AHjZzQ — Stacey Abrams (@staceyabrams) May 12, 2020
She praised Biden’s commitment to fighting climate change, pushing for an economic recovery for all, and protecting every American’s right to vote.
Advertisement
“While marginalized communities struggle under Donald Trump’s failed leadership and people of color face disproportionate consequences of COVID-19, Joe Biden will take no one for granted,” Abrams said.
Other candidates likely being considered are Biden’s former rivals for the 2020 Democratic nomination, Senators Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren.
Others include Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who has gained a high profile leading Michigan amid protests during the coronavirus outbreak and Representative Val Demings of Florida, a key battleground state.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-12--Tests Are Readily Available At The White House. America Doesn't Have The Same Luxury.

As President Donald Trump pushes to reopen the country amid the ongoing coronavirus crisis , he and members of his White House have access to something the vast majority of ordinary citizens do not : readily available tests that take just minutes to complete .
The discrepancy in testing became even more pronounced last week when several staffers close to the president and vice president tested positive for COVID-19 .
The news rattled the White House and threatened to undermine the Trump administration ’ s narrative that it ’ s safe to open up the country and return to work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are getting tested every day , ” Sen. Chris Van Hollen ( D-Md . )
said on Tuesday .
“ No wonder the president thinks testing is widely available .
It ’ s not.
” During a press conference at the White House on Monday , Trump said the nation has “ met the moment and we have prevailed ” when it comes to coronavirus testing .
He argued that broad coronavirus restrictions pose a risk , too ― in the form of permanent economic damage and additional suicide deaths .
However , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nations in testing per capita , including Denmark , Italy , New Zealand , Germany and Canada .
The U.S. also has the highest death toll from the infection , passing 80,000 on Monday .
Even Adm. Brett Giroir , Trump ’ s coronavirus testing czar , declined to echo the president ’ s rhetoric about testing being widely available to any person who wants it .
At Monday ’ s press conference with Trump at the White House , Giroir clarified that anyone who needs a test ― like people with respiratory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , meanwhile , argued that the country needs far more readily available tests before much of the public can go back to work .
They point to deadly coronavirus outbreaks at meat processing plants in several states as an example of the need for further caution ― as well as evidence of a double standard at the White House .
“ Donald Trump is paying attention to testing and to masks because they understand that can help prevent this coronavirus , [ but ] for the rest of America , just go out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
, adding that Republicans are “ just not prioritizing the lives and safety of the American people.
” “ We afford the president Secret Service protection unlike any other person because it ’ s important to do that .
Do I expect more rigorous testing to protect the president of the U.S. ?
Yeah , that makes sense , ” Sen. Ron Johnson ( R-Wis. ) said .
Even Sen. Mitt Romney ( R-Utah ) , a Trump critic who said on Tuesday that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to celebrate whatsoever , ” agreed .
Democrats ’ argument on reopening the country , meanwhile , was bolstered by testimony Dr. Anthony Fauci , the nation ’ s leading expert on infectious diseases , gave to the Senate Health Committee on Tuesday .
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 .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
As President Donald Trump pushes to reopen the country amid the ongoing coronavirus crisis, he and members of his White House have access to something the vast majority of ordinary citizens do not: readily available tests that take just minutes to complete.
The discrepancy in testing became even more pronounced last week when several staffers close to the president and vice president tested positive for COVID-19. The news rattled the White House and threatened to undermine the Trump administration’s narrative that it’s safe to open up the country and return to work.
Advertisement
“People close to the president are getting tested every day,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said on Tuesday. “No wonder the president thinks testing is widely available. It’s not.”
During a press conference at the White House on Monday, Trump said the nation has “met the moment and we have prevailed” when it comes to coronavirus testing. He argued that broad coronavirus restrictions pose a risk, too ― in the form of permanent economic damage and additional suicide deaths.
However, America is well below a number of nations in testing per capita, including Denmark, Italy, New Zealand, Germany and Canada. The U.S. also has the highest death toll from the infection, passing 80,000 on Monday.
Even Adm. Brett Giroir, Trump’s coronavirus testing czar, declined to echo the president’s rhetoric about testing being widely available to any person who wants it. At Monday’s press conference with Trump at the White House, Giroir clarified that anyone who needs a test ― like people with respiratory symptoms ― can get one.
Advertisement
Democrats, meanwhile, argued that the country needs far more readily available tests before much of the public can go back to work. They point to deadly coronavirus outbreaks at meat processing plants in several states as an example of the need for further caution ― as well as evidence of a double standard at the White House.
“Donald Trump is paying attention to testing and to masks because they understand that can help prevent this coronavirus, [but] for the rest of America, just go out there and boost the economy,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), adding that Republicans are “just not prioritizing the lives and safety of the American people.”
But Republicans dismissed the idea of a double standard on testing, arguing that Trump and the White House need special protection.
“We afford the president Secret Service protection unlike any other person because it’s important to do that. Do I expect more rigorous testing to protect the president of the U.S.? Yeah, that makes sense,” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said.
Even Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), a Trump critic who said on Tuesday that the U.S. record on testing is “nothing to celebrate whatsoever,” agreed.
Advertisement
“I think people do expect that the president of the United States deserves very special care and treatment,” Romney told HuffPost.
Democrats’ argument on reopening the country, meanwhile, was bolstered by testimony Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s leading expert on infectious diseases, gave to the Senate Health Committee on Tuesday.
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.
If leaders reopen local economies too quickly, Fauci said, “the consequences could be really serious.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-12--Fauci Warns Senate Of Dangerous Consequences If U.S. Reopens Too Soon

Dr. Anthony Fauci , the nation ’ s top infectious disease expert , warned lawmakers on Tuesday that the country could face dire consequences should the American economy reopen too soon , as he previously told The New York Times in an email exchange .
“ The major message that I wish to convey to the Senate [ Health , Education , Labor and Pensions ] committee tomorrow is the danger of trying to open the country prematurely , ” Fauci wrote to the Times ’ Sheryl Gay Stolberg on Monday evening .
“ If we skip over the checkpoints @ @ @ @ @ @ @ multiple outbreaks throughout the country.
” He added that reopening too soon “ would actually set us back on our quest to return to normal ” since the rise of the coronavirus pandemic .
Fauci testified before lawmakers on the health committee for the first time since the pandemic was declared a national emergency in March .
He was joined by Robert Redfield , the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , Stephen Hahn , commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration , and Adm. Brett Giroir , the assistant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Health and Human Services .
His comments to the Times represented a stark departure from White House talking points that have been pushed by President Donald Trump and some Republican lawmakers .
The president has cheered states that have gone forward with relaxing stay-at-home orders even if they haven ’ t met guidelines laid out in a three-phase plan released by the White House called “ Opening Up America Again.
” At the same time , infections around the nation have continued to surge .
More than 1.3 million people have now tested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have died of the virus Fauci has regularly urged caution as the nation has suffered the brunt of the coronavirus pandemic , warning of catastrophic consequences should the nation return to normal unless a bevy of safety measures are adopted and the level of infections stabilizes .
The doctor himself is in a “ modified quarantine ” after coming in contact with a White House staffer who was diagnosed with COVID-19 .
The nation ’ s top medical officials have also warned that the coronavirus is not going to go away anytime soon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could disappear even without a vaccine .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, warned lawmakers on Tuesday that the country could face dire consequences should the American economy reopen too soon, as he previously told The New York Times in an email exchange.
“The major message that I wish to convey to the Senate [Health, Education, Labor and Pensions] committee tomorrow is the danger of trying to open the country prematurely,” Fauci wrote to the Times’ Sheryl Gay Stolberg on Monday evening. “If we skip over the checkpoints … then we risk the danger of multiple outbreaks throughout the country.”
Advertisement
He added that reopening too soon “would actually set us back on our quest to return to normal” since the rise of the coronavirus pandemic.
Full Fauci email message to me: pic.twitter.com/yq8IAa9f8g — Sheryl Gay Stolberg (@SherylNYT) May 12, 2020
Fauci testified before lawmakers on the health committee for the first time since the pandemic was declared a national emergency in March. He was joined by Robert Redfield, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Stephen Hahn, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, and Adm. Brett Giroir, the assistant secretary for health at the Department of Health and Human Services.
His comments to the Times represented a stark departure from White House talking points that have been pushed by President Donald Trump and some Republican lawmakers. The president has cheered states that have gone forward with relaxing stay-at-home orders even if they haven’t met guidelines laid out in a three-phase plan released by the White House called “Opening Up America Again.”
Advertisement
At the same time, infections around the nation have continued to surge. More than 1.3 million people have now tested positive for COVID-19 and more than 80,000 have died of the virus
Fauci has regularly urged caution as the nation has suffered the brunt of the coronavirus pandemic, warning of catastrophic consequences should the nation return to normal unless a bevy of safety measures are adopted and the level of infections stabilizes.
The doctor himself is in a “modified quarantine” after coming in contact with a White House staffer who was diagnosed with COVID-19.
The nation’s top medical officials have also warned that the coronavirus is not going to go away anytime soon, even though Trump has suggested it could disappear even without a vaccine.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-12--Aimee Stephens, Transgender Woman At Center Of Supreme Court Case, Dead At 59

Aimee Stephens , a transgender Michigan woman whose 2013 firing is the focus of a Supreme Court case over LGBTQ rights , died Tuesday in Detroit .
She was 59 .
The American Civil Liberties Union confirmed the news in a statement , calling Stephens ― who had been battling kidney disease for several years ― “ a hero and a trailblazer.
” Stephens , who was born in Fayetteville , North Carolina , had planned to become a Baptist minister but eventually pivoted to funeral services .
Until 2013 , she worked as a licensed funeral home director and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harris Funeral Homes .
After working at the company ’ s Garden City , Michigan , location for nearly six years , Stephens told owner Thomas Rost in a letter that she was transgender .
In accordance with the funeral home ’ s dress code for female employees , she would wear conservative dresses and skirt suits moving forward .
About two weeks after coming out to her boss , Stephens learned she ’ d been fired .
Rost , she said , offered severance along with a deal preventing her from seeking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sued the funeral home for sex discrimination , arguing that she lost her job because of her gender identity .
“ I felt what they did to me wasn ’ t right .
In fact , it was downright wrong , ” she told The Associated Press in 2019 .
“ But I also realized it wasn ’ t just me , that there were others in the world facing the same tune.
” The Supreme Court ’ s ruling , expected later this year , will decide if sexuality and gender identity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1964 Civil Rights Act , which protects against discrimination on the basis of sex .
Stephens ’ case is also historically significant as the first to deal directly with the rights of transgender people in the U.S. under the law .
It ’ s expected to have a major effect on LGBTQ rights cases .
Rost , for his part , has never disputed the timeline of Stephens ’ accusations but called the case “ a pawn to achieve a larger political goal ” in a 2019 Washington Post opinion article .
Regardless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last year , she hoped her case would encourage others to “ always strive to be who you are.
” “ Deep down you know who you are and don ’ t let anyone else tell you any different , ” she said .
“ Hold your head high and keep marching forward .
It will get better.
” Following her 2013 dismissal , Stephens got a job as an autopsy technician in a metro Detroit hospital .
She resigned in late 2014 due to her declining health .
“ She has given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equality for LGBTQ people in our country , and she has rewritten history , ” Donna Stephens said .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Aimee Stephens, a transgender Michigan woman whose 2013 firing is the focus of a Supreme Court case over LGBTQ rights, died Tuesday in Detroit. She was 59.
The American Civil Liberties Union confirmed the news in a statement, calling Stephens ― who had been battling kidney disease for several years ― “a hero and a trailblazer.”
Advertisement
Stephens, who was born in Fayetteville, North Carolina, had planned to become a Baptist minister but eventually pivoted to funeral services. Until 2013, she was employed as a licensed funeral home director and embalmer at R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes.
After working at the company’s Garden City, Michigan, location for nearly six years, Stephens told owner Thomas Rost in a letter that she was transgender. In accordance with the funeral home’s dress code for female employees, she would wear conservative dresses and skirt suits moving forward.
About two weeks after coming out to her boss, Stephens learned she’d been fired. Rost, she said, offered severance along with a deal preventing her from seeking legal action for her dismissal.
Stephens sued the funeral home for sex discrimination, arguing that she lost her job because of her gender identity.
Advertisement
“I felt what they did to me wasn’t right. In fact, it was downright wrong,” she told The Associated Press in 2019. “But I also realized it wasn’t just me, that there were others in the world facing the same tune.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling, expected later this year, will decide if sexuality and gender identity are included under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which protects against discrimination on the basis of sex.
Stephens’ case is also historically significant as the first to deal directly with the rights of transgender people in the U.S. under the law. It’s expected to have a major effect on LGBTQ rights cases.
Rost, for his part, has never disputed the timeline of Stephens’ accusations but called the case “a pawn to achieve a larger political goal” in a 2019 Washington Post opinion article.
Advertisement
Regardless of the outcome, Stephens told Vox last year, she hoped her case would encourage others to “always strive to be who you are.”
“Deep down you know who you are and don’t let anyone else tell you any different,” she said. “Hold your head high and keep marching forward. It will get better.”
Following her 2013 dismissal, Stephens got a job as an autopsy technician in a metro Detroit hospital. She resigned in late 2014 due to her declining health.
She is survived by her wife, Donna Stephens, who called her “an inspiration.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-12--Trump Attorney Tells Supreme Court That Subpoenas Would Distract Him From Pandemic

President Donald Trump “ is not to be treated as an ordinary citizen ” and should receive temporary immunity from criminal subpoenas while in office so he isn ’ t distracted from his focus on his constitutional duties ― including his response to the coronavirus pandemic , his attorney told Supreme Court justices on Tuesday .
Jay Sekulow , one of the attorneys who represented Trump during his Senate impeachment trial earlier this year , told the Supreme Court during telephonic oral arguments that state prosecutors should be prevented from targeting the president ’ s documents in criminal proceedings while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the second argument of the day that focused on Trump ’ s records ― the court earlier heard a dispute over House subpoenas that sought to obtain Trump ’ s financial records .
Sekulow argued that the presidency “ is being harassed and undermined ” by subpoenas issued both by the House and by Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance Jr. , who sought Trump ’ s tax returns .
Vance has been investigating whether Trump Organization officials broke the law in the course of paying off two women who , during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with then-candidate Trump .
Much of the debate centered on whether Trump ― a vociferous cable news consumer and a near-constant presence on Twitter ― would be distracted from his constitutional duties as president .
Sekulow suggested it would be inappropriate for him to have to call up the president and take up hours of his time while Trump is busy “ handling a pandemic.
” Chief Justice John Roberts questioned Sekulow ’ s theory that subpoenas should be blocked because they would distract the president , asking why the distraction theory would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a subpoena and instead allow an investigation to be shut down in its entirety .
“ You focus on the distraction to the president , but I don ’ t know why in Clinton v. Jones we were not persuaded that the distraction in that case meant that discovery could not proceed , ” Roberts said .
“ There are different things that distract different people , ” said Roberts .
“ But I would have thought the discovery in a case like Clinton v. Jones ― even though it was civil ― @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the grand jury proceedings are here.
” Later , Roberts seemed to suggest there should be a higher standard for subpoenas coming from district attorneys , both because of the number of prosecutors around the country and the lack of an ongoing relationship between prosecutors and the president ( as there is between the White House and Congress ) .
In the Jones case , the Supreme Court rejected the argument that President Bill Clinton would be distracted from his constitutional duties by his need to respond to a sexual harassment lawsuit filed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under oath while being deposed , and was subsequently impeached by the House of Representatives but acquitted by the Senate .
Justice Elena Kagan conceded that the president can ’ t be treated just like an ordinary citizen , but said that the notion that “ the president isn ’ t above the law ” is a “ fundamental precept of our constitutional order.
” Noel Francisco , the Trump-nominated U.S .
Solicitor General , made a more narrow argument than Sekulow , arguing that local prosecutors should , at minimum , have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they really need the president ’ s personal records .
Vance , Francisco said , hadn ’ t tried to meet a “ special needs standard ” that illustrated a specific need for the information requested .
Francisco said that Sekulow “ makes a very strong argument on the immunity issue ” but said there ’ s no need for the Supreme Court to address “ broader and more difficult ” immunity questions when Vance , in the government ’ s view , hadn ’ t met the special needs standard .
Dunne @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a third party about the private conduct of a variety of individuals and businesses , including the president .
The Manhattan prosecutor would have been “ remiss ” not to follow up on public reports about potentially illegal business transactions that took place in his jurisdiction .
“ In response , the president asked the court to overturn 200 years of precedent by declaring he has a blanket immunity while in office for any legal inquiry , even for his prior private acts , even though that could result in a permanent immunity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the statutes of limitation expired , ” Dunne said .
There ’ s just no basis to think that an “ army of local prosecutors ” would have jurisdiction over the president ’ s actions and go after the president , Dunne said .
There hasn ’ t been a “ reckless mania ” by local prosecutors to go after the president , Dunne said .
“ The claim of possible mental distraction is completely speculative , really .
It ’ s based on the notion that the president might be worried and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someday , ” Dunne said .
“ I think it ’ s wrong to think that even a categorical rule here would provide comfort to a distractible president like that .
”

President Donald Trump's personal lawyer Jay Sekulow arrives at the U.S. Capitol on Feb. 3, 2020 in Washington, DC. Mark Wilson via Getty Images
President Donald Trump “is not to be treated as an ordinary citizen” and should receive temporary immunity from criminal subpoenas while in office so he isn’t distracted from his focus on his constitutional duties ― including his response to the coronavirus pandemic, his attorney told Supreme Court justices on Tuesday.
Jay Sekulow, one of the attorneys who represented Trump during his Senate impeachment trial earlier this year, told the Supreme Court during telephonic oral arguments that state prosecutors should be prevented from targeting the president’s documents in criminal proceedings while he’s in office. It was the second argument of the day that focused on Trump’s records ― the court earlier heard a dispute over House subpoenas that sought to obtain Trump’s financial records.
Advertisement
Sekulow argued that the presidency “is being harassed and undermined” by subpoenas issued both by the House and by Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance Jr., who sought Trump’s tax returns. Vance has been investigating whether Trump Organization officials broke the law in the course of paying off two women who, during the 2016 presidential campaign, claimed prior affairs with then-candidate Trump.
Much of the debate centered on whether Trump ― a vociferous cable news consumer and a near-constant presence on Twitter ― would be distracted from his constitutional duties as president. Sekulow suggested it would be inappropriate for him to have to call up the president and take up hours of his time while Trump is busy “handling a pandemic.”
Chief Justice John Roberts questioned Sekulow’s theory that subpoenas should be blocked because they would distract the president, asking why the distraction theory would go further than allowing Trump to resist a subpoena and instead allow an investigation to be shut down in its entirety.
“You focus on the distraction to the president, but I don’t know why in Clinton v. Jones we were not persuaded that the distraction in that case meant that discovery could not proceed,” Roberts said.
Advertisement
“There are different things that distract different people,” said Roberts. “But I would have thought the discovery in a case like Clinton v. Jones ― even though it was civil ― would be distracting, as you argue the grand jury proceedings are here.”
Later, Roberts seemed to suggest there should be a higher standard for subpoenas coming from district attorneys, both because of the number of prosecutors around the country and the lack of an ongoing relationship between prosecutors and the president (as there is between the White House and Congress).
In the Jones case, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that President Bill Clinton would be distracted from his constitutional duties by his need to respond to a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by Paula Jones. Clinton ultimately lied under oath while being deposed, and was subsequently impeached by the House of Representatives but acquitted by the Senate.
Justice Elena Kagan conceded that the president can’t be treated just like an ordinary citizen, but said that the notion that “the president isn’t above the law” is a “fundamental precept of our constitutional order.”
Noel Francisco, the Trump-nominated U.S. Solicitor General, made a more narrow argument than Sekulow, arguing that local prosecutors should, at minimum, have to show to a federal court that they really need the president’s personal records. Vance, Francisco said, hadn’t tried to meet a “special needs standard” that illustrated a specific need for the information requested.
Advertisement
Francisco said that Sekulow “makes a very strong argument on the immunity issue” but said there’s no need for the Supreme Court to address “broader and more difficult” immunity questions when Vance, in the government’s view, hadn’t met the special needs standard.
Carey Dunne, an attorney for the New York County District Attorney’s office, told the court that the “apocalyptic” predictions about what would happen if presidents were subjected to legal matters hadn’t come true.
Dunne said that the subpoena sought information from a third party about the private conduct of a variety of individuals and businesses, including the president. The Manhattan prosecutor would have been “remiss” not to follow up on public reports about potentially illegal business transactions that took place in his jurisdiction.
“In response, the president asked the court to overturn 200 years of precedent by declaring he has a blanket immunity while in office for any legal inquiry, even for his prior private acts, even though that could result in a permanent immunity for him and the other parties if the statutes of limitation expired,” Dunne said.
There’s just no basis to think that an “army of local prosecutors” would have jurisdiction over the president’s actions and go after the president, Dunne said. There hasn’t been a “reckless mania” by local prosecutors to go after the president, Dunne said.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-12--Ex-RNC Chair Torches McConnell's Claim Obama 'Should've Kept His Mouth Shut'

McConnell had declared Monday that Obama “ should have kept his mouth shut ” about President Donald Trump ’ s response to the health crisis .
But Steele disagreed , tweeting that the former president is entitled to voice his view .
He also noted that Trump has “ yet to keep ‘ his mouth shut ’ ” about Obama .
The president has persistently attempted to blame Obama for testing failures and a shortage of medical supplies during the pandemic and has this week peddled a fringe theory accusing his predecessor of “ the biggest political crime in American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that alleged crime would be .
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 Steele , who served as chairman of the RNC from 2009 to 2011 , has been an outspoken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has reproved McConnell in the past for his loyalty to the president .
McConnell ’ s latest display came during an interview with the president ’ s daughter-in-law , Lara Trump , at an online Trump campaign event .
Lara Trump , who is also an adviser to the president ’ s reelection campaign , told McConnell that Obama had slammed the administration ’ s pandemic response .
Last week , on a private call with former officials from his administration , Obama said the handling of the crisis had been “ an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yahoo News , which first reported about the call .
“ I think President Obama should have kept his mouth shut , ” McConnell said in the interview .
“ You know , we know he doesn ’ t like much this administration is doing .
That ’ s understandable , but I think it ’ s a little bit classless , frankly , to critique an administration that comes after you.
” “ You had your shot .
You were there for eight years .
I think the tradition that the Bushes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who comes after you is a good tradition.
” Though Obama has largely stayed silent about Trump since leaving office , he ’ s dropped a few criticisms in recent weeks without mentioning Trump by name .
Last month , he tweeted that “ we continue to wait for a coherent national plan to navigate the pandemic.
” In any case , it ’ s hardly the first time a former president has criticized a successor .
A fact-check conducted by Snopes on this very claim in 2018 found ample historical examples of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bush ― criticizing those who immediately succeeded them .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
McConnell had declared Monday that Obama “should have kept his mouth shut” about President Donald Trump’s response to the health crisis. But Steele disagreed, tweeting that the former president is entitled to voice his view. He also noted that Trump has “yet to keep ‘his mouth shut’” about Obama.
Advertisement
The president has persistently attempted to blame Obama for testing failures and a shortage of medical supplies during the pandemic and has this week peddled a fringe theory accusing his predecessor of “the biggest political crime in American history” while declining to specify what that alleged crime would be.
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
Steele, who served as chairman of the RNC from 2009 to 2011, has been an outspoken critic of the Trump administration, and has reproved McConnell in the past for his loyalty to the president.
McConnell’s latest display came during an interview with the president’s daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, at an online Trump campaign event. Lara Trump, who is also an adviser to the president’s reelection campaign, told McConnell that Obama had slammed the administration’s pandemic response.
Advertisement
Last week, on a private call with former officials from his administration, Obama said the handling of the crisis had been “an absolute chaotic disaster,” according to Yahoo News, which first reported about the call.
“I think President Obama should have kept his mouth shut,” McConnell said in the interview.
“You know, we know he doesn’t like much this administration is doing. That’s understandable, but I think it’s a little bit classless, frankly, to critique an administration that comes after you.”
“You had your shot. You were there for eight years. I think the tradition that the Bushes set up of not critiquing the president who comes after you is a good tradition.”
Though Obama has largely stayed silent about Trump since leaving office, he’s dropped a few criticisms in recent weeks without mentioning Trump by name. Last month, he tweeted that “we continue to wait for a coherent national plan to navigate the pandemic.”
In any case, it’s hardly the first time a former president has criticized a successor. A fact-check conducted by Snopes on this very claim in 2018 found ample historical examples of former presidents ― including George H.W. Bush ― criticizing those who immediately succeeded them.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-13--Joe Scarborough Issues Ominous Warning To GOP About Donald Trump’s Racism

Joe Scarborough in a column for The Washington Post on Tuesday predicted how Donald Trump ’ s racism will have catastrophic consequences for the GOP , proposing now is the time for Republicans to speak out against the president and his bigoted rhetoric .
“ President Trump can ’ t help himself , ” the co-host of MSNBC ’ s “ Morning Joe ” started his editorial ― headlined “ Trump ’ s racism will bring his party down with him ” - which documented Trump ’ s long history of making offensive remarks that culminated Monday when he told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is of Asian descent , to “ ask China ” her question about the coronavirus .
“ Trump ’ s Republican Party has become numbed to its party leader ’ s daily outrages — the racist attacks , the 18,000 lies ( and counting ) , the petty insults , the breaches of constitutional norms , and the gross incompetence that has worsened the covid-19 crisis in the United States and has driven America to the edge of a depression , ” wrote Scarborough , a former GOP congressman .
“ If Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Senate in 2020 , much of that will be because black and Hispanic voters continue to reject Republican candidates , ” he added .
Scarborough later suggested that “ with the prospects of a historic Democratic landslide building with every Trump news conference , every deranged tweet , every racist remark , wouldn ’ t now be the time for Republican candidates to stand up , speak out and finally stop following a man so ill-equipped for the presidency ?
” “ To quote Trump himself , with control of Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ What the hell do they have to lose ?
’ ” he concluded .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
“President Trump can’t help himself,” the co-host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” started his editorial, headlined “Trump’s Racism Will Bring His Party Down With Him.” The piece outlines Trump’s long history of making offensive remarks, which culminated Monday when he told CBS News’ Weijia Jiang, who is of Asian descent, to “ask China” her question about the coronavirus.
Advertisement
“Trump’s Republican Party has become numbed to its party leader’s daily outrages — the racist attacks, the 18,000 lies (and counting), the petty insults, the breaches of constitutional norms, and the gross incompetence that has worsened the covid-19 crisis in the United States and has driven America to the edge of a depression,” wrote Scarborough, a former GOP congressman.
“If Democrats win back the White House and control of the Senate in 2020, much of that will be because black and Hispanic voters continue to reject Republican candidates,” he added.
Scarborough later suggested that “with the prospects of a historic Democratic landslide building with every Trump news conference, every deranged tweet, every racist remark, wouldn’t now be the time for Republican candidates to stand up, speak out and finally stop following a man so ill-equipped for the presidency?”
“To quote Trump himself, with control of Congress and the White House slipping away: ‘What the hell do they have to lose?’” he concluded.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-12--Judge Signals He’s Not Ready To Dismiss Michael Flynn Case After DOJ Drops Charges

A federal judge signaled Tuesday that he wasn ’ t ready to toss out the case against Michael Flynn , the former national security adviser who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI , after the Justice Department said it would drop all charges against Flynn last week .
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan issued a terse order on Tuesday saying he planned to let third parties file “ friend of the court ” briefs and that he believed “ individuals and organizations ” would seek to weigh in on the politically charged case .
Under the leadership of Attorney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took the extraordinary step last week of dropping its case against Flynn — the latest example of the Trump administration ’ s attempt to undo any outcomes of special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election .
It ’ s highly unusual for federal prosecutors to withdraw a case after a defendant has already pleaded guilty .
Flynn did so twice , saying he lied to the FBI about his contact with Russian officials .
But he abruptly changed tack last year after initially cooperating with investigators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ withdraw his plea .
His attorneys went on a media blitz , attacking Mueller ’ s probe and urging Trump to exonerate him .
U.S. Attorney Timothy Shea said last week that even if Flynn lied , he shouldn ’ t have been investigated and his actions were not relevant to the FBI ’ s probe into Russian interference .
Sullivan ’ s move on Tuesday is also unusual .
He is the final arbiter of whether the case is dismissed , and he could hold a hearing on the matter and call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case , including Flynn himself .
“ It is no accident that amicus briefs are excluded in criminal cases , ” the lawyers wrote in a filing .
“ A criminal case is a dispute between the United States and a criminal defendant .
There is no place for third parties to meddle in the dispute , and certainly not to usurp the role of the government ’ s counsel.
” Barr ’ s decision to drop the case prompted fierce backlash last week .
In a private call , former President Barack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ at risk , ” and a coalition of nearly 2,000 former DOJ officials also signed an open letter calling for Barr ’ s resignation over what they described as an “ assault ” on the rule of law .
“ If any of us , or anyone reading this statement who is not a friend of the President , were to lie to federal investigators in the course of a properly predicated counterintelligence investigation , and admit we did so under oath , we would be prosecuted for it , ” the @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A federal judge signaled Tuesday that he wasn’t ready to toss out the case against Michael Flynn, the former national security adviser who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, after the Justice Department said it would drop all charges against Flynn last week.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan issued a terse order on Tuesday saying he planned to let third parties file “friend of the court” briefs and that he believed “individuals and organizations” would seek to weigh in on the politically charged case.
Advertisement
Under the leadership of Attorney General William Barr, the Justice Department took the extraordinary step last week of dropping its case against Flynn — the latest example of the Trump administration’s attempt to undo any outcomes of special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
It’s highly unusual for federal prosecutors to withdraw a case after a defendant has already pleaded guilty. Flynn did so twice, saying he lied to the FBI about his contact with Russian officials. But he abruptly changed tack last year after initially cooperating with investigators, hiring new lawyers and seeking to withdraw his plea. His attorneys went on a media blitz, attacking Mueller’s probe and urging Trump to exonerate him.
U.S. Attorney Timothy Shea said last week that even if Flynn lied, he shouldn’t have been investigated and his actions were not relevant to the FBI’s probe into Russian interference.
Sullivan’s move on Tuesday is also unusual. He is the final arbiter of whether the case is dismissed, and he could hold a hearing on the matter and call witnesses to explain the facts of the case, including Flynn himself.
Advertisement
Flynn’s attorneys filed their own motion later on Tuesday voicing their opposition to the briefs.
“It is no accident that amicus briefs are excluded in criminal cases,” the lawyers wrote in a filing. “A criminal case is a dispute between the United States and a criminal defendant. There is no place for third parties to meddle in the dispute, and certainly not to usurp the role of the government’s counsel.”
Barr’s decision to drop the case prompted fierce backlash last week. In a private call, former President Barack Obama said the rule of law was “at risk,” and a coalition of nearly 2,000 former DOJ officials also signed an open letter calling for Barr’s resignation over what they described as an “assault” on the rule of law.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-05-13--Supercut Shows Trump Has Spent His Entire Presidency Lashing Out At Female Reporters

CNN ’ s “ New Day ” on Tuesday hit President Donald Trump with a montage of his verbal attacks on female reporters .
The supercut featured just some of the “ demeaning comments ” and “ ugly remarks ” the president has made to women journalists during his time in office , said host Alisyn Camerota .
The clip featured footage of Trump telling one reporter that she ’ d asked a stupid question and suggesting another be more positive .
It was broadcast during a segment dissecting the abrupt ending of the president ’ s coronavirus briefing on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a question from CBS News ’ Weijia Jiang .
CNN political correspondent Abby Phillip , one of the journalists featured in the montage , said Trump ’ s penchant for lashing out at female reporters is “ part of a pattern , a really clear pattern that ’ s been going on for years now , ” “ He seems to not be tolerant of taking difficult questions , particularly from women , ” Phillip added .
Camerota noted Trump has also insulted male reporters , such as CNN ’ s Jim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
CNN’s “New Day” on Tuesday hit President Donald Trump with a montage of his verbal attacks on female reporters.
The supercut featured just some of the “demeaning comments” and “ugly remarks” the president has made to women journalists during his time in office, said host Alisyn Camerota.
Advertisement
The clip featured footage of Trump telling one reporter that she’d asked a stupid question and suggesting another be more positive. It was broadcast during a segment dissecting the abrupt ending of the president’s coronavirus briefing on Monday. Trump stormed off after bristling at a question from CBS News’ Weijia Jiang.
CNN political correspondent Abby Phillip, one of the journalists featured in the montage, said Trump’s penchant for lashing out at female reporters is “part of a pattern, a really clear pattern that’s been going on for years now,”
“He seems to not be tolerant of taking difficult questions, particularly from women,” Phillip added. Camerota noted Trump has also insulted male reporters, such as CNN’s Jim Acosta and ABC’s Jon Karl.
Check out the clip here: