shareblue--2020-12-07--Judges toss 2 attempts to swing election for Trump in 24 hours

Federal judges in Michigan and Georgia on Monday threw out lawsuits filed by Sidney Powell , a lawyer associated with Donald Trump , that sought decertification of the results of the 2020 presidential election that showed Joe Biden had won , marking two defeats in the efforts to overturn the election in less than 24 hours .
The first loss came early Monday morning , when a federal judge in Michigan tossed out a lawsuit filed by Powell and Lin Wood calling for decertification of Biden 's victory by a margin of 3 % in the state .
`` Plaintiffs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statutory scheme established to challenge elections and to ignore the will of millions of voters .
This , the Court can not , and will not , do , '' U.S. District Judge Linda Parker wrote in her opinion , adding , `` The people have spoken . ''
Later Monday morning , U.S. District Judge Timothy Batten tossed a nearly identical lawsuit in Georgia , issuing his ruling from the bench — a rare occurrence that suggests the judge saw no merit in the lawsuit , according to elections expert Marc Elias @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seek , this court can not grant , '' Batten wrote in his decision , the website Law & Crime reports .
Batten called Powell 's lawsuit `` the most extraordinary relief ever sought '' for an election .
Back on Nov. 14 , Trump announced that Powell was a member of his legal team .
But after Powell began spreading conspiracy theories that were too far out of bounds even for a team that was spreading lies about voter fraud with abandon , campaign lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis said in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ practicing law on her own .
She is not a member of the Trump Legal Team .
She is also not a lawyer for the President in his personal capacity . ''
The false conspiracy theories Powell has spread include the claim that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez , who died in 2013 , was behind the development of the software used to count votes in some states .
Ultimately , the states that have certified their results have enough electoral votes for Biden to win him the Electoral College vote on Dec. 14 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this : He is reportedly planning an attempt to steal the spotlight during Biden 's inauguration on Jan. 20 , with options including announcing a 2024 bid to try to reclaim the White House and holding a campaign rally in Florida at the same time as the swearing-in of the new president .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Federal judges in Michigan and Georgia on Monday threw out lawsuits filed by Sidney Powell, a lawyer associated with Donald Trump, that sought decertification of the results of the 2020 presidential election that showed Joe Biden had won, marking two defeats in the efforts to overturn the election in less than 24 hours.
The first loss came early Monday morning, when a federal judge in Michigan tossed out a lawsuit filed by Powell and Lin Wood calling for decertification of Biden’s victory by a margin of 3% in the state.
“Plaintiffs ask this court to ignore the orderly statutory scheme established to challenge elections and to ignore the will of millions of voters. This, the Court cannot, and will not, do,” U.S. District Judge Linda Parker wrote in her opinion, adding, “The people have spoken.”
Later Monday morning, U.S. District Judge Timothy Batten tossed a nearly identical lawsuit in Georgia, issuing his ruling from the bench — a rare occurrence that suggests the judge saw no merit in the lawsuit, according to elections expert Marc Elias.
“The relief that the plaintiffs seek, this court cannot grant,” Batten wrote in his decision, the website Law & Crime reports.
Batten called Powell’s lawsuit “the most extraordinary relief ever sought” for an election.
Back on Nov. 14, Trump announced that Powell was a member of his legal team.
But after Powell began spreading conspiracy theories that were too far out of bounds even for a team that was spreading lies about voter fraud with abandon, campaign lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis said in a statement, “Sidney Powell is practicing law on her own. She is not a member of the Trump Legal Team. She is also not a lawyer for the President in his personal capacity.”
The false conspiracy theories Powell has spread include the claim that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who died in 2013, was behind the development of the software used to count votes in some states.
Ultimately, the states that have certified their results have enough electoral votes for Biden to win him the Electoral College vote on Dec. 14.
Even Trump himself seems to understand this: He is reportedly planning an attempt to steal the spotlight during Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20, with options including announcing a 2024 bid to try to reclaim the White House and holding a campaign rally in Florida at the same time as the swearing-in of the new president.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-12-07--GOP congressman wants to ban colleagues from wearing masks he doesn't like

As the coronavirus spreads uncontrolled across the nation , Rep. Jim Banks ( R-GA ) demanded last week that the House take immediate action on face masks .
Not to require them — but to ban ones with designs he finds offensive .
In a Friday letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , Banks called for `` a blanket ban on stylized facemasks '' in Congress .
He was upset that , a day earlier , one Democratic colleague wore a mask that `` appeared to display his campaign logo '' and another wore a mask `` covered in marijuana @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` Legality aside , '' Banks wrote , `` it is unbecoming for a House member to wear clothing that promotes the use of any recreational drugs on the House floor . ''
He argued that doing so violates rules about the `` credibility of the House . ''
Banks also nostalgically noted that , nearly two decades ago , then-Speaker Denny Hastert — an Illinois Republican who later served time in jail for being a `` serial child molester '' — once `` admonished a member for engaging in debate without a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new coronavirus cases reported on Sunday alone , the nation is experiencing its worst spike yet .
More than 1,000 Americans are dying daily and hospitals lack the capacity to care for all of those seriously ill from the virus .
But Banks has not focused on efforts to curb this problem .
He has repeatedly ignored mask and social distancing guidelines at indoor public events .
Banks has previously expressed hostility to mask mandates .
He mocked Pelosi ( D-CA ) in July for requiring members to wear masks , but taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the announcement .
He blasted outdoor mask mandates as unnecessary because a study showed few transmissions outside .
And he complained about media coverage of community spread at religious services , falsely comparing them to outdoor anti-racism rallies and demanding to know why spread at those did not receive similar coverage as a `` major source of coronavirus cases . ''
In April , Banks decried stay-at-home orders as unconstitutional .
In June , he introduced a bill to deny federal funds to any public schools that did not reopen with full in-person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ schools is the lynchpin to reopening our economy .
Many parents rely on their kids going to school so they can go to work .
To get our society up and running again , we need our children back in school . ''
Though dozens of his colleagues in Congress have tested positive for the virus , Banks voted in May against a rule change to temporarily allow members to work from home during the pandemic .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

As the coronavirus spreads uncontrolled across the nation, Rep. Jim Banks (R-GA) demanded last week that the House take immediate action on face masks. Not to require them — but to ban ones with designs he finds offensive.
In a Friday letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Banks called for “a blanket ban on stylized facemasks” in Congress. He was upset that, a day earlier, one Democratic colleague wore a mask that “appeared to display his campaign logo” and another wore a mask “covered in marijuana leaves” on the House floor.
“Legality aside,” Banks wrote, “it is unbecoming for a House member to wear clothing that promotes the use of any recreational drugs on the House floor.” He argued that doing so violates rules about the “credibility of the House.”
Banks also nostalgically noted that, nearly two decades ago, then-Speaker Denny Hastert — an Illinois Republican who later served time in jail for being a “serial child molester” — once “admonished a member for engaging in debate without a jacket.”
With more than 175,000 new coronavirus cases reported on Sunday alone, the nation is experiencing its worst spike yet. More than 1,000 Americans are dying daily and hospitals lack the capacity to care for all of those seriously ill from the virus.
But Banks has not focused on efforts to curb this problem. He has repeatedly ignored mask and social distancing guidelines at indoor public events.
Banks has previously expressed hostility to mask mandates. He mocked Pelosi (D-CA) in July for requiring members to wear masks, but taking off her own mask briefly to make the announcement. He blasted outdoor mask mandates as unnecessary because a study showed few transmissions outside. And he complained about media coverage of community spread at religious services, falsely comparing them to outdoor anti-racism rallies and demanding to know why spread at those did not receive similar coverage as a “major source of coronavirus cases.”
In April, Banks decried stay-at-home orders as unconstitutional. In June, he introduced a bill to deny federal funds to any public schools that did not reopen with full in-person classes, arguing, “Reopening our schools is the lynchpin to reopening our economy. Many parents rely on their kids going to school so they can go to work. To get our society up and running again, we need our children back in school.”
Though dozens of his colleagues in Congress have tested positive for the virus, Banks voted in May against a rule change to temporarily allow members to work from home during the pandemic.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-12-07--Trump may admit defeat — but he doesn't plan to go quietly

Donald Trump is considering a dramatic exit from the White House on the day President-elect Joe Biden is inaugurated , Axios reports , including taking Air Force One to a political rally in Florida to counterprogram the new president 's swearing-in .
White House spokesperson said , `` Anonymous sources who claim to know what the President is or is not considering have no idea .
When President Trump has an announcement about his plans for Jan. 20 he will let you know . ''
It 's the latest sign that Trump will leave office , despite his attempts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ landslide to Biden last month .
NBC News reported last week that Trump is planning to announce a 2024 bid for president on Inauguration Day in yet another tacit admission that he lost .
And as Helen Halpin , director of the Center for Health and Public Policy Studies at the University of California , Berkeley , noted in a tweet , `` Trump ca n't take off on Air Force One the morning of the Inauguration to fly to a 2024 Campaign event in FL !
Air Force One must be at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ready to go anywhere President Biden needs to go , as of noon Jan 20th . ''
The news of his possibly holding a rally comes as his avenues to overturn his loss have been blocked .
Nearly every single one of lawsuits filed by the Trump team has been thrown out by state or federal judges who reject the baseless conspiracy theories about voter fraud that the team has been pushing .
The most recent court loss came on Monday , when a federal judge in Michigan threw out a lawsuit filed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The suit demanded that the judge decertify Michigan 's election results , which show Biden defeated Trump by 154,188 votes , a margin of 3 % .
In her opinion , U.S. District Judge Linda Parker wrote , `` Plaintiffs ask this court to ignore the orderly statutory scheme established to challenge elections and to ignore the will of millions of voters .
This , the Court can not , and will not , do . ''
`` The people have spoken , '' she wrote .
Meanwhile , GOP-controlled legislatures in states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Trump 's demands that they simply ignore the will of the voters and appoint Electoral College electors who will vote for Trump .
Trump called Georgia Republican Gov .
Brian Kemp over the weekend to demand he appoint Trump electors in the Peach State , even though Biden won it by 11,928 votes .
But in a statement on Sunday , Kemp said he rejected the request .
`` Any attempt by the legislature to retroactively change that process for the Nov. 3rd election would be unconstitutional and immediately enjoined by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dispute and no short-term resolution , '' Kemp and Lt. Gov .
Geoff Duncan said in a statement .
`` I voted for President Trump and worked hard to reelect him .
But I can not and will not entertain a suggestion that we violate current law to change the outcome of a certified election , '' Arizona state House Speaker Rusty Bowers , also a Republican , said on Dec. 4 .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Donald Trump is considering a dramatic exit from the White House on the day President-elect Joe Biden is inaugurated, Axios reports, including taking Air Force One to a political rally in Florida to counterprogram the new president’s swearing-in.
White House spokesperson said, “Anonymous sources who claim to know what the President is or is not considering have no idea. When President Trump has an announcement about his plans for Jan. 20 he will let you know.”
It’s the latest sign that Trump will leave office, despite his attempts to steal the election he lost in a landslide to Biden last month. NBC News reported last week that Trump is planning to announce a 2024 bid for president on Inauguration Day in yet another tacit admission that he lost.
And as Helen Halpin, director of the Center for Health and Public Policy Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, noted in a tweet, “Trump can’t take off on Air Force One the morning of the Inauguration to fly to a 2024 Campaign event in FL! Air Force One must be at Andrews Air Force Base, fueled & ready to go anywhere President Biden needs to go, as of noon Jan 20th.”
The news of his possibly holding a rally comes as his avenues to overturn his loss have been blocked.
Nearly every single one of lawsuits filed by the Trump team has been thrown out by state or federal judges who reject the baseless conspiracy theories about voter fraud that the team has been pushing.
The most recent court loss came on Monday, when a federal judge in Michigan threw out a lawsuit filed by Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell. The suit demanded that the judge decertify Michigan’s election results, which show Biden defeated Trump by 154,188 votes, a margin of 3%.
In her opinion, U.S. District Judge Linda Parker wrote, “Plaintiffs ask this court to ignore the orderly statutory scheme established to challenge elections and to ignore the will of millions of voters. This, the Court cannot, and will not, do.”
“The people have spoken,” she wrote.
Meanwhile, GOP-controlled legislatures in states Biden won are also refusing to bend to Trump’s demands that they simply ignore the will of the voters and appoint Electoral College electors who will vote for Trump.
Trump called Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp over the weekend to demand he appoint Trump electors in the Peach State, even though Biden won it by 11,928 votes.
But in a statement on Sunday, Kemp said he rejected the request.
“Any attempt by the legislature to retroactively change that process for the Nov. 3rd election would be unconstitutional and immediately enjoined by the courts, resulting in a long legal dispute and no short-term resolution,” Kemp and Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan said in a statement.
“I voted for President Trump and worked hard to reelect him. But I cannot and will not entertain a suggestion that we violate current law to change the outcome of a certified election,” Arizona state House Speaker Rusty Bowers, also a Republican, said on Dec. 4.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-12-07--Senator who hates Black Lives Matter says she's not racist at all

Sen. Kelly Loeffler ( R-GA ) claimed on Sunday that she is at all not racist , despite her growing record of racial attacks and ties to racists .
At a debate against her Democrat opponent in the runoff race on Jan. 5 for her seat in the Senate , Raphael Warnock , Loeffler responded to criticisms that she has campaigned with racist Rep.-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene ( R ) and appeared on show hosted by a prominent white supremacist .
`` There 's not a racist bone in my body , '' Loeffler claimed .
`` I 've worked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
Loeffler then launched into an attack on Warnock , who is senior pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church , the Atlanta church where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once preached .
She charged that his critiques of racism were `` divisive . ''
If elected , Warnock would be the first Black person ever to represent Georgia in the Senate .
Loeffler , a wealthy financial services executive who was appointed to a vacant Senate seat a year ago , has repeatedly smeared Warnock as `` anti-American . ''
She has recycled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama in 2008 , linking him to the controversial minister the Rev .
Jeremiah Wright and attacking Warnock 's religious beliefs .
She has also been a vocal opponent of the Black Lives Matter movement , saying it is `` rooted in Marxist principles . ''
`` The BLM political organization 's goals — which are rooted in Marxist principles & include defunding the police — do not unite Americans , '' she said in a July tweet .
`` I 'm standing up .
I 'm speaking out .
And I wo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
Loeffler has also often bragged of her 100 % support for Donald Trump and total agreement with every single one of his actions — which would include his many racist statements and actions .
Warnock received a plurality of the vote against Loeffler and several other candidates last month , but since no candidate got a majority , the two will face off in the January runoff .
The winner will serve the final two years of former Sen. Johnny Isakson 's term .
The race is expected to be close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden by almost 12,000 votes .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) claimed on Sunday that she is at all not racist, despite her growing record of racial attacks and ties to racists.
At a debate against her Democrat opponent in the runoff race on Jan. 5 for her seat in the Senate, Raphael Warnock, Loeffler responded to criticisms that she has campaigned with racist Rep.-elect Marjorie Taylor Greene (R) and appeared on show hosted by a prominent white supremacist.
“There’s not a racist bone in my body,” Loeffler claimed. “I’ve worked to bring communities together my entire life.”
Loeffler then launched into an attack on Warnock, who is senior pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church, the Atlanta church where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once preached. She charged that his critiques of racism were “divisive.”
If elected, Warnock would be the first Black person ever to represent Georgia in the Senate.
Loeffler, a wealthy financial services executive who was appointed to a vacant Senate seat a year ago, has repeatedly smeared Warnock as “anti-American.” She has recycled the same racist playbook used against Barack Obama in 2008, linking him to the controversial minister the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and attacking Warnock’s religious beliefs.
She has also been a vocal opponent of the Black Lives Matter movement, saying it is “rooted in Marxist principles.”
“The BLM political organization’s goals — which are rooted in Marxist principles & include defunding the police — do not unite Americans,” she said in a July tweet. “I’m standing up. I’m speaking out. And I won’t be canceled for calling this out.”
Loeffler has also often bragged of her 100% support for Donald Trump and total agreement with every single one of his actions — which would include his many racist statements and actions.
Warnock received a plurality of the vote against Loeffler and several other candidates last month, but since no candidate got a majority, the two will face off in the January runoff. The winner will serve the final two years of former Sen. Johnny Isakson’s term.
The race is expected to be close in a state won by President-elect Joe Biden by almost 12,000 votes.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-12-08--Tennessee law forces doctors to interrogate patients who want abortions

Tennessee has long been very committed to ensuring its citizens do n't have access to safe and legal abortions .
Now , the state got a major assist from the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals , which just ruled 2-1 that one of Tennesee 's abortion restrictions — a ban that forces doctors to interrogate patients — can be enforced .
The Tennessee law is very similar to a measure recently passed in Mississippi .
In both instances , doctors are expected to determine why a person is seeking an abortion .
But there 's no way to determine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them about their choices .
Tennessee 's ban will prohibit abortions if the provider knows a procedure is being sought `` because of '' the fetus 's race or sex , or if a prenatal screening indicates Down syndrome or the potential for it .
If doctors violate the law , they can face up to 15 years in jail and a fine of up to $ 10,000 .
The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has cautioned against just these sorts of bans , saying they interfere with the patient-physician relationship and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ withhold info or lie so they do n't run afoul of the prohibition .
The law does n't just create a situation where patients may withhold information .
It also creates a situation where abortion providers may feel they need to withhold care .
The plaintiffs in the case , Tennessee abortion providers , argued that such a law should not be enforced `` because it requires a physician to discern her patient 's motivations . ''
For example , the plaintiff 's brief noted , the law is n't clear as to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if one of the prohibited categories was the patient 's `` sole reason , a primary reason , or one motivating factor among many . ''
Because of that , abortion providers could `` reasonably fear prosecution '' if a patient even made a passing reference to the sex of the fetus or the race of her partner and they performed the abortion anyway .
Tennessee was recently blocked from imposing a mandatory waiting period , but has appealed that ruling .
Even with the waiting period being blocked , the state has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already in effect , and a host of other restrictions remain .
First , the state already has mandated counseling , where physicians are forced to tell patients about the agencies available to assist her if she chooses not to have an abortion and that there are risks to abortion , among other things .
The state does n't allow the use of telemedicine for medication abortions and tried to impose a law that would have required abortion providers to tell patients receiving medication abortions that the procedure could be `` reversed '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obtain parental consent for the procedure .
The state currently outlaws nearly all abortions after 20 weeks and passed a six-week ban last year , though the latter has been blocked by the courts .
And finally , if Roe v. Wade is reversed , the state has a trigger ban , which would automatically ban nearly all abortions .
With all of these restrictions , and with Tennesee continuing to litigate over additional ones , abortion access is quite tenuous .
Worse , with a 6-3 anti-abortion supermajority at the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incentive to keep passing bans in the hopes that one will stick .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Tennessee has long been very committed to ensuring its citizens don’t have access to safe and legal abortions. Now, the state got a major assist from the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which just ruled 2-1 that one of Tennesee’s abortion restrictions — a ban that forces doctors to interrogate patients — can be enforced.
The Tennessee law is very similar to a measure recently passed in Mississippi. In both instances, doctors are expected to determine why a person is seeking an abortion. But there’s no way to determine why someone wants an abortion without interrogating them about their choices.
Tennessee’s ban will prohibit abortions if the provider knows a procedure is being sought “because of” the fetus’s race or sex, or if a prenatal screening indicates Down syndrome or the potential for it. If doctors violate the law, they can face up to 15 years in jail and a fine of up to $10,000. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has cautioned against just these sorts of bans, saying they interfere with the patient-physician relationship and can create a situation where patients may withhold info or lie so they don’t run afoul of the prohibition.
The law doesn’t just create a situation where patients may withhold information. It also creates a situation where abortion providers may feel they need to withhold care.
The plaintiffs in the case, Tennessee abortion providers, argued that such a law should not be enforced “because it requires a physician to discern her patient’s motivations.”
For example, the plaintiff’s brief noted, the law isn’t clear as to whether a physician could perform an abortion if one of the prohibited categories was the patient’s “sole reason, a primary reason, or one motivating factor among many.” Because of that, abortion providers could “reasonably fear prosecution” if a patient even made a passing reference to the sex of the fetus or the race of her partner and they performed the abortion anyway.
Tennessee was recently blocked from imposing a mandatory waiting period, but has appealed that ruling. Even with the waiting period being blocked, the state has a host of other restrictions that are already in effect, and a host of other restrictions remain.
First, the state already has mandated counseling, where physicians are forced to tell patients about the agencies available to assist her if she chooses not to have an abortion and that there are risks to abortion, among other things. The state doesn’t allow the use of telemedicine for medication abortions and tried to impose a law that would have required abortion providers to tell patients receiving medication abortions that the procedure could be “reversed” — a dangerous falsehood. Minors must obtain parental consent for the procedure.
The state currently outlaws nearly all abortions after 20 weeks and passed a six-week ban last year, though the latter has been blocked by the courts. And finally, if Roe v. Wade is reversed, the state has a trigger ban, which would automatically ban nearly all abortions.
With all of these restrictions, and with Tennesee continuing to litigate over additional ones, abortion access is quite tenuous. Worse, with a 6-3 anti-abortion supermajority at the United States Supreme Court, the state has every incentive to keep passing bans in the hopes that one will stick.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-12-08--Trump loses in court again — this time on the environment

Donald Trump suffered a court loss this week that was about something other than the 2020 presidential election .
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Monday ruled against the Trump administration in a suit brought by a group of environmental organizations represented by the nonprofit environmental law organization Earthjustice , vacating the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 's approval of an oil-drilling project in federal Arctic waters .
The court said that the Trump administration had not conducted the required research into the potential environmental impact of the project correctly , ruling , `` We conclude @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failing to quantify the emissions resulting from foreign oil consumption ... as required by [ the National Environmental Policy Act ] , or , at least , explaining thoroughly why it can not do so and summarizing the research upon which it relied . ''
In 2018 , the Trump administration approved Hilcorp Alaska 's Liberty project , described by the Center for Biological Diversity , a plaintiff in the suit , as `` an artificial drilling island and underwater pipeline that would risk oil spills in the sensitive Beaufort Sea and threaten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kristen Monsell , a lawyer with the center , called the court 's decision a `` huge victory for polar bears and our climate . ''
`` This project was a disaster waiting to happen that should never have been approved .
I 'm thrilled the court saw through the Trump administration 's attempt to push this project through without carefully studying its risks , '' Monsell said .
The center also noted the court 's ruling that the U.S .
Fish and Wildlife Service had violated the Endangered Species Act with its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adverse impacts on polar bears , which it placed `` among the world 's most vulnerable animals . ''
`` Two-thirds of the world 's polar bears could be extinct by 2050 if greenhouse gas-fueled global warming keeps melting their Arctic sea-ice habitat , '' the center warned .
The Alaska Oil and Gas Association , an industry group , was disappointed in the ruling .
Its CEO and president , Kara Moriarty , told the Anchorage Daily News , `` ( The project ) will have to go back to BOEM to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at a time when Alaska could use as many projects on the books as possible to get us back to some type of economic recovery .
...
The court remanded it back to ( BOEM ) .
It did n't say deny the project . ''
Trump 's loss in the oil drilling case on Monday is the latest in a slew of legal defeats .
As of Tuesday , over 35 of about 50 lawsuits filed by Trump or his Republican allies to overturn his election defeat were either dropped or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On Friday , for instance , Judge Randall Warner in Arizona and Judge James Todd Russell in Nevada ruled that there was no evidence of election fraud in their respective states .
Last Tuesday , a federal judge struck down two Trump administration immigration rules concerning the H-1B visa program for skilled workers , which would have limited the number of visas provided to them .
And in November , a federal judge ruled that the Justice Department can not defend Trump in a personal defamation lawsuit filed by journalist E. Jean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raping her in the mid-1990s .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Donald Trump suffered a court loss this week that was about something other than the 2020 presidential election.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Monday ruled against the Trump administration in a suit brought by a group of environmental organizations represented by the nonprofit environmental law organization Earthjustice, vacating the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s approval of an oil-drilling project in federal Arctic waters.
The court said that the Trump administration had not conducted the required research into the potential environmental impact of the project correctly, ruling, “We conclude that BOEM acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to quantify the emissions resulting from foreign oil consumption … as required by [the National Environmental Policy Act], or, at least, explaining thoroughly why it cannot do so and summarizing the research upon which it relied.”
In 2018, the Trump administration approved Hilcorp Alaska’s Liberty project, described by the Center for Biological Diversity, a plaintiff in the suit, as “an artificial drilling island and underwater pipeline that would risk oil spills in the sensitive Beaufort Sea and threaten polar bears and Arctic communities.”
Kristen Monsell, a lawyer with the center, called the court’s decision a “huge victory for polar bears and our climate.”
“This project was a disaster waiting to happen that should never have been approved. I’m thrilled the court saw through the Trump administration’s attempt to push this project through without carefully studying its risks,” Monsell said.
The center also noted the court’s ruling that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had violated the Endangered Species Act with its insufficient analysis of the project’s potential adverse impacts on polar bears, which it placed “among the world’s most vulnerable animals.”
“Two-thirds of the world’s polar bears could be extinct by 2050 if greenhouse gas-fueled global warming keeps melting their Arctic sea-ice habitat,” the center warned.
The Alaska Oil and Gas Association, an industry group, was disappointed in the ruling. Its CEO and president, Kara Moriarty, told the Anchorage Daily News, “(The project) will have to go back to BOEM to be reworked, adding delay and uncertainty, at a time when Alaska could use as many projects on the books as possible to get us back to some type of economic recovery. … The court remanded it back to (BOEM). It didn’t say deny the project.”
Trump’s loss in the oil drilling case on Monday is the latest in a slew of legal defeats.
As of Tuesday, over 35 of about 50 lawsuits filed by Trump or his Republican allies to overturn his election defeat were either dropped or dismissed, according to the Associated Press. On Friday, for instance, Judge Randall Warner in Arizona and Judge James Todd Russell in Nevada ruled that there was no evidence of election fraud in their respective states.
Last Tuesday, a federal judge struck down two Trump administration immigration rules concerning the H-1B visa program for skilled workers, which would have limited the number of visas provided to them.
And in November, a federal judge ruled that the Justice Department cannot defend Trump in a personal defamation lawsuit filed by journalist E. Jean Carroll, who has accused Trump of raping her in the mid-1990s.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-12-08--Trump asks for someone out there to have 'the courage' to overturn the election

Donald Trump used his `` vaccine summit '' on Tuesday to urge state legislators and the federal courts to overturn the results of the 2020 elections .
After touting his role in developing a COVID-19 vaccine , Trump went on a tirade about his loss to President-elect Joe Biden .
In his comments to the press , he repeated debunked conspiracy claims and asked that he be declared the winner — despite losing the Electoral College by what he himself once called a `` landslide '' and losing the popular vote .
`` I received almost 75 million votes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ history of our country for a sitting president , '' he bragged , neglecting to mention that Biden received over 7 million more votes than that .
`` All you have to do is turn on your local television set and you 'll see what happened .
With thousands of ballots coming out from under tables , with all of the terrible things you saw , all you have to do is take a look .
And if somebody has the courage I know who the next administration will be . ''
Since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repeatedly falsely claimed that he was the real winner .
He has cited a litany of conspiracy theories to explain away his defeat , suggesting without evidence that the election was stolen from him — even in states run by Republicans who supported him .
Media fact-checkers , bipartisan election officials , and even Trump-appointed federal judges have rejected and refuted these claims .
He has urged multiple state legislatures in Biden-won states to illegally simply declare him the winner of their electoral votes and asked previously for a `` brave judge or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So far , no legislatures or courts have agreed .
Trump 's own administration deemed Biden the `` apparent winner '' late last month and he is set to be inaugurated at noon on Jan. 20 , 2021 .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Donald Trump used his “vaccine summit” on Tuesday to urge state legislators and the federal courts to overturn the results of the 2020 elections.
After touting his role in developing a COVID-19 vaccine, Trump went on a tirade about his loss to President-elect Joe Biden. In his comments to the press, he repeated debunked conspiracy claims and asked that he be declared the winner — despite losing the Electoral College by what he himself once called a “landslide” and losing the popular vote.
“I received almost 75 million votes. The highest number of votes in the history of our country for a sitting president,” he bragged, neglecting to mention that Biden received over 7 million more votes than that. “All you have to do is turn on your local television set and you’ll see what happened. With thousands of ballots coming out from under tables, with all of the terrible things you saw, all you have to do is take a look. And if somebody has the courage I know who the next administration will be.”
Since his Election Day defeat, Trump has repeatedly falsely claimed that he was the real winner. He has cited a litany of conspiracy theories to explain away his defeat, suggesting without evidence that the election was stolen from him — even in states run by Republicans who supported him. Media fact-checkers, bipartisan election officials, and even Trump-appointed federal judges have rejected and refuted these claims.
He has urged multiple state legislatures in Biden-won states to illegally simply declare him the winner of their electoral votes and asked previously for a “brave judge or justice” to overturn the results. So far, no legislatures or courts have agreed.
Trump’s own administration deemed Biden the “apparent winner” late last month and he is set to be inaugurated at noon on Jan. 20, 2021.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-12-08--Election official fired by Trump sues his campaign after getting death threats

The U.S. election and cybersecurity official who was fired last month by Donald Trump filed a lawsuit Tuesday over threatening remarks by a lawyer for the president that prompted a wave of death threats against him .
Christopher Krebs says in the suit that he has been `` bombarded '' with threats since attorney Joseph diGenova appeared on the pro-Trump TV network Newsmax and called for Krebs to be killed .
`` The defendants ' threats have upended plaintiff 's life , as well as his family 's security , and caused serious fear , distress , suffering , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the suit , filed in diGenova 's home state of Maryland .
Krebs was director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency until he was fired in a Nov. 17 tweet by Trump after he and other officials who oversaw the election determined it was free of major fraud or interference , contradicting Trump 's unsubstantiated assertions to the contrary .
DiGenova said in a Nov. 30 appearance on Newsmax that Krebs should be `` drawn and quartered '' and `` taken out at dawn and shot '' for his defense of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his participation in what he portrayed as a `` coup '' against Trump .
He later said he had been joking in the interview , but the lawsuit calls the remarks `` shockingly irresponsible and dangerous , '' in the tense political climate .
`` No one should be targeted and defamed as a 'traitor ' for faithfully performing the duties of public service , '' attorney Jim Walden said .
`` That is what happened to Chris and to Republicans all across the country , who truthfully , and based on their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the election in the face of a false narrative regarding its results . ''
Krebs is seeking financial damages from diGenova , Newsmax , and the Trump campaign .
Newsmax said in response to questions about the suit that it has no official ties to diGenova , who was appearing on a syndicated radio program whose content is licensed by the network .
It noted that his remarks about Krebs were `` inappropriate '' but that he did not intend for them to be taken seriously and he has apologized .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Krebs in his suit of a 'conspiracy ' and defamation against him are a threat to free speech and his legal action endangers all media organizations that seek an open discourse of ideas and news , '' the network said .
The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to requests for comment .
A former Microsoft executive , Krebs ran the agency , known as CISA , from its creation in the wake of Russian interference with the 2016 election through the November election .
He won bipartisan praise as CISA coordinated federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ systems from foreign or domestic interference .
CISA issued a statement in November with a coalition of government and industry election officials from around the country that defended the 2020 election as the `` most secure in American history . ''
It was widely viewed as a direct repudiation of Trump 's efforts to undermine the integrity of the contest .

The U.S. election and cybersecurity official who was fired last month by Donald Trump filed a lawsuit Tuesday over threatening remarks by a lawyer for the president that prompted a wave of death threats against him.
Christopher Krebs says in the suit that he has been “bombarded” with threats since attorney Joseph diGenova appeared on the pro-Trump TV network Newsmax and called for Krebs to be killed.
“The defendants’ threats have upended plaintiff’s life, as well as his family’s security, and caused serious fear, distress, suffering, and even physical damage,” he said in the suit, filed in diGenova’s home state of Maryland.
Krebs was director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency until he was fired in a Nov. 17 tweet by Trump after he and other officials who oversaw the election determined it was free of major fraud or interference, contradicting Trump’s unsubstantiated assertions to the contrary.
DiGenova said in a Nov. 30 appearance on Newsmax that Krebs should be “drawn and quartered” and “taken out at dawn and shot” for his defense of the November election won by Joe Biden and his participation in what he portrayed as a “coup” against Trump.
He later said he had been joking in the interview, but the lawsuit calls the remarks “shockingly irresponsible and dangerous,” in the tense political climate.
“No one should be targeted and defamed as a ‘traitor’ for faithfully performing the duties of public service,” attorney Jim Walden said. “That is what happened to Chris and to Republicans all across the country, who truthfully, and based on their substantial experience, are upholding the integrity of the election in the face of a false narrative regarding its results.”
Krebs is seeking financial damages from diGenova, Newsmax, and the Trump campaign.
Newsmax said in response to questions about the suit that it has no official ties to diGenova, who was appearing on a syndicated radio program whose content is licensed by the network. It noted that his remarks about Krebs were “inappropriate” but that he did not intend for them to be taken seriously and he has apologized.
“Newsmax believes that claims made by Mr. Krebs in his suit of a ‘conspiracy’ and defamation against him are a threat to free speech and his legal action endangers all media organizations that seek an open discourse of ideas and news,” the network said.
The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
A former Microsoft executive, Krebs ran the agency, known as CISA, from its creation in the wake of Russian interference with the 2016 election through the November election. He won bipartisan praise as CISA coordinated federal state and local efforts to defend electoral systems from foreign or domestic interference.
CISA issued a statement in November with a coalition of government and industry election officials from around the country that defended the 2020 election as the “most secure in American history.” It was widely viewed as a direct repudiation of Trump’s efforts to undermine the integrity of the contest.


shareblue--2020-12-08--Marco Rubio to seek third Senate term after proposing two-term limit

Sen. Marco Rubio ( R-FL ) announced Monday that he plans to seek a third term in 2022 — despite being a leading backer of a constitutional amendment to limit senators to two terms .
`` I still have work to do in the U.S. Senate .
We 've had a very successful four years out of the six years in this term .
I have two years left in this term , and we have a lot of work to do .
We 're full steam ahead , '' he told Florida Politics .
`` I 'm also doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the most important things you can do if you want to be reelected .
I have every intention of being on that ballot in November of 2022 , and I feel very good about the account we 'll be able to bring to the people of Florida . ''
But last January , Rubio was a lead co-sponsor of a constitutional amendment proposal that would have limited members of Congress to two six-year terms in the Senate and three two-year terms in the House .
It was not the first time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He ran in 2010 as a strong proponent .
In 2012 , he explained : `` No elected official is so good that they 're irreplaceable , and having term limits will ensure that our legislative branch is continuously infused with new people and ideas . ''
Noting that he 'd faced term limits in Florida 's legislature , he added that he `` saw the benefit of having our legislators serve for a limited time and then return home to live under the laws they crafted . ''
A Rubio spokesperson did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this story .
Rubio initially opted against running for reelection in 2016 , unsuccessfully seeking the GOP nomination for president against Donald Trump .
After months of insisting he would not jump back into the race , he cited the mass shooting at the Pulse gay club in Orlando as spurring him to change his mind — though he did little before or after to support LGBTQ rights or gun violence prevention .
When he announced his 2016 Senate candidacy , he framed himself as a candidate who would stand up to either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the White House .
`` The prospect of a Trump presidency is also worrisome to me .
It is no secret that I have significant disagreements with Donald Trump .
His positions on many key issues are still unknown .
And some of his statements , especially about women and minorities , I find not just offensive but unacceptable , '' Rubio argued that June .
`` If he is elected , we will need Senators willing to encourage him in the right direction , and if necessary , stand up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do both . ''
According to FiveThirtyEight , Rubio voted with Trump 90.9 % of the time , backing his tax bill , his Supreme Court appointees , and his failed attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act — while voting to acquit Trump on all counts during the impeachment trial .
Rubio enthusiastically backed Trump 's unsuccessful 2020 reelection .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) announced Monday that he plans to seek a third term in 2022 — despite being a leading backer of a constitutional amendment to limit senators to two terms.
“I still have work to do in the U.S. Senate. We’ve had a very successful four years out of the six years in this term. I have two years left in this term, and we have a lot of work to do. We’re full steam ahead,” he told Florida Politics. “I’m also doing my job, which I think is one of the most important things you can do if you want to be reelected. I have every intention of being on that ballot in November of 2022, and I feel very good about the account we’ll be able to bring to the people of Florida.”
But last January, Rubio was a lead co-sponsor of a constitutional amendment proposal that would have limited members of Congress to two six-year terms in the Senate and three two-year terms in the House.
It was not the first time Rubio had pushed for term limits. He ran in 2010 as a strong proponent.
In 2012, he explained: “No elected official is so good that they’re irreplaceable, and having term limits will ensure that our legislative branch is continuously infused with new people and ideas.”
Noting that he’d faced term limits in Florida’s legislature, he added that he “saw the benefit of having our legislators serve for a limited time and then return home to live under the laws they crafted.”
A Rubio spokesperson did not immediately respond to an inquiry for this story.
Rubio initially opted against running for reelection in 2016, unsuccessfully seeking the GOP nomination for president against Donald Trump. After months of insisting he would not jump back into the race, he cited the mass shooting at the Pulse gay club in Orlando as spurring him to change his mind — though he did little before or after to support LGBTQ rights or gun violence prevention.
When he announced his 2016 Senate candidacy, he framed himself as a candidate who would stand up to either a Hillary Clinton or a Donald Trump in the White House.
“The prospect of a Trump presidency is also worrisome to me. It is no secret that I have significant disagreements with Donald Trump. His positions on many key issues are still unknown. And some of his statements, especially about women and minorities, I find not just offensive but unacceptable,” Rubio argued that June. “If he is elected, we will need Senators willing to encourage him in the right direction, and if necessary, stand up to him. I’ve proven a willingness to do both.”
According to FiveThirtyEight, Rubio voted with Trump 90.9% of the time, backing his tax bill, his Supreme Court appointees, and his failed attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act — while voting to acquit Trump on all counts during the impeachment trial. Rubio enthusiastically backed Trump’s unsuccessful 2020 reelection.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-12-08--1,500 attorneys say Trump's lawyers are a 'disgrace' and a threat to democracy

Donald Trump 's campaign lawyers will `` inevitably subvert constitutional democracy , '' according to 1,500 attorneys who signed a scathing open letter calling on bar associations to condemn and investigate them for their actions defending Trump 's ill-fated attempts to overturn the Nov. 3 election .
`` Bar Associations need to condemn this abuse and bar disciplinary authorities need to investigate it , '' the lawyers wrote in a letter published last Thursday on the Lawyers Defending American Democracy website .
Former American Bar Association and state bar presidents , retired federal judges , state supreme court justices , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were among the signatories .
The letter named Rudy Guiliani , Jenna Ellis , Joseph DiGenova , Victoria Toensing , and Sidney Powell , who have all repeatedly parroted Trump 's debunked election fraud claims .
Powell served on Trump 's legal team until she was ousted in late November after retweeting several baseless QAnon theories .
`` Behind the fog created by this waste and distraction of the country 's attention is a President ’ s and his lawyers ’ historic abuse of the judicial process , '' the letter said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bar Association 's `` Model Rules of Professional Conduct that prohibits lawyers from making frivolous claims in court and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty , deceit and misrepresentation in or out of court , '' an accompanying press release from the nonpartisan lawyers group stated .
The open letter follows another one from 25 former presidents and the former CEO of the D.C. Bar published on Dec. 1 in the Washington Post , which called on colleagues in the same profession to `` condemn the abuse of the judicial system to subvert the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As recently as Nov. 30 , Giuliani testified at a `` hearing '' in Arizona where he spewed countless unfounded voter fraud allegations with zero proof to back up his claims .
At one point , he even admitted that he did not have any evidence , but still tried to claim that there were verifiable instances of people `` stuffing the ballot box , and we will we will try to quantify those but those are harder to quantify . ''
The hearing coincided with the state certifying its election for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Mr. Giuliani and his colleagues is a disgrace , '' the Lawyers Defending American Democracy letter read .
The lawyers also cited the Post letter from the former D.C. Bar presidents , adding , `` It is indefensible for lawyers to falsely proclaim widespread voting fraud , submit a pattern of frivolous court claims and actively seek to undermine citizens ’ faith in our election ’ s integrity . ''
DiGenova said last Monday on the right-wing `` Howie Carr Show '' that Christopher Krebs , former director of the Cybersecurity and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drawn and quartered '' and `` taken out at dawn and shot . ''
The comments came less than two weeks after Trump fired Krebs , who had issued a joint statement shortly after the election stating that `` the November 3rd election was the most secure in American history . ''
Two days after the Howie Carr interview , lawmakers called on the D.C. Bar to open an investigation into DiGenova .
Toensing , DiGenova 's wife , has a trail of troubling issues to her name as well .
She reportedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dig up dirt on Biden to support unproven claims he used his former position as vice president to benefit his son Hunter .
The trio 's alleged efforts in part led the House of Representatives to impeach Trump in December last year .
Ellis , for her part , has been incessantly tweeting false claims of voter fraud without providing any evidence .
`` If you ’ re still tweeting 'where 's the proof ? '
then you don ’ t understand the definition of proof or evidence , '' she tweeted on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a pair of separate tweets , Ellis wrote , `` Election official FRAUD must be and will be exposed in # Wisconsin !
Count all LEGAL votes ! ''
and `` Pennsylvania knows now the utter corruption and fraud that occurred . ''
Once again , she provided no proof to back her claims .
Allegations of widespread fraud in the 2020 election have been thoroughly debunked by Trump 's own allies .
In early December , Attorney General William Barr announced that the Justice Department 's investigation into `` substantial allegations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of widespread voter fraud that would overturn Trump 's presidential election loss .
`` To date , we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election , '' the attorney general told the Associated Press , refuting Trump 's barrage of baseless claims that the election was `` stolen . ''
Legal ethics professor Stephen Gillers , with New York University ’ s School of Law , said in this week 's press release that some of Trump 's lawyers appeared to be `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officers of the court to aid '' Trump .
`` 'President 's Lawyers Trash American Democracy ' is a headline we never expected to see , '' he said .
`` To mitigate the harm such tactics can inflict , the bar must forcefully repudiate their behavior . ''
Former Illinois State Bar President Cheryl Niro , who also signed the open letter , wrote , `` The facts are clear : the election was secure and the results have been consistently confirmed . ''
She added , `` Giuliani and certain Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public or believe frivolous and unfounded claims , calling into question their fitness to practice law . ''
The letter urged `` all lawyers '' to publicly condemn the conduct of Trumps legal team .
`` Silence and inaction are not options , '' it stated .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Donald Trump’s campaign lawyers will “inevitably subvert constitutional democracy,” according to 1,500 attorneys who signed a scathing open letter calling on bar associations to condemn and investigate them for their actions defending Trump’s ill-fated attempts to overturn the Nov. 3 election.
“Bar Associations need to condemn this abuse and bar disciplinary authorities need to investigate it,” the lawyers wrote in a letter published last Thursday on the Lawyers Defending American Democracy website.
Former American Bar Association and state bar presidents, retired federal judges, state supreme court justices, and former leaders of lawyer disciplinary bodies were among the signatories.
The letter named Rudy Guiliani, Jenna Ellis, Joseph DiGenova, Victoria Toensing, and Sidney Powell, who have all repeatedly parroted Trump’s debunked election fraud claims. Powell served on Trump’s legal team until she was ousted in late November after retweeting several baseless QAnon theories.
“Behind the fog created by this waste and distraction of the country’s attention is a President’s and his lawyers’ historic abuse of the judicial process,” the letter said.
Trump’s lawyers have violated the American Bar Association’s “Model Rules of Professional Conduct that prohibits lawyers from making frivolous claims in court and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, deceit and misrepresentation in or out of court,” an accompanying press release from the nonpartisan lawyers group stated.
The open letter follows another one from 25 former presidents and the former CEO of the D.C. Bar published on Dec. 1 in the Washington Post, which called on colleagues in the same profession to “condemn the abuse of the judicial system to subvert the democratic process” by Trump’s attorneys.
As recently as Nov. 30, Giuliani testified at a “hearing” in Arizona where he spewed countless unfounded voter fraud allegations with zero proof to back up his claims. At one point, he even admitted that he did not have any evidence, but still tried to claim that there were verifiable instances of people “stuffing the ballot box, and we will we will try to quantify those but those are harder to quantify.”
The hearing coincided with the state certifying its election for President-elect Joe Biden.
“The conduct of Mr. Giuliani and his colleagues is a disgrace,” the Lawyers Defending American Democracy letter read.
The lawyers also cited the Post letter from the former D.C. Bar presidents, adding, “It is indefensible for lawyers to falsely proclaim widespread voting fraud, submit a pattern of frivolous court claims and actively seek to undermine citizens’ faith in our election’s integrity.”
DiGenova said last Monday on the right-wing “Howie Carr Show” that Christopher Krebs, former director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, should be “drawn and quartered” and “taken out at dawn and shot.”
The comments came less than two weeks after Trump fired Krebs, who had issued a joint statement shortly after the election stating that “the November 3rd election was the most secure in American history.”
Two days after the Howie Carr interview, lawmakers called on the D.C. Bar to open an investigation into DiGenova.
Toensing, DiGenova’s wife, has a trail of troubling issues to her name as well. She reportedly worked with Giuliani alongside her husband to dig up dirt on Biden to support unproven claims he used his former position as vice president to benefit his son Hunter. The trio’s alleged efforts in part led the House of Representatives to impeach Trump in December last year.
Ellis, for her part, has been incessantly tweeting false claims of voter fraud without providing any evidence.
“If you’re still tweeting ‘where’s the proof?’ then you don’t understand the definition of proof or evidence,” she tweeted on Dec. 1.
On Nov. 28, in a pair of separate tweets, Ellis wrote, “Election official FRAUD must be and will be exposed in #Wisconsin! Count all LEGAL votes!” and “Pennsylvania knows now the utter corruption and fraud that occurred.” Once again, she provided no proof to back her claims.
Allegations of widespread fraud in the 2020 election have been thoroughly debunked by Trump’s own allies. In early December, Attorney General William Barr announced that the Justice Department’s investigation into “substantial allegations” of voting irregularities found no evidence of widespread voter fraud that would overturn Trump’s presidential election loss.
“To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election,” the attorney general told the Associated Press, refuting Trump’s barrage of baseless claims that the election was “stolen.”
Legal ethics professor Stephen Gillers, with New York University’s School of Law, said in this week’s press release that some of Trump’s lawyers appeared to be “abusing their law licenses and positions as officers of the court to aid” Trump.
“‘President’s Lawyers Trash American Democracy’ is a headline we never expected to see,” he said. “To mitigate the harm such tactics can inflict, the bar must forcefully repudiate their behavior.”
Former Illinois State Bar President Cheryl Niro, who also signed the open letter, wrote, “The facts are clear: the election was secure and the results have been consistently confirmed.”
She added, “Giuliani and certain Trump campaign lawyers have either been lying to the public or believe frivolous and unfounded claims, calling into question their fitness to practice law.”
The letter urged “all lawyers” to publicly condemn the conduct of Trumps legal team.
“Silence and inaction are not options,” it stated.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-12-08--Trump administration ignores its own scientists to allow deadly air pollutants

The Trump administration on Monday made final its decision to leave limits for a deadly kind of air pollutant unchanged , overriding scientific findings that tougher standards could save tens of thousands of lives yearly .
Environmental groups and many scientists have condemned the decision , slated to be among the final actions of an administration that targeted most proposed and many existing health and environmental protections as a burden to businesses .
In the coal state of West Virginia , officials welcomed Monday 's announcement by Environmental Protection Agency administrator Andrew Wheeler , who was a lobbyist for coal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The tougher air standards called for by many scientists in and out of the federal government `` could have been a huge blow to the coal industry , '' Douglas Buffington , West Virginia 's senior deputy attorney general , told reporters .
Wheeler 's decision leaves unchanged limits for what is broadly called `` fine particulate matter '' – the tiny bits of soot we breathe in unseen from tailpipes , wildfires , factory and power plant smokestacks , and other sources .
EPA scientists have estimated exposure at current limits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thousands of Americans annually from heart disease and lung cancer , as well as causing other health problems .
`` Their callous disregard for the lives of people and imperiled wildlife , just to save the nation 's biggest fossil fuel polluters a few bucks , is sickening , '' Robert Ukeiley , a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity advocacy group , said of the EPA 's move .
Wheeler on Monday said the country 's levels for the invisible , deadly pollutant were better than the global average .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monday 's action , which makes official a decision earlier announced by Wheeler .
The decision was part of a five-year review of limits required under the Clean Air Act .

The Trump administration on Monday made final its decision to leave limits for a deadly kind of air pollutant unchanged, overriding scientific findings that tougher standards could save tens of thousands of lives yearly.
Environmental groups and many scientists have condemned the decision, slated to be among the final actions of an administration that targeted most proposed and many existing health and environmental protections as a burden to businesses. In the coal state of West Virginia, officials welcomed Monday’s announcement by Environmental Protection Agency administrator Andrew Wheeler, who was a lobbyist for coal immediately before coming to the Trump EPA.
The tougher air standards called for by many scientists in and out of the federal government “could have been a huge blow to the coal industry,” Douglas Buffington, West Virginia’s senior deputy attorney general, told reporters.
Wheeler’s decision leaves unchanged limits for what is broadly called “fine particulate matter” – the tiny bits of soot we breathe in unseen from tailpipes, wildfires, factory and power plant smokestacks, and other sources.
EPA scientists have estimated exposure at current limits causes the early deaths of tens of thousands of Americans annually from heart disease and lung cancer, as well as causing other health problems.
“Their callous disregard for the lives of people and imperiled wildlife, just to save the nation’s biggest fossil fuel polluters a few bucks, is sickening,” Robert Ukeiley, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity advocacy group, said of the EPA’s move.
Wheeler on Monday said the country’s levels for the invisible, deadly pollutant were better than the global average.
Environmental groups promised a legal challenge to Monday’s action, which makes official a decision earlier announced by Wheeler. The decision was part of a five-year review of limits required under the Clean Air Act.


shareblue--2020-12-08--Yet another Trump adviser repeatedly broke the law

A federal watchdog agency on Monday reported that one of Donald Trump 's economic advisers repeatedly violated the law during the campaign season with his criticisms of Joe Biden , now the president-elect .
The Hatch Act prevents federal employees from engaging in political work while performing their official duties .
The agency charged with enforcing the act said that Peter Navarro , director of the White House Office for Trade and Manufacturing Policy , used his position to influence the 2020 presidential election through his statements in television interviews and on social media .
`` His comments were directed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and persuading voters not to support him in the 2020 election , '' the Office of Special Counsel report stated .
White House lawyers have asserted Navarro did not violate the Hatch Act because factual or policy statements do not constitute advocacy for or against a candidate , the report stated .
They argued , for example , that Navarro 's statement about Biden `` kowtowing to the Chinese '' was acceptable for him to make in his official capacity .
But the Office of Special Counsel found that argument lacking .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they make statements intended to encourage others to vote for or against a candidate for political office or when they promote or disparage a candidate 's campaign .
`` Dr. Navarro violated the Hatch Act because he engaged in that very activity , '' the report said .
The report said it 's up to the president to determine the `` appropriate disciplinary action , '' showing the limits of the law .
The White House did not respond to a request for comment .
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it submitted multiple complaints about Navarro to the Office of Special Counsel and that `` the referral for action demonstrate the severity of Navarro 's misconduct . ''
`` In an administration full of people illegally using their government positions to influence an election , Navarro has been one of the worst , '' said the group 's executive director , Noah Bookbinder .

A federal watchdog agency on Monday reported that one of Donald Trump’s economic advisers repeatedly violated the law during the campaign season with his criticisms of Joe Biden, now the president-elect.
The Hatch Act prevents federal employees from engaging in political work while performing their official duties. The agency charged with enforcing the act said that Peter Navarro, director of the White House Office for Trade and Manufacturing Policy, used his position to influence the 2020 presidential election through his statements in television interviews and on social media.
“His comments were directed at undermining Mr. Biden’s presidential candidacy and persuading voters not to support him in the 2020 election,” the Office of Special Counsel report stated.
White House lawyers have asserted Navarro did not violate the Hatch Act because factual or policy statements do not constitute advocacy for or against a candidate, the report stated. They argued, for example, that Navarro’s statement about Biden “kowtowing to the Chinese” was acceptable for him to make in his official capacity.
But the Office of Special Counsel found that argument lacking. It said federal employees violate the law when they make statements intended to encourage others to vote for or against a candidate for political office or when they promote or disparage a candidate’s campaign.
“Dr. Navarro violated the Hatch Act because he engaged in that very activity,” the report said.
The report said it’s up to the president to determine the “appropriate disciplinary action,” showing the limits of the law. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a private advocacy group, said that it submitted multiple complaints about Navarro to the Office of Special Counsel and that “the referral for action demonstrate the severity of Navarro’s misconduct.”
“In an administration full of people illegally using their government positions to influence an election, Navarro has been one of the worst,” said the group’s executive director, Noah Bookbinder.


shareblue--2020-12-08--Texas AG files desperate last-minute lawsuit to stop Trump's election loss

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Tuesday filed a lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to block four states in which Joe Biden beat Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election from certifying their election results .
The suit , State of Texas v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania , State of Georgia , State of Michigan , and State of Wisconsin , also asks the court to require those states to hold entirely new elections — a move to try to buy time for Trump to come up with a way to steal the 2020 election that he lost in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was filed on so-called safe harbor day , which is a deadline set by federal law for states to resolve election disputes and for Congress to count the electoral votes of states that have met the deadline before the Electoral College meets to formally vote on the winner of the presidential election six days later .
Legal experts say the lawsuit is destined to fail , with the Supreme Court unlikely to hear the challenge at all .
University of Texas School of Law professor Steve Vladeck tweeted , `` It looks like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 'craziest lawsuit filed to purportedly challenge the election ' category .
The State of Texas is suing Pennsylvania , Georgia , Michigan and Wisconsin *directly* in # SCOTUS .
( Spoiler Alert : The Court is *never* going to hear this one . )
'' `` So chalk this up as mostly a stunt — a dangerous , offensive , and wasteful one , but a stunt nonetheless , '' he added .
Paxton 's suit is the latest attempt by Republicans lawmakers across the country to stop the official count of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other legal challenges that have failed one by one in both state and federal courts , Paxton 's lawsuit relies on lies about voter fraud that Trump and his allies have provided no evidence for and that have been debunked .
And with the safe harbor deadline here , the window to overturn Trump 's loss is likely closed .
Paxton has a history of questionable and allegedly fraudulent actions .
He was one of the parties in a lawsuit filed with the Supreme Court and recently heard that , if successful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and deprive millions of Americans of health insurance in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic .
And Paxton has been under criminal indictment on charges of felony securities fraud since 2015 .
He is also currently under federal investigation for allegedly abusing the powers of his office to help a donor .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Tuesday filed a lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to block four states in which Joe Biden beat Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election from certifying their election results.
The suit, State of Texas v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State of Georgia, State of Michigan, and State of Wisconsin, also asks the court to require those states to hold entirely new elections — a move to try to buy time for Trump to come up with a way to steal the 2020 election that he lost in a “landslide.”
The lawsuit was filed on so-called safe harbor day, which is a deadline set by federal law for states to resolve election disputes and for Congress to count the electoral votes of states that have met the deadline before the Electoral College meets to formally vote on the winner of the presidential election six days later.
Legal experts say the lawsuit is destined to fail, with the Supreme Court unlikely to hear the challenge at all.
University of Texas School of Law professor Steve Vladeck tweeted, “It looks like we have a new leader in the ‘craziest lawsuit filed to purportedly challenge the election’ category. The State of Texas is suing Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin *directly* in #SCOTUS. (Spoiler Alert: The Court is *never* going to hear this one.)”
“So chalk this up as mostly a stunt — a dangerous, offensive, and wasteful one, but a stunt nonetheless,” he added.
Paxton’s suit is the latest attempt by Republicans lawmakers across the country to stop the official count of the election won by President-elect Biden.
Like the other legal challenges that have failed one by one in both state and federal courts, Paxton’s lawsuit relies on lies about voter fraud that Trump and his allies have provided no evidence for and that have been debunked.
And with the safe harbor deadline here, the window to overturn Trump’s loss is likely closed.
Paxton has a history of questionable and allegedly fraudulent actions.
He was one of the parties in a lawsuit filed with the Supreme Court and recently heard that, if successful, would overturn the Affordable Care Act and deprive millions of Americans of health insurance in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic.
And Paxton has been under criminal indictment on charges of felony securities fraud since 2015. He is also currently under federal investigation for allegedly abusing the powers of his office to help a donor.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-12-08--McConnell suddenly thinks it's fine to pass a bill Trump opposes

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Monday that he will bring up for a vote in the Senate the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 , even though Donald Trump has vowed to veto it if it passes .
Until now , McConnell had repeatedly refused to let the Senate vote on other legislation that Trump opposed , saying he would n't `` waste time '' on them .
A conference committee agreed to a deal last week on the must-pass annual legislation that establishes the funding levels and policies for the nation 's defense , resolving differences between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Representatives ' versions of the bill .
The House is expected to approve it on Tuesday , with bipartisan support .
McConnell ( R-KY ) told colleagues he plans to call for a vote this week as well .
`` We also expect to receive and pass a conference report on the annual defense authorization , '' he said in a floor speech .
He made no mention of Trump 's many threats to veto the bill .
Trump is upset that the bill contains a provision to rename U.S. military bases that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will Veto the Defense Authorization Bill if the Elizabeth 'Pocahontas ' Warren ( of all people ! )
Amendment , which will lead to the renaming ( plus other bad things ! )
of Fort Bragg , Fort Robert E. Lee , and many other Military Bases from which we won Two World Wars , is in the Bill ! ''
he vowed in June .
In recent weeks , he suggested he would sign the bill despite the provision if Congress attached unrelated legislation to punish social media companies he believes are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hope House Republicans will vote against the very weak National Defense Authorization Act ( NDAA ) , which I will VETO .
Must include a termination of Section 230 ( for National Security purposes ) , preserve our National Monuments , & allow for 5G & troupe reductions in foreign lands ! ''
Trump tweeted on Tuesday morning .
A spokesperson for McConnell did not immediately respond to an inquiry for this story .
While McConnell is ignoring Trump 's veto threat , he has previously refused to bring up other bipartisan legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just last week , a bipartisan compromise pandemic relief bill .
`` We just do n't have time to waste time , '' McConnell told reporters last week .
`` It requires a presidential signature and this government is in place , for sure , for the next month and I think the place to start is : 'Are we actually making a law or are we just making a point ? '
And I think the way to make a law , for sure , is you know you 've got a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same argument last year to block consideration of gun legislation after a series of mass shootings .
`` If the President is in favor of a number of things that he has discussed openly and publicly , and I know that if we pass it , it will become law , I 'll put it on the floor , '' he said in September 2019 .
`` I said a few weeks ago that if the President took a position on a bill so that we knew we would actually be making a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I would be happy to put it on the floor and the administration is in the process of studying what they are prepared to support if anything . ''
Trump quickly abandoned his promise to seek bipartisan legislation to counter gun violence , and the Senate did nothing .
For the past two years , McConnell has used his position as Senate majority leader to block hundreds of bills passed by the Democratic-controlled House from ever making it to Trump 's desk .
`` It is true .
They 've been on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out all of their left-wing solutions that are going to be issues in the fall campaign , '' McConnell admitted in February .
`` We 're not gon na pass those . ''
If Trump followed through with his promise to veto the authorization bill , Congress could override him with two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Monday that he will bring up for a vote in the Senate the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, even though Donald Trump has vowed to veto it if it passes.
Until now, McConnell had repeatedly refused to let the Senate vote on other legislation that Trump opposed, saying he wouldn’t “waste time” on them.
A conference committee agreed to a deal last week on the must-pass annual legislation that establishes the funding levels and policies for the nation’s defense, resolving differences between the Senate’s and the House of Representatives’ versions of the bill. The House is expected to approve it on Tuesday, with bipartisan support.
McConnell (R-KY) told colleagues he plans to call for a vote this week as well. “We also expect to receive and pass a conference report on the annual defense authorization,” he said in a floor speech. He made no mention of Trump’s many threats to veto the bill.
Trump is upset that the bill contains a provision to rename U.S. military bases that currently honor Confederate figures. “I will Veto the Defense Authorization Bill if the Elizabeth ‘Pocahontas’ Warren (of all people!) Amendment, which will lead to the renaming (plus other bad things!) of Fort Bragg, Fort Robert E. Lee, and many other Military Bases from which we won Two World Wars, is in the Bill!” he vowed in June.
In recent weeks, he suggested he would sign the bill despite the provision if Congress attached unrelated legislation to punish social media companies he believes are being unfair to conservatives.
“I hope House Republicans will vote against the very weak National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which I will VETO. Must include a termination of Section 230 (for National Security purposes), preserve our National Monuments, & allow for 5G & troupe reductions in foreign lands!” Trump tweeted on Tuesday morning.
A spokesperson for McConnell did not immediately respond to an inquiry for this story.
While McConnell is ignoring Trump’s veto threat, he has previously refused to bring up other bipartisan legislation that Trump was against, including, just last week, a bipartisan compromise pandemic relief bill.
“We just don’t have time to waste time,” McConnell told reporters last week. “It requires a presidential signature and this government is in place, for sure, for the next month and I think the place to start is: ‘Are we actually making a law or are we just making a point?’ And I think the way to make a law, for sure, is you know you’ve got a presidential signature.”
McConnell used the same argument last year to block consideration of gun legislation after a series of mass shootings.
“If the President is in favor of a number of things that he has discussed openly and publicly, and I know that if we pass it, it will become law, I’ll put it on the floor,” he said in September 2019. “I said a few weeks ago that if the President took a position on a bill so that we knew we would actually be making a law and not just having serial votes, I would be happy to put it on the floor and the administration is in the process of studying what they are prepared to support if anything.” Trump quickly abandoned his promise to seek bipartisan legislation to counter gun violence, and the Senate did nothing.
For the past two years, McConnell has used his position as Senate majority leader to block hundreds of bills passed by the Democratic-controlled House from ever making it to Trump’s desk. “It is true. They’ve been on full left-wing parade over there, trotting out all of their left-wing solutions that are going to be issues in the fall campaign,” McConnell admitted in February. “We’re not gonna pass those.”
If Trump followed through with his promise to veto the authorization bill, Congress could override him with two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-12-09--Cartoon: Coup coup ka-choo

Cartoon: Coup coup ka-choo

Clay Jones is a nationally syndicated political cartoonist .
He has worked for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin and The Free Lance-Star @ @ @ @ @ draws a weekly cartoon for CNN Opinion .
He lives in the Washington suburbs of @ @ @

A decade after Sandy Hook, grief remains but hope grows
December, the anniversary of the worst grade school mass shooting in the U.S. is a difficult month for many in Newton. But in the face of heartbreak and grief, some survivors and families of victims feel hope for a brighter future.
By Associated Press - December 22, 2022


shareblue--2020-12-09--Mitch McConnell doesn't even want to send relief to health care workers

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is holding up talks on a bipartisan bill that could include badly needed aid for hard-hit hospitals around the country with demands that Democrats give up state and local relief funding before he 'll let the Senate vote on it .
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have called for talks on the developing framework for a $ 908 billion COVID relief package that would include $ 35 billion for hospitals .
The initial summary of the bill did not include stimulus checks for individuals , though negotiations continue on that front .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefits currently set to run out in December , with those who have lost their jobs receiving $ 300 a week in benefits for 16 weeks — about half what they previously received .
It would also include provisions on aid for small businesses , providing $ 300 billion to the Small Business Administration 's Paycheck Protection Program .
The $ 908 billion deal has been framed as a compromise by the bipartisan group that crafted it , with Democrats starting off with a $ 2 trillion deal and Republicans proposing $ 500 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told a Hartford television station that the bipartisan bill would include funding to offset hospitals ' financial losses as well as money for personal protective equipment and new equipment to treat COVID-19 patients .
But agreement on a COVID relief bill draft has hit a wall again , CNBC reports , as legislators spar over stipulations involving liability protection for businesses as well as state and local funding .
On Tuesday , McConnell urged a tradeoff : He would give up his demand for liability protections if Democrats would give up their demand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , saying , `` What I recommend is we set aside liability and set aside state and local , and pass those things that we can agree on knowing full well we 'll be back at this after the 1st of the year . ''
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer turned down the deal , accusing McConnell of `` sabotaging '' negotiations .
He also noted that a failure to include state and local relief in the bill would result in the loss of jobs among educators and first responders .
House Speaker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` The bipartisan negotiations involving Senators and Members of the House have made good progress and must be allowed to proceed without Leader McConnell 's obstruction . ''
Meanwhile , the U.S. death toll from coronavirus has skyrocketed to more than 2,200 a day .
Some 22 % of hospitals nationwide are insufficiently staffed to care for COVID-19 patients , according to reporting by the Atlantic .
Becker 's Hospital CFO Report notes that hundreds of hospitals around the country have been forced to lay off or furlough doctors , nurses , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country are running out of beds for COVID-19 patients .
West Texas hospitals have been hard hit , with coronavirus cases spiking and few resources to treat the influx of patients .
Reports from southern Oregon note that doctors and nurses are working 70-hour weeks and that , if case numbers do n't go down , they will soon have to ration care , reserving it for extreme cases .
On Tuesday , a San Jose , California hospital reached full capacity , and the number of available beds in intensive care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to about 30 .
Hospitals are also reaching capacity in New York City , North Carolina , and New Mexico .
Children 's hospitals across the country have been forced to stand in the gap , compelled by hospital overflow to admit adult patients .
In Connecticut , Sen. Blumenthal spoke frankly of how the federal government has dropped the ball on COVID relief , saying , `` We have no testing strategy , no PPE strategy , no vaccine distribution strategy . ''
Even if the $ 908 billion bipartisan bill passes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospitals will be needed — and soon .
`` Much more will have to be done because the losses have been very challenging , '' Blumenthal said .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is holding up talks on a bipartisan bill that could include badly needed aid for hard-hit hospitals around the country with demands that Democrats give up state and local relief funding before he’ll let the Senate vote on it.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have called for talks on the developing framework for a $908 billion COVID relief package that would include $35 billion for hospitals.
The initial summary of the bill did not include stimulus checks for individuals, though negotiations continue on that front.
The bill would, however, extend unemployment benefits currently set to run out in December, with those who have lost their jobs receiving $300 a week in benefits for 16 weeks — about half what they previously received.
It would also include provisions on aid for small businesses, providing $300 billion to the Small Business Administration’s Paycheck Protection Program.
The $908 billion deal has been framed as a compromise by the bipartisan group that crafted it, with Democrats starting off with a $2 trillion deal and Republicans proposing $500 billion.
Connecticut Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal told a Hartford television station that the bipartisan bill would include funding to offset hospitals’ financial losses as well as money for personal protective equipment and new equipment to treat COVID-19 patients.
But agreement on a COVID relief bill draft has hit a wall again, CNBC reports, as legislators spar over stipulations involving liability protection for businesses as well as state and local funding.
On Tuesday, McConnell urged a tradeoff: He would give up his demand for liability protections if Democrats would give up their demand for funding for state and local governments, saying, “What I recommend is we set aside liability and set aside state and local, and pass those things that we can agree on knowing full well we’ll be back at this after the 1st of the year.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer turned down the deal, accusing McConnell of “sabotaging” negotiations.
He also noted that a failure to include state and local relief in the bill would result in the loss of jobs among educators and first responders.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement, “The bipartisan negotiations involving Senators and Members of the House have made good progress and must be allowed to proceed without Leader McConnell’s obstruction.”
Meanwhile, the U.S. death toll from coronavirus has skyrocketed to more than 2,200 a day.
Some 22% of hospitals nationwide are insufficiently staffed to care for COVID-19 patients, according to reporting by the Atlantic.
Becker’s Hospital CFO Report notes that hundreds of hospitals around the country have been forced to lay off or furlough doctors, nurses, and other staff.
Moreover, hospitals around the country are running out of beds for COVID-19 patients.
West Texas hospitals have been hard hit, with coronavirus cases spiking and few resources to treat the influx of patients. Reports from southern Oregon note that doctors and nurses are working 70-hour weeks and that, if case numbers don’t go down, they will soon have to ration care, reserving it for extreme cases.
On Tuesday, a San Jose, California hospital reached full capacity, and the number of available beds in intensive care units throughout Santa Clara County was down to about 30.
Hospitals are also reaching capacity in New York City, North Carolina, and New Mexico.
Children’s hospitals across the country have been forced to stand in the gap, compelled by hospital overflow to admit adult patients.
In Connecticut, Sen. Blumenthal spoke frankly of how the federal government has dropped the ball on COVID relief, saying, “We have no testing strategy, no PPE strategy, no vaccine distribution strategy.”
Even if the $908 billion bipartisan bill passes, he said, more relief for hospitals will be needed — and soon.
“Much more will have to be done because the losses have been very challenging,” Blumenthal said.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-12-09--Even Trump's threat to cancel his 'fake news' subscriptions was a lie

Donald Trump made a big deal last year of canceling his New York Times and Washington Post subscriptions , calling them `` fake . ''
But his campaign quietly paid hundreds of dollars for online subscriptions to both .
After years of attacking the American media as the `` enemy of the people '' and purveyors of `` fake news '' that makes him look bad , Trump announced last October that he was going to cancel both his Post and Times subscriptions .
`` The New York Times , which is a fake newspaper — we do n't even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' he told Fox News .
`` We 're going to probably terminate that and The Washington Post .
They 're fake . ''
Trump was angered at the time by the papers ' coverage of his attempts to pressure the Ukrainian president to dig up dirt on his political opponents .
His administration also instructed federal agencies to not renew their own subscriptions to the two outlets .
Then-press secretary Stephanie Grisham put out of statement noting that “ Not renewing subscriptions across all federal agencies will be a significant cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be saved . ''
But Trump 's own campaign continued to make payments at least monthly to both outlets for online subscriptions .
According to Federal Election Commission disclosures , Donald J. Trump for President Inc. paid at least $ 220 to the Post and at least $ 180 to the Times after his cancellation announcement .
A Trump campaign spokesperson did not immediately respond to an inquiry for this story .
Even after losing to President-elect Joe Biden in last month 's election , Trump has continued to attack the media and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` I read the Fake News Washington Post as little as possible , '' he tweeted on Saturday .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Donald Trump made a big deal last year of canceling his New York Times and Washington Post subscriptions, calling them “fake.” But his campaign quietly paid hundreds of dollars for online subscriptions to both.
After years of attacking the American media as the “enemy of the people” and purveyors of “fake news” that makes him look bad, Trump announced last October that he was going to cancel both his Post and Times subscriptions.
“The New York Times, which is a fake newspaper — we don’t even want it in the White House anymore,” he told Fox News. “We’re going to probably terminate that and The Washington Post. They’re fake.”
Trump was angered at the time by the papers’ coverage of his attempts to pressure the Ukrainian president to dig up dirt on his political opponents.
His administration also instructed federal agencies to not renew their own subscriptions to the two outlets. Then-press secretary Stephanie Grisham put out of statement noting that “Not renewing subscriptions across all federal agencies will be a significant cost saving—hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars will be saved.”
But Trump’s own campaign continued to make payments at least monthly to both outlets for online subscriptions.
According to Federal Election Commission disclosures, Donald J. Trump for President Inc. paid at least $220 to the Post and at least $180 to the Times after his cancellation announcement.
A Trump campaign spokesperson did not immediately respond to an inquiry for this story.
Even after losing to President-elect Joe Biden in last month’s election, Trump has continued to attack the media and claim that he boycotts these outlets.
“I read the Fake News Washington Post as little as possible,” he tweeted on Saturday.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.