npr--2020-06-18--'Sigh Of Relief' Or 'Slippery Slope': Advocates and Opponents React To DACA Ruling

'Sigh Of Relief ' Or 'Slippery Slope ' : Advocates and Opponents React To DACA Ruling The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision Thursday that extends the life of DACA , the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program .
The ruling was a big surprise to many , including DACA recipients who worried they might soon face deportation .
`` I could n't believe it , '' Emma Chalott Barron , a DACA recipient who will be starting law school at the University of North Texas in the fall , told NPR member station KERA in Dallas .
Barron said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she ran to check the Supreme Court website .
`` The writing on the wall was that we were all going to be mourning and not celebrating today . ''
President Barack Obama announced the program in 2012 .
It allows people who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children to live and work in the country , but it does not provide a path to citizenship .
In a 5-4 ruling , Chief Justice John Roberts and the court 's four liberal justices said the Department of Homeland Security 's decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` I 'm happy , I 'm super excited , '' said Josue Tayub , a DACA recipient and nurse who works in the intensive care unit at an El Paso , Texas , hospital .
He cared for victims of the mass shooting there in August , and now for COVID-19 patients .
`` It feels like I can do what I love to do , what I want to do with my life , '' he told NPR member station KTEP in El Paso .
`` For now . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to President Trump 's effort to end DACA .
`` These horrible & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court are shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives , '' Trump tweeted .
`` We need more Justices or we will lose our 2nd .
Amendment & everything else .
Vote Trump 2020 ! ''
`` Do you get the impression that the Supreme Court does n't like me ? ''
he added .
Department of Homeland Security acting Secretary Chad Wolf @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authority of the Executive Branch to end unlawful programs . ''
`` DACA recipients deserve closure and finality surrounding their status here in the U.S .
Unfortunately , today 's Supreme Court decision fails to provide that certainty , '' Wolf said in a statement .
`` The DACA program was created out of thin air and implemented illegally .
The American people deserve to have the Nation 's laws faithfully executed as written by their representatives in Congress — not based on the arbitrary decisions of a past Administration . ''
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The muddled state of play likely prevents the administration from enacting any plans to begin deportations immediately , but there is little doubt that should Trump be reelected , the second-term president almost certainly would seek to end the program . ''
DACA recipients are a subset of a larger number of people who came to the country as children and are here illegally , often called DREAMers .
There are currently 643,000 DACA recipients , according to recent court documents .
More than 825,000 people have had DACA status since the program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many holding a different immigration status now .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi welcomed the decision , saying `` it supports our values as a country , '' and noted that the House already passed a bill addressing the DREAMers .
`` What we 'd really like , though , is to come together to talk about comprehensive immigration reform , '' Pelosi said , but she ruled out any kind of legislation that would trade legalizing the DACA recipients for Trump 's demands for a border wall .
Immigrant advocates do n't necessarily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next step .
`` [ W ] e need a holistic approach that wo n't sacrifice some in order for others to gain , '' the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services , or RAICES , said in a statement .
Former Vice President Joe Biden , the Democratic presumptive nominee for president , said that if elected he would work to make DACA permanent , sending a bill to Congress on Day 1 of his presidency .
`` As Justice Roberts said , the Trump administration 's action was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to repeal DACA again — an unconscionable action , particularly during this unprecedented public health crisis — he will be responsible for upending the lives of hundreds of thousands of young people and bringing harm to families and communities all across the country , '' Biden said in a statement .
`` We have been living with immense uncertainty '' '' We took our power to the streets , the hallways of Congress , to the highest court in the land and we won , '' said Martín Batalla Vidal , a DACA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the case .
`` For almost three years we have been living with immense uncertainty , and today we are able to breathe a sigh of relief .
Nonetheless , our fight does not end with the decision by the Supreme Court , our fight continues for permanent protection for DACA recipients and all undocumented people . ''
The court 's decision permits the Trump administration to make a second attempt to end DACA protections using proper administrative procedures .
That means DACA recipients will continue to be in limbo until a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now , DACA recipients will continue to renew their permits , which allow them to work legally without fear of deportation .
Polls have found that the majority of Americans support DACA .
A Politico/Morning Consult survey conducted in the last week found that 78 % of registered voters support allowing DREAMers — young people who were brought to the United States illegally when they were children — to stay .
Opponents `` disappointed '' and say the ruling is `` outrageous '' Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is one of those frustrated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disappointed with today 's SCOTUS decision , but it does not resolve the underlying issue that President Obama 's original executive order exceeded his constitutional authority , '' Paxton said in a statement .
`` We look forward to continuing litigating that issue in our case now pending in the Southern District of Texas . ''
The Federation for American Immigration Reform , which advocates for lower levels of immigration , called the court 's decision `` outrageous . ''
`` Today 's ruling by the Supreme Court denying President Trump 's rescission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ implemented by nothing more than a policy memo issued by his predecessor , is an enormous setback for efforts to enforce U.S. immigration laws , as well as for the Constitution 's Separation of Powers doctrine , '' FAIR President Dan Stein said in a statement .
He warned , `` [ T ] he Court essentially imputed the weight of law to an executive policy memo by preventing the current president from reversing that policy and substituting his own policy in its place — one that actually conforms with existing statutes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ memos that are hard to reverse , we are on a slippery slope toward the sort of unchecked executive power our founders feared . ''
RAICES , which provides legal services to immigrant families , called the decision `` a much-needed win for our community . ''
But it was circumspect about the work ahead .
`` The decision does n't change anything about who 's inside the White House .
Despite 70 % of the public supporting DACA recipients , the president is still a racist and will continue to use immigrants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' the group said .
New York state Assemblywoman Catalina Cruz , who represents part of Queens and who lived in the U.S. for more than 10 years as an undocumented immigrant , said she was still taking in the news .
`` I 'm so glad the Supreme Court made the right , sound legal decision and the humane decision , '' she said at a press conference , NPR member station WNYC reported .
`` Because for a very long time , let 's be real , we did n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way , '' Cruz said .
`` And now what we 've got to do is make sure this becomes permanent .
This should not be a permanent Band-Aid .
That 's what it 's going to feel like . ''
She added : `` Our dreamers , our parents deserve a permanent solution . ''

'Sigh Of Relief' Or 'Slippery Slope': Advocates and Opponents React To DACA Ruling
Enlarge this image toggle caption Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision Thursday that extends the life of DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. The ruling was a big surprise to many, including DACA recipients who worried they might soon face deportation.
"I couldn't believe it," Emma Chalott Barron, a DACA recipient who will be starting law school at the University of North Texas in the fall, told NPR member station KERA in Dallas.
Barron said that when the decision came down, she ran to check the Supreme Court website. "The writing on the wall was that we were all going to be mourning and not celebrating today."
President Barack Obama announced the program in 2012. It allows people who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children to live and work in the country, but it does not provide a path to citizenship.
In a 5-4 ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's four liberal justices said the Department of Homeland Security's decision to rescind DACA was arbitrary and capricious.
"I'm happy, I'm super excited," said Josue Tayub, a DACA recipient and nurse who works in the intensive care unit at an El Paso, Texas, hospital. He cared for victims of the mass shooting there in August, and now for COVID-19 patients.
"It feels like I can do what I love to do, what I want to do with my life," he told NPR member station KTEP in El Paso. "For now."
A blow to Trump
The court's decision was a blow to President Trump's effort to end DACA.
"These horrible & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court are shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives," Trump tweeted. "We need more Justices or we will lose our 2nd. Amendment & everything else. Vote Trump 2020!"
"Do you get the impression that the Supreme Court doesn't like me?" he added.
Department of Homeland Security acting Secretary Chad Wolf said the ruling "usurps the clear authority of the Executive Branch to end unlawful programs."
"DACA recipients deserve closure and finality surrounding their status here in the U.S. Unfortunately, today's Supreme Court decision fails to provide that certainty," Wolf said in a statement. "The DACA program was created out of thin air and implemented illegally. The American people deserve to have the Nation's laws faithfully executed as written by their representatives in Congress — not based on the arbitrary decisions of a past Administration."
As NPR's Nina Totenberg noted, "The muddled state of play likely prevents the administration from enacting any plans to begin deportations immediately, but there is little doubt that should Trump be reelected, the second-term president almost certainly would seek to end the program."
DACA recipients are a subset of a larger number of people who came to the country as children and are here illegally, often called DREAMers.
There are currently 643,000 DACA recipients, according to recent court documents. More than 825,000 people have had DACA status since the program was created eight years ago, with many holding a different immigration status now.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi welcomed the decision, saying "it supports our values as a country," and noted that the House already passed a bill addressing the DREAMers.
"What we'd really like, though, is to come together to talk about comprehensive immigration reform," Pelosi said, but she ruled out any kind of legislation that would trade legalizing the DACA recipients for Trump's demands for a border wall.
Immigrant advocates don't necessarily agree that comprehensive reform should be the next step. "[W]e need a holistic approach that won't sacrifice some in order for others to gain," the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, or RAICES, said in a statement.
Former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic presumptive nominee for president, said that if elected he would work to make DACA permanent, sending a bill to Congress on Day 1 of his presidency.
"As Justice Roberts said, the Trump administration's action was capricious and arbitrary. If Trump attempts to repeal DACA again — an unconscionable action, particularly during this unprecedented public health crisis — he will be responsible for upending the lives of hundreds of thousands of young people and bringing harm to families and communities all across the country," Biden said in a statement.
"We have been living with immense uncertainty"
"We took our power to the streets, the hallways of Congress, to the highest court in the land and we won," said Martín Batalla Vidal, a DACA recipient and activist who is a plaintiff in the case.
"For almost three years we have been living with immense uncertainty, and today we are able to breathe a sigh of relief. Nonetheless, our fight does not end with the decision by the Supreme Court, our fight continues for permanent protection for DACA recipients and all undocumented people."
The court's decision permits the Trump administration to make a second attempt to end DACA protections using proper administrative procedures. That means DACA recipients will continue to be in limbo until a permanent legislative solution is reached.
For now, DACA recipients will continue to renew their permits, which allow them to work legally without fear of deportation.
Polls have found that the majority of Americans support DACA. A Politico/Morning Consult survey conducted in the last week found that 78% of registered voters support allowing DREAMers — young people who were brought to the United States illegally when they were children — to stay.
Opponents "disappointed" and say the ruling is "outrageous"
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is one of those frustrated by the ruling.
"We are disappointed with today's SCOTUS decision, but it does not resolve the underlying issue that President Obama's original executive order exceeded his constitutional authority," Paxton said in a statement. "We look forward to continuing litigating that issue in our case now pending in the Southern District of Texas."
The Federation for American Immigration Reform, which advocates for lower levels of immigration, called the court's decision "outrageous."
"Today's ruling by the Supreme Court denying President Trump's rescission of DACA, a program that was implemented by nothing more than a policy memo issued by his predecessor, is an enormous setback for efforts to enforce U.S. immigration laws, as well as for the Constitution's Separation of Powers doctrine," FAIR President Dan Stein said in a statement.
He warned, "[T]he Court essentially imputed the weight of law to an executive policy memo by preventing the current president from reversing that policy and substituting his own policy in its place — one that actually conforms with existing statutes. If presidents can overrule laws with policy memos that are hard to reverse, we are on a slippery slope toward the sort of unchecked executive power our founders feared."
The DACA fight isn't over
RAICES, which provides legal services to immigrant families, called the decision "a much-needed win for our community." But it was circumspect about the work ahead.
"The decision doesn't change anything about who's inside the White House. Despite 70% of the public supporting DACA recipients, the president is still a racist and will continue to use immigrants to advance his xenophobic and hate-filled agenda," the group said.
New York state Assemblywoman Catalina Cruz, who represents part of Queens and who lived in the U.S. for more than 10 years as an undocumented immigrant, said she was still taking in the news.
"I'm so glad the Supreme Court made the right, sound legal decision and the humane decision," she said at a press conference, NPR member station WNYC reported.
"Because for a very long time, let's be real, we didn't think this was going to go this way," Cruz said. "And now what we've got to do is make sure this becomes permanent. This should not be a permanent Band-Aid. That's what it's going to feel like."
She added: "Our dreamers, our parents deserve a permanent solution."


npr--2020-06-18--Facebook Removes Trump Ads With Symbol Used By Nazis. Campaign Calls It An 'Emoji'

Facebook Removes Trump Ads With Symbol Used By Nazis .
Campaign Calls It An 'Emoji' Facebook on Thursday said it removed campaign posts and advertisements from the Trump campaign featuring an upside down red triangle symbol once used by Nazis to identify political opponents .
The posts , according to a Facebook spokesperson , violated the social network 's policy against hate .
`` Our policy prohibits using a banned hate group 's symbol to identify political prisoners without the context that condemns or discusses the symbol , '' the spokesperson told NPR .
One of the political advertisements claimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are running through our streets and causing absolute mayhem . ''
The ad went on to say protesters are destroying America 's cities by rioting .
`` It 's absolute madness , '' the ad said .
Some prisoners in Nazi concentration camps were identified with colored inverted triangles sewn onto uniforms to allow SS guards to identify the alleged grounds for being detained , according to the U.S .
Holocaust Memorial Museum .
The Trump campaign responded by drawing a lighthearted comparison to the red triangle symbol : `` This is an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Murtaugh said that some products are sold online that use the inverted red triangle in antifa imagery , though experts said it is not a commonly adopted symbol among anti-fascist activists .
`` We would note that Facebook still has an inverted red triangle emoji in use , which looks exactly the same , so it 's curious that they would target only this ad , '' Murtaugh said .
The campaign also said that the symbol is not in the Anti-Defamation League Hate Symbols Database .
In an interview with NPR , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ League , pointed out that the database is not a collection of historical Nazi imagery .
`` It 's a database of symbols commonly used by modern extremist groups and white supremacists in the United States , '' he said .
Greenblatt said removing the posts should not have been a hard call .
He said the Trump campaign should apologize .
`` Intentionally or otherwise , using symbols that were once used by the Nazis is not a good look for someone running for the White House , '' he said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to criticize a political opponent without using Nazi-era imagery . ''
Earlier Greenblatt had tweeted that `` ignorance is no excuse for using Nazi-related symbols . ''
Facebook 's action is the latest salvo between Trump and social media companies , which the president has attacked as biased for placing warning labels and removing posts that violate terms of service .
The removal of the Trump campaign 's Facebook posts , which accrued hundreds of thousands of impressions , was a rare move by the social network of more than 2.5 billion users @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to most political advertisements .
Unlike Twitter , which banned political ads and has added fact-checking labels to Trump tweets , Facebook has taken a more hands-off approach , with CEO Mark Zuckerberg doubling down on the influential social network 's free speech absolutism .
Zuckerberg has said it is not Facebook 's job to determine what the truth is and that voting is the best way to hold elected leaders accountable .
According to the Facebook spokesperson , it is not the first time the platform has removed content from Trump in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ took down advertisements from the Trump campaign that made misleading claims about the 2020 census .
In other instances , though , such as in an ad in which Trump wrote of street protesters , `` when the looting starts , the shooting starts , '' Facebook took no action .
The ADL 's Greenblatt said his group has been urging Facebook to take a harder stance against intolerance on the platform .
`` The one thing has been consistent with Facebook is the inconsistency , '' Greenblatt said .
`` It 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up and stay up that are clearly egregious .
They have an outside role to play in the political conversation , and making sure they push prejudice out of the political conversation is not partisan .
It 's a matter of principle . ''
Facebook 's move on Thursday comes as the Trump administration escalates its fight with Big Tech .
The Justice Department announced Wednesday that it was asking Congress to scale back some of the legal protections social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter have long enjoyed , arguing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the mid-1990s is out of step with the modern Internet .
But tech companies counter that rolling back the safeguards would impinge on free speech by forcing moderators to take down any content deemed offensive .
Supporters of keeping the legal shield in place also say eliminating the protections would disproportionately hurt smaller online operations , which could be crushed by a wave of defamation lawsuits .

Facebook Removes Trump Ads With Symbol Used By Nazis. Campaign Calls It An 'Emoji'
Enlarge this image toggle caption Evan Vucci/AP Evan Vucci/AP
Updated at 9:54 p.m. ET
Facebook on Thursday said it removed campaign posts and advertisements from the Trump campaign featuring an upside down red triangle symbol once used by Nazis to identify political opponents.
The posts, according to a Facebook spokesperson, violated the social network's policy against hate.
"Our policy prohibits using a banned hate group's symbol to identify political prisoners without the context that condemns or discusses the symbol," the spokesperson told NPR.
One of the political advertisements claimed that "dangerous MOBS of far-left groups are running through our streets and causing absolute mayhem." The ad went on to say protesters are destroying America's cities by rioting. "It's absolute madness," the ad said.
Some prisoners in Nazi concentration camps were identified with colored inverted triangles sewn onto uniforms to allow SS guards to identify the alleged grounds for being detained, according to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.
The Trump campaign responded by drawing a lighthearted comparison to the red triangle symbol: "This is an emoji."
Trump campaign spokesman Tim Murtaugh said that some products are sold online that use the inverted red triangle in antifa imagery, though experts said it is not a commonly adopted symbol among anti-fascist activists.
"We would note that Facebook still has an inverted red triangle emoji in use, which looks exactly the same, so it's curious that they would target only this ad," Murtaugh said.
The campaign also said that the symbol is not in the Anti-Defamation League Hate Symbols Database.
In an interview with NPR, Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, pointed out that the database is not a collection of historical Nazi imagery.
"It's a database of symbols commonly used by modern extremist groups and white supremacists in the United States," he said.
Greenblatt said removing the posts should not have been a hard call. He said the Trump campaign should apologize.
"Intentionally or otherwise, using symbols that were once used by the Nazis is not a good look for someone running for the White House," he said. "It isn't difficult for one to criticize a political opponent without using Nazi-era imagery."
Earlier Greenblatt had tweeted that "ignorance is no excuse for using Nazi-related symbols."
Facebook's action is the latest salvo between Trump and social media companies, which the president has attacked as biased for placing warning labels and removing posts that violate terms of service.
The removal of the Trump campaign's Facebook posts, which had already accrued more than a million impressions, was a rare move by the social network of more than 2.5 billion users, which has taken a permissive approach to most political advertisements.
"So in a way, it's kind of closing the barn door after all of the horses have gotten out of the barn," said Sarah Roberts, an assistant professor of information studies at UCLA who studies content moderation.
Roberts said for the Trump campaign, the advertisement is beneficial regardless of what Facebook's reaction.
"They get to circulate the ads for some period of time, and then they get to capitalize on a narrative that I believe to be demonstrably false, that they are somehow censored or impeded from sharing their perspectives on social media," Roberts said.
Unlike Twitter, which banned political ads and has added fact-checking labels to Trump tweets, Facebook has taken a more hands-off approach, with CEO Mark Zuckerberg doubling down on the influential social network's free speech absolutism. Zuckerberg has said it is not Facebook's job to determine what the truth is and that voting is the best way to hold elected leaders accountable.
According to the Facebook spokesperson, it is not the first time the platform has removed content from Trump in recent months. In March, Facebook took down advertisements from the Trump campaign that made misleading claims about the 2020 census. In other instances, though, such as in an ad in which Trump wrote of street protesters, "when the looting starts, the shooting starts," Facebook took no action.
The ADL's Greenblatt said his group has been urging Facebook to take a harder stance against intolerance on the platform.
"The one thing has been consistent with Facebook is the inconsistency," Greenblatt said. "It's hard to countenance how some things go up and stay up that are clearly egregious. They have an outsized role to play in the political conversation, and making sure they push prejudice out of the political conversation is not partisan. It's a matter of principle."
Facebook's move on Thursday comes as the Trump administration escalates its fight with Big Tech.
The Justice Department announced Wednesday that it was asking Congress to scale back some of the legal protections social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter have long enjoyed, arguing that the legal immunity granted to technology firms in the mid-1990s is out of step with the modern Internet.
But tech companies counter that rolling back the safeguards would impinge on free speech by forcing moderators to take down any content deemed offensive.
Supporters of keeping the legal shield in place also say eliminating the protections would disproportionately hurt smaller online operations, which could be crushed by a wave of defamation lawsuits.


npr--2020-06-18--John Bolton Levels Historic Charges At Trump. A Wary Washington Isn't Jumping

The picnic that is political life in Washington seldom encounters a skunk of the magnitude of John Bolton .
He was a centerpiece of the establishment , and now President Trump and Republicans have rejected him as a turncoat .
Democrats , never fond of his worldview , now despise him as never before .
Bolton 's unique ability to be hated by everyone for different reasons means that all those involved with reacting to his explosive new memoir are n't behaving as they might have if someone else were involved or circumstances were different .
The former national security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ otherwise might be earthshaking allegations against his former boss in his book The Room Where It Happened .
Trump does favors for foreign potentates because he wants help with his reelection , Bolton says ; he gave his blessing to some of the worst human rights abuses of the modern era , according to the book ; Trump knows almost nothing about even the basics of dealing with foreign nations , Bolton alleges .
And so on .
The president denies it all and calls Bolton disgruntled after a policy break with him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assertions , however , are ostensibly verifiable .
Will Democrats spring into action with hearings in which they compel Bolton to say it all under oath ?
Will they demand to hear from the other administration figures he quotes in his book ?
Will they fight Trump in court to access the transcripts , notes , emails and other materials that might substantiate his claims ?
The response so far boils down to : Ehhh ... maybe .
She reiterated her junior colleagues ' promises to confer about what action to take about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her press conference by discussing him or volunteer any position until asked by a reporter .
`` We 'll be discussing how the American people are best served by oversight , '' Pelosi said .
For Republicans , Bolton has sunk from being a top luminary on foreign policy and national security to a spinner of falsehoods interested only in his book royalties .
`` It disappoints me , '' said House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy , R-Calif. `` Money drives a lot of people to say a lot of things . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ how abruptly Bolton 's book has prompted the GOP to change its tune on him despite the years he spent as a trusted counselor to presidents and a respected commentator .
`` John Bolton 's tell-all book is just another reminder that Washington Republicans will always put their allegiance to their president and their political party ahead of the working Americans they were elected to serve , '' said Robyn Patterson , spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee .
Pelosi and House Democrats impeached Trump over the Ukraine affair , to which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ witness .
Bolton resisted taking part then , and Democrats calculated that they should n't wait for a legal fight over whether to compel him to tell his story publicly .
It would have taken too long , they feared .
So Democrats withdrew a lawsuit that might have yielded Bolton 's testimony and that of a deputy , and went ahead with impeachment based on the evidence and other witnesses then in hand .
Pelosi said Thursday that she had `` no regrets '' about what transpired and that blaming Democrats for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a con . ''
Republicans closed ranks to protect Trump earlier this year .
They used their majority in the Senate to keep from having to hear , on the record , Bolton 's accounts about Trump 's actions and deal-making .
Senate Republicans said it was n't their job to come up with evidence in the impeachment , only to assess what had been developed by the House .
Bolton said he would have testified if subpoenaed by the Senate — knowing the slim odds Republicans would authorize that .
Republicans acquitted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permitted him to keep his office — then the coronavirus disaster changed life in the United States drastically .
The focus around the nation and in Washington shifted , too .
So much appears to have changed — about both everyday life and politics — that Bolton 's allegations are notable for the splash they are n't making in Washington .
Where was House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler , D-N.Y. , one of the drivers behind the impeachment effort ?
On Wednesday , when the accounts began to appear about Bolton 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ markup on police reform legislation , part of the Democrats ' response to the protests following the death of George Floyd at the hands of police .
Their agenda has changed since the last controversy in Washington over Bolton .
Many in the party , in short , may have moved on — or at the very least feel lukewarm about helping to promote the accounts , and potentially , the book sales , of Bolton .
`` I 'm not paying any money for a book that was a substitute for testifying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American people , '' Pelosi said Thursday when asked about whether she would read it .
The speaker and her colleagues may perceive that the climate has changed too much to engage seriously with Bolton following the pandemic , the national movement about race and police , and the now-solidified position of the party behind former Vice President Joe Biden as the presumptive nominee .
Democrats view public polling on issues such as health care and efforts to address racial discrimination as clearly favoring their party going into the 2020 election .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the impeachment debate — which would only remind voters of their failed effort to remove the president .
The experience of the Ukraine affair and impeachment also have clarified how and when the White House will fight to protect witnesses and documents , and when it wo n't .
Given the alacrity with which the Justice Department is attempting to suppress Bolton 's book , including with a lawsuit and a request for a temporary restraining order , it 's clear to all players that if Democrats tried to subpoena the records @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign leaders , that would lead to a months-long court battle .
The Supreme Court held up an ongoing dispute over material from the Russia investigation in such a way that the records involved might not appear publicly until after Election Day , even if the justices permitted their release .
So even though Bolton has made some of the most serious charges against a president ever leveled by a top former aide , to say nothing of an ex-national security adviser , there did n't appear to be much eagerness among Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , who noted at one point he praised the president 's tough rhetoric on China , cited Bolton 's account about Trump pressing China for agricultural sales to states key in his reelection effort .
Schumer said the president `` sold out , '' and , pointing to the Bolton book : `` We see why Trump caved to China so completely . ''
`` I would have preferred Mr. Bolton to have told these stories under oath , at the impeachment trial , '' Schumer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be any renewed effort now to force Bolton to answer questions .
Instead , the New York Democrat focused on the Bolton book 's criticism of Trump 's dealings with Chinese President Xi Jinping , saying , `` President Trump can not be trusted to deal with China policy any longer . ''
Meanwhile , Senate Republicans have kept alive their counterattack from impeachment with ongoing investigations into the origins of the Russia inquiry and the business dealings of Biden 's son in Ukraine .
That 's likely where they 'll keep their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposed to excavating Bolton 's claims about Trump and China or the president 's other dealings .
Sen. John Cornyn , R-Texas , was asked about that Thursday .
`` With everything else we have to do , '' he said , `` whether it 's police reform or COVID-19 , I just think those are more important . ''

John Bolton Levels Historic Charges At Trump. A Wary Washington Isn't Jumping
Enlarge this image toggle caption Logan Cyrus/AFP via Getty Images Logan Cyrus/AFP via Getty Images
Updated at 1:45 a.m. ET Friday
The picnic that is political life in Washington seldom encounters a skunk of the magnitude of John Bolton.
He was a centerpiece of the establishment, and now President Trump and Republicans have rejected him as a turncoat.
Democrats, never fond of his worldview, now despise him as never before.
Bolton's unique ability to be hated by everyone for different reasons means that all those involved with reacting to his explosive new memoir aren't behaving as they might have if someone else were involved or circumstances were different.
The former national security adviser has leveled a series of what otherwise might be earthshaking allegations against his former boss in his book The Room Where It Happened.
Trump does favors for foreign potentates because he wants help with his reelection, Bolton says; he gave his blessing to some of the worst human rights abuses of the modern era, according to the book; Trump knows almost nothing about even the basics of dealing with foreign nations, Bolton alleges. And so on.
The president denies it all and calls Bolton disgruntled after a policy break with him and the administration.
"He's a liar," Trump told The Wall Street Journal.
He's "a traitor," added Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in a statement Thursday night.
"We'll make a judgment"
Some of Bolton's assertions, however, are ostensibly verifiable.
Will Democrats spring into action with hearings in which they compel Bolton to say it all under oath? Will they demand to hear from the other administration figures he quotes in his book? Will they fight Trump in court to access the transcripts, notes, emails and other materials that might substantiate his claims?
toggle caption Susan Walsh/AP
The response so far boils down to: Ehhh ... maybe.
"We'll make a judgment," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Thursday.
She reiterated her junior colleagues' promises to confer about what action to take about Bolton, but she did not open her press conference by discussing him or volunteer any position until asked by a reporter.
"We'll be discussing how the American people are best served by oversight," Pelosi said.
For Republicans, Bolton has sunk from being a top luminary on foreign policy and national security to a spinner of falsehoods interested only in his book royalties.
"It disappoints me," said House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. "Money drives a lot of people to say a lot of things."
House Democrats' campaign arm pointed out how abruptly Bolton's book has prompted the GOP to change its tune on him despite the years he spent as a trusted counselor to presidents and a respected commentator.
"John Bolton's tell-all book is just another reminder that Washington Republicans will always put their allegiance to their president and their political party ahead of the working Americans they were elected to serve," said Robyn Patterson, spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
A failed attempt to force testimony
Pelosi and House Democrats impeached Trump over the Ukraine affair, to which Bolton now openly acknowledges being a close witness.
Bolton resisted taking part then, and Democrats calculated that they shouldn't wait for a legal fight over whether to compel him to tell his story publicly. It would have taken too long, they feared.
So Democrats withdrew a lawsuit that might have yielded Bolton's testimony and that of a deputy, and went ahead with impeachment based on the evidence and other witnesses then in hand.
Pelosi said Thursday that she had "no regrets" about what transpired and that blaming Democrats for Bolton's absence before Congress was "a con."
Republicans closed ranks to protect Trump earlier this year. They used their majority in the Senate to keep from having to hear, on the record, Bolton's accounts about Trump's actions and deal-making.
Senate Republicans said it wasn't their job to come up with evidence in the impeachment, only to assess what had been developed by the House. Bolton said he would have testified if subpoenaed by the Senate — knowing the slim odds Republicans would authorize that.
Republicans acquitted Trump of the articles of impeachment and permitted him to keep his office — then the coronavirus disaster changed life in the United States drastically.
The focus around the nation and in Washington shifted, too.
A different world
So much appears to have changed — about both everyday life and politics — that Bolton's allegations are notable for the splash they aren't making in Washington.
Where was House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., one of the drivers behind the impeachment effort?
On Wednesday, when the accounts began to appear about Bolton's allegations, Nadler was presiding over a markup on police reform legislation, part of the Democrats' response to the protests following the death of George Floyd at the hands of police.
Their agenda has changed since the last controversy in Washington over Bolton.
Many in the party, in short, may have moved on — or at the very least feel lukewarm about helping to promote the accounts, and potentially, the book sales, of Bolton.
"I'm not paying any money for a book that was a substitute for testifying before Congress about the well-being of the American people," Pelosi said Thursday when asked about whether she would read it.
The speaker and her colleagues may perceive that the climate has changed too much to engage seriously with Bolton following the pandemic, the national movement about race and police, and the now-solidified position of the party behind former Vice President Joe Biden as the presumptive nominee.
Democrats view public polling on issues such as health care and efforts to address racial discrimination as clearly favoring their party going into the 2020 election. They appear unlikely to want to go back to the impeachment debate — which would only remind voters of their failed effort to remove the president.
The threat of a legal battle
The experience of the Ukraine affair and impeachment also have clarified how and when the White House will fight to protect witnesses and documents, and when it won't.
Given the alacrity with which the Justice Department is attempting to suppress Bolton's book, including with a lawsuit and a request for a temporary restraining order, it's clear to all players that if Democrats tried to subpoena the records Bolton describes about Trump's conversations with foreign leaders, that would lead to a months-long court battle.
The Supreme Court held up an ongoing dispute over material from the Russia investigation in such a way that the records involved might not appear publicly until after Election Day, even if the justices permitted their release.
A question of priorities
So even though Bolton has made some of the most serious charges against a president ever leveled by a top former aide, to say nothing of an ex-national security adviser, there didn't appear to be much eagerness among Trump's usual enemies to go about exploiting that.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who noted at one point he praised the president's tough rhetoric on China, cited Bolton's account about Trump pressing China for agricultural sales to states key in his reelection effort.
Schumer said the president "sold out," and, pointing to the Bolton book: "We see why Trump caved to China so completely."
"I would have preferred Mr. Bolton to have told these stories under oath, at the impeachment trial," Schumer said — but not whether there would be any renewed effort now to force Bolton to answer questions.
Instead, the New York Democrat focused on the Bolton book's criticism of Trump's dealings with Chinese President Xi Jinping, saying, "President Trump cannot be trusted to deal with China policy any longer."
Meanwhile, Senate Republicans have kept alive their counterattack from impeachment with ongoing investigations into the origins of the Russia inquiry and the business dealings of Biden's son in Ukraine.
That's likely where they'll keep their focus over the coming months, as opposed to excavating Bolton's claims about Trump and China or the president's other dealings. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, was asked about that Thursday.
"With everything else we have to do," he said, "whether it's police reform or COVID-19, I just think those are more important."
NPR congressional correspondent Claudia Grisales contributed to this report.


npr--2020-06-18--Are Prosecutors Too Cozy With Police? Some DAs Say Campaign Contributions Need To End

Are Prosecutors Too Cozy With Police ?
Some DAs Say Campaign Contributions Need To End The growing calls for systemic reform of American policing follow years of rising anger at the ongoing deaths of African Americans at the hands of law enforcement , including the recent killing of George Floyd .
The calls for change run the gamut from severely restricting police use of deadly force , creating a national database of abusive officers and re-directing taxpayer money away from police toward social programs that improve education and tackle crises including homelessness , poverty and mental health care .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : the conflict of interest , real and perceived , between prosecutors and police unions .
When district attorneys run for the office they get political donations from a range of interests including powerful , well-funded police unions who represent the officers that district attorneys will be called to prosecute in the event of officer brutality , corruption or even murder .
`` We need to do everything that we can in this moment to avoid not only actual conflicts , to avoid the appearance of conflicts , if we hope to rebuild @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a time when it is so , so sorely needed , '' says Diana Becton , the District Attorney of Northern California 's Contra Costa County .
She says the potential conflict of interest has exacerbated a crisis of trust in law enforcement and widened a sense the system is hopelessly rigged when it comes to prosecuting bad cops .
In a letter , Becton and a handful of other California district attorneys , including one DA candidate , are calling on the State Bar of California to ban `` elected prosecutors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeking or accepting political or financial support from law enforcement unions . ''
Historically , few police are prosecuted or convicted even when there 's seemingly overwhelming evidence of excessive force .
The fact that few officers are held legally accountable only inflames tensions and widened that trust gap .
The examples are numerous : Eric Garner killed by police in New York : no indictments or criminal charges .
Michael Brown shot by police in Ferguson , Missouri : no indictments .
Freddie Gray 's death in Baltimore police custody : no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police : no officer indictments or charges .
And on and on .
Cities and counties do often reach out-of-court settlements with families of those killed , but few officers are held to account criminally .
Prosecutor Becton says this is not some hypothetical problem , it 's a real one .
She says even the perception of potential conflict undermines the system .
`` I 'm receiving money from their unions .
And at the same time , I am going to be investigating possible incident instances of misconduct .
Would you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she 's going to be fair to both sides ? '
`` she asks .
`` So despite our best intentions , when we handle officer-involved cases , the public perceives conflicts of interest . ''
Activists and some attorneys have long called this kind of proposed rule change by state bars or legislatures vital to increasing police accountability .
Yet , little has changed .
`` The relationship between the prosecution and the police is so problematic and it threatens any senses of due process and real equality in front of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professor of African American studies and faculty at Center for the Study of Law and Society at U.C .
Berkeley .
`` We know that officers lie on the stand , '' Jones says .
`` We know that prosecutors know that they lie and still call on them .
And that just threatens any belief or faith in a system of justice . ''
Chesa Boudin , San Francisco 's district attorney , has joined Becton in calling for getting police union money out of prosecutor offices and political campaigns .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and gets the attention of the American Bar Association .
`` I think there 's an opportunity for San Francisco and California to play a leadership role as the whole country is now focusing on what kind of reforms are necessary to restore trust between communities and law enforcement , '' Boudin says .
`` What sort of reforms are necessary to ensure equal enforcement of the law ?
We need systemic change , a new approach that ensures transparency and accountability .
That will change the culture . ''
Yet , nation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign spending is a form of protected speech .
The San Francisco Police Officers Association , the union representing rank and file officers , says this is simply an effort by a small group of liberal district attorneys and what the union calls `` criminal apologists '' to exploit the horrible death of George Floyd to score cheap political points .
Dustin DeRollo , a union spokesman , says it 's telling that these prosecutors are n't also asking for DA candidates to stop taking contributions from criminal justice reform groups , well-heeled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So if the concern truly was legal conflict of interest , how come they are n't addressing those issues ?
`` DeRollo asked .
`` The reality is , as an officer of the court , as a district attorney , you should be able to set aside your politics from what you swore an oath to do .
And if you ca n't do that , then turn in your bar card .
Do n't seek public office because that job 's not for you . ''
The State Bar of California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeking comment .
The DAs who sent the letter say the bar has told them they are carefully reviewing their request .
But it 's not clear when or if the nation 's largest bar might take action to bring the hashtag # CureTheConflict closer to reality .

Are Prosecutors Too Cozy With Police? Some DAs Say Campaign Contributions Need To End
Enlarge this image toggle caption Rich Pedroncelli/AP Rich Pedroncelli/AP
The growing calls for systemic reform of American policing follow years of rising anger at the ongoing deaths of African Americans at the hands of law enforcement, including the recent killing of George Floyd.
The calls for change run the gamut from severely restricting police use of deadly force, creating a national database of abusive officers and re-directing taxpayer money away from police toward social programs that improve education and tackle crises including homelessness, poverty and mental health care.
But one key problem has gotten less attention: the conflict of interest, real and perceived, between prosecutors and police unions.
When district attorneys run for the office they get political donations from a range of interests including powerful, well-funded police unions who represent the officers that district attorneys will be called to prosecute in the event of officer brutality, corruption or even murder.
"We need to do everything that we can in this moment to avoid not only actual conflicts, to avoid the appearance of conflicts, if we hope to rebuild public trust and confidence in our system at a time when it is so, so sorely needed," says Diana Becton, the District Attorney of Northern California's Contra Costa County. She says the potential conflict of interest has exacerbated a crisis of trust in law enforcement and widened a sense the system is hopelessly rigged when it comes to prosecuting bad cops.
In a letter, Becton and a handful of other California district attorneys, including one DA candidate, are calling on the State Bar of California to ban "elected prosecutors – or prosecutors seeking election - from seeking or accepting political or financial support from law enforcement unions."
Historically, few police are prosecuted or convicted even when there's seemingly overwhelming evidence of excessive force.
The fact that few officers are held legally accountable only inflames tensions and widened that trust gap.
The examples are numerous: Eric Garner killed by police in New York: no indictments or criminal charges. Michael Brown shot by police in Ferguson, Missouri: no indictments. Freddie Gray's death in Baltimore police custody: no convictions. A federal Justice Department probe also cleared the officers. Stephon Clark shot by Sacramento police: no officer indictments or charges. And on and on.
Cities and counties do often reach out-of-court settlements with families of those killed, but few officers are held to account criminally.
Prosecutor Becton says this is not some hypothetical problem, it's a real one. She says even the perception of potential conflict undermines the system.
"I'm receiving money from their unions. And at the same time, I am going to be investigating possible incident instances of misconduct. Would you say, 'Hmm, I wonder if she's going to be fair to both sides?' " she asks. "So despite our best intentions, when we handle officer-involved cases, the public perceives conflicts of interest."
Activists and some attorneys have long called this kind of proposed rule change by state bars or legislatures vital to increasing police accountability.
Yet, little has changed.
"The relationship between the prosecution and the police is so problematic and it threatens any senses of due process and real equality in front of the law," says Nikki Jones a professor of African American studies and faculty at Center for the Study of Law and Society at U.C. Berkeley.
"We know that officers lie on the stand," Jones says. "We know that prosecutors know that they lie and still call on them. And that just threatens any belief or faith in a system of justice."
Chesa Boudin, San Francisco's district attorney, has joined Becton in calling for getting police union money out of prosecutor offices and political campaigns. He hopes this reform effort gains traction nationally and gets the attention of the American Bar Association.
"I think there's an opportunity for San Francisco and California to play a leadership role as the whole country is now focusing on what kind of reforms are necessary to restore trust between communities and law enforcement," Boudin says. "What sort of reforms are necessary to ensure equal enforcement of the law? We need systemic change, a new approach that ensures transparency and accountability. That will change the culture."
Yet, nation's highest court has repeatedly ruled that campaign spending is a form of protected speech.
The San Francisco Police Officers Association, the union representing rank and file officers, says this is simply an effort by a small group of liberal district attorneys and what the union calls "criminal apologists" to exploit the horrible death of George Floyd to score cheap political points.
Dustin DeRollo, a union spokesman, says it's telling that these prosecutors aren't also asking for DA candidates to stop taking contributions from criminal justice reform groups, well-heeled defense attorneys and private corporations.
"So if the concern truly was legal conflict of interest, how come they aren't addressing those issues? " DeRollo asked. "The reality is, as an officer of the court, as a district attorney, you should be able to set aside your politics from what you swore an oath to do. And if you can't do that, then turn in your bar card. Don't seek public office because that job's not for you."
The State Bar of California didn't respond to NPR's efforts seeking comment. The DAs who sent the letter say the bar has told them they are carefully reviewing their request.
But it's not clear when or if the nation's largest bar might take action to bring the hashtag #CureTheConflict closer to reality.


npr--2020-06-18--Judge Extends Injunction For Richmond Robert E. Lee Statue Indefinitely

Virginians waiting for the state-owned Robert E. Lee monument to come down will have to wait a while longer .
Thursday morning , a Richmond judge extended an injunction barring the state from removing the statue .
According to reporters in the room , Judge Bradley Cavedo said the statue is `` the property of the people . ''
The suit is based on a deed from 1890 that gifts the statue , pedestal and land to the state .
The plaintiff in the case claims to be a descendent of two of those donors .
He argues that state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the deed to protect the statue .
In the courtroom Thursday , Judge Cavedo dismissed the plaintiff 's standing but granted him three weeks to refile an amended complaint .
The next hearing in the case is now expected to be scheduled for sometime in late July .
In the meantime , the judge indefinitely extended his initial injunction .
Speaking after the hearing , Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring says he 's confident the state will ultimately prevail .
`` My focus is on making sure that this symbol of Virginia 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowed to represent us as a commonwealth , '' said Herring .
Democratic Gov .
Ralph Northam announced plans to remove the 12-ton monument earlier this month , responding to nationwide furor over racial injustice and police brutality .
In recent weeks demonstrators in Richmond have pulled down three , much smaller , Confederate monuments .
The imposing Robert E. Lee statue was erected in 1890 , at a time when black Virginians were being violently and systematically shut out of the voting booth .
It stands on Monument Avenue , alongside several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are in support of removing all of the monuments , as is the local neighborhood association .
In a statement , the Monument Avenue Preservation Society writes `` for too long , we have overlooked the inherent racism of these monuments , and for too long we have allowed the grandeur of the architecture to blind us to the insult of glorifying men for their roles in fighting to perpetuate the inhumanity of slavery . ''

Judge Extends Injunction For Richmond Robert E. Lee Statue Indefinitely
Enlarge this image toggle caption Ryan M. Kelly/AFP via Getty Images Ryan M. Kelly/AFP via Getty Images
Virginians waiting for the state-owned Robert E. Lee monument to come down will have to wait a while longer.
Thursday morning, a Richmond judge extended an injunction barring the state from removing the statue. According to reporters in the room, Judge Bradley Cavedo said the statue is "the property of the people."
The suit is based on a deed from 1890 that gifts the statue, pedestal and land to the state. The plaintiff in the case claims to be a descendent of two of those donors. He argues that state officials are obligated by the language of the deed to protect the statue.
In the courtroom Thursday, Judge Cavedo dismissed the plaintiff's standing but granted him three weeks to refile an amended complaint. The next hearing in the case is now expected to be scheduled for sometime in late July. In the meantime, the judge indefinitely extended his initial injunction.
Speaking after the hearing, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring says he's confident the state will ultimately prevail.
"My focus is on making sure that this symbol of Virginia's racist past does not continue to be allowed to represent us as a commonwealth," said Herring.
Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam announced plans to remove the 12-ton monument earlier this month, responding to nationwide furor over racial injustice and police brutality. In recent weeks demonstrators in Richmond have pulled down three, much smaller, Confederate monuments.
The imposing Robert E. Lee statue was erected in 1890, at a time when black Virginians were being violently and systematically shut out of the voting booth. It stands on Monument Avenue, alongside several other large Confederate monuments. City leaders are in support of removing all of the monuments, as is the local neighborhood association.
In a statement, the Monument Avenue Preservation Society writes "for too long, we have overlooked the inherent racism of these monuments, and for too long we have allowed the grandeur of the architecture to blind us to the insult of glorifying men for their roles in fighting to perpetuate the inhumanity of slavery."


npr--2020-06-19--Whistleblower: TSA Failed To Protect Staff, Endangered Passengers During Pandemic

The Transportation Security Administration withheld N-95 masks from staff and exhibited `` gross mismanagement '' in its response to the Coronavirus crisis – leaving employees and travelers vulnerable during the most urgent days of the pandemic , a senior TSA official alleges in a new whistleblower complaint .
On Thursday evening the Office of Special Counsel , an independent federal agency that handles whistleblower complaints , said they had found `` substantial likelihood of wrongdoing '' in the complaint and ordered the Department of Homeland Security to open an investigation .
TSA Federal Security Director Jay Brainard is an official @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state of Kansas , and has been with the TSA since the agency 's inception in 2003 .
He told NPR that the leadership of his agency failed to protect its staff from the pandemic , and as a result , allowed TSA employees to be `` a significant carrier '' for the spread of the Coronavirus to airport travelers .
`` We did not take adequate steps to make sure that we were not becoming carriers and spreaders of the virus ourselves , '' Brainard says .
`` I believe absolutely that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus . ''
His allegations include that PPE was withheld from TSA employees , that local supervisors were not permitted to mandate masks ; that the TSA failed to adequately execute contact tracing , and the TSA declined to require that employees change or sanitize gloves between passengers .
The Coronavirus crisis hit during one of the nation 's busiest traveling times : Spring Break .
`` You 've got communities shutting down .
You 've got governors shutting things down .
And we still had n't mandated masks .
We still had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were n't changing personal protective equipment as often as we needed to , '' Brainard says .
`` Every federal security director was forced to fend for him or herself . ''
The Department for Homeland Security , TSA 's parent organization , did not respond to a request for comment .
Office of Special Counsel spokesperson Zachary Kurz told NPR : `` OSC can not comment on or confirm the status of open investigations . ''
Brainard says that in mid-March he and other security directors at TSA asked for help on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked if he could mandate his workforce wear masks , he was told this was not permissible .
`` Every effort was made to convince our leadership to give us the latitude to roll out personal protective equipment .
That did n't happen at that point , '' Brainard says .
When another federal security director asked in a March 12 email if the TSA could provide N-95 respirators masks they had in stock to employees , the request was denied without explanation .
`` There are NO surgical masks available for purchase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Employees are unable to acquire their own .
Officers are now asking when they can have masks .
We have N95 Masks in inventory .
May they be issued to requesting officers ? ''
Federal Security Director Robert Krekorian asked senior TSA leadership , in an email shared with NPR .
`` While we understand the situation , at this time , you can not issue N-95s , '' came the response , adding that additional masks would arrive by the end of that month .
`` Waiting two or more weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Krekorian wrote back .
To date , TSA says 695 agency employees have tested positive for the Coronavirus , and five employees have died as a result .
In addition , one screening contractor has died due to COVID-19 .
Publicly , the TSA 's leadership suggested that they were adequately prepared for the pandemic .
On March 3 at a Senate hearing , TSA Administrator David Pekoske said he believed that the TSA had what it needed to handle the coming crisis , and that the TSA would provide surgical masks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel we have the resources and the capability , '' he said .
`` If [ screening officers ] would like to wear a surgical mask , they 're permitted to do that and we provide those masks . ''
But Brainard charges that the TSA 's leadership was actually woefully slow to react .
Brainard says it was not until almost a month after he and others began raising questions that local leadership was allowed to mandate mask wearing , and not until June that the TSA 's security officers were required @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The number of passengers traveling through American airports dropped dramatically at the onset of the Coronavirus crisis , but is beginning to pick back up .
Brainard says that even now , more than three months after the president declared a state of national emergency , the response is lacking .
`` The bottom line is the new procedures in place do not adequately address the prevention of the spread of the Coronavirus , '' he told NPR .
He said that a `` belated '' set of procedures issued by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safeguards on protective eye wear , temperature checks or the sterilization of gloves between interactions with passengers .
The Office of Special Counsel 's finding that there was `` a substantial likelihood of wrongdoing '' in Brainard 's allegations means that the Department of Homeland Security must now conduct an investigation into the allegations within 60 days , although an extension is possible .
The letter explaining that finding was shared with NPR by Brainard 's lawyers .
The results of the investigation will then be sent back to Brainard for comment , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the White House and released to the public .

Whistleblower: TSA Failed To Protect Staff, Endangered Passengers During Pandemic
Enlarge this image toggle caption Jeff Swensen/Getty Images Jeff Swensen/Getty Images
Updated at 3:45 p.m. ET
The Transportation Security Administration withheld N95 masks from staff and exhibited "gross mismanagement" in its response to the coronavirus crisis – leaving employees and travelers vulnerable during the most urgent days of the pandemic, a senior TSA official alleges in a new whistleblower complaint.
On Thursday evening, the Office of Special Counsel, an independent federal agency that handles whistleblower complaints, said it had found "substantial likelihood of wrongdoing" in the complaint and ordered the Department of Homeland Security to open an investigation.
TSA Federal Security Director Jay Brainard is an official in charge of transportation security in the state of Kansas and has been with the agency for almost 20 years.
He told NPR that the leadership of his agency failed to protect its staff from the pandemic, and as a result, allowed TSA employees to be "a significant carrier" for the spread of the coronavirus to airport travelers.
"We did not take adequate steps to make sure that we were not becoming carriers and spreaders of the virus ourselves," Brainard says. "I believe absolutely that that contributed to the spread of the coronavirus."
His allegations include that personal protective equipment was withheld from TSA employees, that local supervisors were not permitted to mandate masks, that the TSA failed to adequately execute contact tracing, and the TSA declined to require that employees change or sanitize gloves between passengers.
The coronavirus crisis hit during one of the nation's busiest traveling times: spring break.
"You've got communities shutting down. You've got governors shutting things down. And we still hadn't mandated masks. We still hadn't mandated eyewear. We still weren't changing personal protective equipment as often as we needed to," Brainard says. "Every federal security director was forced to fend for him or herself."
The Department for Homeland Security, TSA's parent organization, did not respond to a request for comment. Office of Special Counsel spokesperson Zachary Kurz told NPR: "OSC cannot comment on or confirm the status of open investigations."
Brainard says that in mid-March, he and other security directors at TSA asked for help on masks and were rebuffed. When Brainard asked whether he could mandate his workforce wear masks, he was told this was not permissible.
"Every effort was made to convince our leadership to give us the latitude to roll out personal protective equipment. That didn't happen at that point," Brainard says.
When another federal security director asked in a March 12 email if the TSA could provide N-95 respirators masks they had in stock to employees, the request was denied without explanation.
"There are NO surgical masks available for purchase nor have any been sent to us. Employees are unable to acquire their own. Officers are now asking when they can have masks. We have N95 Masks in inventory. May they be issued to requesting officers?" Federal Security Director Robert Krekorian asked senior TSA leadership, in an email shared with NPR.
"While we understand the situation, at this time, you cannot issue N-95s," came the response, adding that additional masks would arrive by the end of that month.
"Waiting two or more weeks for them may be too late," Krekorian wrote back.
To date, TSA says 695 agency employees have tested positive for the coronavirus, and five employees have died as a result. In addition, one screening contractor has died because of COVID-19.
Publicly, the TSA's leadership suggested that they were adequately prepared for the pandemic.
On March 3 at a Senate hearing, TSA Administrator David Pekoske said he believed that the TSA had what it needed to handle the coming crisis, and that the TSA would provide surgical masks to its employees.
"I do feel we have the resources and the capability," he said. "If [screening officers] would like to wear a surgical mask, they're permitted to do that and we provide those masks."
But Brainard charges that the TSA's leadership was actually woefully slow to react.
Brainard says it was not until almost a month after he and others began raising questions that local leadership was allowed to mandate workers wear masks, and not until June that the TSA's security officers were required by agency officials to wear a mask.
In an emailed response to NPR, TSA said wearing masks was optional for officers in the checkpoint area until the first week of May. Eye protection is still optional, according to TSA, but gloves are required.
"TSA requires frontline personnel to wear nitrile gloves when conducting screening duties. They are to change their gloves after each pat-down. Travelers may request new gloves to be used at any time during the screening process," a TSA spokesperson told NPR.
NPR reached out to several TSA federal security directors, who said the policy had been that gloves are changed between pat-downs only in the specific situation when an alarm is set off. The TSA announced Friday, following the publication of NPR's story, that passengers would now be allowed to request TSA screeners change their gloves.
The number of passengers traveling through American airports dropped dramatically at the onset of the coronavirus crisis but is beginning to pick back up.
Brainard says that even now, more than three months after the president declared a state of national emergency, the response is lacking.
"The bottom line is the new procedures in place do not adequately address the prevention of the spread of the coronavirus," he told NPR.
He said that a "belated" set of procedures issued by the TSA did not have guidance or mandatory safeguards on protective eyewear, temperature checks or the sterilization of gloves between interactions with passengers.
The Office of Special Counsel's finding that there was "a substantial likelihood of wrongdoing" in Brainard's allegations means that the Department of Homeland Security must now conduct an investigation into the allegations within 60 days, although an extension is possible. The letter explaining that finding was shared with NPR by Brainard's lawyers.
The results of the investigation will then be sent back to Brainard for comment, and the final results shared with Congress and the White House and released to the public.
NPR's Monika Evstatieva contributed to this story.


npr--2020-06-19--Insurers May Only Pay For Coronavirus Tests When They're 'Medically Necessary'

Insurers May Only Pay For Coronavirus Tests When They 're 'Medically Necessary' In the wake of the massive turnout at anti-racism demonstrations around the country , public health officials are encouraging protesters to get tested for the coronavirus .
As purely precautionary testing has become more common , some insurance companies are arguing they ca n't just pay for everyone who 's concerned about their risk to get tested .
Lynne Cushing of Nashville , Tenn. , says she had been pretty strict about social distancing until the recent protests , which she felt compelled to attend .
`` I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the edge or the periphery a little bit , '' she says .
`` But I did n't think about the fact that everyone 's going to be chanting .
There 's going to be all this forced air coming out of people at the demonstration . ''
So a few days after marching in her mask , she went to a curbside clinic for a COVID-19 test .
Cushing knew health plans had to cover the test and ca n't even charge a co-pay .
`` Because I have health insurance , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' she says .
The Families First Coronavirus Response Act passed by Congress requires health plans to fully pay for testing deemed `` medically necessary . ''
But as testing expands enough to allow people without symptoms to be tested , a gray area is beginning to appear .
The coverage mandate can be up to interpretation .
`` This is a very live and active debate right now , '' says health policy research professor Sabrina Corlette of Georgetown University .
`` That requirement may only apply if you 've been referred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ professional after presenting with symptoms of the disease , '' she says .
The guidance from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services says full coverage is required `` when medically appropriate for the individual , as determined by the individual 's attending health care provider in accordance with accepted standards of current medical practice . ''
Health plans have been erring on the side of paying the full cost , though hospitals have reported some self-funded plans trying to impose co-pays and deductibles .
But the nation 's largest insurer , UnitedHealthcare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full coverage does require a test to be deemed medically necessary .
The concern is that an open-ended commitment to pay for testing would lead to runaway costs for health plans .
`` These are some very big numbers that we 're looking at , '' says Kristine Grow , spokesperson for America 's Health Insurance Plans .
The tradegroup just funded a study that estimates the cost of all the precautionary testing needed over the next year — both related to the workplace and public health surveillance programs .
What worries health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to institute testing requirements for everyone returning to work .
AHIP projects it could cost health plans $ 25 billion a year if the government does n't step in to defray the cost .
And testing for antibodies could approach $ 19 billion .
Health plans also anticipate a rise in opportunistic providers that could be offering fraudulent or unproven tests , including for coronavirus antibodies .
`` That 's why we think it 's very important to approach testing with a very strategic approach , one that 's based on science , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gets tested , how often , what that test result means , how we take action and where the funding comes from , '' Grow says .
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has issued guidance saying employers can legally require testing .
Still , most businesses are n't taking their coronavirus precautions that far .
Employment attorneys say they 're settling for temperature checks and questionnaires about symptoms and exposures .
But at least one industry is already staring down this dilemma of who pays — long-term care .
Nursing home staffers in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every week .
In New York , it 's twice a week , and health plans are beginning to balk .
One-time testing would n't be that big of an expense , though even that would add up across hundreds of employees at roughly $ 100 per test .
`` It also adds up for the number of times , '' says Christine Thelen , a lawyer with the firm Lane Powell in Portland who represents nursing home companies .
`` You take a COVID-19 test today , but that does n't mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't test positive , because it 's a point-in-time test . ''
Still , Thelen says she 's advising clients that no worker should be asked to pay their own way .
`` I think employers need to pay for it , '' she says .
Public health researchers emphasize the importance of regularly testing nursing home residents and employees , as well as other asymptomatic , but high-risk people , and making testing available to people who may have been exposed at events like protests .
This can help catch undetected disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community .
Many cities are offering to fund the precautionary tests for people who 've attended protests .
Still these free tests are n't available everywhere and since most states are not yet paying for testing ( though Tennessee is ) many people are left relying on their private insurance .
Lynne Cushing was right to be worried .
She tested positive after the march she attended , though she says she knew the risk and considered it worth taking '' I do n't regret it , '' she says .
She never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems to have covered the full cost .
But the friends she marched with also decided they needed to get tested .
And thousands more were encouraged to do the same .
And that same situation is playing out in dozens of cities across the country .
This story is part of a reporting partnership that includes WPLN , NPR and Kaiser Health News .
Editor 's note : The radio version of this story incorrectly said Lynne Cushing got tested the next day after the march .
In fact , she was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to account for the incubation period .

Insurers May Only Pay For Coronavirus Tests When They're 'Medically Necessary'
Enlarge this image toggle caption Carolyn Kaster/AP Carolyn Kaster/AP
In the wake of the massive turnout at anti-racism demonstrations around the country, public health officials are encouraging protesters to get tested for the coronavirus. As purely precautionary testing has become more common, some insurance companies are arguing they can't just pay for everyone who's concerned about their risk to get tested.
Lynne Cushing of Nashville, Tenn., says she had been pretty strict about social distancing until the recent protests, which she felt compelled to attend.
"I had hoped to kind of stay on the edge or the periphery a little bit," she says. "But I didn't think about the fact that everyone's going to be chanting. There's going to be all this forced air coming out of people at the demonstration."
So a few days after marching in her mask, she went to a curbside clinic for a COVID-19 test. Cushing knew health plans had to cover the test and can't even charge a co-pay.
"Because I have health insurance, I'm lucky in that regard," she says.
The Families First Coronavirus Response Act passed by Congress requires health plans to fully pay for testing deemed "medically necessary." But as testing expands enough to allow people without symptoms to be tested, a gray area is beginning to appear.
The coverage mandate can be up to interpretation.
"This is a very live and active debate right now," says health policy research professor Sabrina Corlette of Georgetown University.
"That requirement may only apply if you've been referred for a test by a health care professional after presenting with symptoms of the disease," she says.
The guidance from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services says full coverage is required "when medically appropriate for the individual, as determined by the individual's attending health care provider in accordance with accepted standards of current medical practice."
Health plans have been erring on the side of paying the full cost, though hospitals have reported some self-funded plans trying to impose co-pays and deductibles. But the nation's largest insurer, UnitedHealthcare, makes the same distinction, that full coverage does require a test to be deemed medically necessary.
The concern is that an open-ended commitment to pay for testing would lead to runaway costs for health plans.
"These are some very big numbers that we're looking at," says Kristine Grow, spokesperson for America's Health Insurance Plans.
The tradegroup just funded a study that estimates the cost of all the precautionary testing needed over the next year — both related to the workplace and public health surveillance programs.
What worries health plans is that employers may may start to institute testing requirements for everyone returning to work. AHIP projects it could cost health plans $25 billion a year if the government doesn't step in to defray the cost. And testing for antibodies could approach $19 billion.
Health plans also anticipate a rise in opportunistic providers that could be offering fraudulent or unproven tests, including for coronavirus antibodies.
"That's why we think it's very important to approach testing with a very strategic approach, one that's based on science, and has very clear direction on who gets tested, how often, what that test result means, how we take action and where the funding comes from," Grow says.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has issued guidance saying employers can legally require testing. Still, most businesses aren't taking their coronavirus precautions that far. Employment attorneys say they're settling for temperature checks and questionnaires about symptoms and exposures.
But at least one industry is already staring down this dilemma of who pays — long-term care. Nursing home staffers in many states are required to be tested every week. In New York, it's twice a week, and health plans are beginning to balk.
One-time testing wouldn't be that big of an expense, though even that would add up across hundreds of employees at roughly $100 per test.
"It also adds up for the number of times," says Christine Thelen, a lawyer with the firm Lane Powell in Portland who represents nursing home companies. "You take a COVID-19 test today, but that doesn't mean that three days from now I don't test positive, because it's a point-in-time test."
Still, Thelen says she's advising clients that no worker should be asked to pay their own way.
"I think employers need to pay for it," she says.
Public health researchers emphasize the importance of regularly testing nursing home residents and employees, as well as other asymptomatic, but high-risk people, and making testing available to people who may have been exposed at events like protests. This can help catch undetected disease and stop it from spreading in a community.
Many cities are offering to fund the precautionary tests for people who've attended protests. Still these free tests aren't available everywhere and since most states are not yet paying for testing (though Tennessee is) many people are left relying on their private insurance.
Lynne Cushing was right to be worried. She tested positive after the march she attended, though she says she knew the risk and considered it worth taking
"I don't regret it," she says.
She never developed symptoms, and her health plan seems to have covered the full cost.
But the friends she marched with also decided they needed to get tested. And thousands more were encouraged to do the same. And that same situation is playing out in dozens of cities across the country.
This story is part of a reporting partnership that includes WPLN, NPR and Kaiser Health News.
Editor's note: The radio version of this story incorrectly said Lynne Cushing got tested the next day after the march. In fact, she was tested a few days after the protest to account for the incubation period.


npr--2020-06-19--Teen Protester's Appeal To The World: 'Just See Me As A Human First'

Teen Protester 's Appeal To The World : 'Just See Me As A Human First' Michael Blackson , a 17-year-old high school senior from Southeast D.C. , was among the thousands of people protesting racism and police brutality in front of the White House recently .
In the shaky video footage Michael took with his phone , you can see rows of federal police in riot gear , just on the other side of the black chain link fence .
Beyond the police : Lafayette Square , and the White House .
All along the fence protestors are yelling expletives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can hear Michael 's voice from behind the camera .
`` Listen , you guys are human first , '' he says .
Amid all the noise , he tries to get through to the one officer closest to him .
`` Sir !
I respect you , '' Michael says through the fence .
The officer is white .
He 's wearing khaki camouflage , helmet and sunglasses , and what appear to be canisters of tear gas dangling from his uniform .
He turns to Michael , and nods , almost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says that moment has stuck with him .
He made a connection through the fence , however brief and silent .
`` I just wanted to have a dialog , that 's all I wanted .
But he just like nodded , and that was enough for me . ''
Michael has hardly left his apartment since the pandemic started , and D.C. school shut down , in mid-March .
He has spent his days doing school work online on Google Classroom , playing Playstation 4 , bored and waiting for graduation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to suddenly be downtown surrounded by a crowd — history in the making .
But things went downhill after that connection through the fence .
One of the friends Michael was with got pepper-sprayed .
`` He was like , 'What the f*** ?
What the f*** ?
Like , what 's going on ? '
And then he said , ' A little mace ai n't never hurt nobody , they 're not gon na stop me , ' '' Michael recounted .
When asked about the context — did his friend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michael took issue with the question .
He said there was an assumption hidden within it .
`` Why is that always the first question ?
Police are behind gates , heavily armored .
They have shields , batons , tasers , guns . ''
His friend and the rest of the crowd were peaceful , he said .
He said he hears the same kinds of questions about George Floyd , killed by Minneapolis Police .
`` Was George Floyd a criminal ?
What did he do in the first place to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' he asked .
Michael said a better question would be : `` What did n't the cop do to save his life ?
He did n't get off his neck .
He did n't do that . ''
Michael said when he saw the video of George Floyd 's killing it made him sick to his stomach .
But as a young black male in American , he said he was n't surprised .
He said when he 's in whiter parts of D.C. , he can feel people 's uneasiness — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` Most white people are intimidated by me and afraid of me , but they do n't know me .
It makes me feel like an antagonist in my own story . ''
Michael is big — he 's 6 ' 4 '' .
But he 's also kind , and gentle and not someone to be afraid of .
`` If you guys only knew who I am , if you guys just see me as a human first , '' he said .
Michael went to protests a couple of days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On June 2 , after participating in democracy on the streets , he participated in democracy in a voting booth .
He lives in D.C. 's Ward 8 , one of the poorest parts of the city which also tends to have the lowest voter turnout rate .
For Michael , it was especially important to vote now , with everything going on in the country .
`` It 's really showing your democracy , and if I did n't show my democracy , that would 've been a hypocrisy , '' Michael @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ? ''
Michael says he often feels invisible , especially to white people .
But not lately — first , protesting , right in front of the White House fence , then voting , to help choose the next president of the United States .
On June 10 , Michael marked another big milestone — sort of .
It was the day at Michael 's high school for seniors to return textbooks , clear out their lockers and pick up caps and gowns .
His mom , Meschel , lined up with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sidewalk in front of the school , Thurgood Marshall Academy in D.C. 's Anacostia neighborhood .
One by one , the soon-to-be graduates emerged in their burgundy robes .
`` When Michael and I pulled up , we kinda looked at each other , and just were like , 'Really , this is it ? '
'' Meschel said .
The real graduation will be online on Friday .
But the cap and gown pickup day turned into a mini-graduation of sorts — the only time to get together in person to celebrate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cars honked .
Michael wore a yellow cord — he 's graduating with honors .
`` I do n't even know what to say or think .
This is crazy .
It 's amazing , '' Michael said , between cheers for classmates .
Michael is headed to college in August , at SUNY Cortland .
But he still does n't know if that will mean packing up a car and driving to New York , or if he 'll be starting his college career on a laptop in his bedroom in D.C @

Teen Protester's Appeal To The World: 'Just See Me As A Human First'
Enlarge this image toggle caption Tyrone Turner/WAMU Tyrone Turner/WAMU
Michael Blackson, a 17-year-old high school senior from Southeast D.C., was among the thousands of people protesting racism and police brutality in front of the White House recently.
In the shaky video footage Michael took with his phone, you can see rows of federal police in riot gear, just on the other side of the black chain link fence. Beyond the police: Lafayette Square, and the White House. All along the fence protestors are yelling expletives at the stony-faced police. Then you can hear Michael's voice from behind the camera.
"Listen, you guys are human first," he says. Amid all the noise, he tries to get through to the one officer closest to him.
"Sir! I respect you," Michael says through the fence. The officer is white. He's wearing khaki camouflage, helmet and sunglasses, and what appear to be canisters of tear gas dangling from his uniform. He turns to Michael, and nods, almost imperceptibly, before turning away.
Michael says that moment has stuck with him. He made a connection through the fence, however brief and silent.
"I just wanted to have a dialog, that's all I wanted. But he just like nodded, and that was enough for me."
toggle caption Courtesy of Michael Blackson
Michael has hardly left his apartment since the pandemic started, and D.C. school shut down, in mid-March. He has spent his days doing school work online on Google Classroom, playing Playstation 4, bored and waiting for graduation. So, it was a big deal to suddenly be downtown surrounded by a crowd — history in the making.
But things went downhill after that connection through the fence.
One of the friends Michael was with got pepper-sprayed.
"He was like, 'What the f***? What the f***? Like, what's going on?' And then he said, 'A little mace ain't never hurt nobody, they're not gonna stop me,'" Michael recounted.
When asked about the context — did his friend do anything to provoke police? — Michael took issue with the question. He said there was an assumption hidden within it.
"Why is that always the first question? Police are behind gates, heavily armored. They have shields, batons, tasers, guns." His friend and the rest of the crowd were peaceful, he said.
He said he hears the same kinds of questions about George Floyd, killed by Minneapolis Police.
"Was George Floyd a criminal? What did he do in the first place to get his neck get kneeled on?" he asked.
Michael said a better question would be: "What didn't the cop do to save his life? He didn't get off his neck. He didn't do that."
Michael said when he saw the video of George Floyd's killing it made him sick to his stomach. But as a young black male in American, he said he wasn't surprised. He said when he's in whiter parts of D.C., he can feel people's uneasiness — they will even cross the street.
"Most white people are intimidated by me and afraid of me, but they don't know me. It makes me feel like an antagonist in my own story." Michael is big — he's 6'4". But he's also kind, and gentle and not someone to be afraid of.
"If you guys only knew who I am, if you guys just see me as a human first," he said.
First-time voting, and a mini-graduation
Michael went to protests a couple of days in that first week of June. On June 2, after participating in democracy on the streets, he participated in democracy in a voting booth.
He lives in D.C.'s Ward 8, one of the poorest parts of the city which also tends to have the lowest voter turnout rate. For Michael, it was especially important to vote now, with everything going on in the country.
"It's really showing your democracy, and if I didn't show my democracy, that would've been a hypocrisy," Michael said. "Can you please quote that?"
Michael says he often feels invisible, especially to white people. But not lately — first, protesting, right in front of the White House fence, then voting, to help choose the next president of the United States.
On June 10, Michael marked another big milestone — sort of.
It was the day at Michael's high school for seniors to return textbooks, clear out their lockers and pick up caps and gowns. His mom, Meschel, lined up with a couple dozen other parents on the sidewalk in front of the school, Thurgood Marshall Academy in D.C.'s Anacostia neighborhood. One by one, the soon-to-be graduates emerged in their burgundy robes.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Jacob Fenston/WAMU Jacob Fenston/WAMU
"When Michael and I pulled up, we kinda looked at each other, and just were like, 'Really, this is it?'" Meschel said.
The real graduation will be online on Friday. But the cap and gown pickup day turned into a mini-graduation of sorts — the only time to get together in person to celebrate. Some parents brought balloons; passing cars honked. Michael wore a yellow cord — he's graduating with honors.
"I don't even know what to say or think. This is crazy. It's amazing," Michael said, between cheers for classmates.
Michael is headed to college in August, at SUNY Cortland. But he still doesn't know if that will mean packing up a car and driving to New York, or if he'll be starting his college career on a laptop in his bedroom in D.C.