cnbc--2020-06-15--Supreme Court decides not to hear big gun-rights cases, dealing blow to Second Amendment activists

Supporters of gun control and firearm safety measures hold a protest rally outside the US Supreme Court as the Court hears oral arguments in State Rifle and Pistol v. City of New York , NY , in Washington , DC , December 2 , 2019 .
The Supreme Court on Monday said it will not hear appeals of a slew of cases involving gun laws , dealing a blow to Second Amendment activists who seek to expand the rights of gun owners .
In an order released Monday morning , the court denied petitions for appeals of 10 cases .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions of whether laws banning interstate handgun sales in some cases violate the Second Amendment , whether there is a constitutional right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense , if Illinois and Massachusetts can ban assault rifles and large-capacity ammunition magazines , and whether a state can limit handgun permits to people who demonstrate a specific need for self-defense .
The denials comes just weeks after the justices declined to issue a substantive opinion in its first Second Amendment case in nearly a decade .
In that case , over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the court said the controversy was no longer active because the measure had been amended by the city .
But several of the court 's conservatives , Justices Samuel Alito , Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas , wrote that they would still have sided with the gun owners challenging the law .
Justice Brett Kavanaugh , who sided with the majority in the case , urged his colleagues to take another Second Amendment case `` soon . ''
The Supreme Court last weighed the reach of the Second Amendment in a pair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ established the individual right to possess a firearm in the home for self-defense .
Gun rights activists have spent the decade since urging the justices to review whether laws imposing restrictions on carrying guns outside the home and on certain kinds of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are lawful .
Thomas , in a written dissent Monday , took issue with his colleagues on the Supreme Court rejecting the appeal of a New Jersey business owner , Thomas Rogers , who was challenging his state 's requirement that a person show `` justifiable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permit .
Rogers services automatic teller machines in `` high-crime areas , '' Thomas wrote , and wanted permission to carry a handgun for self-defense .
Thomas note that the Second Amendment protected `` 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms , ' '' but `` in several jurisdictions throughout the country , law-abiding citizens have been barred from exercising the fundamental right to bear arms because they can not show that they have a 'justifiable need ' or 'good reason ' for doing so . ''
`` One would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fundamental right would warrant this Court 's review , '' Thomas wrote .
`` This Court would almost certainly review the constitutionality of a law requiring citizens to establish a justifiable need before exercising their free speech rights , '' he wrote .
`` And it seems highly unlikely that the Court would allow a State to enforce a law requiring a woman to provide a justifiable need before seeking an abortion .
But today , faced with a petition challenging just such a restriction on citizens ' Second Amendment rights , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' Thomas wrote .

Supporters of gun control and firearm safety measures hold a protest rally outside the US Supreme Court as the Court hears oral arguments in State Rifle and Pistol v. City of New York, NY, in Washington, DC, December 2, 2019.
The Supreme Court on Monday said it will not hear appeals of a slew of cases involving gun laws, dealing a blow to Second Amendment activists who seek to expand the rights of gun owners.
In an order released Monday morning, the court denied petitions for appeals of 10 cases.
The cases rejected by the court involved questions of whether laws banning interstate handgun sales in some cases violate the Second Amendment, whether there is a constitutional right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense, if Illinois and Massachusetts can ban assault rifles and large-capacity ammunition magazines, and whether a state can limit handgun permits to people who demonstrate a specific need for self-defense.
The denials comes just weeks after the justices declined to issue a substantive opinion in its first Second Amendment case in nearly a decade.
In that case, over a since-repealed New York City handgun regulation, the court said the controversy was no longer active because the measure had been amended by the city.
But several of the court's conservatives, Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, wrote that they would still have sided with the gun owners challenging the law.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who sided with the majority in the case, urged his colleagues to take another Second Amendment case "soon."
The Supreme Court last weighed the reach of the Second Amendment in a pair of cases in 2008 and 2010 that established the individual right to possess a firearm in the home for self-defense.
Gun rights activists have spent the decade since urging the justices to review whether laws imposing restrictions on carrying guns outside the home and on certain kinds of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are lawful.
Thomas, in a written dissent Monday, took issue with his colleagues on the Supreme Court rejecting the appeal of a New Jersey business owner, Thomas Rogers, who was challenging his state's requirement that a person show "justifiable need" before being issued a handgun permit.
Rogers services automatic teller machines in "high-crime areas," Thomas wrote, and wanted permission to carry a handgun for self-defense.
Thomas note that the Second Amendment protected "'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,'" but "in several jurisdictions throughout the country, law-abiding citizens have been barred from exercising the fundamental right to bear arms because they cannot show that they have a 'justifiable need' or 'good reason' for doing so."
"One would think that such an onerous burden on a fundamental right would warrant this Court's review," Thomas wrote.
"This Court would almost certainly review the constitutionality of a law requiring citizens to establish a justifiable need before exercising their free speech rights," he wrote.
"And it seems highly unlikely that the Court would allow a State to enforce a law requiring a woman to provide a justifiable need before seeking an abortion. But today, faced with a petition challenging just such a restriction on citizens' Second Amendment rights, the Court simply looks the other way," Thomas wrote.


cnbc--2020-06-15--Supreme Court won't hear Trump administration challenge to California sanctuary law

Hundreds of people gather outside the U.S. Supreme Court to rally in support of the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals program as the court hears arguments about DACA November 12 , 2019 in Washington , DC .
The Supreme Court on Monday said it will not hear a challenge brought by the Trump administration to a so-called sanctuary law in California that was passed to limit the impact of the president 's immigration agenda in the state .
The case concerned a California law passed in 2017 that limits how state and local law enforcement can assist the federal government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the law bars state and local law enforcement agencies from informing the federal government of an individual 's home address , work address or date of release from custody for the purpose of immigration enforcement .
It also prevents state and local officials from transferring someone into the custody of immigration officials without a warrant .
The Trump administration sued California over the measure , alleging that it was invalid under federal law .
Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued in court papers that the law 's `` conceded purpose to obstruct — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through its own regulatory scheme makes the state law unenforceable . ''
A federal district court ruled in California 's favor and the 9th U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision .
President Donald Trump , who is facing reelection in November , was elected on a promise to make the nation 's immigration laws more restrictive .
The case is United States v. California , No .
19-532 .

Hundreds of people gather outside the U.S. Supreme Court to rally in support of the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals program as the court hears arguments about DACA November 12, 2019 in Washington, DC.
The Supreme Court on Monday said it will not hear a challenge brought by the Trump administration to a so-called sanctuary law in California that was passed to limit the impact of the president's immigration agenda in the state.
The case concerned a California law passed in 2017 that limits how state and local law enforcement can assist the federal government in immigration enforcement.
With certain exceptions, the law bars state and local law enforcement agencies from informing the federal government of an individual's home address, work address or date of release from custody for the purpose of immigration enforcement.
It also prevents state and local officials from transferring someone into the custody of immigration officials without a warrant.
The Trump administration sued California over the measure, alleging that it was invalid under federal law.
Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued in court papers that the law's "conceded purpose to obstruct — and effect of obstructing — federal law through its own regulatory scheme makes the state law unenforceable."
A federal district court ruled in California's favor and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.
President Donald Trump, who is facing reelection in November, was elected on a promise to make the nation's immigration laws more restrictive.
The case is United States v. California, No. 19-532.


cnbc--2020-06-15--Supreme Court declines to hear cases over legal doctrine qualified immunity, which shields police fr

Supreme Court declines to hear cases over legal doctrine qualified immunity, which shields police from lawsuits

Television crews set up in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington , D.C. , U.S. , on Monday , June 8 , 2020 .
The Supreme Court said on Monday that it will not hear cases regarding a doctrine that shields police and other public officials from lawsuits for conduct that does not involve a `` clearly established '' violation of the law .
The announcement , made in an order , comes as the nation reels from weeks of protests against police violence spurred by the brutal arrest of George Floyd in Minneapolis last month that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The four officers involved in the arrest are now facing charges .
The doctrine , qualified immunity , has come under increasing scrutiny by critics who say it gives blanket protection to law enforcement officers even when they violate civil rights .
The burden imposed by qualified immunity on victims of police violence is exacerbated by the fact that prosecutors rarely charge officers for excessive force violations , often leaving civil lawsuits as the only remaining avenue .
The doctrine was established by the Supreme Court in 1982 and has been expanded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court has required victims to cite a case with precisely the same detailed facts as their own in order to prove that the action against them was a `` clearly established '' violation of the law .
Justices Clarence Thomas , one of the court 's most ardent conservatives , and Sonia Sotomayor , a liberal , have both criticized qualified immunity on separate grounds .
Thomas has argued that qualified immunity is essentially a creation of the justices — substituting `` our own policy preferences '' for that of Congress .
Sotomayor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officers that they can shoot first and think later , and it tells the public that palpably unreasonable conduct will go unpunished . ''

Television crews set up in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Monday, June 8, 2020.
The Supreme Court said on Monday that it will not hear cases regarding a doctrine that shields police and other public officials from lawsuits for conduct that does not involve a "clearly established" violation of the law.
The announcement, made in an order, comes as the nation reels from weeks of protests against police violence spurred by the brutal arrest of George Floyd in Minneapolis last month that ended with his death in police custody. The four officers involved in the arrest are now facing charges.
The doctrine, qualified immunity, has come under increasing scrutiny by critics who say it gives blanket protection to law enforcement officers even when they violate civil rights. The burden imposed by qualified immunity on victims of police violence is exacerbated by the fact that prosecutors rarely charge officers for excessive force violations, often leaving civil lawsuits as the only remaining avenue.
The doctrine was established by the Supreme Court in 1982 and has been expanded over time. Increasingly, the top court has required victims to cite a case with precisely the same detailed facts as their own in order to prove that the action against them was a "clearly established" violation of the law.
Justices Clarence Thomas, one of the court's most ardent conservatives, and Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal, have both criticized qualified immunity on separate grounds.
Thomas has argued that qualified immunity is essentially a creation of the justices — substituting "our own policy preferences" for that of Congress. Sotomayor has written that qualified immunity "tells officers that they can shoot first and think later, and it tells the public that palpably unreasonable conduct will go unpunished."


cnbc--2020-06-14--Republican senator on police reform: 'We're going to get to a bill that actually becomes law'

Sen. Tim Scott ( R-SC ) , the only African-American Republican senator , talks to reporters following the weekly Senate Republican policy luncheon in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill June 09 , 2020 in Washington , DC .
South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott , the Republican leading a group of GOP senators on police reform amid national protests over the killing of George Floyd and other black people by the police , said Sunday that he thinks Democrats and Republicans will agree on some form of legislation to address the problem .
`` Is there a path @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the necessity of eliminating bad behavior within our law enforcement community ?
Is there a path forward ?
I think we 'll find that , '' Scott said on NBC 's `` Meet the Press . ''
`` So there are approaches that are very similar and somewhat different at the same time .
I think we 're going to get to a bill that actually becomes law , '' he added .
Calls for sweeping reform to policing come as demonstrations against racism and police brutality continue across the country .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been a major point of contention between the parties .
House and Senate Democrats unveiled a bill last week that would ban chokeholds as well as no-knock warrants during drug investigations .
The legislation would also create a database on police misconduct , make lynching a federal crime and end qualified immunity for police officers , which would make it easier to hold officers accused of misconduct accountable .
Scott , however , said it would be hard for the federal government to implement a federal use-of-force standard given the `` millions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most Republicans do n't like the qualified immunity proposal .
`` It 's one of the reasons why what we have tried to achieve through the legislation is finding the best practices around use of force around the country , and then provide that clarity and guidance for those departments who may need to have a better , better perspective on use of force , '' he said .
`` So we 're getting at it , but I 'm not sure we 're going to ever codify in law a use of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out the lack of data on how no-knock warrants are served , citing the case of Breonna Taylor , a woman who was killed in her own home when officers crashed into the wrong home with a no-knock warrant and shot her .
`` We do n't know when it 's used , to whom it 's used against .
We do n't know the race , the sex , the age .
We know nothing about no knocks , except for the Breonna Taylor situation that was tragic without question , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take the Breonna Taylor case and have an act that requires more data to be provided so we can actually come out with policies that are consistent with the best use of no-knocks , or the elimination of no-knocks .
We just do n't have the information to get there , '' he added .
Scott did suggest that he supports a ban on chokeholds , calling them a `` policy whose time has come and gone , '' and said a registry that tracked officer misconduct would be a point of discussion @ @ @ @ @

Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), the only African-American Republican senator, talks to reporters following the weekly Senate Republican policy luncheon in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill June 09, 2020 in Washington, DC.
South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, the Republican leading a group of GOP senators on police reform amid national protests over the killing of George Floyd and other black people by the police, said Sunday that he thinks Democrats and Republicans will agree on some form of legislation to address the problem.
"Is there a path forward that we take a look at the necessity of eliminating bad behavior within our law enforcement community? Is there a path forward? I think we'll find that," Scott said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"So there are approaches that are very similar and somewhat different at the same time. I think we're going to get to a bill that actually becomes law," he added.
Calls for sweeping reform to policing come as demonstrations against racism and police brutality continue across the country. The variety of proposals on police reform has been a major point of contention between the parties.
House and Senate Democrats unveiled a bill last week that would ban chokeholds as well as no-knock warrants during drug investigations. The legislation would also create a database on police misconduct, make lynching a federal crime and end qualified immunity for police officers, which would make it easier to hold officers accused of misconduct accountable.
Scott, however, said it would be hard for the federal government to implement a federal use-of-force standard given the "millions of scenarios that play out" and said most Republicans don't like the qualified immunity proposal.
"It's one of the reasons why what we have tried to achieve through the legislation is finding the best practices around use of force around the country, and then provide that clarity and guidance for those departments who may need to have a better, better perspective on use of force," he said. "So we're getting at it, but I'm not sure we're going to ever codify in law a use of force standard."
Scott also pointed out the lack of data on how no-knock warrants are served, citing the case of Breonna Taylor, a woman who was killed in her own home when officers crashed into the wrong home with a no-knock warrant and shot her.
"We don't know when it's used, to whom it's used against. We don't know the race, the sex, the age. We know nothing about no knocks, except for the Breonna Taylor situation that was tragic without question," Scott said.
"I want to take the Breonna Taylor case and have an act that requires more data to be provided so we can actually come out with policies that are consistent with the best use of no-knocks, or the elimination of no-knocks. We just don't have the information to get there," he added.
Scott did suggest that he supports a ban on chokeholds, calling them a "policy whose time has come and gone," and said a registry that tracked officer misconduct would be a point of discussion among Democrats and Republicans.


cnbc--2020-06-16--House Democrats demand big bank CEOs disclose documents about small business loans in coronavirus ba

House Democrats demand big bank CEOs disclose documents about small business loans in coronavirus bailout

The Democrats also wrote to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Small Business Administration head Jovita Carranza requesting their own correspondence with the banks , as well as trade groups such as the American Bankers Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce .
In letters to the CEOs of JPMorgan Chase , Bank of America , Santander Bank , Wells Fargo , US Bancorp , Truist , Citibank and PNC , House Majority Whip James Clyburn said the subcommittee on the coronavirus crisis is investigating whether the Paycheck Protection Program `` has favored large , well-funded companies over struggling small businesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ' clear intent . ''
House Democrats on Monday wrote to the chief executives of some of the country 's largest banks demanding they disclose documents pertaining to their handling of the federal government 's small business bailout loan program .
The PPP was established as part of the more than $ 2 trillion CARES Act to offer forgivable loans for smaller businesses that were hammered by the pandemic .
But the program has come under fire amid concerns that it favored larger companies over those without relationships with banks .
Some banks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helped them lend out the loans at the rapid speed expected of them .
`` We are writing to seek documents and information and to urge the Treasury Department and Small Business Administration to take immediate steps to ensure that remaining PPP funds are allocated to businesses truly in need , and to increase transparency so taxpayers can see whether federal funds are being diverted due to waste , fraud , and abuse , '' wrote Clyburn and other Democrats .
The Democrats joined a growing chorus of critics of Mnuchin 's statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan to disclose the names of those who took out loans from the program .
The House Democrats demanded in their letter that the SBA and Treasury disclose a list of all PPP applications received and loans they have issued .
Mnuchin tweeted Monday that he would be discussing PPP oversight and disclosure with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle .
As of Friday , the PPP has supported 4.5 million loans for a total loan value of $ 512 billion , with roughly $ 130 billion still to be spent .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ extended so far are for less than $ 50,000 .
In letters to bank executives , the lawmakers said they are seeking a number of materials from the banks , including `` all formal or informal guidance '' from the Treasury or SBA about PPP requirements and communication with the departments about the `` prioritization or exclusion '' of loan applicants in underserved or rural markets .
They also requested `` all internal communications '' and policies pertaining to the program .
The letter notes that the SBA and Treasury , which are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide any public guidance to lenders until nearly two weeks after lenders started processing loan applications , and just a day before the initial round of funding dried up . ''
`` Despite Congress ' clear intent , '' wrote Clyburn and other Democrats , `` this guidance made no mention of prioritizing loans to underserved communities . ''
`` We have significant concerns that the two-tiered system that some banks reportedly developed for wealthy clients may have diverted PPP funds intended for vulnerable small business owners in underserved and rural markets , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members of the military , socially and economically disadvantaged individuals , women , and businesses in operation for under two years , '' the letter said .
`` We urge you to take immediate steps to ensure that your bank prioritizes underserved communities when issuing PPP loans going forward . ''
A spokesperson for Wells Fargo said it has loaned $ 10.2 billion to 168,000 applicants through the program .
The bank added that more than 80 % of that funding went to companies with 10 or fewer employees , and more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less .
`` Wells Fargo will give away all fees received from the PPP to help small businesses in communities of need , '' the bank said .
A spokesperson for Truist said the bank 's PPP applications were `` handled through a single application portal made available to clients on a first-come , first access basis , without any preference given to larger or more affluent clients . ''
The bank said that − to date − 92 % of its PPP loans have gone to companies with fewer than 50 employees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information to the select subcommittee as we believe in fairness , accountability and transparency in connection with the PPP , '' the spokesperson added .
A spokesperson for US Bancorp said `` from day one , the focus at U.S. Bank was on serving the needs of as many small businesses that we could . ''
The bank said it has processed more than 90,000 SBA-approved loans for an average loan size of $ 77,000 – with 86 % of the approved loans for less than $ 100,000 .
Companies self-reported an average @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other banks , the SBA and Treasury did n't immediately respond to requests for comment .

The Democrats also wrote to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Small Business Administration head Jovita Carranza requesting their own correspondence with the banks, as well as trade groups such as the American Bankers Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
House Democrats on Monday wrote to the chief executives of some of the country's largest banks demanding they disclose documents pertaining to their handling of the federal government's small business bailout loan program.
The PPP was established as part of the more than $2 trillion CARES Act to offer forgivable loans for smaller businesses that were hammered by the pandemic. But the program has come under fire amid concerns that it favored larger companies over those without relationships with banks.
Some banks have argued that lending to existing clients helped them lend out the loans at the rapid speed expected of them.
"We are writing to seek documents and information and to urge the Treasury Department and Small Business Administration to take immediate steps to ensure that remaining PPP funds are allocated to businesses truly in need, and to increase transparency so taxpayers can see whether federal funds are being diverted due to waste, fraud, and abuse," wrote Clyburn and other Democrats.
The Democrats joined a growing chorus of critics of Mnuchin's statement last week that the administration does not plan to disclose the names of those who took out loans from the program. The House Democrats demanded in their letter that the SBA and Treasury disclose a list of all PPP applications received and loans they have issued.
Mnuchin tweeted Monday that he would be discussing PPP oversight and disclosure with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.
As of Friday, the PPP has supported 4.5 million loans for a total loan value of $512 billion, with roughly $130 billion still to be spent. 65% of the loans it has extended so far are for less than $50,000.
In letters to bank executives, the lawmakers said they are seeking a number of materials from the banks, including "all formal or informal guidance" from the Treasury or SBA about PPP requirements and communication with the departments about the "prioritization or exclusion" of loan applicants in underserved or rural markets.
They also requested "all internal communications" and policies pertaining to the program.
The letter notes that the SBA and Treasury, which are overseeing the program, "did not provide any public guidance to lenders until nearly two weeks after lenders started processing loan applications, and just a day before the initial round of funding dried up."
"Despite Congress' clear intent," wrote Clyburn and other Democrats, "this guidance made no mention of prioritizing loans to underserved communities."
"We have significant concerns that the two-tiered system that some banks reportedly developed for wealthy clients may have diverted PPP funds intended for vulnerable small business owners in underserved and rural markets, including small businesses owned by veterans, members of the military, socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, women, and businesses in operation for under two years," the letter said.
"We urge you to take immediate steps to ensure that your bank prioritizes underserved communities when issuing PPP loans going forward."
A spokesperson for Wells Fargo said it has loaned $10.2 billion to 168,000 applicants through the program. The bank added that more than 80% of that funding went to companies with 10 or fewer employees, and more than 50% were for $25,000 or less.
"Wells Fargo will give away all fees received from the PPP to help small businesses in communities of need," the bank said.
A spokesperson for Truist said the bank's PPP applications were "handled through a single application portal made available to clients on a first-come, first access basis, without any preference given to larger or more affluent clients." The bank said that − to date − 92% of its PPP loans have gone to companies with fewer than 50 employees.
"We look forward to providing information to the select subcommittee as we believe in fairness, accountability and transparency in connection with the PPP," the spokesperson added.
A spokesperson for US Bancorp said "from day one, the focus at U.S. Bank was on serving the needs of as many small businesses that we could." The bank said it has processed more than 90,000 SBA-approved loans for an average loan size of $77,000 – with 86% of the approved loans for less than $100,000. Companies self-reported an average of nine employees.
Representatives for the other banks, the SBA and Treasury didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.


cnbc--2020-06-16--Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin says he will talk to lawmakers about small business bailout disclo

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin says he will talk to lawmakers about small business bailout disclosure

U.S. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin announces new sanctions on Iran in the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington , January 10 , 2020 .
Mnuchin angered Democrats last week when he indicated in testimony before the Senate Small Business Committee that the administration may not disclose the names of those who took out loans aimed at helping smaller businesses stay afloat during the coronavirus pandemic .
Mnuchin said the names and amounts of particular loans were `` confidential , '' citing privacy concerns .
Mnuchin said in a tweet he will be having discussions with the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strike the appropriate balance for proper oversight '' of the Paycheck Protection Program loans `` and appropriate protection of small business information . ''
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Monday he will talk with the Senate and others on a `` bipartisan basis '' about striking a balance between protecting the privacy of recipients of small business loans and ensuring proper oversight of the funds .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said the decision to keep that information confidential `` only serves to raise further suspicions about how the funds are being distributed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rep. Katie Porter and Sen. Kamala Harris , both Democrats , wrote to Mnuchin and Small Business Administration head Jovita Carranza on Friday urging disclosure .
Porter and Harris demanded the two agencies `` fulfill all outstanding FOIA requests '' for information about the PPP loans , citing the `` unprecedented size and nature of the PPP '' and `` numerous examples of fraud and abuse that have already surfaced . ''
As of Friday , the PPP has supported 4.5 million loans for a total loan value of $ 512 billion , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be spent .
Whether those loans have gone to the businesses most in need has been a point of contention .
The program went through several rounds of guidance adjusting the stipulations around the loans after disclosures that some public companies , including the owners of Ruth 's Chris Steakhouse and Shake Shack , were among the recipients .
They , and other public companies , returned the loans following public outcry .
In an April push to inject the program with an additional $ 310 billion , Democrats sought to push for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to smaller businesses and minority groups .
The deal struck between Republicans and Democrats allocated $ 60 billion of that sum for rural and minority groups .
On Monday , Sen Marco Rubio , R-Fla. , chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business , tweeted that the committee would be targeting the disparity of the impact of the financial crisis on minority businesses in the next phase of the program .

U.S. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin announces new sanctions on Iran in the Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington, January 10, 2020.
Mnuchin angered Democrats last week when he indicated in testimony before the Senate Small Business Committee that the administration may not disclose the names of those who took out loans aimed at helping smaller businesses stay afloat during the coronavirus pandemic. Mnuchin said the names and amounts of particular loans were "confidential," citing privacy concerns.
Mnuchin said in a tweet he will be having discussions with the Senate Small Business Committee and others "to strike the appropriate balance for proper oversight" of the Paycheck Protection Program loans "and appropriate protection of small business information."
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Monday he will talk with the Senate and others on a "bipartisan basis" about striking a balance between protecting the privacy of recipients of small business loans and ensuring proper oversight of the funds.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said the decision to keep that information confidential "only serves to raise further suspicions about how the funds are being distributed and who is actually benefiting."
Rep. Katie Porter and Sen. Kamala Harris, both Democrats, wrote to Mnuchin and Small Business Administration head Jovita Carranza on Friday urging disclosure. Porter and Harris demanded the two agencies "fulfill all outstanding FOIA requests" for information about the PPP loans, citing the "unprecedented size and nature of the PPP" and "numerous examples of fraud and abuse that have already surfaced."
As of Friday, the PPP has supported 4.5 million loans for a total loan value of $512 billion, with roughly $130 billion still to be spent.
Whether those loans have gone to the businesses most in need has been a point of contention. The program went through several rounds of guidance adjusting the stipulations around the loans after disclosures that some public companies, including the owners of Ruth's Chris Steakhouse and Shake Shack, were among the recipients. They, and other public companies, returned the loans following public outcry.
In an April push to inject the program with an additional $310 billion, Democrats sought to push for more assurances that those funds would go to smaller businesses and minority groups. The deal struck between Republicans and Democrats allocated $60 billion of that sum for rural and minority groups.
On Monday, Sen Marco Rubio, R-Fla., chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business, tweeted that the committee would be targeting the disparity of the impact of the financial crisis on minority businesses in the next phase of the program.
Tweet


cnbc--2020-06-16--Trump signs executive order urging police reform, says cops need more funding

With protesters around the country pressing their fight against police brutality and racism , President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order aimed at tracking misconduct by law enforcers and creating incentives for departments to improve their practices .
The president , during a speech in the White House Rose Garden that heaped praise on the police and took time to attack his political opponents , said that `` law and order must be further restored nationwide , and your federal government is ready , willing , and able to help . ''
The action from Trump , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some demonstrations and aggressively demanded `` law and order '' from state leaders , comes as lawmakers of both parties pursue proposals to reform law enforcement in the wake of George Floyd 's death in police custody .
Trump lauded police officers at the event , saying that `` the least we can do , because they deserve it so much , they have to get our gratitude and we have to give them great respect for what they do . ''
`` In many cases local law enforcement is underfunded , understaffed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he added .
Democrats were quick to criticize the order as insufficient .
`` While the president has finally acknowledged the need for policing reform , one modest executive order will not make up for his years of inflammatory rhetoric and policies designed to roll back the progress made in previous years , '' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , D-N.Y. , said in a statement .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , said the order `` falls sadly and seriously short '' and `` lacks meaningful , mandatory accountability measures to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held a meeting shortly before the news conference with a number of families of people who have died in altercations with the police .
`` Your loved ones will not have died in vain , '' he said .
`` We are one nation , we grieve together and we heal together . ''

With protesters around the country pressing their fight against police brutality and racism, President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order aimed at tracking misconduct by law enforcers and creating incentives for departments to improve their practices.
The president, during a speech in the White House Rose Garden that heaped praise on the police and took time to attack his political opponents, said that "law and order must be further restored nationwide, and your federal government is ready, willing, and able to help."
The action from Trump, who has focused on the violence seen at some demonstrations and aggressively demanded "law and order" from state leaders, comes as lawmakers of both parties pursue proposals to reform law enforcement in the wake of George Floyd's death in police custody.
Trump lauded police officers at the event, saying that "the least we can do, because they deserve it so much, they have to get our gratitude and we have to give them great respect for what they do."
"In many cases local law enforcement is underfunded, understaffed and under [supported]," he added.
Democrats were quick to criticize the order as insufficient.
"While the president has finally acknowledged the need for policing reform, one modest executive order will not make up for his years of inflammatory rhetoric and policies designed to roll back the progress made in previous years," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the order "falls sadly and seriously short" and "lacks meaningful, mandatory accountability measures to end misconduct."
Trump said he held a meeting shortly before the news conference with a number of families of people who have died in altercations with the police. "Your loved ones will not have died in vain," he said. "We are one nation, we grieve together and we heal together."


cnbc--2020-06-17--Mom of Black teen killed by cop blasts Trump: 'I can't stand the lies!'

Michelle Kenney , center , mother of Antwon Rose II , speaks to members of the media following the closing arguments in the homicide trial of former East Pittsburgh Police officer Michael Rosfeld , Friday , March 22 , 2019. at the Allegheny County Courthouse in Pittsburgh .
The mother of an unarmed Black Pennsylvania teen who was fatally shot by a white police officer blasted President Donald Trump on Tuesday for what she called his lack of `` empathy , '' his disrespect and what she said was a media ploy by the president in signing an executive order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ca n't stand the lies ! ''
wrote Michelle Kenney , the mother of slain Antwon Rose II , in a scathing Facebook post after Trump said that he had met with Rose 's family and the families of other Black men killed by police .
She also denied that her family met with the president , as he claimed Tuesday .
`` I am not in the White House , I chose not to meet their president ! ''
Kenney wrote in her post , which was first reported by WPXI-TV .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and speak with senators that could have an impact on this movement ! ''
`` I will not have a conversation with anyone who disrespects us as individuals !
!
!
I will not have a conversation with someone that clearly will not have any empathy !
!
! ''
wrote Kenney , whose 17-year-old son 's killing and its aftermath received national media attention .
CNBC has requested comment from the White House on Kenney 's comments .
In a statement released later Tuesday , Kenney said her family did n't meet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` Contrary to reports , I did not meet with the President today at the White House .
I came to Washington with one sole intention – to meet and speak with the Senators that are devoted to establishing legislation that will encourage better police practices , '' Kenney said .
`` While my family and I appreciate that the President referenced Antwon 's name in his speech , we wanted to clarify that we never met with the President under any circumstances and do not plan to . ''

Michelle Kenney, center, mother of Antwon Rose II, speaks to members of the media following the closing arguments in the homicide trial of former East Pittsburgh Police officer Michael Rosfeld, Friday, March 22, 2019. at the Allegheny County Courthouse in Pittsburgh.
The mother of an unarmed Black Pennsylvania teen who was fatally shot by a white police officer blasted President Donald Trump on Tuesday for what she called his lack of "empathy," his disrespect and what she said was a media ploy by the president in signing an executive order pushing for police reform.
"I can't stand the lies!" wrote Michelle Kenney, the mother of slain Antwon Rose II, in a scathing Facebook post after Trump said that he had met with Rose's family and the families of other Black men killed by police. She also denied that her family met with the president, as he claimed Tuesday.
"I am not in the White House, I chose not to meet their president!" Kenney wrote in her post, which was first reported by WPXI-TV. "I came to Washington to meet and speak with senators that could have an impact on this movement!"
"I will not have a conversation with anyone who disrespects us as individuals!!! I will not have a conversation with someone that clearly will not have any empathy!!!" wrote Kenney, whose 17-year-old son's killing and its aftermath received national media attention.
CNBC has requested comment from the White House on Kenney's comments.
In a statement released later Tuesday, Kenney said her family didn't meet with Trump and had no plans to.
"Contrary to reports, I did not meet with the President today at the White House. I came to Washington with one sole intention – to meet and speak with the Senators that are devoted to establishing legislation that will encourage better police practices," Kenney said.
"While my family and I appreciate that the President referenced Antwon's name in his speech, we wanted to clarify that we never met with the President under any circumstances and do not plan to."


cnbc--2020-06-16--Small-dollar donations help Biden raise millions while some wealthy donors remain on the sidelines

Democratic U.S. presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden speaks at a campaign event devoted to the reopening of the U.S. economy during the coronavirus disease ( COVID-19 ) pandemic in Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , June 11 , 2020 .
Joe Biden and the Democrats have been hauling in record fundraising totals ever since he won a landslide of primaries during Super Tuesday in March , which helped propel him to become the party 's presumptive nominee for president .
Much of that success is due to small-dollar donors .
Biden 's campaign announced Monday that it , along @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over $ 80 million in May , a historic amount , with an average donation of $ 30 .
As noted on Twitter by Biden 's deputy campaign manager , Rufus Gifford , the total surpassed President Barack Obama 's 2012 May haul and Hillary Clinton 's final amount over the same time period when she ran for president in 2016 .
Yet some bundlers working the fundraising circuit for Biden have started noticing that some big-money donors in their networks have been absent in recent weeks , according to people with knowledge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be named as these fundraising efforts are made in private .
Some influential donors remain too busy with their own businesses in dealing with the coronavirus .
Others are not yet sold on Biden 's candidacy and are waiting to see whom he picks as his running mate .
`` We do n't have every big donor already in , but many are , and we continue to recruit , '' said one active Biden fundraiser .
Another pointed to how some financiers had stronger relationships with past candidates , such as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all fall in line .
`` The biggest donors have money to give — but they just had a much longer history and connection to [ the Clintons ] , '' another fundraiser said .
`` They will get more active , especially after a VP is announced . ''
Others , such as Ken Jarin , a partner at Ballard Spahr who is fundraising for Biden , say that they have n't struggled with getting support from wealthier donors and that it 's a combination with support at the grassroots level giving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of success .
`` There is tremendous enthusiasm both at a grassroots level and with higher level donors and raisers , '' Jarin said , while noting a recent virtual event that he co-hosted with former Pennsylvania Gov .
Ed Rendell and others , raised $ 1.6 million .
`` We raised from $ 500 to $ 50,000 .
Virtually no one I reached out to turned me down . ''
While support from big-money players has been inconsistent , Biden has had to rely on a large number of small-dollar supporters in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial war chest .
So far , it has worked out for the former vice president .
The Biden campaign alone raised close to $ 42 million in April , with a little over $ 16 million , or 37 % , coming from small donations , according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics .
President Donald Trump , on the other hand , saw $ 9 million of almost $ 16 million come from donors giving less than $ 200 .
Those totals do not include the respective campaigns ' combined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Committee or the amounts that have been raised by super PACs supporting either candidate .
Biden has been ahead of Trump in most national polls , with a Real Clear Politics polling average showing the commander in chief down by close to seven points in the wake of his response to the coronavirus pandemic and nationwide protests following the death of George Floyd .
Biden 's campaign has seen a surge of donor support since the Floyd protests started in late May .
Last week , a fundraiser featuring Sen. Kamala Harris @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 500 and going up to $ 100,000 , sold out and ended up bringing in $ 3.5 million for Biden and the DNC .
That event saw a surge in support from small-dollar donors , even from those who could n't attend .
A fundraiser helping raise cash for the event said there were hundreds of contributions from donations ranging from $ 5 to $ 25 from supporters who were willing to contribute for the event but did not participate .
This person has already helped raise just over $ 3,000 for another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 250 tickets .
Obama himself will be hosting a virtual grassroots fundraiser on June 23 , allowing contributors to donate any amount they want in order to participate .
A source of future big money may be coming from what was once deemed an unexpected source : Sen. Elizabeth Warren .
A virtual fundraiser on Monday featuring Warren raised $ 6 million for the Biden Victory Fund , a joint fundraising committee between Biden 's campaign and the DNC .
There were 620 people in attendance .
Tickets for that event started at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 100,000 .
When she ran for president , Warren was a staunch advocate of her campaign being funded by grassroots donations and shunned taking part in private donor events .
The gathering proves that while some establishment donors are still uncommitted to Biden , other wealthy progressive contributors are following Warren 's lead after she endorsed the presumptive nominee in April .
Biden addressed Warren 's efforts to raise money at the fundraiser Monday .
`` Thank you for asking your friends to help me out .
It 's the biggest fundraiser we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all because of you , '' he said .
Both Warren and Harris are reportedly being vetted by Biden 's VP search committee .
Former Obama national security advisor Susan Rice , Rep. Val Demings and Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms are also reportedly on the shortlist .
Bundlers say that some donors who have the ability to give six-figure checks have sometimes been on the sidelines since the start of the summer , while the pandemic has hit the economy and executives have struggled to find the time to raise cash for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these people added , as to why wealthy donors , who can now give just over $ 620,000 to a joint fundraising committee that raises money for the campaign and the Democratic National Committee , are staying quiet on Biden .
Some say that the party donors are n't sold yet on Biden 's candidacy and are waiting out the summer months to give to him , one of the people said .
Others said that wealthy financiers are waiting to see who Biden selects as his running mate , with many pressuring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who is a staunch critic of big business .
Another explained that some wealthy donors have yet to hear from Biden or his aides to ask for their help and have taken that as a sign that they do n't need to immediately get involved .
Still , campaigns over the last few election cycles have evolved in focusing their efforts on raising small-dollar contributions and less on searching for larger contributions .
Four years ago , Clinton 's campaign and her supportive super PACs finished raising over $ 769 million , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ donations over $ 200 , according to data from CRP .
Only 18 % of those total donations were worth less than $ 200 .
That same cycle , Sen. Bernie Sanders , Clinton 's main primary opponent , raised close to 57 % of his campaign funds off small-dollar contributions .
Obama in 2012 raised nearly half of his money on smaller contributions as well .
A spokesman for Biden did not respond to a request for comment .

Democratic U.S. presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden speaks at a campaign event devoted to the reopening of the U.S. economy during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, June 11, 2020.
Joe Biden and the Democrats have been hauling in record fundraising totals ever since he won a landslide of primaries during Super Tuesday in March, which helped propel him to become the party's presumptive nominee for president.
Much of that success is due to small-dollar donors. Biden's campaign announced Monday that it, along with the Democratic National Committee, raised over $80 million in May, a historic amount, with an average donation of $30. As noted on Twitter by Biden's deputy campaign manager, Rufus Gifford, the total surpassed President Barack Obama's 2012 May haul and Hillary Clinton's final amount over the same time period when she ran for president in 2016.
Yet some bundlers working the fundraising circuit for Biden have started noticing that some big-money donors in their networks have been absent in recent weeks, according to people with knowledge of the matter. They declined to be named as these fundraising efforts are made in private.
Some influential donors remain too busy with their own businesses in dealing with the coronavirus. Others are not yet sold on Biden's candidacy and are waiting to see whom he picks as his running mate.
"We don't have every big donor already in, but many are, and we continue to recruit," said one active Biden fundraiser. Another pointed to how some financiers had stronger relationships with past candidates, such as the Clintons, but said eventually they'll all fall in line.
"The biggest donors have money to give — but they just had a much longer history and connection to [the Clintons]," another fundraiser said. "They will get more active, especially after a VP is announced."
Others, such as Ken Jarin, a partner at Ballard Spahr who is fundraising for Biden, say that they haven't struggled with getting support from wealthier donors and that it's a combination with support at the grassroots level giving the former vice president a recent run of success.
"There is tremendous enthusiasm both at a grassroots level and with higher level donors and raisers," Jarin said, while noting a recent virtual event that he co-hosted with former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell and others, raised $1.6 million. "We raised from $500 to $50,000. Virtually no one I reached out to turned me down."
While support from big-money players has been inconsistent, Biden has had to rely on a large number of small-dollar supporters in order to keep up with Trump's financial war chest. So far, it has worked out for the former vice president.
The Biden campaign alone raised close to $42 million in April, with a little over $16 million, or 37%, coming from small donations, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. President Donald Trump, on the other hand, saw $9 million of almost $16 million come from donors giving less than $200. Those totals do not include the respective campaigns' combined efforts with the DNC and the Republican National Committee or the amounts that have been raised by super PACs supporting either candidate.
Biden has been ahead of Trump in most national polls, with a Real Clear Politics polling average showing the commander in chief down by close to seven points in the wake of his response to the coronavirus pandemic and nationwide protests following the death of George Floyd. Biden's campaign has seen a surge of donor support since the Floyd protests started in late May.
Last week, a fundraiser featuring Sen. Kamala Harris, which featured tickets starting at $500 and going up to $100,000, sold out and ended up bringing in $3.5 million for Biden and the DNC. That event saw a surge in support from small-dollar donors, even from those who couldn't attend.
A fundraiser helping raise cash for the event said there were hundreds of contributions from donations ranging from $5 to $25 from supporters who were willing to contribute for the event but did not participate. This person has already helped raise just over $3,000 for another Harris event on Thursday by selling $250 tickets.
Obama himself will be hosting a virtual grassroots fundraiser on June 23, allowing contributors to donate any amount they want in order to participate.
A source of future big money may be coming from what was once deemed an unexpected source: Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
A virtual fundraiser on Monday featuring Warren raised $6 million for the Biden Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee between Biden's campaign and the DNC. There were 620 people in attendance. Tickets for that event started at $250 and went up to $100,000. When she ran for president, Warren was a staunch advocate of her campaign being funded by grassroots donations and shunned taking part in private donor events.
The gathering proves that while some establishment donors are still uncommitted to Biden, other wealthy progressive contributors are following Warren's lead after she endorsed the presumptive nominee in April. Biden addressed Warren's efforts to raise money at the fundraiser Monday.
"Thank you for asking your friends to help me out. It's the biggest fundraiser we've ever had. And it's all because of you," he said.
Both Warren and Harris are reportedly being vetted by Biden's VP search committee. Former Obama national security advisor Susan Rice, Rep. Val Demings and Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms are also reportedly on the shortlist.
Bundlers say that some donors who have the ability to give six-figure checks have sometimes been on the sidelines since the start of the summer, while the pandemic has hit the economy and executives have struggled to find the time to raise cash for Biden. There are other factors, these people added, as to why wealthy donors, who can now give just over $620,000 to a joint fundraising committee that raises money for the campaign and the Democratic National Committee, are staying quiet on Biden.
Some say that the party donors aren't sold yet on Biden's candidacy and are waiting out the summer months to give to him, one of the people said. Others said that wealthy financiers are waiting to see who Biden selects as his running mate, with many pressuring his team not to select Warren, who is a staunch critic of big business.
Another explained that some wealthy donors have yet to hear from Biden or his aides to ask for their help and have taken that as a sign that they don't need to immediately get involved.
Still, campaigns over the last few election cycles have evolved in focusing their efforts on raising small-dollar contributions and less on searching for larger contributions.
Four years ago, Clinton's campaign and her supportive super PACs finished raising over $769 million, with 52% of those contributions coming from donations over $200, according to data from CRP. Only 18% of those total donations were worth less than $200. That same cycle, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Clinton's main primary opponent, raised close to 57% of his campaign funds off small-dollar contributions. Obama in 2012 raised nearly half of his money on smaller contributions as well.
A spokesman for Biden did not respond to a request for comment.


cnbc--2020-06-16--Trump praises scientists for developing AIDS vaccine that doesn't exist

President Donald Trump on Tuesday falsely suggested that scientists have developed a vaccine for AIDS , the late stage of HIV infection in which the virus badly damages the immune system .
`` They 've come up with the AIDS vaccine , '' Trump said during a press conference on police reform , referring to scientists .
`` As you know , there 's various things , and now various companies are involved . ''
Trump later appeared to backtrack those comments , saying , `` AIDS was a death sentence , and now people live a life with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
The White House did not respond to CNBC 's request for comment on Trump 's statement .
It 's possible Trump was referring to daily antiretroviral drugs , which have proved very effective in controlling HIV , a disease that was considered a death sentence nearly 40 years ago .
Left unchecked , the virus progresses into AIDS , an advanced form of the disease .
People at risk of HIV can also now take prevention medication , also known as pre-exposure prophylaxis or PrEP .
PrEP can reduce the risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in people who take the drug consistently , according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
Roughly 1.1 million people in the U.S. are currently living with HIV , and nearly 40,000 Americans become infected with the virus each year , according to government data .
Last year , Trump pledged to end the HIV epidemic in the United States by 2030 , a goal that public health advocates have cheered and sought for years .
The comment came as the U.S. also works to develop a vaccine for the deadly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2.1 million Americans and killed at least 116,341 , according to data compiled by Johns Hopkins University .
Earlier Tuesday , Trump administration officials said the coronavirus vaccine will be provided free of charge to Americans who ca n't afford it .

President Donald Trump on Tuesday falsely suggested that scientists have developed a vaccine for AIDS, the late stage of HIV infection in which the virus badly damages the immune system.
"They've come up with the AIDS vaccine," Trump said during a press conference on police reform, referring to scientists. "As you know, there's various things, and now various companies are involved."
Trump later appeared to backtrack those comments, saying, "AIDS was a death sentence, and now people live a life with a pill. It's an incredible thing."
The White House did not respond to CNBC's request for comment on Trump's statement.
It's possible Trump was referring to daily antiretroviral drugs, which have proved very effective in controlling HIV, a disease that was considered a death sentence nearly 40 years ago. Left unchecked, the virus progresses into AIDS, an advanced form of the disease.
People at risk of HIV can also now take prevention medication, also known as pre-exposure prophylaxis or PrEP. PrEP can reduce the risk of infection by at least 74% in people who take the drug consistently, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Roughly 1.1 million people in the U.S. are currently living with HIV, and nearly 40,000 Americans become infected with the virus each year, according to government data.
Last year, Trump pledged to end the HIV epidemic in the United States by 2030, a goal that public health advocates have cheered and sought for years.
The comment came as the U.S. also works to develop a vaccine for the deadly coronavirus, which has infected more than 2.1 million Americans and killed at least 116,341, according to data compiled by Johns Hopkins University.
Earlier Tuesday, Trump administration officials said the coronavirus vaccine will be provided free of charge to Americans who can't afford it.


cnbc--2020-06-16--Pelosi says advertisers should use their 'tremendous leverage' to force social media companies to st

Pelosi says advertisers should use their 'tremendous leverage' to force social media companies to stop spreading false and dangerous information

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , encouraged companies that advertise on social media to use their `` tremendous leverage '' to push platforms to crack down on disinformation .
`` Know your power , '' Pelosi said at an online forum about Covid-19 and social media disinformation hosted by George Washington University on Tuesday .
`` Advertisers are in a position , they have power to discourage platforms from amplifying dangerous and even life-threatening disinformation , '' she said .
`` Some major advertisers and some not so major have begun to express objections to platform policies that promote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to empower advertisers to continue to object and to use their power to hold social media companies accountable for their bad behavior .
This is an undermining of democracy .
It is a challenge to people 's health .
It is just wrong . ''
Pelosi said the push must be a concerted effort between employees , consumers , Congress and advertisers .
Social media companies such as Facebook , Twitter and Google 's YouTube have taken a variety of steps to combat misinformation generally .
They 've also taken additional steps to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But those efforts still vary greatly .
For instance , since the beginning of the pandemic , Facebook has said it intends to guide users to accurate Covid-19 information and hide or remove misinformation about the virus .
Earlier this year , the company said it would `` remove content with false claims or conspiracy theories that have been flagged by leading global health organizations and local health authorities that could cause harm to people who believe them . ''
But in other cases , such as the decision of Twitter to start @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has said social networks should not be fact-checking what politicians post .

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., encouraged companies that advertise on social media to use their "tremendous leverage" to push platforms to crack down on disinformation.
"Know your power," Pelosi said at an online forum about Covid-19 and social media disinformation hosted by George Washington University on Tuesday.
"Advertisers are in a position, they have power to discourage platforms from amplifying dangerous and even life-threatening disinformation," she said. "Some major advertisers and some not so major have begun to express objections to platform policies that promote voter fraud and violence ... We need to empower advertisers to continue to object and to use their power to hold social media companies accountable for their bad behavior. This is an undermining of democracy. It is a challenge to people's health. It is just wrong."
Pelosi said the push must be a concerted effort between employees, consumers, Congress and advertisers. Social media companies such as Facebook , Twitter and Google 's YouTube have taken a variety of steps to combat misinformation generally. They've also taken additional steps to rein in misinformation on the coronavirus. But those efforts still vary greatly.
For instance, since the beginning of the pandemic, Facebook has said it intends to guide users to accurate Covid-19 information and hide or remove misinformation about the virus. Earlier this year, the company said it would "remove content with false claims or conspiracy theories that have been flagged by leading global health organizations and local health authorities that could cause harm to people who believe them." But in other cases, such as the decision of Twitter to start fact-checking the tweets of President Donald Trump, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has said social networks should not be fact-checking what politicians post.


cnbc--2020-06-16--Supreme Court rules workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

`` This decision sends an unambiguous message that equal protection under the law applies to all and that an employee 's failure to adhere to an employer 's gender stereotype is not a licence to discriminate , '' Kristen Browde , co-chair of the National Trans Bar Association , said in a statement .
The two other plaintiffs in the cases have died .
Bostock said that he was sure they were `` in heaven on a big cloud , smiling down . ''
`` I 've just been on a high ever since , '' Bostock said .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as you know , '' Bostock said .
When the decision came out , Bostock said , `` I went into shock .
My partner and I embraced .
I was thinking this has to be good , this has to be good . ''
Bostock was fired from his job as a child welfare services coordinator in 2013 after joining a gay softball league .
Gerald Bostock , one of the plaintiffs , said in an interview he was `` elated . ''
Gorsuch was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's liberal wing , Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg , Stephen Breyer , Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan .
Justices Samuel Alito , Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented .
The cases were brought by three workers who said they were fired from their jobs because they were gay or transgender .
They argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act , which says that employers may not discriminate based on `` sex , '' also applies to sexual orientation and gender identity .
While workers in about half the country were protected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on sexual orientation or gender identity , there was no federal law that explicitly barred LGBT workers from being fired on that basis .
`` An individual 's homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions , '' Gorsuch wrote in the decision , which applied to three separate cases .
`` That 's because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex . ''
The Supreme Court said Monday that workers can not be fired for being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for LGBT rights .
Sarah Kate Ellis , president and CEO of GLAAD , said the decision `` affirms what should n't have even been a debate : LGBTQ Americans should be able to work without fear of losing jobs because of who they are . ''
Apple CEO Tim Cook , the first Fortune 500 chief executive to come out as gay , tweeted that he was grateful for the ruling .
`` LGBTQ people deserve equal treatment in the workplace and throughout society , and today 's decision further underlines that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' Cook wrote .
Former Vice President Joe Biden , the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee , said the court 's move `` confirmed the simple but profoundly American idea that every human being should be treated with respect and dignity . ''
Later Monday , Trump said at a White House event that `` some people were surprised '' with the top court 's decision but `` they 've ruled , and we live with their decision .
That 's what it 's all about .
We live with the decision of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's opinion , which was released only online as a precaution against Covid-19 , did not immediately load in its entirety , possibly a result of high traffic to the Supreme Court 's website .
Gorsuch wrote that discriminating against an employee because they are gay or transgender is by definition discrimination on the basis of sex .
`` It does n't matter if other factors besides the plaintiff 's sex contributed to the decision .
And it does n't matter if the employer treated women as a group the same when compared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gorsuch wrote .
`` If the employer intentionally relies in part on an individual employee 's sex when deciding to discharge the employee—put differently , if changing the employee 's sex would have yielded a different choice by the employer—a statutory violation has occurred , '' he wrote .
Alito , in a dissent joined by Thomas , wrote that there was `` only one word for what the Court has done today : legislation . ''
`` Title VII prohibits discrimination because of sex itself , not everything that is related to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reference to , 'sex , ' '' he added .
Kavanaugh wrote that the policy arguments for amending Title VII were `` very weighty . ''
`` But we are judges , not Members of Congress , '' he wrote .
`` As written , Title VII does not prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation , '' he added , noting in a footnote that the legal analysis would apply in a similar way to discrimination on the basis of gender identity .
The workers who brought the cases are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fired from his job as a skydiving instructor after revealing his sexual orientation to a female client ; and Aimee Stephens , a transgender funeral director who was fired after announcing her intention to present as a woman .
Only Bostock lived to see the cases decided .
Zarda died before the case was argued and his challenge was pursued by his family .
Stephens died last month at her home in Detroit from kidney failure , according to her attorneys .
Bostock said that if he got the chance to speak with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he knows today , he would tell the younger version of himself that `` it 's going to be OK. '' '' I 'm not the type that lies down quietly , and I feel like I 've been pushed down , and honestly I came up swinging when this happened to me , '' he said .
Gorsuch hinted at his feelings about the cases during oral arguments in October , telling Stephens ' attorney David Cole that he was `` with you '' on the text of the Civil Rights Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could lead to `` massive social upheaval . ''
In his opinion , Gorsuch made it clear that he viewed the text as the deciding factor .
`` Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result .
Likely , they were n't thinking about many of the Act 's consequences that have become apparent over the years , including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees , '' Gorsuch wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limits of the drafters ' imagination supply no reason to ignore the law 's demands . ''
Tom Mew , Bostock 's attorney , said in an interview that `` it 's important for people to remember that while Gerald 's journey has been a very long one to get to this day , it is early days , in a legal sense , in Gerald 's underlying case . ''
An attorney for Clayton County , Georgia , Bostock 's former employer , did not immediately respond to a request for comment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zarda 's former employer Altitude Express , said in a statement that he was surprised by the decision .
`` The court clearly worked very hard to make sure that congressional inaction on LGBTQ+ rights would not go unrepaired , '' Zabell said .
`` We no longer live in a society where a Gay couple can be married on Friday and fired for that marriage on Monday . ''
He added that Altitude Express maintained that Zarda was fired `` for inappropriately touching a female customer '' and said `` we look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Altitude Express of any wrongdoing , just as the first jury trial revealed . ''
Gregory Antollino , an attorney for Zarda , countered that `` Don Zarda was a gay man who work in skydiving were close contact is required .
The idea that a man with a perfect safety record would grope a woman , is a grotesque lie . ''
`` Notably , when my client filed for unemployment benefits , the employer did not make this defense when presumably it would have been in its economic interest .
Instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zarda had revealed 'personal information ' to a client , '' Antollino said in a statement .
`` I think the first response is the best , because it reveals discrimination – that Don Zarda said he was gay .
That 's what got him fired , '' Antollino added .
`` Furthermore , while I understand Mr. Zabell 's disappointment that he lost , had the Court come down the other way , we would have expressed disappointment , but not disparaged six Supreme Court justices as did Mr .
Zabell .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the funeral home that employed Stephens , said in a statement that the decision was disappointing .
`` Redefining 'sex ' to mean 'gender identity ' will create chaos and enormous unfairness for women and girls in athletics , women 's shelters , and many other contexts , '' Bursch said .
`` Civil rights laws that use the word 'sex ' were put in place to protect equal opportunities for women .
Allowing a court or government bureaucrats to redefine a term with such a clear and important meaning undermines those very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect . ''
The cases are Gerald Lynn Bostock v. Clayton County , Georgia ; Altitude Express v. Melissa Zarda ; and R.G .
& G.R .
Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission .

"This decision sends an unambiguous message that equal protection under the law applies to all and that an employee's failure to adhere to an employer's gender stereotype is not a licence to discriminate," Kristen Browde, co-chair of the National Trans Bar Association, said in a statement.
The two other plaintiffs in the cases have died. Bostock said that he was sure they were "in heaven on a big cloud, smiling down."
"I've just been on a high ever since," Bostock said.
"This has been a long seven years as you know," Bostock said. When the decision came out, Bostock said, "I went into shock. My partner and I embraced. I was thinking this has to be good, this has to be good."
Bostock was fired from his job as a child welfare services coordinator in 2013 after joining a gay softball league.
Gerald Bostock, one of the plaintiffs, said in an interview he was "elated."
Gorsuch was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, a fellow conservative, and the court's liberal wing, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
The cases were brought by three workers who said they were fired from their jobs because they were gay or transgender. They argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which says that employers may not discriminate based on "sex," also applies to sexual orientation and gender identity.
While workers in about half the country were protected by local laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, there was no federal law that explicitly barred LGBT workers from being fired on that basis.
"An individual's homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions," Gorsuch wrote in the decision, which applied to three separate cases. "That's because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex."
The Supreme Court said Monday that workers cannot be fired for being gay or transgender, a blockbuster ruling for LGBT rights.
Sarah Kate Ellis, president and CEO of GLAAD, said the decision "affirms what shouldn't have even been a debate: LGBTQ Americans should be able to work without fear of losing jobs because of who they are."
Apple CEO Tim Cook, the first Fortune 500 chief executive to come out as gay, tweeted that he was grateful for the ruling.
"LGBTQ people deserve equal treatment in the workplace and throughout society, and today's decision further underlines that federal law protects their right to fairness," Cook wrote.
Former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said the court's move "confirmed the simple but profoundly American idea that every human being should be treated with respect and dignity."
Later Monday, Trump said at a White House event that "some people were surprised" with the top court's decision but "they've ruled, and we live with their decision. That's what it's all about. We live with the decision of the Supreme Court."
The court's opinion, which was released only online as a precaution against Covid-19, did not immediately load in its entirety, possibly a result of high traffic to the Supreme Court's website.
Gorsuch wrote that discriminating against an employee because they are gay or transgender is by definition discrimination on the basis of sex.
"It doesn't matter if other factors besides the plaintiff 's sex contributed to the decision. And it doesn't matter if the employer treated women as a group the same when compared to men as a group," Gorsuch wrote.
"If the employer intentionally relies in part on an individual employee's sex when deciding to discharge the employee—put differently, if changing the employee's sex would have yielded a different choice by the employer—a statutory violation has occurred," he wrote.
Alito, in a dissent joined by Thomas, wrote that there was "only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation."
"Title VII prohibits discrimination because of sex itself, not everything that is related to, based on, or defined with reference to, 'sex,'" he added.
Kavanaugh wrote that the policy arguments for amending Title VII were "very weighty."
"But we are judges, not Members of Congress," he wrote. "As written, Title VII does not prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation," he added, noting in a footnote that the legal analysis would apply in a similar way to discrimination on the basis of gender identity.
The workers who brought the cases are Bostock; Donald Zarda, who was fired from his job as a skydiving instructor after revealing his sexual orientation to a female client; and Aimee Stephens, a transgender funeral director who was fired after announcing her intention to present as a woman.
Only Bostock lived to see the cases decided. Zarda died before the case was argued and his challenge was pursued by his family. Stephens died last month at her home in Detroit from kidney failure, according to her attorneys.
Bostock said that if he got the chance to speak with himself seven years ago, knowing what he knows today, he would tell the younger version of himself that "it's going to be OK."
"I'm not the type that lies down quietly, and I feel like I've been pushed down, and honestly I came up swinging when this happened to me," he said.
Gorsuch hinted at his feelings about the cases during oral arguments in October, telling Stephens' attorney David Cole that he was "with you" on the text of the Civil Rights Act. But he warned that the case could lead to "massive social upheaval."
In his opinion, Gorsuch made it clear that he viewed the text as the deciding factor.
"Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. Likely, they weren't thinking about many of the Act's consequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees," Gorsuch wrote.
Gorsuch added: "But the limits of the drafters' imagination supply no reason to ignore the law's demands."
Tom Mew, Bostock's attorney, said in an interview that "it's important for people to remember that while Gerald's journey has been a very long one to get to this day, it is early days, in a legal sense, in Gerald's underlying case."
An attorney for Clayton County, Georgia, Bostock's former employer, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Saul Zabell, an attorney for Zarda's former employer Altitude Express, said in a statement that he was surprised by the decision.
"The court clearly worked very hard to make sure that congressional inaction on LGBTQ+ rights would not go unrepaired," Zabell said.
"We no longer live in a society where a Gay couple can be married on Friday and fired for that marriage on Monday."
He added that Altitude Express maintained that Zarda was fired "for inappropriately touching a female customer" and said "we look forward to having a second jury clear Altitude Express of any wrongdoing, just as the first jury trial revealed."
Gregory Antollino, an attorney for Zarda, countered that "Don Zarda was a gay man who work in skydiving were close contact is required. The idea that a man with a perfect safety record would grope a woman, is a grotesque lie."
"Notably, when my client filed for unemployment benefits, the employer did not make this defense when presumably it would have been in its economic interest. Instead they told the unemployment insurance that Mr. Zarda had revealed 'personal information' to a client," Antollino said in a statement.
"I think the first response is the best, because it reveals discrimination – that Don Zarda said he was gay. That's what got him fired," Antollino added. "Furthermore, while I understand Mr. Zabell's disappointment that he lost, had the Court come down the other way, we would have expressed disappointment, but not disparaged six Supreme Court justices as did Mr. Zabell."
John Bursch, an attorney for the funeral home that employed Stephens, said in a statement that the decision was disappointing.
"Redefining 'sex' to mean 'gender identity' will create chaos and enormous unfairness for women and girls in athletics, women's shelters, and many other contexts," Bursch said. "Civil rights laws that use the word 'sex' were put in place to protect equal opportunities for women. Allowing a court or government bureaucrats to redefine a term with such a clear and important meaning undermines those very opportunities—the ones the law was designed to protect."
The cases are Gerald Lynn Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia; Altitude Express v. Melissa Zarda; and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.


cnbc--2020-06-15--Federal disaster loan program applications no longer limited to agricultural businesses

Jovita Carranza , Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration , testifies at the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Hearings to examine implementation of Title I of the CARES Act on Capitol Hill in Washington , DC , June 10 , 2020 .
The Small Business Administration is reopening its Economic Injury Disaster Loan and EIDL advance grant portal to a broader array of eligible small businesses and nonprofits affected by the coronavirus pandemic , beginning Monday .
The portal had been accepting applications only from agricultural businesses for the last month , as demand was high , and those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past .
`` To meet the unprecedented need , the SBA has made numerous improvements to the application and loan closing process , including deploying new technology and automated tools , '' SBA Administrator Jovita Carranza said in a statement .
The EIDL program has gotten less attention that the SBA 's Paycheck Protection Program , which has been popular on Main Street but had a rocky initial rollout with businesses delayed in getting funding and large public companies being shamed into returning funds .
As of Sunday , 1.43 million loans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 95.6 billion through the EIDL program .
The loans available under the program had been for as much as $ 2 million , but that number was dropped to $ 150,000 due to demand .
The program 's emergency grant was also dropped from its initial amount of up to $ 10,000 per business , to $ 1,000 per employee , per business .
As of Friday , the PPP had 4.5 million loans approved for a total of $ 512 billion , with nearly $ 130 billion left unallocated for small @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mnuchin were questioned about the implementation of both programs last week by the Senate Small Business Committee .
Data from the National Federation of Independent Business from earlier this month found that of the respondents who applied for an EIDL loan , 57 % have been approved so far , 38 % have not heard yet about the status of their application , and 5 % were denied .
About 36 % of EIDL applicants have received the loan as of June 2 .
Sixty-nine percent of those who requested the EIDL emergency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Paycheck Protection program , which businesses have the opportunity to apply to through June 30 , businesses can apply to the EIDL programs through end of year .

Jovita Carranza, Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration, testifies at the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Hearings to examine implementation of Title I of the CARES Act on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, June 10, 2020.
The Small Business Administration is reopening its Economic Injury Disaster Loan and EIDL advance grant portal to a broader array of eligible small businesses and nonprofits affected by the coronavirus pandemic, beginning Monday.
The portal had been accepting applications only from agricultural businesses for the last month, as demand was high, and those businesses had not been EIDL eligible in the past.
"To meet the unprecedented need, the SBA has made numerous improvements to the application and loan closing process, including deploying new technology and automated tools," SBA Administrator Jovita Carranza said in a statement.
The EIDL program has gotten less attention that the SBA's Paycheck Protection Program, which has been popular on Main Street but had a rocky initial rollout with businesses delayed in getting funding and large public companies being shamed into returning funds. As of Sunday, 1.43 million loans had been approved for a total of $95.6 billion through the EIDL program.
The loans available under the program had been for as much as $2 million, but that number was dropped to $150,000 due to demand. The program's emergency grant was also dropped from its initial amount of up to $10,000 per business, to $1,000 per employee, per business.
As of Friday, the PPP had 4.5 million loans approved for a total of $512 billion, with nearly $130 billion left unallocated for small businesses. Carranza and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin were questioned about the implementation of both programs last week by the Senate Small Business Committee.
Data from the National Federation of Independent Business from earlier this month found that of the respondents who applied for an EIDL loan, 57% have been approved so far, 38% have not heard yet about the status of their application, and 5% were denied. About 36% of EIDL applicants have received the loan as of June 2. Sixty-nine percent of those who requested the EIDL emergency advance had received those funds.
Unlike the Paycheck Protection program, which businesses have the opportunity to apply to through June 30, businesses can apply to the EIDL programs through end of year.


cnbc--2020-06-16--Trump to sign executive order on police reform Tuesday

U.S. President Donald Trump makes an announcement about U.S. trade relations with China and Hong Kong in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington , May 29 , 2020 .
President Donald Trump will sign an executive order on police reform Tuesday , as activists ramp up pressure for an overhaul of U.S. policing practices .
He is slated to sign the order during noon Tuesday ceremony in the White House 's Rose Garden .
Trump , speaking to reporters at a White House roundtable event Monday afternoon , said he believed the order would be `` pretty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 're going to be talking about things that we 've been watching and seeing for the last month , and we 're going to have some solutions , some good solutions , '' Trump said without providing further details .
The multi-pronged directive is aimed at creating funding incentives for police departments to improve their practices , senior administration officials said in a call with reporters Monday evening .
The order will focus on improving officer retention and recruitment practices , including encouraging departments to recruit from within the communities they will patrol @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also prioritize `` co-respondent services '' intended to more deeply involve social workers in responding to certain nonviolent calls — such as those involving mental health , drug addiction and homelessness issues — rather than cops alone .
`` In many cases they 're not the best ones to respond to these types of efforts , '' one of the officials said .
The officials stressed that providing federal money as an incentive is distinctly different from `` defunding '' the police — a demand that is quickly growing from within the massive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the weeks following the death of George Floyd .
`` What we want to be doing is incentivizing people to take on those best standards , improve their training and do the retention of good officers , '' said another official on the call , `` but you 're never going to solve this problem by demonizing the police .
You have to solve this problem by working with law enforcement and with the police to make progress together . ''
The administration worked with numerous police groups , faith leaders and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to the senior administration officials .
During an event in Dallas last week , the president said that the order would `` encourage police departments nationwide to meet the most current professional standards of force '' and de-escalation .
He said `` that means force , but force with compassion . ''
The White House declined to comment Monday when asked for further details about the order .

U.S. President Donald Trump makes an announcement about U.S. trade relations with China and Hong Kong in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, May 29, 2020.
President Donald Trump will sign an executive order on police reform Tuesday, as activists ramp up pressure for an overhaul of U.S. policing practices.
He is slated to sign the order during noon Tuesday ceremony in the White House's Rose Garden.
Trump, speaking to reporters at a White House roundtable event Monday afternoon, said he believed the order would be "pretty comprehensive."
"Basically, we're going to be talking about things that we've been watching and seeing for the last month, and we're going to have some solutions, some good solutions," Trump said without providing further details.
The multi-pronged directive is aimed at creating funding incentives for police departments to improve their practices, senior administration officials said in a call with reporters Monday evening.
The order will focus on improving officer retention and recruitment practices, including encouraging departments to recruit from within the communities they will patrol, the officials said. It will also prioritize "co-respondent services" intended to more deeply involve social workers in responding to certain nonviolent calls — such as those involving mental health, drug addiction and homelessness issues — rather than cops alone.
"In many cases they're not the best ones to respond to these types of efforts," one of the officials said.
The officials stressed that providing federal money as an incentive is distinctly different from "defunding" the police — a demand that is quickly growing from within the massive protests that have arisen across the nation in the weeks following the death of George Floyd.
"What we want to be doing is incentivizing people to take on those best standards, improve their training and do the retention of good officers," said another official on the call, "but you're never going to solve this problem by demonizing the police. You have to solve this problem by working with law enforcement and with the police to make progress together."
The administration worked with numerous police groups, faith leaders and family organizations in crafting the order, according to the senior administration officials.
During an event in Dallas last week, the president said that the order would "encourage police departments nationwide to meet the most current professional standards of force" and de-escalation. He said "that means force, but force with compassion."
The White House declined to comment Monday when asked for further details about the order.