dailysignal--2020-07-28--How Close Are We to a COVID-19 Vaccine? Here’s What to Know

The United States has been grappling with a response to the COVID-19 pandemic for more than six months , but now , a series of published results from vaccine developers raises the hope that a definitive end to the pandemic might be in sight .
The race for a COVID-19 vaccine began at the end of January , and the administration ’ s announcement of Operation Warp Speed greatly accelerated the process by providing unprecedented funding to help execute the necessary research and take out the financial risk of developing and manufacturing the potentially successful vaccine candidates .
The initiative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies , AstraZeneca and Moderna , this month begin the final phase of clinical trials before approval and distribution .
> > > What ’ s the best way for America to reopen and return to business ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to figure that out .
So far , it has made more than 260 recommendations .
Learn more here .
There are three phases of clinical trials before a new drug can be sold and distributed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the drug is safe , that it works , and that it works better than the existing course of treatment .
Typically , drug development takes several years before drug approval , and the fact that there are two phase 3 trials beginning seven months after the first COVID-19 case was confirmed in America reflects the amount of resources being devoted to vaccine development and the breathtaking speed at which it is happening .
By comparison , the vaccine with the shortest time to approval up to now has been the mumps vaccine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Much of the speed comes from the ability to recruit participants to gather enough data and ensure the safety of the vaccines .
Moderna completed both a phase 1 trial that involved 45 participants and a phase 2 trial that involved 600 participants .
AstraZeneca collapsed its phase 1 and 2 trials into one study that involved 1,090 participants .
In phase 3 , the companies participating in Operation Warp Speed are required to enroll at least 30,000 volunteers , and AstraZeneca intends to recruit 50,000 participants .
Phase 1 results for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of safety and efficacy .
Efficacy was assessed by comparing the immune response in the blood of volunteers to that of the blood of recovered COVID-19 patients .
Neither study found serious adverse reactions to the vaccines , although mild to moderate reactions , such as injection site pain , muscle aches , or fevers and chills , were not uncommon .
That ’ s to be expected and they are signs that the immune system is working .
One person in the Moderna study developed a rash , but it subsided .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the immune system ’ s response to the vaccine .
Again , both vaccine trials showed promise .
The Moderna study tested three different doses of its vaccine to determine what dosage will be necessary for the final vaccine , and measured the response in two types of antibodies , binding and neutralizing , and in T-cell response .
Binding antibodies bind to the virus and assist other immune cells in destroying it , whereas neutralizing bodies , which are thought to be more effective , directly attack the virus .
T-cells @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out the virus , signal other immune cells , and attack the virus itself .
Together , T-cells and antibodies make up two arms of the body ’ s acquired immune system .
Even at the lowest dose , the Moderna vaccine stimulated binding antibodies in all participants by Day 15 and exceeded the levels in convalescent serum by Day 36 .
It took a second vaccination to elicit a neutralizing antibody response to the vaccine , but by Day 43 , the activity of neutralizing antibodies was detected at levels similar to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a second dose .
There was a T-cell response , showing one type of T-cell involving cell signaling , but the type of T-cell that directly attacks the virus was present only in low levels after the second dose .
The AstraZeneca vaccine measured neutralizing antibodies , and a single dose of it was able to elicit a response comparable to convalescent serum by Day 28 , and a booster dose increased the antibody activity in all participants .
This vaccine also elicited a robust T-cell presence by Day 14 .
Together , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a safe and effective vaccine may be on its way sooner rather than later .
They both elicit an antibody response at the tested doses that are of similar concentration to convalescent serum , and the AstraZeneca vaccine also stimulated a cellular immune response that seems increasingly important to fighting off a SARS-CoV-2 infection .
The vaccines aren ’ t a done deal yet , however .
Only the phase 3 trial can provide a definitive answer as to the efficacy of a vaccine .
It won ’ t be until fall at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will conclude , so the world will have to be patient for a little while longer , but if these results hold true , the effective end of the pandemic may be in sight .

The United States has been grappling with a response to the COVID-19 pandemic for more than six months, but now, a series of published results from vaccine developers raises the hope that a definitive end to the pandemic might be in sight.
The race for a COVID-19 vaccine began at the end of January, and the administration’s announcement of Operation Warp Speed greatly accelerated the process by providing unprecedented funding to help execute the necessary research and take out the financial risk of developing and manufacturing the potentially successful vaccine candidates.
The initiative has already borne fruit. Two pharmaceutical companies, AstraZeneca and Moderna, this month begin the final phase of clinical trials before approval and distribution.
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
There are three phases of clinical trials before a new drug can be sold and distributed, which are meant to ensure that the drug is safe, that it works, and that it works better than the existing course of treatment.
Typically, drug development takes several years before drug approval, and the fact that there are two phase 3 trials beginning seven months after the first COVID-19 case was confirmed in America reflects the amount of resources being devoted to vaccine development and the breathtaking speed at which it is happening.
By comparison, the vaccine with the shortest time to approval up to now has been the mumps vaccine, which took four years to develop.
Much of the speed comes from the ability to recruit participants to gather enough data and ensure the safety of the vaccines.
Moderna completed both a phase 1 trial that involved 45 participants and a phase 2 trial that involved 600 participants. AstraZeneca collapsed its phase 1 and 2 trials into one study that involved 1,090 participants.
In phase 3, the companies participating in Operation Warp Speed are required to enroll at least 30,000 volunteers, and AstraZeneca intends to recruit 50,000 participants.
Phase 1 results for these companies’ drugs both showed promise of safety and efficacy. Efficacy was assessed by comparing the immune response in the blood of volunteers to that of the blood of recovered COVID-19 patients.
Neither study found serious adverse reactions to the vaccines, although mild to moderate reactions, such as injection site pain, muscle aches, or fevers and chills, were not uncommon.
That’s to be expected and they are signs that the immune system is working. One person in the Moderna study developed a rash, but it subsided.
Aside from safety, the important result is the immune system’s response to the vaccine. Again, both vaccine trials showed promise.
The Moderna study tested three different doses of its vaccine to determine what dosage will be necessary for the final vaccine, and measured the response in two types of antibodies, binding and neutralizing, and in T-cell response.
Binding antibodies bind to the virus and assist other immune cells in destroying it, whereas neutralizing bodies, which are thought to be more effective, directly attack the virus.
T-cells are immune cells that can specifically seek out the virus, signal other immune cells, and attack the virus itself. Together, T-cells and antibodies make up two arms of the body’s acquired immune system.
Even at the lowest dose, the Moderna vaccine stimulated binding antibodies in all participants by Day 15 and exceeded the levels in convalescent serum by Day 36.
It took a second vaccination to elicit a neutralizing antibody response to the vaccine, but by Day 43, the activity of neutralizing antibodies was detected at levels similar to convalescent serum in all participants who received a second dose.
There was a T-cell response, showing one type of T-cell involving cell signaling, but the type of T-cell that directly attacks the virus was present only in low levels after the second dose.
The AstraZeneca vaccine measured neutralizing antibodies, and a single dose of it was able to elicit a response comparable to convalescent serum by Day 28, and a booster dose increased the antibody activity in all participants. This vaccine also elicited a robust T-cell presence by Day 14.
Together, these studies represent a great hope that a safe and effective vaccine may be on its way sooner rather than later. They both elicit an antibody response at the tested doses that are of similar concentration to convalescent serum, and the AstraZeneca vaccine also stimulated a cellular immune response that seems increasingly important to fighting off a SARS-CoV-2 infection.
The vaccines aren’t a done deal yet, however. Only the phase 3 trial can provide a definitive answer as to the efficacy of a vaccine.
It won’t be until fall at the earliest that the phase 3 trials will conclude, so the world will have to be patient for a little while longer, but if these results hold true, the effective end of the pandemic may be in sight.


dailysignal--2020-07-28--Are Lockdowns Necessary? What Data From 10 Countries Show

A new Heritage Foundation special report analyzes the COVID-19 responses of 10 countries , with varying levels of economic freedom , to better understand which policies might have been more effective than others .
The 10 countries we studied have taken vastly different approaches to handling COVID-19 with varying degrees of success .
> > > What ’ s the best way for America to reopen and return to business ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to figure that out .
So far , it has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more here .
The evidence suggests that full lockdowns , such as those implemented in Italy and Norway , are not as effective as the more targeted approaches taken in other countries , such as in South Korea and Iceland .
In fact , as we discuss , those two countries have fared considerably better than the United States has in handling COVID-19 without shutting down their economies .
Another key finding is that Australia and New Zealand , two neighboring countries with similar climates , have had similar outcomes regarding COVID-19 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to dealing with the virus .
In particular , New Zealand virtually locked down the entire country in the spring , while Australia took a less restrictive approach .
Yet , both countries have contained the virus at similar levels .
Specifically , Australia had 13,595 COVID-19 cases ( 0.0534 % of its population ) and 139 deaths ( 0.000546 % of its population ) , while New Zealand had 1,556 cases ( 0.0323 % of its population ) and 22 deaths ( 0.000457 % of its population ) .
However , New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to increase to 9.2 % by December , while Australia ’ s is expected to increase to 7.6 % over this same time period .
From a public health perspective , strict lockdowns can cause additional problems .
As 80 % of COVID cases do not require hospitalization , when people isolate at home upon contracting COVID-19 , they may infect their family members , including those who are at risk .
In fact , New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo and Broward County , Florida , Mayor Dale Holness have both noticed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , quite surprised , noting : “ If you notice , 18 % of the people came from nursing homes , less than 1 % came from jail or prison , 2 % came from the homeless population , 2 % from other congregate facilities , but 66 % of the people were at home , which is shocking to us.
” Two additional countries that took very different approaches to dealing with COVID-19—and experienced very different outcomes—are South Korea and Italy .
South Korea permitted much of its economy to remain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aggressive testing and isolating the infected , either via hospitals or isolation centers .
South Korea also engages in extensive digital contact tracing to notify people when they have come in contact with others having COVID-19 .
As of July 22 , South Korea ( population of more than 51 million ) has had 13,979 cases and 298 deaths , 0.0272 % and 0.000579 % of its population , respectively ) .
Italy , on the other hand , pursued a strict lockdown policy when the virus was spreading heavily in the spring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 60 million , comparable to South Korea .
As of July 22 , however , Italy has had 245,590 cases and 35,097 deaths ( 0.406 % and 0.058 % of its population , respectively ) , orders of magnitude higher than South Korea .
Maintaining a strong economy and protecting public health are not mutually exclusive .
And although many states here in the U.S. have pursued strict stay-at-home orders , our country has not done well from either perspective , currently having more than 4 million cases ( 1.26 % of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 0.0449 % of the population ) .
Thus , although it is impossible to control for all of the differences between countries , these figures rank the United States—despite having instituted stay-at-home orders—behind many of the other developed nations we examined .
Moreover , as of July 27 , with a first-quarter gross domestic product loss of 5 % , and a June unemployment rate of 11 % , the U.S. should develop a better approach .
For instance , maximum effort here in the U.S. should be concentrated on protecting those at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of American families .
Among the many countries we examined , our study notes that there are aspects of the South Korean approach that lawmakers can learn from .
When recently asked about the status of the battle with COVID-19 , Anthony Fauci , the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , said , “ We are certainly not at the end of the game , I ’ m not even sure we ’ re halfway through.
” As Heritage Foundation research has discussed , focusing on hot spots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , utilizing isolation centers to prevent the virus from spreading , taking advantage of contact tracing , and engaging in appropriate testing are policies lawmakers should consider in the coming months .
With these and other recommendations also suggested by The Heritage Foundation ’ s National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , we can be well-equipped to win the fight against this very dangerous enemy .

A new Heritage Foundation special report analyzes the COVID-19 responses of 10 countries, with varying levels of economic freedom, to better understand which policies might have been more effective than others.
Here’s what the report found.
The 10 countries we studied have taken vastly different approaches to handling COVID-19 with varying degrees of success.
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
The evidence suggests that full lockdowns, such as those implemented in Italy and Norway, are not as effective as the more targeted approaches taken in other countries, such as in South Korea and Iceland.
In fact, as we discuss, those two countries have fared considerably better than the United States has in handling COVID-19 without shutting down their economies.
Another key finding is that Australia and New Zealand, two neighboring countries with similar climates, have had similar outcomes regarding COVID-19, even though they took very different approaches to dealing with the virus.
In particular, New Zealand virtually locked down the entire country in the spring, while Australia took a less restrictive approach.
Yet, both countries have contained the virus at similar levels.
Specifically, Australia had 13,595 COVID-19 cases (0.0534% of its population) and 139 deaths (0.000546% of its population), while New Zealand had 1,556 cases (0.0323% of its population) and 22 deaths (0.000457% of its population). However, New Zealand’s unemployment level is forecast to increase to 9.2% by December, while Australia’s is expected to increase to 7.6% over this same time period.
From a public health perspective, strict lockdowns can cause additional problems.
As 80% of COVID cases do not require hospitalization, when people isolate at home upon contracting COVID-19, they may infect their family members, including those who are at risk.
In fact, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Broward County, Florida, Mayor Dale Holness have both noticed this phenomenon. Cuomo was, in fact, quite surprised, noting: “If you notice, 18% of the people came from nursing homes, less than 1% came from jail or prison, 2% came from the homeless population, 2% from other congregate facilities, but 66% of the people were at home, which is shocking to us.”
Two additional countries that took very different approaches to dealing with COVID-19—and experienced very different outcomes—are South Korea and Italy.
South Korea permitted much of its economy to remain open, choosing instead to engage in aggressive testing and isolating the infected, either via hospitals or isolation centers. South Korea also engages in extensive digital contact tracing to notify people when they have come in contact with others having COVID-19.
As of July 22, South Korea (population of more than 51 million) has had 13,979 cases and 298 deaths (0.0272% and 0.000579% of its population, respectively.)
Italy, on the other hand, pursued a strict lockdown policy when the virus was spreading heavily in the spring. The country has a population of 60 million, comparable to South Korea. As of July 22, however, Italy has had 245,590 cases and 35,097 deaths (0.406% and 0.058% of its population, respectively), orders of magnitude higher than South Korea.
Maintaining a strong economy and protecting public health are not mutually exclusive. And although many states here in the U.S. have pursued strict stay-at-home orders, our country has not done well from either perspective, currently having more than 4 million cases (1.26% of the population) and 148,490 COVID-19-related deaths (0.0449% of the population).
Thus, although it is impossible to control for all of the differences between countries, these figures rank the United States—despite having instituted stay-at-home orders—behind many of the other developed nations we examined.
Moreover, as of July 27, with a first quarter gross domestic product loss of 5%, and a June unemployment rate of 11%, the U.S. should develop a better approach.
For instance, maximum effort here in the U.S. should be concentrated on protecting those at risk, as well as the livelihoods of American families. Among the many countries we examined, our study notes that there are aspects of the South Korean approach that lawmakers can learn from.
When recently asked about the status of the battle with COVID-19, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said, “We are certainly not at the end of the game, I’m not even sure we’re halfway through.”
As Heritage Foundation research has discussed, focusing on hot spots, protecting the elderly and most vulnerable, utilizing isolation centers to prevent the virus from spreading, taking advantage of contact tracing, and engaging in appropriate testing are policies lawmakers should consider in the coming months.
With these and other recommendations also suggested by The Heritage Foundation’s National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, we can be well-equipped to win the fight against this very dangerous enemy.


dailysignal--2020-07-28--When It Comes to COVID-19 Deaths, Florida Is No ‘New York’

“ I just want to make it clear to the American public , ” proclaimed Dr. Deborah Birx , White House coronavirus task force head , on July 24 , “ What we have right now are essentially three New Yorks , with these three major states.
” The three states in question—Florida , Texas , and California—all have seen sharp increases in COVID-19 infections in recent weeks .
But when it comes to COVID-19-related deaths , there ’ s only one New York , as this chart shows .
It makes it clear that Florida ’ s coronavirus deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad as New York ’ s .
Despite rising cases and deaths , Florida ’ s COVID-19 mortalities per million residents remain below the national average , according to data accessed on July 27 from Worldometer .
It is well below death rates in New York City , New York state ( including New York City ) , New Jersey ( whose counties with the most deaths are New York City suburbs ) , Connecticut ( which similarly experienced large numbers of cases in suburban New York City counties ) , and Massachusetts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rate to reach that of New York City , deaths would have to rise from its current level of just over 6,000 to more than 83,000 .
To match New Jersey ’ s death rate would require total Florida deaths to eclipse 38,000 .
That ’ s not outside the realm of possibility , of course , but seems improbable .
And while Florida has seen its new infections climb throughout most of June and July , fresh data from the Florida Department of Health suggest that the rising tide of COVID-19 cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seven-day moving average of cases from June 29 through July 26 , during which infections reached record rates .
The chart shows the average daily count of cases over a rolling seven-day period .
The June 29 figure , for example , represents the average number of new cases reported between June 23 and June 29 , while the June 30 average is for cases reported between June 24 and June 30 , and so on .
That average rose from just under 7,000 cases on June 29 to a peak of nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days , the pace appears to have subsided , registering an average of 10,308 cases on July 26 .
While that is encouraging , caution is in order .
The pandemic has traced an uncertain course that has confounded predictive models .
And while the apparent plateauing of new cases may be a signal that rates have begun to decline , the number of new infections remains elevated and portends more hospitalizations and deaths during August .
Although Florida is no New York when it comes to COVID-19-related mortalities , its death count @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the state exceed 6,000 , with more than 2,500 of them occurring over the first four weeks of July .
That unfortunate trend will likely accelerate during August , since the number of newly infected seniors has risen significantly .
Here is a chart showing the seven-day moving average of new cases among the elderly between July 5 and July 26 .
In my previous Florida update , I observed that seniors made up a smaller percentageof new cases , but noted that it was a smaller percentage of a larger number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numbers have increased .
The seven-day averageof daily new cases among Florida ’ s elderly has risen from fewer than 900 on July 5 to nearly 1,600 on July 18 and still remains elevated .
That is an ominous sign .
A recent study found that COVID-19 mortality rates are near zero for children and younger adults but climb exponentially with age , reaching 24 % for people over 80 .
Florida ’ s experience confirms those estimates .
Seniors account for 82 % of the state ’ s COVID-19 deaths .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among seniors in July is more deaths in August .
State leaders recognize this trend and are working to reverse it .
They have adopted a measured approach to the contagion , in part because they have learned from New York ’ s errors , in part because front-line medical workers have discovered more effective ways to treat the illness , and in part because they have developed a strategy driven more by data than by fear .
That approach , which has focused on protecting those in nursing homes and helping the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in patients , also places trust in the good sense of its residents , businesses , and churches to practice appropriate behaviors .
That reliance on common sense can be misplaced , as the rise in cases among the elderly shows .
Seniors who ignore warnings from Florida Gov .
Ron DeSantis and other officials to avoid crowds , closed spaces , and close contact are endangering themselves .
The state ’ s response to the pandemic can improve .
It needs to do a much better job , for example , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has emerged nationally , and one that Birx and her team have bungled from the pandemic ’ s onset .
Their energies too often are channeled toward apocalyptic pronouncements that have generally proven as errant as the ceremonial first pitch Dr. Anthony Fauci threw on baseball ’ s opening day .
A fitting metaphor for a public health establishment that can ’ t seem to get it right .

“I just want to make it clear to the American public,” proclaimed Dr. Deborah Birx, White House coronavirus task force head, on July 24, “What we have right now are essentially three New Yorks, with these three major states.”
The three states in question—Florida, Texas, and California—all have seen sharp increases in COVID-19 infections in recent weeks.
But when it comes to COVID-19-related deaths, there’s only one New York, as this chart shows. It makes it clear that Florida’s coronavirus deaths per million residents is nowhere near as bad as New York’s.
Despite rising cases and deaths, Florida’s COVID-19 mortalities per million residents remain below the national average, according to data accessed on July 27 from Worldometer. It is well below death rates in New York City, New York state (including New York City), New Jersey (whose counties with the most deaths are New York City suburbs), Connecticut (which similarly experienced large numbers of cases in suburban New York City counties), and Massachusetts.
For Florida’s COVID-19 mortality rate to reach that of New York City, deaths would have to rise from its current level of just over 6,000 to more than 83,000. To match New Jersey’s death rate would require total Florida deaths to eclipse 38,000.
That’s not outside the realm of possibility, of course, but seems improbable.
And while Florida has seen its new infections climb throughout most of June and July, fresh data from the Florida Department of Health suggest that the rising tide of COVID-19 cases may have crested.
Here is a seven-day moving average of cases from June 29 through July 26, during which infections reached record rates.
The chart shows the average daily count of cases over a rolling seven-day period. The June 29 figure, for example, represents the average number of new cases reported between June 23 and June 29, while the June 30 average is for cases reported between June 24 and June 30, and so on.
That average rose from just under 7,000 cases on June 29 to a peak of nearly 12,000 during mid-July. But in recent days, the pace appears to have subsided, registering an average of 10,308 cases on July 26.
While that is encouraging, caution is in order. The pandemic has traced an uncertain course that has confounded predictive models. And while the apparent plateauing of new cases may be a signal that rates have begun to decline, the number of new infections remains elevated and portends more hospitalizations and deaths during August.
Although Florida is no New York when it comes to COVID-19-related mortalities, its death count is trending upwards. Total coronavirus deaths in the state exceed 6,000, with more than 2,500 of them occurring over the first four weeks of July.
That unfortunate trend will likely accelerate during August, since the number of newly infected seniors has risen significantly. Here is a chart showing the seven-day moving average of new cases among the elderly between July 5 and July 26.
In my previous Florida update, I observed that seniors made up a smaller percentageof new cases, but noted that it was a smaller percentage of a larger number. The chart above shows that those numbers have increased. The seven-day averageof daily new cases among Florida’s elderly has risen from fewer than 900 on July 5 to nearly 1,600 on July 18 and still remains elevated.
That is an ominous sign. A recent study found that COVID-19 mortality rates are near zero for children and younger adults but climb exponentially with age, reaching 24% for people over 80. Florida’s experience confirms those estimates. Seniors account for 82% of the state’s COVID-19 deaths.
The tragically inevitable consequence of more new cases among seniors in July is more deaths in August.
State leaders recognize this trend and are working to reverse it. They have adopted a measured approach to the contagion, in part because they have learned from New York’s errors, in part because front-line medical workers have discovered more effective ways to treat the illness, and in part because they have developed a strategy driven more by data than by fear.
That approach, which has focused on protecting those in nursing homes and helping the state’s hospitals accommodate a surge in patients, also places trust in the good sense of its residents, businesses, and churches to practice appropriate behaviors.
That reliance on common sense can be misplaced, as the rise in cases among the elderly shows. Seniors who ignore warnings from Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and other officials to avoid crowds, closed spaces, and close contact are endangering themselves.
The state’s response to the pandemic can improve. It needs to do a much better job, for example, of delivering prompt test results, a problem that has emerged nationally, and one that Birx and her team have bungled from the pandemic’s onset.
Their energies too often are channeled toward apocalyptic pronouncements that have generally proven as errant as the ceremonial first pitch Dr. Anthony Fauci threw on baseball’s opening day.
A fitting metaphor for a public health establishment that can’t seem to get it right.


dailysignal--2020-07-28--6 Big Takeaways From the Attorney General’s Capitol Hill Testimony

Attorney General William Barr announced a new investigation Tuesday while strongly defending the Justice Department ’ s actions in protecting the federal courthouse in Portland , Oregon .
Barr ’ s comments came in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee , a hearing that not only was partisan as expected but characterized by rudeness by the panel ’ s Democrats .
A Democrat would ask a question , but when Barr began to answer , he or she would interject , “ Reclaiming my time ” and continue speaking until the allotted time was up .
Despite this tactic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though he sometimes had to wait for time reserved for Republicans so that he could answer questions posed by Democrats .
Here are six highlights from the testimony of President Dnald Trump ’ s attorney general .
Barr announced that he had tasked a federal prosecutor from Texas with investigating the Obama administration ’ s “ unmasking ” of former Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and others connected with the Trump campaign in 2016 .
Barr told the committee that he assigned U.S. Attorney John Bash of the Western District of Texas to conduct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s ongoing look into the origins of the FBI ’ s Russia-Trump investigation .
Rep. Jim Jordan , R-Ohio , the top Republican on the committee , greeted this as breaking news , as did other Republican members .
In the course of gathering information in surveilling foreign sources , U.S. intelligence agents routinely intercept communications with U.S. citizens .
When that anonymous source is identified at the request of a government official , it ’ s called unmasking .
In and of itself that may not be illegal , but using the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could constitute an abuse of power .
Barr previously tasked Bash with this , but apparently that initially was part of the wider probe of the beginnings of the Russia-Trump matter by U.S. Attorney John Durham of Connecticut , rather than a separate investigation .
“ Thirty-eight people unmasked Michael Flynn ’ s name 49 times in a two-month timeframe , ” Jordan said .
“ Seven people at the Treasury Department unmasked Michael Flynn ’ s name.
” “ Is this an issue that Mr. Durham is looking into ?
” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ I asked another U.S. attorney to look into the issue of unmasking because of the high number of unmaskings and some that do not readily appear to have been in the line of normal business.
” Jordan : “ I want to be clear .
So , there is another investigation on that issue specifically going on at the Justice Department right now ?
” Jordan : “ So Mr. Durham is looking at how the whole Trump-Russia thing started .
You have another U.S. attorney [ investigating ] .
Can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s name ?
Is that something you ’ re comfortable with doing ?
” After some back and forth , Jordan said : “ I appreciate that .
That ’ s information the committee did not know.
” During his opening remarks , Jordan presented a video showing TV reporters proclaiming the peacefulness of the summer ’ s protests before cutting to a press conference with the family of David Dorn , 77 , a retired St. Louis police captain who was shot and killed by rioters .
The video then went to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , looted stores , broke windows , and tore down fences .
Jordan played the video days after Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler , D-N.Y. , declared on camera that Antifa , an extremist group believed to be behind much of the violence , was a “ myth.
” Later in the hearing , Rep. David Cicilline , D-R.I. , showed his own video of what he called peaceful protests that followed the police killing of a handcuffed black man , George Floyd , in Minneapolis , Minnesota .
Nadler accused Barr and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights in responding to the violence in some U.S. cities .
“ Others have lost sight of the importance of civil rights law , but now we see the full force of the federal government brought to bear against citizens demonstrating for the advancement of their own civil rights , ” Nadler said .
“ There is no precedent for the Department of Justice to actively seek out conflict with American citizens under such flimsy pretext or for such petty purposes.
” Barr replied that the attacks on the Mark O. Hatfield U.S @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to peaceful protests .
“ In the wake of George Floyd ’ s death , violent rioters and anarchists have hijacked legitimate protests to wreak senseless havoc and destruction on innocent victims , ” the attorney general told the committee .
“ The current situation in Portland is a telling example .
Every night for the past two months , a mob of hundreds of rioters has laid siege to the federal courthouse.
” 3 .
‘ OK to Try to Burn Down a Federal Court ?
’ Barr at times showed frustration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happen if someone attempted to burn down the nearby E. Barrett Prettyman U.S .
Courthouse in Washington , D.C. “ Federal courts are under attack .
Since when is it OK to try to burn down a federal court ?
” Barr said , adding : House Minority Whip Steve Scalise , R-La.
, asked about the weapons that rioters brought to the courthouse area in Portland .
“ As far as the weapons you mentioned , let me get this straight : My understanding is the people attacking the building had—among other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , sledgehammers , tasers , slingshots , rocks , bricks , lasers , ” Scalise said .
“ Have I missed anything ?
Does that cover it ?
” Barr filled in some blanks and repeated some wepaons .
“ You have missed some things , but that ’ s a good list .
They have these powerful slingshots with ball bearings that they shoot .
They ’ ve used pellet guns , ” Barr said .
“ Those projectiles have penetrated marshals to the bone .
They use the lasers to blind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if they can get the fire inside or through the windows .
They start fires along the outside of the courthouse .
When the marshals come out to try to deal with a fire , they are assaulted.
” Later in the hearing , Rep. Doug Collins , R-Ga. , asked if the courthouse question would extend to the U.S. Capitol , where Congress goes to work .
“ Do you think this body right here would rise up if they decided to go and paint the Capitol building ?
” Collins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this side would .
The other side , I ’ m not so sure .
It may be a ‘ peaceful protest ’ to burn down the Capitol .
Maybe we ’ re back to 1812 again.
” British troops set fire to the White House , but not the Capitol , during the War of 1812 .
Rep. Steve Cohen , D-Tenn. , has earned a reputation for being a rhetorical bomb thrower , and didn ’ t disappoint at the hearing .
Cohen called both for Barr ’ s impeachment and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the jailhouse death of financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein .
Cohen said the word “ conveniently ” in describing Epstein ’ s death , as if to question whether it was really a suicide .
“ You ’ ve gone through the Fifth Amendment and just negated it , and the 10th Amendment , which leaves general policing to law enforcement , to the states , has been forgotten , ” Cohen said .
“ Maybe what happened was your secret police were poorly trained , ” he told Barr @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prisons guards were poorly trained and allowed the most notorious inmate in our nation ’ s last several years—Jeffrey Epstein—to conveniently commit suicide .
Sad.
” Cohen invoked the name of Rep. John Lewis , D-Ga. , a civil rights icon who died July 17 and whose body at the time was lying in state in the Capitol Rotunda .
“ Mr .
Barr , John Lewis said to us , ‘ If not me , who ?
If not now , when ?
’ ” Cohen said .
“ That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which would require this committee to investigate your conduct as attorney general and determine whether you should be impeached.
” Nadler also accused Barr of “ aiding and abetting ” Trump as head of the Justice Department .
“ Your tenure has been marked by a persistent war against the department ’ s professional corps in an apparent attempt to secure favors for the president , ” Nadler said .
“ In your time at the department , you have aided and abetted the worst failings of the president.
” But Barr pushed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he is somehow a patsy for Trump .
“ The rule of law is , in essence , that we have one rule for everybody , ” Barr said .
“ If you apply one rule to A , the same rule applies to B. I felt we didn ’ t have this previously at the department .
We had strayed.
” This was a gentle reference to the Justice Department during the eight years of Barack Obama ’ s presidency .
Barr added : No one offered an example .
As for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of veteran GOP operative Roger Stone , whose prison sentence was commuted recently by Trump , and retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn .
The Justice Department dropped the case against Flynn that arose from the FBI ’ s Russia-Trump probe .
“ Now , you say I help the president ’ s friends .
The cases that are cited , the Stone case and the Flynn case , were both cases where I determined that some intervention was necessary to rectify the rule of law , to make sure people are treated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The attorney general took a somewhat different approach to Stone than Trump has , saying he wanted to see Stone go to jail , but with a reasonable sentence .
“ Stone was prosecuted under me .
I said all along , I thought that was a righteous prosecution .
I thought he should go to jail and I thought the judge ’ s sentence was correct , ” Barr said .
“ But , the line prosecutors were trying to advocate for a sentence that was more than twice what anyone else @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Rep. Zoe Lofgren , D-Calif. , who attended the hearing remotely , complained that the Justice Department wasn ’ t working with local law enforcement .
She also said those demonstrating in Portland were “ mostly nonviolent ” and mischaracterized which federal personnel are deployed there .
“ It ’ s one thing to fight crime with joint task forces .
That involves the cooperation of state and local officials , ” Lofgren said .
“ But the governor of Oregon and the mayor of Portland have asked that the federal troops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in reverse proportion .
People are showing up because the troops are there .
So many of them , I would say most of them , are nonviolent.
” The federal government has not sent any military troops into Portland , only civilian law enforcement officers and agents from the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security assigned to protect federal buildings .
“ If local elected officials , mayors and city councils and governors , did their jobs and kept the peace , would it even be necessary for federal law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first place ?
” Chabot asked .
“ No .
That is exactly the point , ” Barr said , adding :

Attorney General William Barr announced a new investigation Tuesday while strongly defending the Justice Department’s actions in protecting the federal courthouse in Portland, Oregon.
Barr’s comments came in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, a hearing that not only was partisan as expected but characterized by rudeness by the panel’s Democrats.
A Democrat would ask a question, but when Barr began to answer, he or she would interject, “Reclaiming my time” and continue speaking until the allotted time was up.
Despite this tactic, Barr managed to make several points, though he sometimes had to wait for time reserved for Republicans so that he could answer questions posed by Democrats.
Here are six highlights from the testimony of President Dnald Trump’s attorney general.
1. New Probe of ‘Unmasking’
Barr announced that he had tasked a federal prosecutor from Texas with investigating the Obama administration’s “unmasking” of former Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and others connected with the Trump campaign in 2016.
Barr told the committee that he assigned U.S. Attorney John Bash of the Western District of Texas to conduct the probe separately from another prosecutor’s ongoing look into the origins of the FBI’s Russia-Trump investigation.
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, the top Republican on the committee, greeted this as breaking news, as did other Republican members.
In the course of gathering information in surveilling foreign sources, U.S. intelligence agents routinely intercept communications with U.S. citizens.
When that anonymous source is identified at the request of a government official, it’s called unmasking. In and of itself that may not be illegal, but using the person’s identity for political ends could constitute an abuse of power.
Barr previously tasked Bash with this, but apparently that initially was part of the wider probe of the beginnings of the Russia-Trump matter by U.S. Attorney John Durham of Connecticut, rather than a separate investigation.
“Thirty-eight people unmasked Michael Flynn’s name 49 times in a two-month timeframe,” Jordan said. “Seven people at the Treasury Department unmasked Michael Flynn’s name.”
“Is this an issue that Mr. Durham is looking into?” the ranking member then asked.
Barr responded: “I asked another U.S. attorney to look into the issue of unmasking because of the high number of unmaskings and some that do not readily appear to have been in the line of normal business.”
Jordan: “I want to be clear. So, there is another investigation on that issue specifically going on at the Justice Department right now?”
“Yes,” Barr said.
Jordan: “So Mr. Durham is looking at how the whole Trump-Russia thing started. You have another U.S. attorney [investigating]. Can you give us that U.S. attorney’s name? Is that something you’re comfortable with doing?”
Barr: “John Bash of Texas.”
After some back and forth, Jordan said: “I appreciate that. That’s information the committee did not know.”
2. Video of ‘Peaceful Protests’
During his opening remarks, Jordan presented a video showing TV reporters proclaiming the peacefulness of the summer’s protests before cutting to a press conference with the family of David Dorn, 77, a retired St. Louis police captain who was shot and killed by rioters.
THE FULL VIDEO CHAIRMAN NADLER DOESN'T WANT YOU TO SEE!
Why are you scared of the truth, @RepJerryNadler?
RT to make sure he sees it! https://t.co/IZ9o6Dwk8G — House Judiciary GOP (@JudiciaryGOP) July 28, 2020
The video then went to mass riots in which participants set fires, looted stores, broke windows, and tore down fences.
Jordan played the video days after Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., declared on camera that Antifa, an extremist group believed to be behind much of the violence, was a “myth.”
Later in the hearing, Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., showed his own video of what he called peaceful protests that followed the police killing of a handcuffed black man, George Floyd, in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
3. ‘Cannot Reasonably Be Called Protest’
Nadler accused Barr and the Justice Department of violating Americans’ civil rights in responding to the violence in some U.S. cities.
“Others have lost sight of the importance of civil rights law, but now we see the full force of the federal government brought to bear against citizens demonstrating for the advancement of their own civil rights,” Nadler said. “There is no precedent for the Department of Justice to actively seek out conflict with American citizens under such flimsy pretext or for such petty purposes.”
Barr replied that the attacks on the Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse in Portland had no resemblance to peaceful protests.
“In the wake of George Floyd’s death, violent rioters and anarchists have hijacked legitimate protests to wreak senseless havoc and destruction on innocent victims,” the attorney general told the committee. “The current situation in Portland is a telling example. Every night for the past two months, a mob of hundreds of rioters has laid siege to the federal courthouse.”
Barr continued:
The rioters have come equipped for a fight, armed with powerful slingshots, tasers, sledgehammers, saws, knives, rifles, and explosive devices. Inside the courthouse are a relatively small number of federal personnel charged with the defense of mission to protect the courthouse. What unfolds nightly around the courthouse cannot reasonably be called protest. It is by any objective measure an assault on the government of the United States. As elected officials of the federal government, every member of this committee, regardless of your political views and your feelings about the Trump administration, should condemn violence against federal officers and the destruction of federal property.
3. ‘OK to Try to Burn Down a Federal Court?’
Barr at times showed frustration, at one point asking what would happen if someone attempted to burn down the nearby E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse in Washington, D.C.
“Federal courts are under attack. Since when is it OK to try to burn down a federal court?” Barr said, adding:
If someone went down the street to the Prettyman Courthouse, that beautiful courthouse we have right at the bottom of the hill, and started breaking windows and started firing industrial-grade fireworks in to start a fire, [throwing] kerosene balloons in [to] start fires in the court, is that OK?
Is that OK? No, the U.S. Marshals have a duty to stop that and defend the courthouse. And that is what we are doing in Portland. We are at the courthouse defending the courthouse. We are not out looking for trouble.
House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., asked about the weapons that rioters brought to the courthouse area in Portland.
“As far as the weapons you mentioned, let me get this straight: My understanding is the people attacking the building had—among other things—rifles, explosives, knives, saws, sledgehammers, tasers, slingshots, rocks, bricks, lasers,” Scalise said. “Have I missed anything? Does that cover it?”
Barr filled in some blanks and repeated some wepaons.
“You have missed some things, but that’s a good list. They have these powerful slingshots with ball bearings that they shoot. They’ve used pellet guns,” Barr said. “Those projectiles have penetrated marshals to the bone. They use the lasers to blind the marshals. They do start fires, if they can get the fire inside or through the windows. They start fires along the outside of the courthouse. When the marshals come out to try to deal with a fire, they are assaulted.”
Later in the hearing, Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., asked if the courthouse question would extend to the U.S. Capitol, where Congress goes to work.
“Do you think this body right here would rise up if they decided to go and paint the Capitol building?” Collins sasked.
Barr responded: “This body, I’m not sure.”
Collins: “I think this side would. The other side, I’m not so sure. It may be a ‘peaceful protest’ to burn down the Capitol. Maybe we’re back to 1812 again.”
British troops set fire to the White House and the unfinished Capitol during the War of 1812.
4. Impeachment and Jeffrey Epstein
Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., has earned a reputation for being a rhetorical bomb thrower, and didn’t disappoint at the hearing. Cohen called both for Barr’s impeachment and for seemingly to blame the attorney general for the jailhouse death of financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Cohen said the word “conveniently” in describing Epstein’s death, as if to question whether it was really a suicide.
“You’ve gone through the Fifth Amendment and just negated it, and the 10th Amendment, which leaves general policing to law enforcement, to the states, has been forgotten,” Cohen said.
“Maybe what happened was your secret police were poorly trained,” he told Barr. “Just like your Bureau of Prisons guards were poorly trained and allowed the most notorious inmate in our nation’s last several years—Jeffrey Epstein—to conveniently commit suicide. Sad.”
Cohen invoked the name of Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., a civil rights icon who died July 17 and whose body at the time was lying in state in the Capitol Rotunda.
“Mr. Barr, John Lewis said to us, ‘If not me, who? If not now, when?’” Cohen said. “That’s why I introduced [a measure] which would require this committee to investigate your conduct as attorney general and determine whether you should be impeached.”
5. ‘What Enemies Have I Indicted?‘
Nadler also accused Barr of “aiding and abetting” Trump as head of the Justice Department.
“Your tenure has been marked by a persistent war against the department’s professional corps in an apparent attempt to secure favors for the president,” Nadler said. “In your time at the department, you have aided and abetted the worst failings of the president.”
But Barr pushed back against such claims by Democrats that he is somehow a patsy for Trump.
“The rule of law is, in essence, that we have one rule for everybody,” Barr said. “If you apply one rule to A, the same rule applies to B. I felt we didn’t have this previously at the department. We had strayed.”
This was a gentle reference to the Justice Department during the eight years of Barack Obama’s presidency. Barr added:
I would just ask people: I’m supposedly pushing the president’s enemies and helping his friends. What enemies have I indicted? Can you point to one indictment that has been under the department that you feel is unmerited, that you feel violates the rule of law? One indictment?
No one offered an example.
As for presidential friends, Barr addressed the cases of veteran GOP operative Roger Stone, whose prison sentence was commuted recently by Trump, and retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. The Justice Department dropped the case against Flynn that arose from the FBI’s Russia-Trump probe.
“Now, you say I help the president’s friends. The cases that are cited, the Stone case and the Flynn case, were both cases where I determined that some intervention was necessary to rectify the rule of law, to make sure people are treated the same,” Barr said.
The attorney general took a somewhat different approach to Stone than Trump has, saying he wanted to see Stone go to jail, but with a reasonable sentence.
“Stone was prosecuted under me. I said all along, I thought that was a righteous prosecution. I thought he should go to jail and I thought the judge’s sentence was correct,” Barr said. “But, the line prosecutors were trying to advocate for a sentence that was more than twice what anyone else in a similar position had ever served.”
Barr continued:
This is a 67-year-old man, first-time offender, no violence. They were trying to put him in jail for seven to nine years. I wasn’t going to advocate that, because that is not the rule of law. I agree the president’s friends don’t deserve special breaks. But they also don’t deserve to be treated more harshly than other people.
6. Local Law Enforcement ‘Do Their Job’
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., who attended the hearing remotely, complained that the Justice Department wasn’t working with local law enforcement. She also said those demonstrating in Portland were “mostly nonviolent” and mischaracterized which federal personnel are deployed there.
“It’s one thing to fight crime with joint task forces. That involves the cooperation of state and local officials,” Lofgren said. “But the governor of Oregon and the mayor of Portland have asked that the federal troops leave because the reaction has actually been in reverse proportion. People are showing up because the troops are there. So many of them, I would say most of them, are nonviolent.”
The federal government has not sent any military troops into Portland, only civilian law enforcement officers and agents from the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security assigned to protect federal buildings.
Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, asked about local leaders.
“If local elected officials, mayors and city councils and governors, did their jobs and kept the peace, would it even be necessary for federal law enforcement personnel to be there in the first place?” Chabot asked.
“No. That is exactly the point,” Barr said, adding:
Look around the country. Even where there are these kinds of riots occurring, we haven’t had to put in the reinforcements we have in Portland because the state and local law enforcement does their job and won’t allow rioters to just come and physically assault the courthouse. In Portland, that’s not the case. … If the state would come in and keep peace on the streets in front of the courthouse, we wouldn’t need additional people at the courthouse.
This report has been corrected to say that British troops set fire to both the White House and the Capitol during the War of 1812.


dailysignal--2020-07-30--7 Woke Rebellions in America’s Newsrooms

After more than 280 reporters and editors at The Wall Street Journal signed a stinging letter to the publisher last week criticizing the newspaper ’ s conservative opinion pages , the editorial board fired back : “ We are not The New York Times.
” The previous month , the Times had its own staff revolt via Twitter after its opinion editors dared to run an op-ed about civil unrest by a Republican senator .
Newsroom staff revolts seem to be spreading across media outlets in the United States .
“ I think these newsroom debates existed before , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publicly prior to social media , ” Aileen Gallagher , associate journalism professor at Syracuse University and a former senior editor at New York magazine , told The Daily Signal .
She added : “ The conversations in newsrooms are mirroring the conversations that we are having in a larger society .
What you see as the public pushing back questioning norms , that is happening inside of newsrooms.
” Industry layoffs have made way for younger and more diverse news operations , while opinion pages tend to be more old guard , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to both the news and opinion sides , she said : Here are seven big cases of newsroom revolts .
An internal battle between the news and opinion sides of The Wall Street Journal leaked out last week , and the newspaper ’ s editorial board ran an editorial assuring readers it wouldn ’ t fall to “ cancel culture.
” Earlier last week , more than 280 reporters and editors had signed a letter to the Journal ’ s publisher , Almar Latour , complaining about the newspaper ’ s editorials and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news side complained about was an op-ed by Vice President Mike Pence on COVID-19 and an op-ed by the Manhattan Institute ’ s Heather Mac Donald on the issue of race and policing .
“ Opinion ’ s lack of fact-checking and transparency , and its apparent disregard for evidence , undermine our readers ’ trust and our ability to gain credibility with sources , ” the staff letter says .
The rift has been known to exist for some time , Gallagher said .
“ At The Wall Street Journal , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news side and the opinion side , ” Gallagher said , later adding : “ You have The Wall Street Journal on one continuum , where I think the reporters are clearly more progressive than the opinion pages are.
” Mac Donald ’ s column questioned the charge of systemic racism , and the letter from newsroom employees said that “ employees of color publicly spoke out about the pain this Opinion piece caused them during company-held discussions surrounding diversity initiatives.
” The letter added that if the Journal “ is serious about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a bare minimum it should raise Opinion ’ s standards so that misinformation about racism isn ’ t published.
” This message is part of a bigger narrative pushed by the dominant media , said Tim Graham , director of media analysis at the Media Research Center , a conservative media watchdog group .
“ It ’ s one thing to want to ‘ educate ’ the country on racial misunderstandings .
It ’ s another to beat the country over the head about ‘ systemic racism ’ and ‘ white fragility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Signal in an email .
“ At a time in which the media-consuming public is seeing a very divergent and ideological press , this is going to exacerbate the issue.
” Latour , chief executive of Dow Jones & Co. and publisher of the Journal , issued a statement striking a conciliatory tone : The case that possibly garnered the most attention was at The New York Times , where the newspaper ’ s writers objected on Twitter to an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton , R-Ark.
, calling for the use of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in American cities .
Times writers said the June 3 op-ed , headlined “ Call in the Troops , ” put them in danger .
Cotton , an Army combat veteran , noted that military forces were used to stop domestic unrest in the past , including in his home state when President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops in 1957 to enforce desegregation of Central High School in Little Rock , Arkansas .
The fallout included the resignation of James Bennett , the Times ’ editorial page editor .
The Washington Post ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had a generational clash with staff , in large part over social media but also over issues of diversity , according to one national competitor , The New York Times .
The Times described Baron , 65 , as an old school journalist who , along with other editors , dissuaded celebrated reporter-editor Bob Woodward from outing Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 when the appeals judge was facing a contentious Senate confirmation battle for a Supreme Court seat .
Kavanaugh , who had been part of independent counsel Kenneth Starr ’ s team investigating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reportedly was a source for Woodward ’ s 1999 book , “ Shadow : Five Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate.
” However , Kavanugh denied it publicly .
Not running the Kavanaugh story upset several progressive Post staffers , the Times reported .
Baron was not acting as a Kavanaugh supporter , but as an institutionalist who believed confidential sources must be protected , the Times reported .
Separately , several black staffers at the Post used Twitter to express disappointment at the newspaper on racial issues .
Their tweets came after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ newspaper .
Baron isn ’ t fond of news reporters using Twitter , the Times wrote , describing him as “ standing athwart Twitter yelling , ‘ Stop !
’ and nobody ’ s listening.
” ( The phrase echoed National Review founder William F. Buckley ’ s famous 1955 description of his new conservative magazine as “ standing athwart history yelling , Stop.
” ) An internal survey of reporters in April resulted in a memo describing Post management as “ ill-equipped to deal with social media in the modern era.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ managers are more forgiving of mistakes “ by white men and newsroom stars than they are of women , minorities and less high-profile reporters.
” The Washington Post Newspaper Guild , the union that represents newsroom employees , assembled 32 pages of concerns from current and former Post employees of color .
Black staffers want a Twitter campaign to draw attention to their concerns , the Times reported .
To a lesser extent , the rise of unionized newsrooms have prompted more outspoken newsroom employees , Syracuse University ’ s Gallagher said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ve seen a move toward unionization in the media , ” Gallagher said .
“ Certainly legacy newsrooms , New York Times , Wall Street Journal , have been unionized for several years .
But that move toward unionization has emboldened and empowered newsroom employees to speak up to management in a way that I don ’ t think they did in the past.
” The Los Angeles Times ’ executive editor , Norman Pearlstine , appears likely to keep his job despite a reported “ internal uprising ” over a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and angst over coverage of unrest in the aftermath of George Floyd ’ s killing in police custody in Minneapolis .
The LA Times has covered the protests and riots across the country .
In an internal Slack exchange that went public , Times film reporter Sonaiya Kelley said the newspaper focused too much on looting and argued : “ We can ’ t constantly pander to our primarily white audience with stories like this that affirm their biases.
” Pearlstine pledged a formal review of how the newspaper characterized the protests .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ members , and , in writing style , to capitalize the “ B ” in “ Black Americans.
” “ On a purely numerical basis , minority journalists can still complain about their representation , ” Graham said .
“ But what ’ s happening in these newsrooms isn ’ t a mere employment issue .
It ’ s obviously an ideological revolution .
These in-house lobbying groups are demanding ‘ more muscular ’ reporting on racism and inequality .
That sounds like more leftist crusading.
” The Philadelphia Inquirer ’ s executive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the top editing post in June after the newspaper published an architecture column with the headline “ Buildings Matter , Too.
” Many on the Inquirer ’ s staff apparently found the headline offensive or insensitive .
The piece argued , in part , that rioting causes urban decay and this particularly harms some African Americans by damaging neighborhoods and making development and economic opportunity less likely .
The Inquirer issued an apology and said : “ The headline offensively riffed on the Black Lives Matter movement , and suggested an equivalence between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of black Americans .
That is unacceptable.
” As editor , Wischnowski was credited with doubling the number of minorities on the paper ’ s editorial staff in the past four years .
Wischnowski had worked for the Inquirer for 20 years , 10 of them as executive editor .
He also was the newspaper ’ s senior vice president before his departure .
WNYC , the most popular public radio station in the nation , faced its own revolt this year , The New York Times reported .
It began last year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WNYC ’ s parent organization , hired Iranian immigrant Goli Sheikhoeslami , who had worked at both Chicago public radio and Condé Nast , as chief executive and Vox Media ’ s Andrew Golis , who is white , as chief content officer .
The new bosses had “ listening sessions ” with staff and asked who should be the editor in chief leading the daily news coverage .
Staff responded that it should be a woman of color .
But , the Times reported , employees were “ blindsided ” and “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the first female editor of the San Francisco Chronicle , was hired as editor in chief .
She is white .
In a July 1 letter that eventually gained 145 signatures , WNYC staff told top management that they felt betrayed .
With this major exception , most of the newsroom revolts have hit traditional newspapers , not broadcast and cable outlets .
“ With cable news outlets , I think there is less ideological difference between the news and operations sides , ” Gallagher said , adding : “ If you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probably more equally aligned .
There is a big difference between local and national broadcast [ outlets ] .
” She said the bulk of broadcast reporters work in local news , where blatant opinion is rare .
“ On local news , there is just not that much opinion , ” Gallagher said .
“ There is sometimes commentary , but it ’ s not that common .
People aren ’ t looking to their local news broadcast for opinion .
They ’ re mostly looking to see what ’ s going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pittsburgh Post-Gazette , a staff clash with management occurred over what reporters and photographers may cover the demonstrations and riots .
The confrontation pitted top editor Keith Burris against much of the staff .
The Post-Gazette is among the last major dailies still under family ownership ; most newspapers are owned by chains .
Post-Gazette reporter Alexis Johnson scoffed May 31 on Twitter at the idea that protesters in Pittsburgh were destructive or looting .
After this , three editors informed Johnson that she could not cover the protests after having expressed an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Post-Gazette photographer Michael Santiago tweeted June 3 in support of Johnson .
Editors also told Santiago that he couldn ’ t cover the protests .
The Newspaper Guild of Pittsburgh , the union that represents Post-Gazette employees , called for readers to send letters demanding that Johnson and Santiago , who are both black , be allowed to cover the unrest .
More than 4,000 letters flooded the newspaper , including letters from Sen. Bob Casey , D-Pa. , and Pennsylvania Lt. Gov .
John Fetterman , also a Democrat .
More @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 160 , made social media posts in favor of Johnson and Santiago , according to the union .
Burris , the newspaper ’ s editor , responded in a June 10 column that denounced “ a propaganda campaign against this newspaper , ” writing :

After more than 280 reporters and editors at The Wall Street Journal signed a stinging letter to the publisher last week criticizing the newspaper’s conservative opinion pages, the editorial board fired back: “We are not The New York Times.”
The previous month, the Times had its own staff revolt via Twitter after its opinion editors dared to run an op-ed about civil unrest by a Republican senator.
Newsroom staff revolts seem to be spreading across media outlets in the United States.
“I think these newsroom debates existed before, but they didn’t play out so publicly prior to social media,” Aileen Gallagher, associate journalism professor at Syracuse University and a former senior editor at New York Magazine, told The Daily Signal.
She added: “The conversations in newsrooms are mirroring the conversations that we are having in a larger society. What you see as the public pushing back questioning norms, that is happening inside of newsrooms.”
Industry layoffs have made way for younger and more diverse news operations, while opinion pages tend to be more old guard, Gallagher said. Social media applies pressure to both the news and opinion sides, she said:
The opinion columnists have much more leeway to say whatever they want on social media than the news reporters do. Yet the news reporters feel pressure from their organizations to be active on social media. What makes for good engagement on social media? It’s not taking a just-the-facts AP [Associated Press] approach to everything. It’s conversation. It’s voice. The news side of things felt that they were working at a disadvantage from the opinion side.
Here are seven big cases of newsroom revolts.
1. WSJ: News vs. Opinion
An internal battle between the news and opinion sides of The Wall Street Journal leaked out last week, and the newspaper’s editorial board ran an editorial assuring readers it wouldn’t fall to “cancel culture.”
The Journal editorial read:
It was probably inevitable that the wave of progressive cancel culture would arrive at the Journal, as it has at nearly every other cultural, business, academic and journalistic institution. But we are not The New York Times. Most Journal reporters attempt to cover the news fairly and down the middle, and our opinion pages offer an alternative to the uniform progressive views that dominate nearly all of today’s media.
Earlier last week, more than 280 reporters and editors had signed a letter to the Journal’s publisher, Almar Latour, complaining about the newspaper’s editorials and opinion pieces. Among the examples the news side complained about was an op-ed by Vice President Mike Pence on COVID-19 and an op-ed by the Manhattan Institute’s Heather Mac Donald on the issue of race and policing.
“Opinion’s lack of fact-checking and transparency, and its apparent disregard for evidence, undermine our readers’ trust and our ability to gain credibility with sources,” the staff letter says.
The rift has been known to exist for some time, Gallagher said.
“At The Wall Street Journal, there has certainly been long-standing tensions between the news side and the opinion side,” Gallagher said, later adding: “You have The Wall Street Journal on one continuum, where I think the reporters are clearly more progressive than the opinion pages are.”
Mac Donald’s column questioned the charge of systemic racism, and the letter from newsroom employees said that “employees of color publicly spoke out about the pain this Opinion piece caused them during company-held discussions surrounding diversity initiatives.”
The letter added that if the Journal “is serious about better supporting its employees of color, at a bare minimum it should raise Opinion’s standards so that misinformation about racism isn’t published.”
This message is part of a bigger narrative pushed by the dominant media, said Tim Graham, director of media analysis at the Media Research Center, a conservative media watchdog group.
“It’s one thing to want to ‘educate’ the country on racial misunderstandings. It’s another to beat the country over the head about ‘systemic racism’ and ‘white fragility,’” Graham told The Daily Signal in an email. “At a time in which the media-consuming public is seeing a very divergent and ideological press, this is going to exacerbate the issue.”
Latour, chief executive of Dow Jones & Co. and publisher of the Journal, issued a statement striking a conciliatory tone:
We cherish the unique contributions of our Pulitzer Prize-winning Opinion section to the Journal and to societal debate in the U.S. and beyond. Our readership today is bigger than ever and our opinion and news teams are crucial to that success. We look forward to building on our continued and shared commitment to great journalism at The Wall Street Journal.
2. New York Times and Tom Cotton
The case that possibly garnered the most attention was at The New York Times, where the newspaper’s writers objected on Twitter to an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., calling for the use of federal troops to quell looting and violence in American cities.
Times writers said the June 3 op-ed, headlined “Call in the Troops,” put them in danger. Cotton, an Army combat veteran, noted that military forces were used to stop domestic unrest in the past, including in his home state when President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops in 1957 to enforce desegregation of Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas.
The fallout included the resignation of James Bennett, the Times’ editorial page editor.
3. Washington Post Editor ‘Athwart Twitter’
The Washington Post’s executive editor, Martin Baron, has had a generational clash with staff, in large part over social media but also over issues of diversity, according to one national competitor, The New York Times.
The Times described Baron, 65, as an old school journalist who, along with other editors, dissuaded celebrated reporter-editor Bob Woodward from outing Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 when the appeals judge was facing a contentious Senate confirmation battle for a Supreme Court seat.
Kavanaugh, who had been part of independent counsel Kenneth Starr’s team investigating President Bill Clinton in the mid-1990s, reportedly was a source for Woodward’s 1999 book, “Shadow: Five Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate.” However, Kavanaugh denied it publicly.
Not running the Kavanaugh story upset several progressive Post staffers, the Times reported. Baron was not acting as a Kavanaugh supporter, but as an institutionalist who believed confidential sources must be protected, the Times reported.
Separately, several black staffers at the Post used Twitter to express disappointment at the newspaper on racial issues. Their tweets came after several high-profile former employees publicly criticized the newspaper.
Baron isn’t fond of news reporters using Twitter, the Times wrote, describing him as “standing athwart Twitter yelling, ‘Stop!’ and nobody’s listening.” (The phrase echoed National Review founder William F. Buckley’s famous 1955 description of his new conservative magazine as “standing athwart history yelling, ‘Stop.’”)
An internal survey of reporters in April resulted in a memo describing Post management as “ill-equipped to deal with social media in the modern era.” The memo said newsroom staffers believed that managers are more forgiving of mistakes “by white men and newsroom stars than they are of women, minorities and less high-profile reporters.”
I've obtained a copy of the "Recommendations for Social Media Use" @washingtonpost National Editor Steven Ginsberg sought from a group of staffers. It's an X-ray of the issues I wrote about this week, and you can read the full thing here: https://t.co/VKHRyyzMcN pic.twitter.com/OMoL9TckTl — Ben Smith (@benyt) June 8, 2020
The Washington Post Newspaper Guild, the union that represents newsroom employees, assembled 32 pages of concerns from current and former Post employees of color. Black staffers want a Twitter campaign to draw attention to their concerns, the Times reported.
To a lesser extent, the rise of unionized newsrooms have prompted more outspoken newsroom employees, Syracuse University’s Gallagher said.
“In the past five years, we’ve seen a move toward unionization in the media,” Gallagher said. “Certainly legacy newsrooms, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, have been unionized for several years. But that move toward unionization has emboldened and empowered newsroom employees to speak up to management in a way that I don’t think they did in the past.”
4. Los Angeles Times’ Internal Uprising
The Los Angeles Times’ executive editor, Norman Pearlstine, appears likely to keep his job despite a reported “internal uprising” over a lack of minorities on the news staff and angst over coverage of unrest in the aftermath of George Floyd’s killing in police custody in Minneapolis.
The LA Times has covered the protests and riots across the country. In an internal Slack exchange that went public, Times film reporter Sonaiya Kelley said the newspaper focused too much on looting and argued: “We can’t constantly pander to our primarily white audience with stories like this that affirm their biases.”
Pearlstine pledged a formal review of how the newspaper characterized the protests. He promised to hire more black staff members, and, in writing style, to capitalize the “B” in “Black Americans.”
In-house lobbying creates a media bias problem, Graham said.
“On a purely numerical basis, minority journalists can still complain about their representation,” Graham said. “But what’s happening in these newsrooms isn’t a mere employment issue. It’s obviously an ideological revolution. These in-house lobbying groups are demanding ‘more muscular’ reporting on racism and inequality. That sounds like more leftist crusading.”
5. A Philadelphia Inquirer Resignation Over ‘Buildings’
The Philadelphia Inquirer’s executive editor, Stan Wischnowski, resigned from the top editing post in June after the newspaper published an architecture column with the headline “Buildings Matter, Too.”
Many on the Inquirer’s staff apparently found the headline offensive or insensitive. The piece argued, in part, that rioting causes urban decay and this particularly harms some African Americans by damaging neighborhoods and making development and economic opportunity less likely.
The Inquirer issued an apology and said: “The headline offensively riffed on the Black Lives Matter movement, and suggested an equivalence between the loss of buildings and the lives of black Americans. That is unacceptable.”
As editor, Wischnowski was credited with doubling the number of minorities on the paper’s editorial staff in the past four years.
Wischnowski had worked for the Inquirer for 20 years, 10 of them as executive editor. He also was the newspaper’s senior vice president before his departure.
6. Top Public Radio Station
WNYC, the most popular public radio station in the nation, faced its own revolt this year, The New York Times reported.
It began last year, when New York Public Radio, WNYC’s parent organization, hired Iranian immigrant Goli Sheikhoeslami, who had worked at both Chicago public radio and Condé Nast, as chief executive and Vox Media’s Andrew Golis, who is white, as chief content officer.
The new bosses had “listening sessions” with staff and asked who should be the editor in chief leading the daily news coverage. Staff responded that it should be a woman of color.
But, the Times reported, employees were “blindsided” and “befuddled” June 11 when Audrey Cooper, the first female editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, was hired as editor in chief. She is white.
In a July 1 letter that eventually gained 145 signatures, WNYC staff told top management that they felt betrayed.
With this major exception, most of the newsroom revolts have hit traditional newspapers, not broadcast and cable outlets.
“With cable news outlets, I think there is less ideological difference between the news and operations sides,” Gallagher said, adding: “If you look at MSNBC, it’s probably more equally aligned. There is a big difference between local and national broadcast [outlets].”
She said the bulk of broadcast reporters work in local news, where blatant opinion is rare.
“On local news, there is just not that much opinion,” Gallagher said. “There is sometimes commentary, but it’s not that common. People aren’t looking to their local news broadcast for opinion. They’re mostly looking to see what’s going on in their community.”
7. Protest Over Protest Coverage in Pittsburgh
At the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, a staff clash with management occurred over what reporters and photographers may cover the demonstrations and riots.
The confrontation pitted top editor Keith Burris against much of the staff. The Post-Gazette is among the last major dailies still under family ownership; most newspapers are owned by chains.
Post-Gazette reporter Alexis Johnson scoffed May 31 on Twitter at the idea that protesters in Pittsburgh were destructive or looting.
After this, three editors informed Johnson that she could not cover the protests after having expressed an opinion, The New York Times reported.
Post-Gazette photographer Michael Santiago tweeted June 3 in support of Johnson. Editors also told Santiago that he couldn’t cover the protests.
The Newspaper Guild of Pittsburgh, the union that represents Post-Gazette employees, called for readers to send letters demanding that Johnson and Santiago, who are both black, be allowed to cover the unrest. More than 4,000 letters flooded the newspaper, including letters from Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., and Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, also a Democrat.
More than 80 Post-Gazette staffers, out of 160, made social media posts in favor of Johnson and Santiago, according to the union.
Burris, the newspaper’s editor, responded in a June 10 column that denounced “a propaganda campaign against this newspaper,” writing:


dailysignal--2020-07-30--What Precedent and the Constitution Say About Postponing an Election

If President Donald Trump ’ s goal was to get people talking about his latest tweet , he again succeeded after floating the idea of delaying the November elections .
If this was a serious political trial balloon , however , it ’ s unlikely to have any success .
Congress would have to pass , and the president would have to sign , any act that would delay an election for federal office , but Trump raised the idea in a tweet criticizing mail-in voting .
“ With Universal Mail-In Voting ( not Absentee Voting , which is good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history .
It will be a great embarrassment to the USA .
Delay the Election until people can properly , securely and safely vote ?
?
?
” > > > What ’ s the best way for America to reopen and return to business ?
The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission , a project of The Heritage Foundation , assembled America ’ s top thinkers to figure that out .
So far , it has made more than 260 recommendations .
Learn more here .
The “ delay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his point about the security risks of universal mail-in balloting , and how it is markedly different from more traditional absentee voting , which has far more safeguards in place .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , pounced on the comment , asserting the power of the legislative branch .
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn , R-Texas , reportedly said Trump ’ s reference to an election delay was a joke , “ so all you guys in the press , your heads will explode and you ’ ll write about it.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the executive branch any unilateral authority to delay , reschedule , or change the federal election in November .
Congress and the states have authority to make changes if there is a deemed emergency , said Hans von Spakovsky , a former commissioner with the Federal Election Commission and a former member of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity .
“ All it would take is legislation by Congress , signed into law by the president , to change the date of the federal election in November , ” von Spakovsky , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reform Initiative at The Heritage Foundation , told The Daily Signal .
“ I don ’ t think the general federal election has ever been delayed.
” States have considerable leeway in changing the dates of presidential primaries , as happened this year with the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic , von Spakovsky noted .
He pointed to the states of Arizona , Florida , Illinois , Indiana , Michigan , Tennessee , Texas , and West Virginia as examples where governors can change the date of a primary election without approval from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emergency .
When the worst terrorist attack in American history occurred , then-New York Gov .
George Pataki canceled New York City ’ s mayoral primary that was underway on Tuesday , Sept. 11 , 2001 .
States can also determine how elections are administered , such as with mail-in balloting .
“ The integrity , security , and accessibility of elections is a top priority for state and local election officials across the country , ” Maria Benson , director of communications for the National Association of Secretaries of State , told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Americans should have confidence that our elections are fairly administered and well-secured , with built-in structural safeguards to ensure accurate results.
” Secretaries of state are the top election officials in most states .
In May , the National Association of Secretaries of State issued a joint statement with the National Association of State Election Directors regarding voting safety during COVID-19 , which said : Election officials of both parties are diligently working to respond to the current COVID-19 pandemic .
Currently , some states vote primarily in-person while other states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already offer some form of absentee voting by mail for domestic voters , as well as for military and overseas citizens .
Election officials are weighing all contingencies to ensure elections this year are secure and accessible for all voters , including increasing absentee or mail-in voting and adjusting in-person voting as circumstances require and state laws permit .
All states have implemented a number of security measures in order to protect the integrity of the vote .
Even moderate Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska weighed in on the matter .
Judicial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advocate for an election delay , but noted what he called the “ hypocrisy ” of the left , which has sought to create panic over the safety of in-person voting .
The Constitution doesn ’ t have express language about the authority to “ postpone ” an election for federal office , according to the Congressional Research Service , which issued an October 2004 report amid concerns about the possibility of a terrorist attack just three years after 9/11 .
Congress has authority over most aspects of congressional elections under Article I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Constitution , and an express authority over at least the timing of the selections of presidential electors in the states under Article II , Section 1 , Clause 4 , according to the Congressional Research Service report from 2004 .
Using that authority , in 1845 , Congress set a uniform date for electing members of Congress every two years and selecting presidential electors at the state level every four year for the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November .
“ Specifically , there is no current constitutional authority residing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , nor the executive branch of Government , to postpone , cancel , or reschedule elections for federal office in the various States , ” the 2004 Congressional Research Service report says .
However , the report didn ’ t entirely foreclose the possibility in case of an emergency , adding : There might certainly be some potential emergency powers inherent in the President of the United States , as well as those delegated by statute , but there is no precedent for such powers being applied with respect to elections held in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authority over which , as to the procedures and methods , has been expressly delegated in the Constitution to the States .
It is possible that some scenarios could be imagined , however , where attacks , disruptions , and destruction are so severe and so dangerous in certain localities , particularly in crowded urban areas , that the President under a rule of necessity may look to protect the public safety by federalizing state National Guard and restricting movement and activities in such areas , which would obviously affect the ability to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That said , journalist John Fund—who has documented election fraud for years for The Wall Street Journal , National Review , and other outlets—contended on Twitter that the pandemic doesn ’ t quite reach that historical threshold .
“ The election is heading for chaos amid sudden huge bump in mail-in ballots , ” Fund wrote in a tweet .
“ But Trump is way wrong to suggest a delayed election .
We voted … for president during the Civil War .
And during World War II.
” States are generally allowed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a congressional office , and federal courts have upheld the authority of states to schedule special elections .
Congress could also delegate certain powers to the states and the executive branch for dates and other aspects of an election administration in case of an emergency , the Congressional Research Service report says .

If President Donald Trump’s goal was to get people talking about his latest tweet, he again succeeded after floating the idea of delaying the November elections.
If this was a serious political trial balloon, however, it’s unlikely to have any success.
Congress would have to pass, and the president would have to sign, any act that would delay an election for federal office, but Trump raised the idea in a tweet criticizing mail-in voting.
With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history. It will be a great embarrassment to the USA. Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote??? — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 30, 2020
“With Universal Mail-In Voting (not Absentee Voting, which is good), 2020 will be the most INACCURATE & FRAUDULENT Election in history. It will be a great embarrassment to the USA. Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???”
>>> What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.
The “delay” comment might have significantly distracted from his point about the security risks of universal mail-in balloting, and how it is markedly different from more traditional absentee voting, which has far more safeguards in place.
Asked about the tweet at a Thursday evening White House news conference, Trump pointed to stories in both The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal regarding problems with mail-in balloting.
“I don’t want to delay. I want to have the election, but I also don’t want to wait three months and then find out that the ballots are all missing and the election doesn’t mean anything,” the president said. “That’s what’s going to happen. That’s commonsense. Smart people know it. Stupid people may not know it. Some people don’t want to talk about, but they know it.”
Trump noted the difference between all-mail elections and absentee ballot voting. He noted that California is automatically sending out 28 million ballots.
“Do I want to see a day change? No,” Trump said of the date of the Nov. 3 election. “But, I don’t want to see a crooked election. This election will be the most rigged election in history if that happens.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., pounced on the tweet, asserting the power of the legislative branch.
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution states:
“The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.” https://t.co/NIaa7mQVnn — Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) July 30, 2020
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, reportedly said Trump’s reference to an election delay was a joke, “so all you guys in the press, your heads will explode and you’ll write about it.”
The Constitution doesn’t give the executive branch any unilateral authority to delay, reschedule, or change the federal election in November. Congress and the states have authority to make changes if there is a deemed emergency, said Hans von Spakovsky, a former commissioner with the Federal Election Commission and a former member of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.
“All it would take is legislation by Congress, signed into law by the president, to change the date of the federal election in November,” von Spakovsky, currently the manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “I don’t think the general federal election has ever been delayed.”
States have considerable leeway in changing the dates of presidential primaries, as happened this year with the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, von Spakovsky noted. He pointed to the states of Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia as examples where governors can change the date of a primary election without approval from the legislature in the event of an emergency.
When the worst terrorist attack in American history occurred, then-New York Gov. George Pataki canceled New York City’s mayoral primary that was underway on Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001.
States can also determine how elections are administered, such as with mail-in balloting.
“The integrity, security, and accessibility of elections is a top priority for state and local election officials across the country,” Maria Benson, director of communications for the National Association of Secretaries of State, told The Daily Signal in a statement Thursday. “Americans should have confidence that our elections are fairly administered and well-secured, with built-in structural safeguards to ensure accurate results.”
Secretaries of state are the top election officials in most states.
In May, the National Association of Secretaries of State issued a joint statement with the National Association of State Election Directors regarding voting safety during COVID-19, which said:
Election officials of both parties are diligently working to respond to the current COVID-19 pandemic. Currently, some states vote primarily in-person while other states vote by mail, but all states already offer some form of absentee voting by mail for domestic voters, as well as for military and overseas citizens. Election officials are weighing all contingencies to ensure elections this year are secure and accessible for all voters, including increasing absentee or mail-in voting and adjusting in-person voting as circumstances require and state laws permit. All states have implemented a number of security measures in order to protect the integrity of the vote.
Even moderate Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska weighed in on the matter.
There is absolutely no reason to delay this election, and it is not going to happen. It’s incumbent on us to ensure safe and secure elections, and that’s exactly what the Congress has been doing. — Sen. Lisa Murkowski (@lisamurkowski) July 30, 2020
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton didn’t advocate an election delay, but noted what he called the “hypocrisy” of the left, which has sought to create panic over the safety of in-person voting.
HYPOCRISY: Left tries to use #coronavirus to scare Americans from voting in person on Election Day and then is outraged when @RealDonaldTrump asks if this means we should delay election? President Trump and other leaders should encourage voters to vote in person on Election Day! — Tom Fitton (@TomFitton) July 30, 2020
The Constitution doesn’t have express language about the authority to “postpone” an election for federal office, according to the Congressional Research Service, which issued an October 2004 report amid concerns about the possibility of a terrorist attack just three years after 9/11.
Congress has authority over most aspects of congressional elections under Article I, Section 5, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and an express authority over at least the timing of the selections of presidential electors in the states under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4, according to the Congressional Research Service report from 2004.
Using that authority, in 1845, Congress set a uniform date for electing members of Congress every two years and selecting presidential electors at the state level every four years for the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November.
“Specifically, there is no current constitutional authority residing in the President of the United States, nor the executive branch of Government, to postpone, cancel, or reschedule elections for federal office in the various States,” the 2004 Congressional Research Service report says.
However, the report didn’t entirely foreclose the possibility in case of an emergency, adding:
There might certainly be some potential emergency powers inherent in the President of the United States, as well as those delegated by statute, but there is no precedent for such powers being applied with respect to elections held in the various States for presidential electors, authority over which, as to the procedures and methods, has been expressly delegated in the Constitution to the States. It is possible that some scenarios could be imagined, however, where attacks, disruptions, and destruction are so severe and so dangerous in certain localities, particularly in crowded urban areas, that the President under a rule of necessity may look to protect the public safety by federalizing state National Guard and restricting movement and activities in such areas, which would obviously affect the ability to conduct an election at those sites.
That said, journalist John Fund—who has documented election fraud for years for The Wall Street Journal, National Review, and other outlets—contended on Twitter that the pandemic doesn’t quite reach that historical threshold.
“The election is heading for chaos amid sudden huge bump in mail-in ballots,” Fund wrote in a tweet. “But Trump is way wrong to suggest a delayed election. We voted … for president during the Civil War. And during World War II.”
The election is heading for chaos amid sudden huge bump in mail-in ballots. But Trump is way wrong to suggest a delayed election. We voted during the Civil War for president during the Civil War. And during World War II. https://t.co/veW42o8rQI — John Fund (@johnfund) July 30, 2020
States are generally allowed to select an election date for a vacancy of a congressional office, and federal courts have upheld the authority of states to schedule special elections.
Congress could also delegate certain powers to the states and the executive branch for dates and other aspects of an election administration in case of an emergency, the Congressional Research Service report says.
This article was updated to include remarks from Trump’s Thursday press conference.