dailysignal--2020-08-25--4 Big Moments From the House’s Postal Service Hearing

Postmaster General Louis DeJoy testified Monday before a House committee to address Democrats ’ recent theories regarding actions taken by the U.S .
Postal Service weeks and months before the November election .
Voting by mail , either through absentee ballots or by universal mail-in ballots , is expected to be high this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic .
As previously reported , however , many of the Postal Service ’ s actions were routine measures and not aimed at ballots .
Here ’ s a look at four big moments from DeJoy ’ s testimony to the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What the Postal Service Isn ’ t Doing DeJoy , former CEO of a supply chain transportation company , said he didn ’ t direct the controversial cost-cutting actions that recently occurred at post offices across the country , but he put an end to it .
“ There are many inaccuracies about my actions that I wish to again correct .
First , I did not direct the removal of blue collection boxes , or the removal of mail processing equipment , ” DeJoy told the committee .
“ Second , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at any of our post offices , ” he said .
“ Finally , I did not direct the elimination or any cutback in overtime.
” “ I did , however , suspend these practices to remove any misperception about our commitment to delivering the nation ’ s election mail .
Any further assertions by the media or by elected officials is furthering a false narrative to the American people.
” DeJoy , in the postmaster ’ s general job since June 15 , said the U.S .
Postal Service will be capable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as absentee ballots and other mail-in ballots are expected to be a major method of voting in the year of the COVID-19 pandemic .
DeJoy said the USPS recommends voters request a ballot at least 15 days before the Nov. 3 election , to ensure that they have enough time to receive the ballot , complete it , and mail it back to the local elections office .
The return ballot should be placed in the mail at least seven days prior to the election , he said : “ We have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the electoral process , ” he said .
DeJoy referred to recent findings by the Postal Service ’ s inspector general that it spent $ 1.1 billion in mail processing overtime , $ 280 million in late and extra transportation , and $ 2.9 billion in delivery overtime in fiscal year 2019 .
“ While we did not fully agree with all aspects of OIG ’ s report , we did not dispute the fundamental conclusion that we need to redouble our efforts to focus on our plans to improve operational efficiency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” DeJoy said , referring to the Office of the Inspector General .
2 .
Tlaib : ‘ You Can Either Resign or Divest ’ Rep. Rashida Tlaib , D-Mich. , went after the postmaster general for his past business dealings with Amazon .
However , DeJoy said he did not have any financial interest in the giant online marketplace .
The member of the so-called Squad , a group of progressive Democrats who are female freshmen in the House , said that about 40 % of Amazon ’ s shipments go through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an interest in both , this posed a conflict , Tlaib said .
“ This appears to be a classic example of conflict of interest and insider trading .
Yes or no , will you commit right now to divest any and all financial interests in Amazon to avoid illegal insider trading ?
” DeJoy responded : “ That was a lot of time on an issue that doesn ’ t matter .
I don ’ t own any Amazon stock.
” Tlaib shot back : “ You have financial interest .
You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DeJoy : “ I don ’ t own anything with Amazon.
” Tlaib : “ Your financial interest in Amazon will continue to be problematic , illegal , and a conflict of interest .
Regarding this matter , you have a simple choice , Mr. DeJoy .
You can either resign or divest that interest.
” The Michigan Democrat didn ’ t spell out what conflict or financial interest she was talking about .
Tlaib also accused DeJoy of “ dismantling the Postal Service , ” and appeared to warn that he could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impeached president , Mr. DeJoy , you have to realize , has a tendency of employing crooks who end up in a lot of trouble for their illegal activities , ” she said , adding : “ You are not in good company right now , so do the right thing and resign.
” 3 .
Jordan : ‘ Why Are These Guys Out to Get You ?
’ After heated rhetoric such as this from numerous Democrats , Rep. Jim Jordan , R-Ohio , asked the postmaster general : “ Why are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What is it ?
” DeJoy diplomatically responded : “ I don ’ t—they have their own concerns .
I ’ m assuming they ’ re legitimate with them.
” Jordan said : “ You assume they ’ re legitimate .
Why are they out to get you ?
” The Ohio Republican then said he thought it likely Democrats were not sincere and were looking to use language that might create panic before the 2020 election .
“ I mean , Mr. DeJoy , they ’ ve had people protesting at your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it for weeks , 90-some of these people have already called for you to resign , ” Jordan said of House Democrats .
Jordan referred to a bill that the House passed over the weekend to provide a $ 25 billion bailout of the Postal Service .
It would require that the Postal Service prioritize election mail as “ first class ” to expedite delivery of mail-in ballots .
The House ’ s Democratic majority did not address COVID-19 relief legislation after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , called the chamber back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill before they even talked to you , before they even had a hearing , ” Jordan said .
“ They are not interested in any bipartisan solution ; as evidence , the chairwoman wouldn ’ t even contact the White House chief of staff [ Mark Meadows ] , who had a bill that he worked on with the previous [ committee ] chairman , the late Elijah Cummings , a bipartisan bill to address concerns at the Post Office.
” Jordan asked again : “ So , I ’ m asking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
First of all , you were appointed by the [ Postal Service ] Board of Governors , right ?
” DeJoy answered , “ I was unanimously appointed by the Board of Governors.
” Jordan noted : “ Unanimous vote .
Bipartisan .
Not all Republicans .
Democrats thought you were the right guy for the job , right ?
” Then Jordan asked again : “ So why are they out to get you ?
DeJoy replied : “ I have no idea .
I do have a lot of support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in America .
I receive it every day.
” Possibly the biggest bomb thrower during the hearing was Rep. Jim Cooper , D-Tenn. , although he did so in a more even tone .
“ How dare you disenfranchise so many voters when you told a Senate committee just last week that you had a sacred duty to protect election mail , ” Cooper said .
“ You know that it ’ s a felony for a Postal Service officer or employee to delay delivery of mail .
A postal employee can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years for delaying the mail .
But somehow you can delay all the mail and get away with it.
” DeJoy told Cooper that he was in “ full compliance with all the ethics requirements , ” and then the Tennessee Democrat started bringing up new matter without citing evidence .
Cooper noted that DeJoy was a “ megadonor for the Trump campaign.
” He then brought up DeJoy ’ s time as CEO of the North Carolina-based New Breed Logistics , a transportation and logistics company .
“ Did you pay back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Trump ’ s campaign by bonusing or rewarding them ?
” Cooper asked , suggesting an illegal act to subvert limits on campaign contributions .
He then corrected the congressman , saying : “ Actually , during the Trump campaign , I wasn ’ t even working at my company any more.
” Cooper apparently was caught off guard by the timeline , but responded : “ Well , we want to make sure campaign contributions are legal.
” DeJoy : “ I ’ m fully aware of legal campaign contributions and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What are you accusing me of ?
” Cooper : “ I ’ m asking a question .
Do your mail delays fit Trump ’ s campaign goals of hurting the Post Office as stated in his tweets ?
” This was a reference to the president ’ s tweets that have disparaged mail-in voting and , at times , the Postal Service .
DeJoy : “ I ’ m not going to answer these types of questions .
I ’ m here to represent the Postal Service .
All my actions have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Service.
” Then , with apparent frustration , the postmaster general again brought up USPS problems that predated his 70 days as agency head .
“ Am I the only one in this room that understands that we have a $ 10 billion a year loss ?
” DeJoy said .
“ Am I the only one in this room aware of the OIG reports that have stacked up ?
” At that point , Cooper referred to Trump ’ s recent granting of clemency to Roger Stone , a veteran GOP operative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counsel Robert Mueller ’ s ultimately fruitless investigation of Trump campaign ties to Russia .
“ Mr .
DeJoy , is your backup plan to be pardoned like Roger Stone ?
” Cooper said .
A murmur arose in the rather empty , socially distanced hearing room , as people saying , “ Oooh.
” DeJoy laughed and said , “ Oh , my God.
” Cooper , stone-faced , said : “ You have two seconds.
” DeJoy , shaking his head and smiling , said : “ I have no comment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worth it .
”

Postmaster General Louis DeJoy testified Monday before a House committee to address Democrats’ recent theories regarding actions taken by the U.S. Postal Service weeks and months before the November election.
Voting by mail, either through absentee ballots or by universal mail-in ballots, is expected to be high this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
As previously reported, however, many of the Postal Service’s actions were routine measures and not aimed at ballots.
Here’s a look at four big moments from DeJoy’s testimony to the House Oversight and Reform Committee.
1. What the Postal Service Isn’t Doing
DeJoy, former CEO of a supply chain transportation company, said he didn’t direct the controversial cost-cutting actions that recently occurred at post offices across the country, but he put an end to it.
“There are many inaccuracies about my actions that I wish to again correct. First, I did not direct the removal of blue collection boxes, or the removal of mail processing equipment,” DeJoy told the committee.
“Second, I did not direct the cutback on hours at any of our post offices,” he said. “Finally, I did not direct the elimination or any cutback in overtime.”
“I did, however, suspend these practices to remove any misperception about our commitment to delivering the nation’s election mail. Any further assertions by the media or by elected officials is furthering a false narrative to the American people.”
DeJoy, in the postmaster’s general job since June 15, said the U.S. Postal Service will be capable of handling ballot delivery for Election Day, as absentee ballots and other mail-in ballots are expected to be a major method of voting in the year of the COVID-19 pandemic.
DeJoy said the USPS recommends voters request a ballot at least 15 days before the Nov. 3 election, to ensure that they have enough time to receive the ballot, complete it, and mail it back to the local elections office. The return ballot should be placed in the mail at least seven days prior to the election, he said:
Despite some assertions to the contrary, this is the same message that we have made in previous years and have been reiterating all year, and has nothing to do with recent operational initiatives or concerns about delayed mail. To be clear, these recommendations are designed to help ensure that ballots will be delivered and counted, and should in no way be misconstrued to imply that we lack confidence in our ability to deliver those ballots.
“We have intensified our efforts to fulfill our role in the electoral process,” he said.
DeJoy referred to recent findings by the Postal Service’s inspector general that it spent $1.1 billion in mail processing overtime, $280 million in late and extra transportation, and $2.9 billion in delivery overtime in fiscal year 2019.
“While we did not fully agree with all aspects of OIG’s report, we did not dispute the fundamental conclusion that we need to redouble our efforts to focus on our plans to improve operational efficiency and to further control overtime expenditures,” DeJoy said, referring to the Office of the Inspector General.
2. Tlaib: ‘You Can Either Resign or Divest’
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., went after the postmaster general for his past business dealings with Amazon. However, DeJoy said he did not have any financial interest in the giant online marketplace.
The member of the so-called Squad, a group of progressive Democrats who are female freshmen in the House, said that about 40% of Amazon’s shipments go through the Postal Service. Since DeJoy had an interest in both, this posed a conflict, Tlaib said.
“This appears to be a classic example of conflict of interest and insider trading. Yes or no, will you commit right now to divest any and all financial interests in Amazon to avoid illegal insider trading?”
DeJoy responded: “That was a lot of time on an issue that doesn’t matter. I don’t own any Amazon stock.”
Tlaib shot back: “You have financial interest. You can call it whatever you want.”
DeJoy: “I don’t own anything with Amazon.”
Tlaib: “Your financial interest in Amazon will continue to be problematic, illegal, and a conflict of interest. Regarding this matter, you have a simple choice, Mr. DeJoy. You can either resign or divest that interest.”
The Michigan Democrat didn’t spell out what conflict or financial interest she was talking about.
Tlaib also accused DeJoy of “dismantling the Postal Service,” and appeared to warn that he could end up in jail.
“This impeached president, Mr. DeJoy, you have to realize, has a tendency of employing crooks who end up in a lot of trouble for their illegal activities,” she said, adding: “You are not in good company right now, so do the right thing and resign.”
3. Jordan: ‘Why Are These Guys Out to Get You?’
After heated rhetoric such as this from numerous Democrats, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, asked the postmaster general: “Why are these guys out to get you? What is it?”
DeJoy diplomatically responded: “I don’t—they have their own concerns. I’m assuming they’re legitimate with them.”
Jordan said: “You assume they’re legitimate. Why are they out to get you?”
The Ohio Republican then said he thought it likely Democrats were not sincere and were looking to use language that might create panic before the 2020 election.
“I mean, Mr. DeJoy, they’ve had people protesting at your house. They’ve been doing it for weeks, 90-some of these people have already called for you to resign,” Jordan said of House Democrats.
Jordan referred to a bill that the House passed over the weekend to provide a $25 billion bailout of the Postal Service. It would require that the Postal Service prioritize election mail as “first class” to expedite delivery of mail-in ballots.
The House’s Democratic majority did not address COVID-19 relief legislation after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called the chamber back into session.
“They passed a bill before they even talked to you, before they even had a hearing,” Jordan said. “They are not interested in any bipartisan solution; as evidence, the chairwoman wouldn’t even contact the White House chief of staff [Mark Meadows], who had a bill that he worked on with the previous [committee] chairman, the late Elijah Cummings, a bipartisan bill to address concerns at the Post Office.”
Jordan asked again: “So, I’m asking you, why are they after you? First of all, you were appointed by the [Postal Service] Board of Governors, right?”
DeJoy answered, “I was unanimously appointed by the Board of Governors.”
Jordan noted: “Unanimous vote. Bipartisan. Not all Republicans. Democrats thought you were the right guy for the job, right?”
Then Jordan asked again: “So why are they out to get you?
DeJoy replied: “I have no idea. I do have a lot of support out there amongst the employees and people in America. I receive it every day.”
4. Cooper: ‘Pardoned Like Roger Stone’
Possibly the biggest bomb thrower during the hearing was Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., although he did so in a more even tone.
“How dare you disenfranchise so many voters when you told a Senate committee just last week that you had a sacred duty to protect election mail,” Cooper said. “You know that it’s a felony for a Postal Service officer or employee to delay delivery of mail. A postal employee can be fined and imprisoned for up to five years for delaying the mail. But somehow you can delay all the mail and get away with it.”
DeJoy told Cooper that he was in “full compliance with all the ethics requirements,” and then the Tennessee Democrat started bringing up new matter without citing evidence.
Cooper noted that DeJoy was a “megadonor for the Trump campaign.” He then brought up DeJoy’s time as CEO of the North Carolina-based New Breed Logistics, a transportation and logistics company.
“Did you pay back several of your top executives for contributing to Trump’s campaign by bonusing or rewarding them?” Cooper asked, suggesting an illegal act to subvert limits on campaign contributions.
DeJoy responded: “That’s an outrageous claim, sir, and I resent it.”
Cooper: “I’m just asking a question?”
DeJoy: “The answer is no.”
He then corrected the congressman, saying: “Actually, during the Trump campaign, I wasn’t even working at my company any more.”
Cooper apparently was caught off guard by the timeline, but responded: “Well, we want to make sure campaign contributions are legal.”
DeJoy: “I’m fully aware of legal campaign contributions and I resent the assertion, sir. What are you accusing me of?”
Cooper: “I’m asking a question. Do your mail delays fit Trump’s campaign goals of hurting the Post Office as stated in his tweets?”
This was a reference to the president’s tweets that have disparaged mail-in voting and, at times, the Postal Service.
DeJoy: “I’m not going to answer these types of questions. I’m here to represent the Postal Service. All my actions have to do with improvements in the Postal Service.”
Then, with apparent frustration, the postmaster general again brought up USPS problems that predated his 70 days as agency head.
“Am I the only one in this room that understands that we have a $10 billion a year loss?” DeJoy said. “Am I the only one in this room aware of the OIG reports that have stacked up?”
At that point, Cooper referred to Trump’s recent granting of clemency to Roger Stone, a veteran GOP operative charged and convicted of lying in special counsel Robert Mueller’s ultimately fruitless investigation of Trump campaign ties to Russia.
“Mr. DeJoy, is your backup plan to be pardoned like Roger Stone?” Cooper said.
A murmur arose in the rather empty, socially distanced hearing room, as people saying, “Oooh.”
Someone said, “Pitiful.”
DeJoy laughed and said, “Oh, my God.”
Cooper, stone-faced, said: “You have two seconds.”
DeJoy, shaking his head and smiling, said: “I have no comment on that. It’s not worth it.”


dailysignal--2020-08-26--3 Key Points in Newly Released FBI Documents on Foreign Bid to Influence Clinton Campaign

The Senate Judiciary Committee released declassified documents this week that showed a major difference in how the FBI—under the leadership of then-Director James Comey—treated investigations into foreign influence on the presidential campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump .
The FBI provided a “ defensive briefing ” to the Clinton campaign when it was clear a foreign government wanted to contribute financially to that campaign and potentially interfere otherwise .
The identity of the foreign government was redacted .
However , the FBI did not provide such a briefing to the Trump team before surveillance of Trump campaign associate Carter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the briefing was provided “ so Ms. Clinton could take appropriate action to protect herself.
” However , the special agent in charge of the case complained to Comey that his team “ was not being allowed to vigorously investigate this case ” involving Clinton and the foreign entity .
The documents include conversations between agents in an unidentified FBI field office and FBI headquarters , including correspondence with Comey .
“ These newly released documents indicate that a foreign government was trying to influence the Clinton campaign through a campaign associate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warrant , ” Graham said .
“ However , the bureau , as it is supposed to do , required that Hillary Clinton be defensively briefed about the matter so she could engage in corrective action.
” The Justice Department ’ s Office of Legislative Affairs , with a cover letter from Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd , provided the documents to the Senate ’ s Judiciary and Intelligence committees .
The following are three major points from the declassified documents released Sunday .
( The names of most FBI officials , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are redacted in the documents . )
1 .
Foreign Government Sought to Donate to Clinton Campaign The first communication was a March 2 , 2015 , email from an FBI official pressing the need to commence an investigation about a foreign government ’ s plan to donate to , and lobby , the Clinton campaign .
The goal was to start the probe before Clinton ’ s expected campaign-kickoff announcement in April .
“ To me , this underscores the need for us to push this FISA , ” the FBI official @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Surveillance Act , which allows limited surveillance on Americans through a special FISA court approval of a warrant .
“ By the time we get it signed and go up , we would only be up a few weeks before she announces , at best , ” the official wrote .
“ On the other hand , if we wait for the events to unfold , which we discussed on the SVTC [ secure video teleconference ] , her announcement may occur in advance of us getting the FISA coverage .
That puts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the intel necessary for this operation.
” A March 6 , 2015 , email from an FBI official to a Clinton staffer also noted , “ Though the information we received is currently specific to wanting to give money to Clinton and the , thus far , unknown [ Republican ] candidate , we would like this to be a general defensive brief.
” On March 9 , an FBI official emailed colleagues that more clearly stated what the investigation was about .
“ I ’ m writing about [ redacted ] the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ foreign government ] and their plans to offer funds to Mrs. Clinton , ” the email said .
“ News reports are pointing towards this announcement happening , either this month or in April.
” Although the country is not identified , there are several possibilities .
Politico reported that Ukraine sought to sabotage Trump ’ s campaign .
Last year , during the Trump impeachment hearings , a witness , former National Security Council official Fiona Hill , told the House Intelligence Committee that Ukrainian officials “ bet on the wrong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favor with the Clinton campaign.
” However , the 2015 investigation commenced before Trump entered the presidential race .
Russia ended up interfering in the election through hacking and social media buys .
While Russia apparently wanted to help Trump and harm Clinton , a special counsel investigation determined that there was not a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and any Russian entity .
Also , one of the FBI messages suggested the country wanted to donate to both Clinton and to her yet-to-be-determined GOP opponent .
The U.S. National Counterintelligence and Security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Iran seek to meddle in the U.S. elections in 2020 .
China could be another possibility based on the more distant past .
The Chinese government attempted to influence the 1996 election in part through financial donations to the Democratic National Committee during the re-election campaign of President Bill Clinton , the husband of Hillary Clinton , according to a Senate Governmental Affairs Committee report .
The documents say the full investigation was initiated in November 2014 , and FBI officials were by March 2015 eager to conduct surveillance of a Clinton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ briefing.
” However , it appears the FBI didn ’ t do that defensive briefing until October 2015 .
Just after noon on March 6 , 2015 , Roger Coe of the FBI ’ s Counterintelligence Division wrote to FBI official David Archer and at least one other FBI official whose name was redacted that said : The reference to “ other ongoing investigative activity against the target ” was not specific .
Through much of 2015 and 2016 , Clinton was under FBI investigation for doing government business on an unsecured email @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be used to engage in communications to avoid the Freedom of Information Act and congressional oversight .
At 4:24 p.m. that same day , an FBI official sent a message to a Clinton staffer in New York .
The names of the recipients and sender were redacted .
But the message referenced then-FBI Deputy Assistant Director Robert Jones , whose title was subsequently referred to as “ DAD.
” “ Good afternoon/evening , I hope all is well up in New York .
I know I am asking this on Friday afternoon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t miss from the Big Apple … the Holland Tunnel ) , but my Unit down here was asked today by DAD Jones to provide a defensive brief to Hillary Clinton regarding possible foreign aid money that might be contributed to her campaign should/when she announces her run for POTUS , ” the message said .
“ The DAD would like for us ( the FBI ) to provide a brief sooner than later ( ‘ a week or so ’ ) , ” the FBI official said in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ locations , but the FBI official said the websites for Hillary Clinton ’ s office and for the Clinton Foundation didn ’ t show reliable phone numbers .
“ The current thought from my front office is that we will provide to New York the briefing material , if [ the New York office ] would be able to send out a couple of appropriate individuals to conduct the brief ( as well as set it up ) , ” the FBI official wrote .
“ Right now , the direction we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hillary Clinton or someone within her office .
An alternate person could be [ a Clinton staffer ] who appears to function as her spokesman.
” The summary of the briefing , found on page 3 of the PDF of the released documents , indicates the FBI did not brief Clinton until Oct. 15 , 2015 .
The summary was approved by Archer on Oct. 22 that year and states “ Full Investigation Initiated : 11/25/2014.
” The special agent in charge of the case had complained in April of that year about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter with a FISA warrant .
FBI officials briefed two lawyers for Clinton , referred to as “ counsel for H. Clinton.
” “ Counsel to … H. Clinton were advised the FBI has information that the foreign government is attempting to influence Hillary Clinton through lobbying efforts and campaign contributions , ” the summary said .
“ The campaign contributions may come in a form outside established parameters for such contributions.
” The summary added that the FBI told the Clinton lawyers : “ FBI felt the information was sufficiently reliable and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to warn.
” Graham , the Judiciary Committee chairman , noted how different it was for the FBI ’ s investigation of Russian interference to help Trump and harm Clinton in the 2016 campaign .
“ When it came to the Trump campaign , there were four counterintelligence investigations opened against Trump campaign associates , ” Graham said in a statement .
“ Not one time was President Trump defensively briefed about the FBI ’ s concerns.
” This fits a broader pattern of behavior documented in the report last year by Justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abuse that found FBI officials provided inaccurate information to the FISA court in seeking to spy on Page .
“ Given all the stunning revelations of FBI bias compiled by Inspector General Horowitz and others , it is clear to me why there was [ a ] double standard , ” Graham said .
“ The FBI was not trying to protect the Trump campaign , they were trying to infiltrate the campaign and undermine his presidency.
” On April 14 , 2015 , the special agent in charge of the Clinton foreign-meddling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what seemed like a stalled investigation .
The agent , who was not identified by name in the documents , respectfully told the director in an email , “ I hope I am not overstepping in this matter.
” The message said that Comey would be getting a briefing the next day about the foreign government and Clinton .
“ The FISA application has remained in limbo for the last four months , even though subsequent investigative activity by [ redacted ] provided additional probable cause for the FISA application , ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ [ Redacted ] is still uncertain as to why the application has not been sent to [ the Justice Department ] for final approval , although several reasons have been put forth by [ the Counterintelligence Division ] , most recently that the decision to put the application on hold originated ‘ on the seventh floor.
’ ” The “ seventh floor ” at the FBI refers to the most senior agents at the FBI .
That day , Comey responded to the special agent in charge .
“ Don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will get smarter , ” Comey wrote .
“ With respect to the most time-sensitive part : Do you know why this is not included in the briefing for tomorrow ?
” Comey added .
“ I finished the read-ahead , which includes a variety of stuff about [ foreign government ] efforts in the U.S. , but didn ’ t see a mention of this .
Why is that ?
” This story was updated to note that federal officials recently noted that Iran , China and Russia want to meddle in @ @ @ @

The Senate Judiciary Committee released declassified documents this week that showed a major difference in how the FBI—under the leadership of then-Director James Comey—treated investigations into foreign influence on the presidential campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
The FBI provided a “defensive briefing” to the Clinton campaign when it was clear a foreign government wanted to contribute financially to that campaign and potentially interfere otherwise. The identity of the foreign government was redacted.
However, the FBI did not provide such a briefing to the Trump team before surveillance of Trump campaign associate Carter Page.
According to the documents, the briefing was provided “so Ms. Clinton could take appropriate action to protect herself.”
However, the special agent in charge of the case complained to Comey that his team “was not being allowed to vigorously investigate this case” involving Clinton and the foreign entity.
The documents include conversations between agents in an unidentified FBI field office and FBI headquarters, including correspondence with Comey.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said the information shows a “clear double standard.”
“These newly released documents indicate that a foreign government was trying to influence the Clinton campaign through a campaign associate, and the FBI was seeking a FISA warrant,” Graham said. “However, the bureau, as it is supposed to do, required that Hillary Clinton be defensively briefed about the matter so she could engage in corrective action.”
The Justice Department’s Office of Legislative Affairs, with a cover letter from Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd, provided the documents to the Senate’s Judiciary and Intelligence committees.
The following are three major points from the declassified documents released Sunday. (The names of most FBI officials, and the names of all field offices, are redacted in the documents.)
1. Foreign Government Sought to Donate to Clinton Campaign
The first communication was a March 2, 2015, email from an FBI official pressing the need to commence an investigation about a foreign government’s plan to donate to, and lobby, the Clinton campaign.
The goal was to start the probe before Clinton’s expected campaign-kickoff announcement in April.
“To me, this underscores the need for us to push this FISA,” the FBI official wrote, referring to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows limited surveillance on Americans through a special FISA court approval of a warrant.
“By the time we get it signed and go up, we would only be up a few weeks before she announces, at best,” the official wrote. “On the other hand, if we wait for the events to unfold, which we discussed on the SVTC [secure video teleconference], her announcement may occur in advance of us getting the FISA coverage. That puts us even further behind the curve on the intel necessary for this operation.”
A March 6, 2015, email from an FBI official to a Clinton staffer also noted, “Though the information we received is currently specific to wanting to give money to Clinton and the, thus far, unknown [Republican] candidate, we would like this to be a general defensive brief.”
On March 9, an FBI official emailed colleagues that more clearly stated what the investigation was about.
“I’m writing about [redacted] the [field office] case regarding the [foreign government] and their plans to offer funds to Mrs. Clinton,” the email said. “News reports are pointing towards this announcement happening, either this month or in April.”
Clinton announced her candidacy on April 12, 2015.
Although the country is not identified, there are several possibilities.
Politico reported that Ukraine sought to sabotage Trump’s campaign. Last year, during the Trump impeachment hearings, a witness, former National Security Council official Fiona Hill, told the House Intelligence Committee that Ukrainian officials “bet on the wrong horse” and wanted to “curry favor with the Clinton campaign.”
However, the 2015 investigation commenced before Trump entered the presidential race.
Russia ended up interfering in the election through hacking and social media buys. While Russia apparently wanted to help Trump and harm Clinton, a special counsel investigation determined that there was not a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and any Russian entity.
Also, one of the FBI messages suggested the country wanted to donate to both Clinton and to her yet-to-be-determined GOP opponent.
The U.S. National Counterintelligence and Security Center recently noted that Russia, China and Iran seek to meddle in the U.S. elections in 2020.
China could be another possibility based on the more distant past. The Chinese government attempted to influence the 1996 election in part through financial donations to the Democratic National Committee during the re-election campaign of President Bill Clinton, the husband of Hillary Clinton, according to a Senate Governmental Affairs Committee report.
2. Defensive Briefing
The documents say the full investigation was initiated in November 2014, and FBI officials were by March 2015 eager to conduct surveillance of a Clinton associate and provide her a “defensive briefing.” However, it appears the FBI didn’t do that defensive briefing until October 2015.
Just after noon on March 6, 2015, Roger Coe of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division wrote to FBI official David Archer and at least one other FBI official whose name was redacted that said:
A defensive brief for Clinton’s office should be done (preferably in the next week or so) – The brief does not preclude any other ongoing investigative activity against the target; that should continue.
The reference to “other ongoing investigative activity against the target” was not specific. Through much of 2015 and 2016, Clinton was under FBI investigation for doing government business on an unsecured email server she kept in her home that could be used to engage in communications to avoid the Freedom of Information Act and congressional oversight.
At 4:24 p.m. that same day, an FBI official sent a message to a Clinton staffer in New York. The names of the recipients and sender were redacted. But the message referenced then-FBI Deputy Assistant Director Robert Jones, whose title was subsequently referred to as “DAD.”
“Good afternoon/evening, I hope all is well up in New York. I know I am asking this on Friday afternoon, right before rush hour (something I don’t miss from the Big Apple … the Holland Tunnel), but my Unit down here was asked today by DAD Jones to provide a defensive brief to Hillary Clinton regarding possible foreign aid money that might be contributed to her campaign should/when she announces her run for POTUS,” the message said.
“The DAD would like for us (the FBI) to provide a brief sooner than later (‘a week or so’),” the FBI official said in the message.
The message mentioned two possible locations, but the FBI official said the websites for Hillary Clinton’s office and for the Clinton Foundation didn’t show reliable phone numbers.
“The current thought from my front office is that we will provide to New York the briefing material, if [the New York office] would be able to send out a couple of appropriate individuals to conduct the brief (as well as set it up),” the FBI official wrote. “Right now, the direction we have been given is that it should be Hillary Clinton or someone within her office. An alternate person could be [a Clinton staffer] who appears to function as her spokesman.”
The summary of the briefing, found on page 3 of the PDF of the released documents, indicates the FBI did not brief Clinton until Oct. 15, 2015. The summary was approved by Archer on Oct. 22 that year and states “Full Investigation Initiated: 11/25/2014.”
The special agent in charge of the case had complained in April of that year about being unable to move forward on the matter with a FISA warrant.
FBI officials briefed two lawyers for Clinton, referred to as “counsel for H. Clinton.”
“Counsel to … H. Clinton were advised the FBI has information that the foreign government is attempting to influence Hillary Clinton through lobbying efforts and campaign contributions,” the summary said. “The campaign contributions may come in a form outside established parameters for such contributions.”
The summary continued:
[Counsel to H. Clinton] were advised the FBI was providing them with this briefing for awareness and so Ms. Clinton could take appropriate action to protect herself. They were also told the FBI was seeking their assistance to identify other appropriate recipients of the brief, if any.
The summary added that the FBI told the Clinton lawyers: “FBI felt the information was sufficiently reliable and serious that the FBI had a duty to warn.”
Graham, the Judiciary Committee chairman, noted how different it was for the FBI’s investigation of Russian interference to help Trump and harm Clinton in the 2016 campaign.
“When it came to the Trump campaign, there were four counterintelligence investigations opened against Trump campaign associates,” Graham said in a statement. “Not one time was President Trump defensively briefed about the FBI’s concerns.”
Graham added:
Even more egregious, when the FBI gave a generic briefing to the Trump campaign about foreign influence, not only did they fail to mention the specific concerns about Trump associates, they sent an FBI agent into the briefing to monitor President Trump and [retired Gen. Michael] Flynn. The FBI used the generic briefing as an intelligence-gathering tool, which I believe to be inappropriate and shameful. The FBI did the right thing by briefing Clinton and failed to do the right thing by never specifically briefing President Trump about their concerns.
This fits a broader pattern of behavior documented in the report last year by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz on FISA abuse that found FBI officials provided inaccurate information to the FISA court in seeking to spy on Page.
“Given all the stunning revelations of FBI bias compiled by Inspector General Horowitz and others, it is clear to me why there was [a] double standard,” Graham said. “The FBI was not trying to protect the Trump campaign, they were trying to infiltrate the campaign and undermine his presidency.”
3. What Comey Knew
On April 14, 2015, the special agent in charge of the Clinton foreign-meddling case took concerns directly to Comey about what seemed like a stalled investigation.
The agent, who was not identified by name in the documents, respectfully told the director in an email, “I hope I am not overstepping in this matter.” The message said that Comey would be getting a briefing the next day about the foreign government and Clinton.
“The FISA application has remained in limbo for the last four months, even though subsequent investigative activity by [redacted] provided additional probable cause for the FISA application,” the agent’s message to Comey said. “[Redacted] is still uncertain as to why the application has not been sent to [the Justice Department] for final approval, although several reasons have been put forth by [the Counterintelligence Division], most recently that the decision to put the application on hold originated ‘on the seventh floor.’”
The “seventh floor” at the FBI refers to the most senior agents at the FBI.
The message continued:
While superficially connected to political candidates, the investigation targets a NONUSPER [non-U.S. person] involved in illegal activity; it does not target the candidate(s), and there is no evidence the candidate is even aware of the potential targeting. I would like to either see this investigation move forward, or at least get an understanding of why we are not being allowed to move forward. My team has put a lot of time and effort into this matter, and they don’t understand why they are not being allowed to vigorously investigate this case.
That day, Comey responded to the special agent in charge.
“Don’t know anything about this, but will get smarter,” Comey wrote.
“With respect to the most time-sensitive part: Do you know why this is not included in the briefing for tomorrow?” Comey added. “I finished the read-ahead, which includes a variety of stuff about [foreign government] efforts in the U.S., but didn’t see a mention of this. Why is that?”
This story was updated to note that federal officials recently noted that Iran, China and Russia want to meddle in the 2020 election.


dailysignal--2020-08-25--Postal Efficiency Plan Distorted by Politics and Poor Communication

Postmaster General Louis DeJoy has faced withering criticism over the last several weeks , with many public figures falsely accusing him of jailable offenses and sabotage of the U.S .
Postal Service .
Many of the false charges stem from a good-faith initiative to improve efficiency and reduce the Postal Service ’ s chronic financial losses , which unfortunately was not properly communicated to Congress or the general public .
As a result , politicians and activists have opportunistically twisted the issue into a sensational conspiracy theory .
This situation came to a head over a span of four days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sort out fact from fiction .
On Friday , Aug. 21 , the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee held a virtual hearing with DeJoy to discuss postal operations .
The next day , the House passed a bill that would provide an unnecessary $ 25 billion bailout to the Postal Service and block a number of cost-saving measures .
On Monday , Aug. 24 , the House Committee on Oversight and Reform held a long and often contentious in-person hearing with DeJoy , oddly enough taking place after the legislative action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accusations and partisan talking points , there was an important downward trend for Congress to investigate : a reduction in key Postal Service performance metrics starting in late June .
While the Postal Service has fallen well short of its goals for on-time delivery for the last several years , the recent drop was steep , and during a time of the year when mail volume is typically low .
There are two major factors behind the recent drop in on-time delivery .
The first factor : The Postal Service—along with the rest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase in COVID-19 infections starting in mid-June .
Thousands of postal workers have been infected or had to perform a two-week quarantine over the last few months , resulting in far less Postal Service personnel available to sort and deliver a given day ’ s mail volume .
During his testimony , DeJoy mentioned that the Philadelphia area alone has at times been short hundreds of postal delivery drivers .
This would necessarily reduce on-time performance .
The second factor had to do with an initiative ( now suspended ) started by DeJoy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its sorting and deliveries .
Rather than a nefarious plot to deliberately undermine the Postal Service and somehow steal the presidential election , the initiative was a response to an optimization report produced by the Postal Service Office of Inspector General .
This report , coincidentally issued on DeJoy ’ s first day as postmaster general , pointed out over $ 4 billion in sorting and delivery overtime costs per year .
These costs are a huge factor in the Postal Service ’ s chronic deficits .
Addressing the costs through logistical improvements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is currently expected as soon as next summer .
The key component of DeJoy ’ s initiative was to focus on increasing on-time departure for postal trucks from sorting facilities , meaning deliveries would finish earlier and reduce the amount of overtime required .
While the plan did successfully increase on-time departures , there was a side effect : Mail that had not finished being sorted and processed was left behind , increasing the level of late deliveries .
DeJoy acknowledged this in the hearings , adding that he anticipated an adjustment period @ @ @ @ @ @ @ improve delivery times , but the adjustment was harder than expected .
There are ways the plan could have been implemented better , including starting at a smaller scale and then waiting until after the pandemic is under control to fully roll out .
However , the most important mistake was the lack of communication and transparency surrounding the initiative .
Instead of making a public announcement and preparing briefing materials for Congress , the plan was simply started following internal deliberations .
Such an approach would have made sense in the private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a leader in the logistics industry .
Yet with an institution as large and visible as the Postal Service , it is vital to provide details in order to ensure that the general public and legislators alike are informed about the new process .
This lack of communication served to make disinformation and confusion easier to spread .
The media began covering the story based on leaked memos , immediately casting the plan in the worst possible light .
A general failure to provide information also made it easier for a wide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , whipping the public into a frenzy and turning the Postal Service into a political football .
For example , one of the myths revolved around postal collection blue boxes being removed .
DeJoy ’ s Senate testimony included data on showing that the number of removals in 2020 is less than half the rate seen in 2013 , 2014 , and 2017 .
This data should have been sent in a tweet or press release quickly after the myth began circulating .
Similarly , the removal of postal sorting machines from locations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most heated points of criticism by congressional Democrats .
Rather than starting under DeJoy ’ s leadership ( as his critics claim ) , the removals are part of a normal process by the Postal Service to operate efficiently in response to the long-term decline in mail volume .
Many sorting machines run far below max capacity .
Some are no longer used at all , taking up valuable space at postal facilities .
These facts should have been publicized by the Postal Service .
Reducing wasteful spending on unnecessary machines and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very limited number of ways that the Postal Service can legally cut its costs and trim chronic annual deficits .
Sadly , the House postal bill would block many of these necessary operational adjustments .
Insufficient communication was also present prior to DeJoy ’ s arrival .
During the spring , there was a political panic about the Postal Service supposedly going bankrupt before the end of the year , leading to calls for an immediate massive bailout .
As it turned out , postal revenues have gone up slightly in the wake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in package deliveries , providing a reprieve from bankruptcy .
Unfortunately , this information did not become public for several weeks , giving postal bailout advocates free rein to make apocalyptic claims and shape the debate .
Addressing the looming insolvency of the Postal Service was already set to be an extremely difficult task .
That task becomes more difficult when legislators and the public lack the facts necessary to come to informed conclusions , and becomes nearly impossible in the wake of irresponsible accusations made against DeJoy .
Hopefully , Congress can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agree to workable reforms before it is too late .

Postmaster General Louis DeJoy has faced withering criticism over the last several weeks, with many public figures falsely accusing him of jailable offenses and sabotage of the U.S. Postal Service.
Many of the false charges stem from a good-faith initiative to improve efficiency and reduce the Postal Service’s chronic financial losses, which unfortunately was not properly communicated to Congress or the general public. As a result, politicians and activists have opportunistically twisted the issue into a sensational conspiracy theory.
This situation came to a head over a span of four days, and two congressional hearings have helped sort out fact from fiction.
On Friday, Aug. 21, the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee held a virtual hearing with DeJoy to discuss postal operations. The next day, the House passed a bill that would provide an unnecessary $25 billion bailout to the Postal Service and block a number of cost-saving measures.
On Monday, Aug. 24, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform held a long and often contentious in-person hearing with DeJoy, oddly enough taking place after the legislative action rather than before.
Setting aside far-fetched accusations and partisan talking points, there was an important downward trend for Congress to investigate: a reduction in key Postal Service performance metrics starting in late June.
While the Postal Service has fallen well short of its goals for on-time delivery for the last several years, the recent drop was steep, and during a time of the year when mail volume is typically low.
There are two major factors behind the recent drop in on-time delivery.
The first factor: The Postal Service—along with the rest of the nation—was struck by the nationwide increase in COVID-19 infections starting in mid-June.
Thousands of postal workers have been infected or had to perform a two-week quarantine over the last few months, resulting in far less Postal Service personnel available to sort and deliver a given day’s mail volume.
During his testimony, DeJoy mentioned that the Philadelphia area alone has at times been short hundreds of postal delivery drivers. This would necessarily reduce on-time performance.
The second factor had to do with an initiative (now suspended) started by DeJoy to change how the Postal Service manages its sorting and deliveries.
Rather than a nefarious plot to deliberately undermine the Postal Service and somehow steal the presidential election, the initiative was a response to an optimization report produced by the Postal Service Office of Inspector General.
This report, coincidentally issued on DeJoy’s first day as postmaster general, pointed out over $4 billion in sorting and delivery overtime costs per year.
These costs are a huge factor in the Postal Service’s chronic deficits. Addressing the costs through logistical improvements would help prevent a postal bankruptcy that is currently expected as soon as next summer.
The key component of DeJoy’s initiative was to focus on increasing on-time departure for postal trucks from sorting facilities, meaning deliveries would finish earlier and reduce the amount of overtime required.
While the plan did successfully increase on-time departures, there was a side effect: Mail that had not finished being sorted and processed was left behind, increasing the level of late deliveries.
DeJoy acknowledged this in the hearings, adding that he anticipated an adjustment period. The eventual goal was also to improve delivery times, but the adjustment was harder than expected.
There are ways the plan could have been implemented better, including starting at a smaller scale and then waiting until after the pandemic is under control to fully roll out.
However, the most important mistake was the lack of communication and transparency surrounding the initiative.
Instead of making a public announcement and preparing briefing materials for Congress, the plan was simply started following internal deliberations. Such an approach would have made sense in the private sector, where DeJoy spent several decades as a leader in the logistics industry.
Yet with an institution as large and visible as the Postal Service, it is vital to provide details in order to ensure that the general public and legislators alike are informed about the new process.
This lack of communication served to make disinformation and confusion easier to spread. The media began covering the story based on leaked memos, immediately casting the plan in the worst possible light.
A general failure to provide information also made it easier for a wide variety of myths to circulate freely online, whipping the public into a frenzy and turning the Postal Service into a political football.
For example, one of the myths revolved around postal collection blue boxes being removed. DeJoy’s Senate testimony included data on showing that the number of removals in 2020 is less than half the rate seen in 2013, 2014, and 2017. This data should have been sent in a tweet or press release quickly after the myth began circulating.
Similarly, the removal of postal sorting machines from locations across the country has become one of the most heated points of criticism by congressional Democrats.
Rather than starting under DeJoy’s leadership (as his critics claim), the removals are part of a normal process by the Postal Service to operate efficiently in response to the long-term decline in mail volume.
Many sorting machines run far below max capacity. Some are no longer used at all, taking up valuable space at postal facilities. These facts should have been publicized by the Postal Service.
Reducing wasteful spending on unnecessary machines and expensive overtime labor are two of the very limited number of ways that the Postal Service can legally cut its costs and trim chronic annual deficits. Sadly, the House postal bill would block many of these necessary operational adjustments.
Insufficient communication was also present prior to DeJoy’s arrival. During the spring, there was a political panic about the Postal Service supposedly going bankrupt before the end of the year, leading to calls for an immediate massive bailout.
As it turned out, postal revenues have gone up slightly in the wake of COVID-19 due to a sharp increase in package deliveries, providing a reprieve from bankruptcy. Unfortunately, this information did not become public for several weeks, giving postal bailout advocates free rein to make apocalyptic claims and shape the debate.
Addressing the looming insolvency of the Postal Service was already set to be an extremely difficult task. That task becomes more difficult when legislators and the public lack the facts necessary to come to informed conclusions, and becomes nearly impossible in the wake of irresponsible accusations made against DeJoy.
Hopefully, Congress can move beyond the current made-for-TV dramatics and agree to workable reforms before it is too late.


dailysignal--2020-08-26--A National Mask Mandate  Isn’t Necessary to Save Lives

“ Every single American should be wearing a mask when they ’ re outside for the next three months at a minimum , ” said former Vice President Joe Biden at a recent press briefing .
“ Outside ” encompasses a lot , including places where a mask would have exactly zero effect .
Normally , this kind of rhetoric is a merely simplified admonition to wear masks generally , but in this press briefing , Biden also endorsed a nationwide mask-wearing mandate , adding this gloomy justification : “ The estimates by the experts are it will save over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” More on that estimate in a moment .
But first : Would such a mandate even be a good idea ?
In short , no .
The primary purpose of the broad masking guidelines is to reduce the transmission of the virus among asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic persons who do not know they are infected but are already contagious .
We ask everybody to wear a mask where close contact with others is unavoidable because there is virtually no way to tell if a person needs it .
Having everyone wear a mask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potential spreader .
But we do not ask everyone to wear a mask all the time .
A person who is contagious , even symptomatically so , would pose zero risk to anyone else when standing alone in an empty field , or more realistically , in the parking lot between a car and the grocery store , or simply on the sidewalk .
The recommendation to wear a mask comes from clinical experience and common sense .
Surgeons wear masks during procedures not to protect the surgeon but to prevent the surgeon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For the same reason , patients with COVID-19 or similar diseases are masked when being transported through a hospital .
> > > 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 .
So what does the science say ?
There is tremendous research showing that mask usage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this makes sense because respiratory illnesses are transmitted via our respirations .
Therefore , if we put a physical barrier in front of our respiratory orifices , it will decrease the speed and spread of our potentially infectious respiratory droplets or aerosols .
But every single study shows that masks are not a panacea .
They are a lightweight solution that comes at very little cost to the individual and serve as an adjunct to other safety precautions , such as hand-washing , distancing , and minimizing unnecessary close contacts .
Regarding that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presumably is referring to this statistical analysis that models the effects of various mitigation policies .
It estimates that between 17,000 to 55,000 lives could have been saved if employees nationwide were required to wear masks between April and May .
The problem with Biden ’ s claim then should be obvious .
Requiring employees to be masked is not the same as requiring all Americans to be masked , and the situation in April and May is significantly different from the situation now .
For one thing , masks are much more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And secondly , the infection has already spread through all or nearly all major cities in America—which means population immunity , although not yet at herd immunity levels , is going to be much greater than it was in April .
Thus , universal masking now will not have the same impact as it may have had earlier .
Now , masking is still helpful—and again , a prudent step to take when needed .
But it is impossible to say that without a national mask mandate and its requisite enforcement , 40,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amounts to reprehensible fear-mongering .
That ’ s one reason politicians shouldn ’ t be trying to politicize mask-wearing with mandates—and calling for heavy-handed solutions they know are impossible , backed by outlandish claims they know are misleading .
It compromises public trust and diverts us from doing the right thing .
Americans , by and large , are generous , caring people .
We need to trust them to care for themselves and their loved ones by wearing masks when social distancing is not possible .
As President Donald Trump has said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do .
Originally published by The Press of Atlantic City

“Every single American should be wearing a mask when they’re outside for the next three months at a minimum,” said former Vice President Joe Biden at a recent press briefing.
“Outside” encompasses a lot, including places where a mask would have exactly zero effect. Normally, this kind of rhetoric is a merely simplified admonition to wear masks generally, but in this press briefing, Biden also endorsed a nationwide mask-wearing mandate, adding this gloomy justification: “The estimates by the experts are it will save over 40,000 lives in the next three months.”
More on that estimate in a moment. But first: Would such a mandate even be a good idea?
In short, no. The primary purpose of the broad masking guidelines is to reduce the transmission of the virus among asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic persons who do not know they are infected but are already contagious.
We ask everybody to wear a mask where close contact with others is unavoidable because there is virtually no way to tell if a person needs it. Having everyone wear a mask is the only way to cover every potential spreader.
But we do not ask everyone to wear a mask all the time. A person who is contagious, even symptomatically so, would pose zero risk to anyone else when standing alone in an empty field, or more realistically, in the parking lot between a car and the grocery store, or simply on the sidewalk.
The recommendation to wear a mask comes from clinical experience and common sense. Surgeons wear masks during procedures not to protect the surgeon but to prevent the surgeon’s respirations from contaminating the field. For the same reason, patients with COVID-19 or similar diseases are masked when being transported through a hospital.
>>> 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.
So what does the science say? There is tremendous research showing that mask usage is associated with fewer infections, and this makes sense because respiratory illnesses are transmitted via our respirations.
Therefore, if we put a physical barrier in front of our respiratory orifices, it will decrease the speed and spread of our potentially infectious respiratory droplets or aerosols.
But every single study shows that masks are not a panacea. They are a lightweight solution that comes at very little cost to the individual and serve as an adjunct to other safety precautions, such as hand-washing, distancing, and minimizing unnecessary close contacts.
Regarding that claim about saving 40,000 lives, Biden presumably is referring to this statistical analysis that models the effects of various mitigation policies. It estimates that between 17,000 to 55,000 lives could have been saved if employees nationwide were required to wear masks between April and May.
The problem with Biden’s claim then should be obvious. Requiring employees to be masked is not the same as requiring all Americans to be masked, and the situation in April and May is significantly different from the situation now.
For one thing, masks are much more accepted now than they were before. And secondly, the infection has already spread through all or nearly all major cities in America—which means population immunity, although not yet at herd immunity levels, is going to be much greater than it was in April.
Thus, universal masking now will not have the same impact as it may have had earlier.
Now, masking is still helpful—and again, a prudent step to take when needed. But it is impossible to say that without a national mask mandate and its requisite enforcement, 40,000 Americans would be lost. Stating so amounts to reprehensible fear-mongering.
That’s one reason politicians shouldn’t be trying to politicize mask-wearing with mandates—and calling for heavy-handed solutions they know are impossible, backed by outlandish claims they know are misleading. It compromises public trust and diverts us from doing the right thing.
Americans, by and large, are generous, caring people. We need to trust them to care for themselves and their loved ones by wearing masks when social distancing is not possible.
As President Donald Trump has said, it’s the patriotic thing to do.
Originally published by The Press of Atlantic City


dailysignal--2020-08-25--What You Need to Know About ‘Promising’ Convalescent Plasma and COVID-19

President Donald Trump announced on Sunday that the Food and Drug Administration has issued an emergency use authorization for convalescent plasma in the treatment of COVID-19 .
Convalescent plasma is the fluid component of blood that is isolated from the donated blood of those who have contracted and recovered from COVID-19 .
This fluid is rich with the antibodies that previous patients had produced to fight the virus and is transfused into current patients to aid their immune systems and help them to recover as well .
The announcement of the emergency use authorization came at the end of several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in clinical trials and as part of an expanded access program , also known as “ compassionate use.
” To date , more than 100,000 hospitalized COVID-19 patients have been treated with convalescent plasma as part of the expanded access program at the Mayo Clinic .
The data from the program “ shows promising efficacy , ” according to FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn , and it helped to justify the emergency authorization .
The study of this data , available as a preprint , included 35,322 patients who received a transfusion of convalescent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measured the different mortality rates at seven and 30 days between groups .
Although there was no control group that received either a placebo or standard of care , researchers divided the patients into either those who received transfusions before or after three days , or into three different groups that received transfusions with high , medium , or low levels of antibody .
Those levels were not known at the time of transfusion .
Researchers found that mortality was lower among those who received the transfusions earlier and among those who received @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Comparing those who received transfusions before and after three days , mortality on Day Seven was 8.7 % in the early group and 11.9 % in the later group .
In other words , earlier transfusions were associated with a 27 % lower risk of mortality than later transfusions .
On Day 30 , the difference was smaller , but still associated with about a 21 % mortality-risk reduction for those receiving transfusions earlier , compared with those receiving transfusions later .
Mortality was also found to be inversely proportional to levels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ titers ) .
That is , the higher the antibody levels in the plasma , the lower the risk of mortality .
Comparing the mortality from the high-titer group , which was 8.9 % , to the low-titer group , which was 13.7 % , there was 35 % relative risk reduction in mortality .
These are all extremely promising numbers , but do not yet prove definitively that convalescent plasma is an effective treatment .
With more than 35,000 patients involved , there is a tremendous amount of data that showed statistically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earlier with higher antibody titers .
This is certainly enough to justify an emergency use authorization—but still not that “ gold standard ” of medicine , which is the randomized , controlled trial .
As an example of potential confounding , those who were enrolled in the study later in its course were more likely to be treated concomitantly with remdesivir , which has been shown to decrease the time to recovery and may have affected the clinical outcome of patients in this study .
And getting to the bottom of that information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sites were involved in this study , each with different attending physicians treating their patients based on compassionate use , rather than on strict study protocols .
Still , the vast number of patients involved in this study helps to negate confounding factors and gave the FDA enough information to determine that convalescent plasma met the requirements to issue an emergency use authorization to it .
Prior to the emergency use authorization , patients could have access to convalescent plasma as part of a clinical trial or through the expanded access program .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ as an investigational drug and is intended to allow severely ill or near-dying patients to have access to the drug outside of a clinical trial setting .
In that setting , the focus is on the potential benefit of the drug , and safety may become a secondary concern .
Using the drug as treatment requires approval by an institutional review board , which is a formal committee mostly concerned with biomedical research .
In contrast , now that convalescent plasma has an emergency use authorization , it can be used as part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a research context .
Normal consent is required , and there is no need for approval from an institutional review board .
Furthermore , the emergency use authorization is only granted if the FDA thinks that a drug is safe relative to its potential benefits .
In short , as a result of this emergency use authorization , it will be much easier for more patients in more institutions to be treated with convalescent plasma , which is showing great promise .
But as always with COVID-19 , optimism should be guarded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will show for certain whether convalescent plasma is effective or not .
While we wait for more information to come back from clinical trials , the large amount of existing data we have suggests that we may have another option in the fight against COVID-19 .
This emergency use authorization now makes it easier for patients to have access to it .

President Donald Trump announced on Sunday that the Food and Drug Administration has issued an emergency use authorization for convalescent plasma in the treatment of COVID-19.
Convalescent plasma is the fluid component of blood that is isolated from the donated blood of those who have contracted and recovered from COVID-19.
This fluid is rich with the antibodies that previous patients had produced to fight the virus and is transfused into current patients to aid their immune systems and help them to recover as well.
The announcement of the emergency use authorization came at the end of several months of convalescent plasma’s use in clinical trials and as part of an expanded access program, also known as “compassionate use.”
To date, more than 100,000 hospitalized COVID-19 patients have been treated with convalescent plasma as part of the expanded access program at the Mayo Clinic. The data from the program “shows promising efficacy,” according to FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, and it helped to justify the emergency authorization.
The study of this data, available as a preprint, included 35,322 patients who received a transfusion of convalescent plasma between April and July.
Researchers measured the different mortality rates at seven and 30 days between groups. Although there was no control group that received either a placebo or standard of care, researchers divided the patients into either those who received transfusions before or after three days, or into three different groups that received transfusions with high, medium, or low levels of antibody. Those levels were not known at the time of transfusion.
Researchers found that mortality was lower among those who received the transfusions earlier and among those who received the highest antibody titers, or concentrations.
Comparing those who received transfusions before and after three days, mortality on Day Seven was 8.7% in the early group and 11.9% in the later group.
In other words, earlier transfusions were associated with a 27% lower risk of mortality than later transfusions.
On Day 30, the difference was smaller, but still associated with about a 21% mortality-risk reduction for those receiving transfusions earlier, compared with those receiving transfusions later.
Mortality was also found to be inversely proportional to levels of antibody (as measured by antibody titers). That is, the higher the antibody levels in the plasma, the lower the risk of mortality. Comparing the mortality from the high-titer group, which was 8.9%, to the low-titer group, which was 13.7%, there was 35% relative risk reduction in mortality.
These are all extremely promising numbers, but do not yet prove definitively that convalescent plasma is an effective treatment.
With more than 35,000 patients involved, there is a tremendous amount of data that showed statistically significant improvements in those who received transfusions earlier with higher antibody titers.
This is certainly enough to justify an emergency use authorization—but still not that “gold standard” of medicine, which is the randomized, controlled trial.
As an example of potential confounding, those who were enrolled in the study later in its course were more likely to be treated concomitantly with remdesivir, which has been shown to decrease the time to recovery and may have affected the clinical outcome of patients in this study.
And getting to the bottom of that information might be difficult because more than 1,800 sites were involved in this study, each with different attending physicians treating their patients based on compassionate use, rather than on strict study protocols.
Still, the vast number of patients involved in this study helps to negate confounding factors and gave the FDA enough information to determine that convalescent plasma met the requirements to issue an emergency use authorization to it.
Prior to the emergency use authorization, patients could have access to convalescent plasma as part of a clinical trial or through the expanded access program.
An expanded access program treats the drug as an investigational drug and is intended to allow severely ill or near-dying patients to have access to the drug outside of a clinical trial setting.
In that setting, the focus is on the potential benefit of the drug, and safety may become a secondary concern. Using the drug as treatment requires approval by an institutional review board, which is a formal committee mostly concerned with biomedical research.
In contrast, now that convalescent plasma has an emergency use authorization, it can be used as part of the practice of medicine and outside of a research context. Normal consent is required, and there is no need for approval from an institutional review board. Furthermore, the emergency use authorization is only granted if the FDA thinks that a drug is safe relative to its potential benefits.
In short, as a result of this emergency use authorization, it will be much easier for more patients in more institutions to be treated with convalescent plasma, which is showing great promise.
But as always with COVID-19, optimism should be guarded. The trials are still underway that will show for certain whether convalescent plasma is effective or not.
While we wait for more information to come back from clinical trials, the large amount of existing data we have suggests that we may have another option in the fight against COVID-19.
This emergency use authorization now makes it easier for patients to have access to it.


dailysignal--2020-08-25--Customs and Border Protection Implements New Measures at US-Mexico Border as Coronavirus Spikes

Individuals crossing the U.S.-Mexico border will be subject to secondary inspections after a survey of people crossing the border found 60 % of trips were nonessential , a local NBC affiliate reported .
The survey was reportedly given to 100,000 U.S. citizens and permanent residents , and found that over 60 % of the trips made were considered nonessential , NBC San Diego reported .
To reduce the risk of spreading the novel coronavirus , Customs and Border Protection implemented new measures to restrict nonessential travel across the borders , according to the outlet .
> > > What ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
“ In response to the health crisis and to protect communities by the border , CBP is taking measures to discourage non-essential border crossing to and from Mexico , ” CBP said in a statement , NBC San Diego reported .
“ It is our duty to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including educating citizens and even discouraging non-essential travel to Mexico.
” Nonessential travel was restricted between U.S. entry ports in Mexico to help slow the spread of the coronavirus in the U.S. , NBC San Diego reported .
The U.S. made official agreements with Canada and Mexico to limit nonessential travel across the borders on March 3 , though essential commercial activity wouldn ’ t be impacted , according to the Department of Homeland Security .
Individuals who CBP suspects of traveling for nonessential purposes will be subject to a secondary inspection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ materials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to raise awareness , NBC San Diego reported .
Travelers who require a secondary inspection will reportedly face extended wait times .
“ U.S .
citizens , lawful permanent residents are legally entitled to enter the U.S. and will not be refused entry , however , it is highly recommended that they do so for only essential purposes , consistent with the series of DHS notices published Federal Register , ” CBP said in a statement , NBC San Diego reported .
The measures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to an increase in coronavirus cases along the border in Mexico , NBC San Diego reported .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of this original content , email [ email protected ]

Individuals crossing the U.S.-Mexico border will be subject to secondary inspections after a survey of people crossing the border found 60% of trips were nonessential, a local NBC affiliate reported.
The survey was reportedly given to 100,000 U.S. citizens and permanent residents, and found that over 60% of the trips made were considered nonessential, NBC San Diego reported.
To reduce the risk of spreading the novel coronavirus, Customs and Border Protection implemented new measures to restrict nonessential travel across the borders, according to the outlet.
>>> 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.
“In response to the health crisis and to protect communities by the border, CBP is taking measures to discourage non-essential border crossing to and from Mexico,” CBP said in a statement, NBC San Diego reported. “It is our duty to do everything we can to protect our nation, including educating citizens and even discouraging non-essential travel to Mexico.”
TRAVEL ALERT: The temporary restriction on non-essential travel at US land border ports of entry remains in effect. Essential travel and trade continue unimpeded. Essential travel includes, but is not limited to: pic.twitter.com/EKrlaX7knF — CBP (@CBP) August 23, 2020
Nonessential travel was restricted between U.S. entry ports in Mexico to help slow the spread of the coronavirus in the U.S., NBC San Diego reported.
The U.S. made official agreements with Canada and Mexico to limit nonessential travel across the borders on March 3, though essential commercial activity wouldn’t be impacted, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
Individuals who CBP suspects of traveling for nonessential purposes will be subject to a secondary inspection where CBP officials will distribute coronavirus educational materials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to raise awareness, NBC San Diego reported. Travelers who require a secondary inspection will reportedly face extended wait times.
“U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents are legally entitled to enter the U.S. and will not be refused entry, however, it is highly recommended that they do so for only essential purposes, consistent with the series of DHS notices published Federal Register,” CBP said in a statement, NBC San Diego reported.
The measures were implemented on Aug. 21, due to an increase in coronavirus cases along the border in Mexico, NBC San Diego reported.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


dailysignal--2020-08-28--‘Medicare for All’ Is Still a Threat

‘Medicare for All’ Is Still a Threat

Noticeably absent from the Democrats ’ latest policy platform : any mention of “ Medicare for All.
” But don ’ t be fooled .
Efforts to push government-run health care are still a real threat .
Rather than fully and openly embracing a single-payer model , this new approach hides itself behind expanding Obamacare and adding to it a new government plan—the so-called public option .
However , more government involvement in health care is still the problem .
Take Obamacare .
It has led to higher cost and less choice .
Premiums more than doubled—with a 125 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2013 to 2018 .
In 2013 , the year before Obamacare took effect , the average monthly premium for coverage in the individual market was $ 244 per month .
By 2018 , the cost was $ 550 per month .
As premiums increased , coverage options decreased .
By 2019 , there were nearly half as many insurers offering coverage through the government-run exchanges , and 77 % of counties had two or fewer insurers offering plans on the government-run exchanges .
Higher costs and fewer options have driven many middle-class families @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Census data show that the number of uninsured increased from 2017 to 2018 .
Many individuals who qualify for assistance remain uninsured , and data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services show that from 2016 to 2018 , enrollment in Obamacare among middle-class families who are not subsidized dropped by 40 % .
As Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Seema Verma notes , “ As usual , critics of President Trump have been quick to blame the Administration ’ s healthcare policies for this increase .
But a review @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rate stems largely from Obamacare ’ s failure to deliver affordable health insurance premiums and has created a new class of uninsured.
” Reluctantly , the left has acknowledged that Obamacare has fallen short of cost and coverage expectations .
Yet its solution is more of the same : Spend more taxpayer money on subsidies to insurance companies to cover up the cost increases and set up another government program—the public option—to cover up the lack of coverage options .
Both solutions double down on a government-run model that fails to recognize that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the answer .
Increasing insurers ’ access to subsidies would mean big spending with little meaningful impact .
As Doug Badger , a former presidential appointee on the National Economic Council , points out : “ Although federal expenditures have increased and are projected to continue to increase in the future , the number of people benefiting from subsidies has been declining for three years .
The Congressional Budget Office projects that both trends will persist over the next decade , with the number of subsidized beneficiaries dropping by roughly one-fourth , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than one-third .
The introduction of yet another new government program—the so-called public option—also would do more harm than good .
Public option proponents argue that the new government plan would increase choice , but in practice , the public option will have the opposite effect .
Under the public option scheme , the government plan—with its regulatory power—would set its prices below its private-market competitors .
Once the private competitors are squeezed out , the government plan would be the last and only coverage option available .
Being the sole provider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assume full power and control over the health care dollars and decisions , leaving Americans at the mercy of the government for their health care .
The effect of both these policy prescriptions advances the Medicare for All agenda : spend more taxpayer money , eliminate all private coverage , and replace it with one government-run health plan .
The argument on the left is not a policy disagreement but a strategy disagreement .
Medicare for All proponents may prefer an immediate and radical replacement of the health care system .
But in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a troubling prescription : a government-run health care system for all .

Noticeably absent from the Democrats’ latest policy platform: any mention of “Medicare for All.” But don’t be fooled. Efforts to push government-run health care are still a real threat.
Rather than fully and openly embracing a single-payer model, this new approach hides itself behind expanding Obamacare and adding to it a new government plan—the so-called public option.
However, more government involvement in health care is still the problem.
Take Obamacare. It has led to higher cost and less choice. Premiums more than doubled—with a 125% increase in the cost of health insurance—from 2013 to 2018.
In 2013, the year before Obamacare took effect, the average monthly premium for coverage in the individual market was $244 per month. By 2018, the cost was $550 per month.
As premiums increased, coverage options decreased. By 2019, there were nearly half as many insurers offering coverage through the government-run exchanges, and 77% of counties had two or fewer insurers offering plans on the government-run exchanges.
Higher costs and fewer options have driven many middle-class families out of the insurance market altogether. Census data show that the number of uninsured increased from 2017 to 2018.
Many individuals who qualify for assistance remain uninsured, and data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services show that from 2016 to 2018, enrollment in Obamacare among middle-class families who are not subsidized dropped by 40%.
As Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Seema Verma notes, “As usual, critics of President Trump have been quick to blame the Administration’s healthcare policies for this increase. But a review of key facts suggests the rising uninsured rate stems largely from Obamacare’s failure to deliver affordable health insurance premiums and has created a new class of uninsured.”
Reluctantly, the left has acknowledged that Obamacare has fallen short of cost and coverage expectations.
Yet its solution is more of the same: Spend more taxpayer money on subsidies to insurance companies to cover up the cost increases and set up another government program—the public option—to cover up the lack of coverage options.
Both solutions double down on a government-run model that fails to recognize that more government is the problem, not the answer.
Increasing insurers’ access to subsidies would mean big spending with little meaningful impact. As Doug Badger, a former presidential appointee on the National Economic Council, points out: “Although federal expenditures have increased and are projected to continue to increase in the future, the number of people benefiting from subsidies has been declining for three years.
The Congressional Budget Office projects that both trends will persist over the next decade, with the number of subsidized beneficiaries dropping by roughly one-fourth, while annual spending on federal subsidies rises by more than one-third.
The introduction of yet another new government program—the so-called public option—also would do more harm than good. Public option proponents argue that the new government plan would increase choice, but in practice, the public option will have the opposite effect.
Under the public option scheme, the government plan—with its regulatory power—would set its prices below its private-market competitors.
Once the private competitors are squeezed out, the government plan would be the last and only coverage option available. Being the sole provider of health care, the government would assume full power and control over the health care dollars and decisions, leaving Americans at the mercy of the government for their health care.
The effect of both these policy prescriptions advances the Medicare for All agenda: spend more taxpayer money, eliminate all private coverage, and replace it with one government-run health plan.
The argument on the left is not a policy disagreement but a strategy disagreement. Medicare for All proponents may prefer an immediate and radical replacement of the health care system. But in the end, both approaches would lead to a troubling prescription: a government-run health care system for all.
Originally published by The Washington Times