freebeacon--2020-04-02--Uncertainty Looms Over Supreme Court as Lower Courts Transition to Teleconferencing

The Supreme Court has yet to settle on an alternative for cases delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic , as lower federal courts transition to teleconferencing and other remote work technologies .
In some sense , the Supreme Court 's work is going on as normal .
The justices have handed down opinions digitally twice , and petitions are still arriving at the Court regularly , albeit with an additional grace period .
Members of the Court have also met in conference twice to discuss official business , with Chief Justice John Roberts presiding from the Court itself while other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ canceled the Court 's March argument session , which was to run from March 23 to April 1 .
Though the April cases have not yet been postponed , President Donald Trump extended social distancing guidelines for another month on Sunday , seemingly calling the Court 's April argument session into question .
For the moment , the justices are publicly proceeding as though the April cases will be heard .
The Court issued an order Monday dividing time in an argument scheduled for April 21 .
It 's not clear how the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic .
There were 11 cases scheduled for argument in March and another 9 in the imperiled April sitting .
While some of those disputes might be deferred , others are time-sensitive .
One argument involves congressional subpoenas for the president 's financial records .
Those subpoenas , which were issued months ago , will expire at the end of the year .
Another argument involves a constitutional challenge to state laws that punish `` faithless '' presidential electors .
Presumably , that issue must be decided before the November election .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ April and dispenses with the last of its opinions by late June .
The justices are on something of a hiatus from July to September until the new term begins in October .
As such , extending the term into the summer months is one viable option .
The Court might also simply push all affected cases until next term .
A hybrid solution is also possible , under which some cases would be resolved this term , with the remaining matters rescheduled for October or November .
Others say the Court should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gabe Roth of Fix the Court , a nonpartisan judicial watchdog , urged the justices to allocate funds received from the $ 2 trillion CARES Act stimulus package toward livestreaming technology .
At present , the Court does not allow broadcasts of its proceedings , though it releases audio recordings of arguments on the Friday that immediately follows a given case .
Congress allocated an additional $ 500,000 in the stimulus to support Supreme Court operations .
The stimulus authorizes the Court to `` prevent , prepare for , and respond to coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ technology costs a small fraction of what the Supreme Court is receiving , so any excuses they may have had over going live , whether via phone or video conference or from an empty courtroom , will have evaporated , '' Roth said in a statement .
`` Enabling virtual participation would better protect justices and litigants , many of whom are at heightened risk to the ongoing pandemic , '' Roth added .
Six of the nine justices are at least 65 years of age , placing them at high risk of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resisted pressure from Congress and outside groups to televise their proceedings .
Justices Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan told a House appropriations panel in March 2019 that broadcasting arguments would prompt the justices to self-censor , for fear their fanciful hypotheticals or abstract questions would be taken out of context .
Even as livestreaming is unlikely at the High Court , many federal courts have embraced video and teleconferencing measures to ensure continuity of operations .
The CARES Act authorizes trial courts to conduct certain hearings by video or phone , such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pleas and sentences may also be processed remotely , though felony cases must still be conducted in person unless doing so would seriously jeopardize public health and safety , and the presiding judge finds `` specific reasons that the plea or sentencing in that case can not be further delayed without serious harm to the interests of justice . ''

The Supreme Court has yet to settle on an alternative for cases delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic, as lower federal courts transition to teleconferencing and other remote work technologies.
In some sense, the Supreme Court's work is going on as normal. The justices have handed down opinions digitally twice, and petitions are still arriving at the Court regularly, albeit with an additional grace period. Members of the Court have also met in conference twice to discuss official business, with Chief Justice John Roberts presiding from the Court itself while other justices participate by phone.
The justices canceled the Court's March argument session, which was to run from March 23 to April 1. Though the April cases have not yet been postponed, President Donald Trump extended social distancing guidelines for another month on Sunday, seemingly calling the Court's April argument session into question. For the moment, the justices are publicly proceeding as though the April cases will be heard. The Court issued an order Monday dividing time in an argument scheduled for April 21.
It's not clear how the Court will reschedule arguments delayed due to the pandemic. There were 11 cases scheduled for argument in March and another 9 in the imperiled April sitting. While some of those disputes might be deferred, others are time-sensitive. One argument involves congressional subpoenas for the president's financial records. Those subpoenas, which were issued months ago, will expire at the end of the year. Another argument involves a constitutional challenge to state laws that punish "faithless" presidential electors. Presumably, that issue must be decided before the November election.
The Court hears arguments from October to April and dispenses with the last of its opinions by late June. The justices are on something of a hiatus from July to September until the new term begins in October. As such, extending the term into the summer months is one viable option.
The Court might also simply push all affected cases until next term. A hybrid solution is also possible, under which some cases would be resolved this term, with the remaining matters rescheduled for October or November.
Others say the Court should embrace technology to continue normal operations.
Gabe Roth of Fix the Court, a nonpartisan judicial watchdog, urged the justices to allocate funds received from the $2 trillion CARES Act stimulus package toward livestreaming technology. At present, the Court does not allow broadcasts of its proceedings, though it releases audio recordings of arguments on the Friday that immediately follows a given case.
Congress allocated an additional $500,000 in the stimulus to support Supreme Court operations. The stimulus authorizes the Court to "prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus."
"High-quality, multi-location livestreaming technology costs a small fraction of what the Supreme Court is receiving, so any excuses they may have had over going live, whether via phone or video conference or from an empty courtroom, will have evaporated," Roth said in a statement.
"Enabling virtual participation would better protect justices and litigants, many of whom are at heightened risk to the ongoing pandemic," Roth added. Six of the nine justices are at least 65 years of age, placing them at high risk of serious infection.
The justices have persistently resisted pressure from Congress and outside groups to televise their proceedings. Justices Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan told a House appropriations panel in March 2019 that broadcasting arguments would prompt the justices to self-censor, for fear their fanciful hypotheticals or abstract questions would be taken out of context.
Even as livestreaming is unlikely at the High Court, many federal courts have embraced video and teleconferencing measures to ensure continuity of operations. The CARES Act authorizes trial courts to conduct certain hearings by video or phone, such as arraignments or probation revocation proceedings.
Misdemeanor pleas and sentences may also be processed remotely, though felony cases must still be conducted in person unless doing so would seriously jeopardize public health and safety, and the presiding judge finds "specific reasons that the plea or sentencing in that case cannot be further delayed without serious harm to the interests of justice."


freebeacon--2020-04-03--Coronavirus and the Common Good

Coronavirus and the Common Good

Long before the onset of the pandemic , some of the journalists and politicians on the American right began speaking of the `` common good . ''
Back in 2005 , Rick Santorum titled one of his books , It Takes a Family : Conservatism and the Common Good .
More recently , last October Sohrab Ahmari wrote that the common good should replace individual autonomy—i.e.
, freedom—as the touchstone of a new conservatism .
The following month , Marco Rubio told an audience at Catholic University that a `` common-good capitalism '' would promote dignified work for all and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their profits to create jobs in the United States .
Reaction to the upsurge of interest in the common good was divided into predictable camps .
Social conservatives applauded the introduction of another concept from Catholic social thought into conservative discourse .
They hoped that the common good would be added to solidarity , subsidiarity , and the preferential option for the poor as a guidepost to political action and public policy .
Economic conservatives rejected the term as meaningless at best and authoritarian at worst .
The other day , during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right , a young person asked me in earnest , `` And , what is the common good ? ''
It was the right question .
There is no easy answer .
The coronavirus prompts us to think about this question a little more seriously .
The mounting toll of the disease and the extreme measures governments around the world have imposed to contain it suggest that there really is something called the `` common good '' after all .
It is the flourishing of communities , from family to neighborhood to locality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus endangers , and that the authorities hope to preserve .
This good both includes and transcends the flourishing of individual persons within the community .
A functioning system of public health , then , contributes to the common good .
So does the rule of law , and an economy where households do not go bankrupt because of social distancing .
The common good exists .
It ought to be recognized .
Dismissing the idea would be an error .
But it also would be a mistake to deny that the concept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a context of religious diversity it will mean different things to different people , and that American proponents of the common good operate within a system in which popular sovereignty coexists with constitutionally protected individual rights .
`` How one can square the common good with personal liberty and cultural pluralism , '' wrote Michael Novak in 1986 , `` is most unclear . ''
He spent a lot of time trying .
Indeed , one of the most dispiriting aspects of the common good revival is its neglect and even derision of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a set of economic , social , and cultural issues similar to the ones that confront us today .
And while one might not agree with the answers provided in his more than 50 books , one can not pretend that those books do not exist , or do not contain at least partial truths .
`` The economic order of the United States tested a proposition , '' he wrote in Free Persons and the Common Good ( 1989 ) , `` viz ; whether an economy may raise the common good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to free persons .
Such an economy is dedicated both to the general welfare and to the freedom of persons . ''
As the pandemic reorders society , reorganizes the economy , and diminishes individual liberty , the sustainability of the U.S. proposition has come into question .
And so some , like Adrian Vermeule of Harvard University , believe it is time to abandon a jurisprudence of original intent for a `` common-good constitutionalism '' whose `` main aim '' is `` to ensure that the ruler has the power needed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noteworthy that the words `` Bill of Rights '' and `` Amendment '' do not appear in this essay on the Constitution . )
Novak acknowledged that references to the common good strike a jarring note in modern rhetoric .
The very notion of a `` common good '' hails from an epoch when there was no distinction between state and society , between public and private .
For centuries , liberal writers have defined themselves against authorities to which everyone is subject .
Nor has there been a settled consensus as to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` Catholic writers , one will find , not only frequently disagree about the meaning of the term but make significant errors in discussing it , '' he wrote .
Still , Novak continued , the common good is located somewhere in the space between individualistic self-obsession and totalitarian mass control .
Why ?
Because both of these systems deny the dignity of the human person .
Critics accuse liberal democracy of being purely individualistic and procedural .
Novak pointed to the social-cultural sphere as the potential site of robust communal activity .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ methods for giving preeminence to the common good—above all , in actually achieving and in progressively raising the levels of the common good , '' he wrote .
`` It does so , to be sure , by taking care to include within the definition of the common good the securing of human rights : that is , the rights of free persons and free associations . ''
Associations are key .
Under a regime in which government is limited to secure the unalienable rights men and women possess because they each were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ society is as important as the state .
`` The chief and most potent instrument of achieving the common good—in such a novus ordo—is not the state but the society at large , in its full range of social institutions , '' Novak wrote .
`` These include families , churches , schools , workers ' associations , private enterprises , and so forth .
Whereas in some earlier systems or social orders , the government was believed to be the chief agent of the common good , in the novus ordo a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ institutions would rightfully become the primary agents of the common good . ''
Novak often cited the following line from Tocqueville : `` If men are to remain civilized or to become civilized , the art of association must develop and improve among them at the same speed as equality of condition spreads . ''
So , government is not the only means by which the common good can be pursued .
Equally if not more important to human flourishing are the mediating structures of family , religion , community , vocation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , economy , society , and individual character are connected .
But social causation does not follow a straight line .
And just as the structure of our economic institutions might be traced to political decisions , so might the strength and weaknesses of our social institutions .
From Burke to Tocqueville to Robert Nisbet , conservative social thought has catalogued the ways in which the expansive state pushes through the mediating structures by assuming their functions .
Then the solitary individual is left to face the Leviathan alone .
The common good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ separate phenomena .
They are linked .
A post-corona politics of the common good that recognizes freedom must be exercised within the constraints of a moral tradition ; that encourages able-bodied men and women to work and form families ; that makes it easier to enter a profession , buy a home , raise children ; that preserves the independence of religious institutions from state interference and resists the separation of religion from society ; that protects communities from lawlessness , epidemics , and external threats ; and that builds the capacity of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , education , research and development , and the defense industrial base would fit comfortably in the American political tradition of `` freedom and justice for all . ''
A politics that pursues a sectarian definition of `` the common good '' ; that models its ideal government after a religious bureaucracy with a decidedly imperfect history ; and that imperiously and rather impishly rejects longstanding indigenous norms of liberty and conscience does not .
`` It is my hope , '' Novak concluded , `` that during the next two hundred years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tradition will work as allies rather than enemies , each correcting the other from its own proper viewpoint .
They have different purposes—one focused on the City of God , the other on the City of Man—and operate within two different perspectives .
But the free persons that both address , and the common good that both are called upon to serve , dwell under the light of both Cities simultaneously .
Both are called upon to promote the common good of free persons .
Would that they do so together ! ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to answer Michael Novak 's call .

Long before the onset of the pandemic, some of the journalists and politicians on the American right began speaking of the "common good." Back in 2005, Rick Santorum titled one of his books, It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good. More recently, last October Sohrab Ahmari wrote that the common good should replace individual autonomy—i.e., freedom—as the touchstone of a new conservatism. The following month, Marco Rubio told an audience at Catholic University that a "common-good capitalism" would promote dignified work for all and incentivize businesses to reinvest "enough" of their profits to create jobs in the United States.
Reaction to the upsurge of interest in the common good was divided into predictable camps. Social conservatives applauded the introduction of another concept from Catholic social thought into conservative discourse. They hoped that the common good would be added to solidarity, subsidiarity, and the preferential option for the poor as a guidepost to political action and public policy. Economic conservatives rejected the term as meaningless at best and authoritarian at worst. The other day, during a discussion of trends on the intellectual right, a young person asked me in earnest, "And, what is the common good?" It was the right question. There is no easy answer.
The coronavirus prompts us to think about this question a little more seriously. The mounting toll of the disease and the extreme measures governments around the world have imposed to contain it suggest that there really is something called the "common good" after all. It is the flourishing of communities, from family to neighborhood to locality to state to nation, that the virus endangers, and that the authorities hope to preserve. This good both includes and transcends the flourishing of individual persons within the community. A functioning system of public health, then, contributes to the common good. So does the rule of law, and an economy where households do not go bankrupt because of social distancing.
The common good exists. It ought to be recognized. Dismissing the idea would be an error. But it also would be a mistake to deny that the concept is vague and slippery, that in a context of religious diversity it will mean different things to different people, and that American proponents of the common good operate within a system in which popular sovereignty coexists with constitutionally protected individual rights. "How one can square the common good with personal liberty and cultural pluralism," wrote Michael Novak in 1986, "is most unclear." He spent a lot of time trying.
Indeed, one of the most dispiriting aspects of the common good revival is its neglect and even derision of Novak (1933-2017). He faced a set of economic, social, and cultural issues similar to the ones that confront us today. And while one might not agree with the answers provided in his more than 50 books, one cannot pretend that those books do not exist, or do not contain at least partial truths. "The economic order of the United States tested a proposition," he wrote in Free Persons and the Common Good (1989), "viz; whether an economy may raise the common good of all through granting unparalleled economic liberties to free persons. Such an economy is dedicated both to the general welfare and to the freedom of persons."
As the pandemic reorders society, reorganizes the economy, and diminishes individual liberty, the sustainability of the U.S. proposition has come into question. And so some, like Adrian Vermeule of Harvard University, believe it is time to abandon a jurisprudence of original intent for a "common-good constitutionalism" whose "main aim" is "to ensure that the ruler has the power needed to rule well." (It is noteworthy that the words "Bill of Rights" and "Amendment" do not appear in this essay on the Constitution.)
Novak acknowledged that references to the common good strike a jarring note in modern rhetoric. The very notion of a "common good" hails from an epoch when there was no distinction between state and society, between public and private. For centuries, liberal writers have defined themselves against authorities to which everyone is subject. Nor has there been a settled consensus as to what the common good actually is. "Catholic writers, one will find, not only frequently disagree about the meaning of the term but make significant errors in discussing it," he wrote. Still, Novak continued, the common good is located somewhere in the space between individualistic self-obsession and totalitarian mass control. Why? Because both of these systems deny the dignity of the human person.
Critics accuse liberal democracy of being purely individualistic and procedural. Novak pointed to the social-cultural sphere as the potential site of robust communal activity. "The liberal society has its own methods for giving preeminence to the common good—above all, in actually achieving and in progressively raising the levels of the common good," he wrote. "It does so, to be sure, by taking care to include within the definition of the common good the securing of human rights: that is, the rights of free persons and free associations."
Associations are key. Under a regime in which government is limited to secure the unalienable rights men and women possess because they each were created in the image of God, society is as important as the state. "The chief and most potent instrument of achieving the common good—in such a novus ordo—is not the state but the society at large, in its full range of social institutions," Novak wrote. "These include families, churches, schools, workers' associations, private enterprises, and so forth. Whereas in some earlier systems or social orders, the government was believed to be the chief agent of the common good, in the novus ordo a larger and more various set of social institutions would rightfully become the primary agents of the common good." Novak often cited the following line from Tocqueville: "If men are to remain civilized or to become civilized, the art of association must develop and improve among them at the same speed as equality of condition spreads."
So, government is not the only means by which the common good can be pursued. Equally if not more important to human flourishing are the mediating structures of family, religion, community, vocation, and voluntary association. Yes, law, economy, society, and individual character are connected. But social causation does not follow a straight line. And just as the structure of our economic institutions might be traced to political decisions, so might the strength and weaknesses of our social institutions. From Burke to Tocqueville to Robert Nisbet, conservative social thought has catalogued the ways in which the expansive state pushes through the mediating structures by assuming their functions. Then the solitary individual is left to face the Leviathan alone. The common good and the art of association are not separate phenomena. They are linked.
A post-corona politics of the common good that recognizes freedom must be exercised within the constraints of a moral tradition; that encourages able-bodied men and women to work and form families; that makes it easier to enter a profession, buy a home, raise children; that preserves the independence of religious institutions from state interference and resists the separation of religion from society; that protects communities from lawlessness, epidemics, and external threats; and that builds the capacity of public institutions to promote transportation, health, education, research and development, and the defense industrial base would fit comfortably in the American political tradition of "freedom and justice for all." A politics that pursues a sectarian definition of "the common good"; that models its ideal government after a religious bureaucracy with a decidedly imperfect history; and that imperiously and rather impishly rejects longstanding indigenous norms of liberty and conscience does not.
"It is my hope," Novak concluded, "that during the next two hundred years, the Catholic tradition and the liberal tradition will work as allies rather than enemies, each correcting the other from its own proper viewpoint. They have different purposes—one focused on the City of God, the other on the City of Man—and operate within two different perspectives. But the free persons that both address, and the common good that both are called upon to serve, dwell under the light of both Cities simultaneously. Both are called upon to promote the common good of free persons. Would that they do so together!" The time of coronavirus is an opportunity to answer Michael Novak's call.


freebeacon--2020-04-03--Iowa Dem Holds Virtual Fundraiser with Anti-Dark Money Group While Benefiting From Dark Money

Iowa Democrat Theresa Greenfield , who is being aided by millions in dark money , held a virtual fundraiser with an anti-dark money group during the coronavirus pandemic .
She has not participated in any virtual public events during the outbreak .
Greenfield held a `` special virtual event '' with End Citizens United , a liberal group that decries the influence of corporate PAC and dark money in politics .
However , her campaign has received millions in help from liberal dark money groups , pulled in cash from committees funded by corporate PACs , and has been accused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PAC .
Greenfield is attempting to unseat Republican senator Joni Ernst in what is expected to be one of the most hotly contested races in the country .
She has shaped her campaign around ridding Washington of the `` corrupting '' influence of money in politics .
She released a plan that calls for eliminating dark money , banning corporate PACs , and stopping coordination between campaigns and outside groups .
Greenfield appears to have already broken all of these promises .
`` I 'm not accepting any corporate PAC money , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ event .
`` Iowans need a senator who will fight for them , not corporate special interests .
Now more than ever , we need to # EndPoliticalCorruption . ''
End Citizens United throws its weight behind candidates who vow to oppose big money in Washington .
The group plans to spend $ 10 million backing candidates for the 2020 election cycle .
End Citizens United endorsed Greenfield despite the Democrat having received a boost from almost every target of her `` anticorruption '' plan .
Greenfield has called for `` sweeping reforms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Iowa first . ''
Her plan calls for banning dark money—political spending by nonprofits that hide their donors .
But Greenfield has received outside help from Iowa Forward , a liberal dark money group that does not disclose its donors .
The shadowy group has dropped more than $ 600,000 into advertisements and billboards attacking Sen. Ernst .
The Senate hopeful also vows not to receive money from corporate PACs but appears to have found a workaround .
Her campaign has received more than $ 150,000 from Democratic leadership PACs that have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Sen. Schumer 's Impact PAC , for example , has given money to Greenfield 's campaign .
Schumer 's PAC has received at least $ 200,000 from PACs associated with Goldman Sachs , Bank of America , Facebook , Altria , Google , and Humana .
Also included in her `` anticorruption '' plan is a promise to stop candidate coordination with outside groups .
Greenfield and the Senate Majority PAC , which is affiliated with Sen. Chuck Schumer ( D. , N.Y. ) , were hit with a complaint alleging illegal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington Free Beacon report .
Sen. Schumer 's group has spent more than $ 5 million on Greenfield 's behalf and plans to spend at least $ 13.1 million more in Iowa this year .
The PAC is closely affiliated with Majority Forward , a dark money nonprofit that is also targeting Ernst .
Majority Forward has paid the Senate Majority PAC $ 1.7 million in recent years for its shared staff and office space .
Greenfield also wants to tackle lobbyists and take power away from special interests if elected to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has received at least $ 30,000 from dozens of lobbyists .
Greenfield 's campaign and End Citizens United did not respond to inquiries by press time .

Iowa Democrat Theresa Greenfield, who is being aided by millions in dark money, held a virtual fundraiser with an anti-dark money group during the coronavirus pandemic. She has not participated in any virtual public events during the outbreak.
Greenfield held a "special virtual event" with End Citizens United, a liberal group that decries the influence of corporate PAC and dark money in politics. However, her campaign has received millions in help from liberal dark money groups, pulled in cash from committees funded by corporate PACs, and has been accused of illegally coordinating with a Democratic super PAC.
Greenfield is attempting to unseat Republican senator Joni Ernst in what is expected to be one of the most hotly contested races in the country. She has shaped her campaign around ridding Washington of the "corrupting" influence of money in politics. She released a plan that calls for eliminating dark money, banning corporate PACs, and stopping coordination between campaigns and outside groups. Greenfield appears to have already broken all of these promises.
"I'm not accepting any corporate PAC money," Greenfield tweeted following the End Citizens United event. "Iowans need a senator who will fight for them, not corporate special interests. Now more than ever, we need to #EndPoliticalCorruption." End Citizens United throws its weight behind candidates who vow to oppose big money in Washington. The group plans to spend $10 million backing candidates for the 2020 election cycle.
End Citizens United endorsed Greenfield despite the Democrat having received a boost from almost every target of her "anticorruption" plan.
Greenfield has called for "sweeping reforms that ensure Washington politicians put the needs of Iowa first." Her plan calls for banning dark money—political spending by nonprofits that hide their donors.
But Greenfield has received outside help from Iowa Forward, a liberal dark money group that does not disclose its donors. The shadowy group has dropped more than $600,000 into advertisements and billboards attacking Sen. Ernst.
The Senate hopeful also vows not to receive money from corporate PACs but appears to have found a workaround. Her campaign has received more than $150,000 from Democratic leadership PACs that have taken money from PACs associated with corporations. Sen. Schumer's Impact PAC, for example, has given money to Greenfield's campaign. Schumer's PAC has received at least $200,000 from PACs associated with Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Facebook, Altria, Google, and Humana.
Also included in her "anticorruption" plan is a promise to stop candidate coordination with outside groups. Greenfield and the Senate Majority PAC, which is affiliated with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), were hit with a complaint alleging illegal coordination between the two entities following a Washington Free Beacon report.
Sen. Schumer's group has spent more than $5 million on Greenfield's behalf and plans to spend at least $13.1 million more in Iowa this year. The PAC is closely affiliated with Majority Forward, a dark money nonprofit that is also targeting Ernst. Majority Forward has paid the Senate Majority PAC $1.7 million in recent years for its shared staff and office space.
Greenfield also wants to tackle lobbyists and take power away from special interests if elected to the Senate. Her campaign, however, has received at least $30,000 from dozens of lobbyists.
Greenfield's campaign and End Citizens United did not respond to inquiries by press time.


freebeacon--2020-04-03--Venezuelan Navy Vessel Sinks After Opening Fire on Cruise Ship

A Venezuelan Navy vessel opened fire on a German cruise ship but sank after it sustained `` severe damages '' while ramming the luxury liner on Monday morning .
The RCGS Resolute , a 123-meter-long cruise ship equipped for polar expeditions , was performing routine maintenance in international waters off the coast of Venezuela on Monday morning , according to a statement by Columbia Cruise Services , which manages the ship .
Soon , a Venezuelan patrol boat approached , demanding that the ship divert its course to a Venezuelan port .
The patrol boat then opened fire on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Resolute has a reinforced hull built to survive in arctic conditions and sustained only `` minor damages '' in the encounter .
The same could not be said for its aggressor .
`` While the RCGS RESOLUTE sustained minor damages , not affecting [ the ] vessel 's seaworthiness , it occurs that the navy vessel suffered severe damages while making contact with the ice-strengthened bulbous bow of the ice-class expedition cruise vessel RCGS RESOLUTE and started to take water , '' the statement read .
The Resolute repeatedly offered help to its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not answer the Resolute ‘ s hails , according to the statement .
The cruise ship ultimately left the area after an international maritime authority told the Resolute that its assistance was not necessary .
The ship soon safely docked at its intended destination of Curaçao .
The Venezuelan government acknowledged the naval encounter but claimed the Resolute was in Venezuelan territorial waters during the incident .
CNN reported the country 's defense ministry suggested that the Resolute carried foreign mercenaries trying to invade Venezuela .
A search and rescue operation rescued all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Venezuelan government .

A Venezuelan Navy vessel opened fire on a German cruise ship but sank after it sustained "severe damages" while ramming the luxury liner on Monday morning.
The RCGS Resolute, a 123-meter-long cruise ship equipped for polar expeditions, was performing routine maintenance in international waters off the coast of Venezuela on Monday morning, according to a statement by Columbia Cruise Services, which manages the ship. Soon, a Venezuelan patrol boat approached, demanding that the ship divert its course to a Venezuelan port. The patrol boat then opened fire on the Resolute and repeatedly rammed it.
The Resolute has a reinforced hull built to survive in arctic conditions and sustained only "minor damages" in the encounter. The same could not be said for its aggressor.
"While the RCGS RESOLUTE sustained minor damages, not affecting [the] vessel's seaworthiness, it occurs that the navy vessel suffered severe damages while making contact with the ice-strengthened bulbous bow of the ice-class expedition cruise vessel RCGS RESOLUTE and started to take water," the statement read.
The Resolute repeatedly offered help to its crew, but the Venezuelan sailors did not answer the Resolute's hails, according to the statement. The cruise ship ultimately left the area after an international maritime authority told the Resolute that its assistance was not necessary. The ship soon safely docked at its intended destination of Curaçao.
The Venezuelan government acknowledged the naval encounter but claimed the Resolute was in Venezuelan territorial waters during the incident. CNN reported the country's defense ministry suggested that the Resolute carried foreign mercenaries trying to invade Venezuela.
A search and rescue operation rescued all men aboard the patrol boat, according to the Venezuelan government.


freebeacon--2020-04-03--Clyburn Defends Calling Coronavirus an Opportunity to ‘Restructure Government’

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn ( D. , S.C. ) on Friday defended his previous claim that coronavirus is a `` tremendous opportunity '' to advance Democratic policy goals .
`` I find it kind of interesting that one of my colleagues said he has a problem with me because I 'm a ‘ restructure government ' person , '' Clyburn told Roll Call .
`` Yes , Jim Clyburn is a restructuring government guy and everybody with any common sense , and looking at where we are today , needs to be a restructuring government person . ''
Clyburn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Speaker Nancy Pelosi 's ( D. , Calif. ) coronavirus response .
The speaker tapped the South Carolina Democrat on Thursday to lead her select oversight committee on coronavirus relief , which will monitor the billions in federal dollars spent fighting the pandemic .
Top Republicans criticized the decision , pointing to Clyburn 's March comments calling the coronavirus `` a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision . ''
`` What 's most telling here is who [ Pelosi ] appointed .
She did n't go with the oversight committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clyburn , '' House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy ( R. , Calif. ) said during a Fox News appearance Friday .
`` And remember what Clyburn said—her majority whip .
He said this is a time to restructure into their vision , government .
This is n't about oversight , [ it ] sounds like pure politics . ''
Clyburn defended his comments in a Friday Roll Call interview , with the South Carolina Democrat comparing America 's coronavirus response to World War II .
`` I spent some time in the last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , looking at the history of it , looking at what went on with it .
I think they were very successful , '' Clyburn said .
`` We came out of World War II with restructuring some things . ''
Clyburn also used the coronavirus to tout Democratic priorities on health care , arguing that telehealth expansion could not occur without upending the nation 's health care system .
`` We got ta have telehealth going forward for these kinds of issues , and to do it we 've got to restructure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this country , '' Clyburn said .
`` That 's what we were doing with Medicare and Medicaid , that 's what we were doing with the Affordable Care Act—trying to restructure the way health care is delivered in this country . ''
Though Clyburn defended his portrayal of coronavirus as a political opportunity , Pelosi on Friday indicated that she would back away from adding unrelated Democratic policy goals to the next coronavirus relief bill .
The speaker faced criticism for delaying the now-signed $ 2 trillion stimulus bill in favor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bargaining power for unions and raised fuel emissions standards for airlines .
She previously indicated that the next relief bill could include `` bold action to renew America 's infrastructure . ''
`` While I 'm very much in favor of doing some things we need to do to meet the needs—clean water , more broadband , the rest of that—that may have to be for a bill beyond that right now , '' Pelosi said during a Friday CNBC appearance .
`` I 'm glad Speaker Pelosi is again standing down from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unrelated left-wing priorities , '' he said .
`` The latest proposal had been a massive tax-code giveaway for wealthy people in blue states that was instantly panned by economists across the spectrum . ''

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D., S.C.) on Friday defended his previous claim that coronavirus is a "tremendous opportunity" to advance Democratic policy goals.
"I find it kind of interesting that one of my colleagues said he has a problem with me because I'm a 'restructure government' person," Clyburn told Roll Call. "Yes, Jim Clyburn is a restructuring government guy and everybody with any common sense, and looking at where we are today, needs to be a restructuring government person."
Clyburn has taken a prominent role in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D., Calif.) coronavirus response. The speaker tapped the South Carolina Democrat on Thursday to lead her select oversight committee on coronavirus relief, which will monitor the billions in federal dollars spent fighting the pandemic. Top Republicans criticized the decision, pointing to Clyburn's March comments calling the coronavirus "a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision."
"What's most telling here is who [Pelosi] appointed. She didn't go with the oversight committee chair, her own, she appointed Clyburn," House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.) said during a Fox News appearance Friday. "And remember what Clyburn said—her majority whip. He said this is a time to restructure into their vision, government. This isn't about oversight, [it] sounds like pure politics."
Clyburn defended his comments in a Friday Roll Call interview, with the South Carolina Democrat comparing America's coronavirus response to World War II.
"I spent some time in the last 24 hours looking at the Truman Committee, looking at the history of it, looking at what went on with it. I think they were very successful," Clyburn said. "We came out of World War II with restructuring some things."
Clyburn also used the coronavirus to tout Democratic priorities on health care, arguing that telehealth expansion could not occur without upending the nation's health care system.
"We gotta have telehealth going forward for these kinds of issues, and to do it we've got to restructure the way we deliver health care in this country," Clyburn said. "That's what we were doing with Medicare and Medicaid, that's what we were doing with the Affordable Care Act—trying to restructure the way health care is delivered in this country."
Though Clyburn defended his portrayal of coronavirus as a political opportunity, Pelosi on Friday indicated that she would back away from adding unrelated Democratic policy goals to the next coronavirus relief bill. The speaker faced criticism for delaying the now-signed $2 trillion stimulus bill in favor of her own legislation, which increased collective bargaining power for unions and raised fuel emissions standards for airlines. She previously indicated that the next relief bill could include "bold action to renew America's infrastructure."
"While I'm very much in favor of doing some things we need to do to meet the needs—clean water, more broadband, the rest of that—that may have to be for a bill beyond that right now," Pelosi said during a Friday CNBC appearance.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) welcomed Pelosi’s reversal in a Friday tweet.
"I'm glad Speaker Pelosi is again standing down from efforts to use this crisis to push unrelated left-wing priorities," he said. "The latest proposal had been a massive tax-code giveaway for wealthy people in blue states that was instantly panned by economists across the spectrum."


freebeacon--2020-04-03--NRA Sues New York Over Gun-Store Crackdown

The National Rifle Association filed a federal lawsuit against New York governor Andrew Cuomo ( D. ) on Thursday night in an effort to reopen gun stores closed by the emergency coronavirus shutdown .
Cuomo ordered all `` nonessential '' businesses to cease `` in-office personnel functions '' on March 22 .
He did not label gun businesses as `` essential . ''
Since federally licensed gun dealers are required by law to conduct in-person background checks for each sale , the order effectively closed gun stores in the state and cut off most legal gun sales .
The NRA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an `` assault '' on `` Second Amendment freedoms . ''
`` There is n't a single person who has ever used a gun for self-defense who would consider it nonessential , '' Wayne LaPierre , NRA executive vice president , said in a statement .
`` This is clearly another assault by Gov .
Cuomo on the NRA , on the rights of New Yorkers to defend themselves and their families , and on our Second Amendment freedoms .
The NRA will continue to fight all such attacks until Gov .
Cuomo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Yorker and every American—and not just for politicians and their privileged friends . ''
The governor 's office did not respond to a request for comment on the case .
New York attorney general Letitia James ( D. ) vowed to fight the NRA in court .
`` Everyone—including the NRA—must follow the law and all executive orders of New York , '' James said in a statement .
`` We will aggressively defend the state against yet another legal assault by the NRA . ''
The suit is the latest legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place across the country .
The outcome of the suit could affect how state and local officials determine which businesses can remain open amid mass closures aimed at slowing the spread of the deadly coronavirus .
Whether or not the threat of the virus can justify a total moratorium on legal gun purchases , even temporarily , or if gun businesses must be allowed to operate at least on a limited basis , may ultimately be decided by the courts .
Gun-rights activists and industry representatives have been largely successful in convincing state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open as demand exploded .
Days after Cuomo 's shutdown order , the Department of Homeland Security labeled gun businesses `` essential '' in coronavirus guidelines .
The nonbinding federal recommendations led New Jersey governor Phil Murphy ( D. ) and Los Angeles County sheriff Alex Villanueva ( D. ) to reverse decisions to close gun stores .
The only governor to further crack down on the industry in the wake of the DHS announcement has been Charlie Baker ( R. ) of Massachusetts , leading gun-rights groups to threaten legal action .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ court so far .
On Tuesday , a federal judge in California allowed Ventura County to move forward with gun-store shutdowns .
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court similarly refused to block Gov .
Tom Wolf ( D. ) from closing stores , though the governor later amended his order to open shops .
A North Carolina judge ordered Wake County sheriff Gerald Baker ( D. ) to abide by an agreement to reopen the pistol-purchase permit process in his jurisdiction .
The NRA has already launched several legal battles against the Cuomo administration .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state over an attempt by the governor to pressure financial institutions to cut ties with the NRA .
The state is also involved in an ongoing investigation into accusations of the group 's financial impropriety .
William A .
Brewer III , counsel for the NRA , said the lawsuit was necessary because the shutdown of gun purchases violated the rights of New Yorkers .
He accused Cuomo of using the threat of the virus as a political ploy .
`` The right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans the ability to defend themselves and their families , '' Brewer said in a statement .
`` The current public health emergency does not justify the complete elimination of this right , especially during a time when many New Yorkers have valid concerns about their physical safety and welfare .
Our client believes that Gov .
Cuomo is again weaponizing the power of his office—to prevent gun owners from exercising the rights to which they are entitled . ''

The National Rifle Association filed a federal lawsuit against New York governor Andrew Cuomo (D.) on Thursday night in an effort to reopen gun stores closed by the emergency coronavirus shutdown.
Cuomo ordered all "nonessential" businesses to cease "in-office personnel functions" on March 22. He did not label gun businesses as "essential." Since federally licensed gun dealers are required by law to conduct in-person background checks for each sale, the order effectively closed gun stores in the state and cut off most legal gun sales. The NRA said the governor's shutdown order is an "assault" on "Second Amendment freedoms."
"There isn't a single person who has ever used a gun for self-defense who would consider it nonessential," Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president, said in a statement. "This is clearly another assault by Gov. Cuomo on the NRA, on the rights of New Yorkers to defend themselves and their families, and on our Second Amendment freedoms. The NRA will continue to fight all such attacks until Gov. Cuomo recognizes that constitutional rights are for every New Yorker and every American—and not just for politicians and their privileged friends."
The governor's office did not respond to a request for comment on the case. New York attorney general Letitia James (D.) vowed to fight the NRA in court.
"Everyone—including the NRA—must follow the law and all executive orders of New York," James said in a statement. "We will aggressively defend the state against yet another legal assault by the NRA."
The suit is the latest legal battle over gun-business shutdowns that are taking place across the country. The outcome of the suit could affect how state and local officials determine which businesses can remain open amid mass closures aimed at slowing the spread of the deadly coronavirus. Whether or not the threat of the virus can justify a total moratorium on legal gun purchases, even temporarily, or if gun businesses must be allowed to operate at least on a limited basis, may ultimately be decided by the courts.
Gun-rights activists and industry representatives have been largely successful in convincing state officials to allow gun stores to remain open as demand exploded. Days after Cuomo's shutdown order, the Department of Homeland Security labeled gun businesses "essential" in coronavirus guidelines. The nonbinding federal recommendations led New Jersey governor Phil Murphy (D.) and Los Angeles County sheriff Alex Villanueva (D.) to reverse decisions to close gun stores. The only governor to further crack down on the industry in the wake of the DHS announcement has been Charlie Baker (R.) of Massachusetts, leading gun-rights groups to threaten legal action.
Gun-rights activists have faced mixed results in court so far. On Tuesday, a federal judge in California allowed Ventura County to move forward with gun-store shutdowns. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court similarly refused to block Gov. Tom Wolf (D.) from closing stores, though the governor later amended his order to open shops. A North Carolina judge ordered Wake County sheriff Gerald Baker (D.) to abide by an agreement to reopen the pistol-purchase permit process in his jurisdiction.
The NRA has already launched several legal battles against the Cuomo administration. The group is locked in litigation with the state over an attempt by the governor to pressure financial institutions to cut ties with the NRA. The state is also involved in an ongoing investigation into accusations of the group's financial impropriety.
William A. Brewer III, counsel for the NRA, said the lawsuit was necessary because the shutdown of gun purchases violated the rights of New Yorkers. He accused Cuomo of using the threat of the virus as a political ploy.
"The right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution, in part, to give Americans the ability to defend themselves and their families," Brewer said in a statement. "The current public health emergency does not justify the complete elimination of this right, especially during a time when many New Yorkers have valid concerns about their physical safety and welfare. Our client believes that Gov. Cuomo is again weaponizing the power of his office—to prevent gun owners from exercising the rights to which they are entitled."


freebeacon--2020-04-03--GOP Senators Were Blasted for Saying COVID Bill Could Raise Unemployment. They Were Right.

As Congress prepared to pass its $ 2 trillion coronavirus stimulus last week , a trio of Republican senators sounded an alarm , claiming that the bill 's ultra-generous unemployment insurance could let many Americans quit essential jobs .
The 11th-hour objection by Sens .
Lindsey Graham ( S.C. ) , Tim Scott ( S.C. ) , and Ben Sasse ( Neb . )
attracted derision and outrage , but the scenario they feared may be playing out .
Some small business owners say their employees are resigning in part to collect generous unemployment benefits .
Daniel Johnson , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company , told the Washington Free Beacon that while he runs a business deemed essential , most of his team has stopped showing up because of the coronavirus , preferring to wait on unemployment payouts .
`` The majority of my team 's last day was 3/13 , '' Johnson told the Free Beacon .
`` We have plenty of work and the city deems us as an essential business because we are a city contractor working on green infrastructure projects . ''
`` The employees expressed concern for several reasons , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fear of bringing virus home to weak family members young and old .
I get it , but our work allows them to have substantial space between each other .
Most are desperately waiting for unemployment benefits and are not interested in returning to work anytime soon .
Very frustrating as an employer . ''
In the face of a pandemic , the government has urged people to stay home , gutting large and small businesses alike .
While mass unemployment may keep people physically safe in the short run , the widespread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that businesses may lose out on government loans guaranteeing their payrolls and could erode employer-employee connections that stop businesses from buckling .
That could convert a short , sharp corona-recession into a dragged-out economic depression .
Prior to the CARES Act 's passage , Sasse , Scott , and Graham warned that the bill might contain what they called a `` life-threatening drafting error , '' which they said introduced `` a strong incentive for employees to be laid off instead of going to work . ''
They objected to the act 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to waive many eligibility requirements and put the federal government on the hook for a larger portion of payment obligations .
That added spending includes a flat $ 600 per person per week for four months—the equivalent of a guaranteed $ 15 per hour full-time wage , not counting other unemployment payments or the $ 1,200-per-person cash advance also in the bill .
This , the senators feared , would lead essential workers to walk off their jobs just as they were most needed .
There is growing evidence that may be playing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ businesses are telling customers that their laid-off employees will fare better if they 're laid off .
In an email to customers , a cleaning service in Alexandria , Va. , wrote that its two-week closure would actually benefit employees : `` With the generous Federal supplement added to state unemployment benefits , not to mention the federal stipend , most of our cleaners and many of our office workers will actually fair [ sic ] better with a temporary layoff than they have thus far this year . ''
Stories like Johnson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past week 's shocking job market data .
Figures released Thursday showed that 6.6 million Americans had filed for unemployment insurance over the preceding week .
That number blew past all previous records , including the 3.3 million filings the week before .
It also eclipsed the consensus projection of about 3.7 million filings .
The loss of 10 million jobs in two weeks is doubtless driven by cascading effects of the coronavirus , including the shutdown of nonessential businesses in many states .
But the cushion introduced by the equivalent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the government is likely not helping .
`` Government policy—especially the generous extended unemployment benefits Congress passed last month—has potentially lit a match under already combustible conditions , '' Karl Smith , vice president for federal policy at the Tax Foundation , wrote Thursday .
Contrary to claims that the bill 's unemployment provisions would not apply to individuals who willingly quit their jobs , Smith explained that the CARES Act provides benefits for any person who self-certifies that he left his job `` as a direct result of COVID-19 . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost all coronavirus-related , there are few people who could not judge themselves eligible .
There are upsides to mass unemployment during a pandemic : Fewer people going to work means fewer vectors for disease .
But it could have dramatic economic consequences down the road .
Wall Street firms are unanimous in their view that the United States is entering a recession .
They are still debating whether that recession will be `` v-shaped '' —a short , sharp drop followed by a short , sharp increase—or shaped more like a `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drops followed by slow or no recovery .
Samuel Hammond , director of poverty and welfare policy studies at the Niskanen Center , wrote Thursday that the unemployment incentivized by the CARES Act makes the latter more likely .
`` Maintaining a formal relationship between employers and their employees , even if they 're furloughed , will be key to ensuring a robust economic rebound , '' Hammond wrote .
`` If those relationships are broken , businesses wo n't spontaneously raise wages .
Rather , they will either close shop or restructure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't demanded in the first place . ''
An alternative approach is to keep employees technically on payroll but send them home , while the government picks up the costs of continuing to employ them .
This is the idea behind Denmark 's offer to pay 75 percent of companies ' wage costs .
It 's also the premise of the CARES Act 's $ 350 billion paycheck protection program ( PPP ) , which promises small businesses loans that will be forgiven if they are used to cover payroll costs .
PPP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dependent on employees remaining on payroll .
If employees resign to seek more money through unemployment , then struggling small business owners will be left with loans they can not repay .
This could spell economic disaster .
A U.S. Chamber of Commerce survey released Friday found that one in four small businesses say they are two months or less away from closing permanently .
Such mass closures would almost certainly mean a long , hard economic recovery , a double blow to a country already fighting a deadly disease .

As Congress prepared to pass its $2 trillion coronavirus stimulus last week, a trio of Republican senators sounded an alarm, claiming that the bill's ultra-generous unemployment insurance could let many Americans quit essential jobs.
The 11th-hour objection by Sens. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Tim Scott (S.C.), and Ben Sasse (Neb.) attracted derision and outrage, but the scenario they feared may be playing out. Some small business owners say their employees are resigning in part to collect generous unemployment benefits.
Daniel Johnson, the owner of a New Orleans landscaping construction company, told the Washington Free Beacon that while he runs a business deemed essential, most of his team has stopped showing up because of the coronavirus, preferring to wait on unemployment payouts.
"The majority of my team's last day was 3/13," Johnson told the Free Beacon. "We have plenty of work and the city deems us as an essential business because we are a city contractor working on green infrastructure projects."
"The employees expressed concern for several reasons," Johnson said. "Most focused on fear of bringing virus home to weak family members young and old. I get it, but our work allows them to have substantial space between each other. Most are desperately waiting for unemployment benefits and are not interested in returning to work anytime soon. Very frustrating as an employer."
In the face of a pandemic, the government has urged people to stay home, gutting large and small businesses alike. While mass unemployment may keep people physically safe in the short run, the widespread use of unemployment insurance runs the risk that businesses may lose out on government loans guaranteeing their payrolls and could erode employer-employee connections that stop businesses from buckling. That could convert a short, sharp corona-recession into a dragged-out economic depression.
Prior to the CARES Act's passage, Sasse, Scott, and Graham warned that the bill might contain what they called a "life-threatening drafting error," which they said introduced "a strong incentive for employees to be laid off instead of going to work." They objected to the act's unemployment insurance provisions, which ordered states to waive many eligibility requirements and put the federal government on the hook for a larger portion of payment obligations.
That added spending includes a flat $600 per person per week for four months—the equivalent of a guaranteed $15 per hour full-time wage, not counting other unemployment payments or the $1,200-per-person cash advance also in the bill. This, the senators feared, would lead essential workers to walk off their jobs just as they were most needed.
There is growing evidence that may be playing out. In fact, some small businesses are telling customers that their laid-off employees will fare better if they're laid off. In an email to customers, a cleaning service in Alexandria, Va., wrote that its two-week closure would actually benefit employees: "With the generous Federal supplement added to state unemployment benefits, not to mention the federal stipend, most of our cleaners and many of our office workers will actually fair [sic] better with a temporary layoff than they have thus far this year."
Stories like Johnson's or the cleaning service's reflect the past week's shocking job market data. Figures released Thursday showed that 6.6 million Americans had filed for unemployment insurance over the preceding week. That number blew past all previous records, including the 3.3 million filings the week before. It also eclipsed the consensus projection of about 3.7 million filings.
The loss of 10 million jobs in two weeks is doubtless driven by cascading effects of the coronavirus, including the shutdown of nonessential businesses in many states. But the cushion introduced by the equivalent of a $15-$20 hourly wage from the government is likely not helping.
"Government policy—especially the generous extended unemployment benefits Congress passed last month—has potentially lit a match under already combustible conditions," Karl Smith, vice president for federal policy at the Tax Foundation, wrote Thursday.
Contrary to claims that the bill's unemployment provisions would not apply to individuals who willingly quit their jobs, Smith explained that the CARES Act provides benefits for any person who self-certifies that he left his job "as a direct result of COVID-19." Because the current wave of unemployment is almost all coronavirus-related, there are few people who could not judge themselves eligible.
There are upsides to mass unemployment during a pandemic: Fewer people going to work means fewer vectors for disease. But it could have dramatic economic consequences down the road.
Wall Street firms are unanimous in their view that the United States is entering a recession. They are still debating whether that recession will be "v-shaped"—a short, sharp drop followed by a short, sharp increase—or shaped more like a "u" or "l"—sharp drops followed by slow or no recovery. Samuel Hammond, director of poverty and welfare policy studies at the Niskanen Center, wrote Thursday that the unemployment incentivized by the CARES Act makes the latter more likely.
"Maintaining a formal relationship between employers and their employees, even if they're furloughed, will be key to ensuring a robust economic rebound," Hammond wrote. "If those relationships are broken, businesses won't spontaneously raise wages. Rather, they will either close shop or restructure around business models where that labor isn't demanded in the first place."
An alternative approach is to keep employees technically on payroll but send them home, while the government picks up the costs of continuing to employ them. This is the idea behind Denmark's offer to pay 75 percent of companies' wage costs. It's also the premise of the CARES Act's $350 billion paycheck protection program (PPP), which promises small businesses loans that will be forgiven if they are used to cover payroll costs.
PPP loans' forgivability, however, is dependent on employees remaining on payroll. If employees resign to seek more money through unemployment, then struggling small business owners will be left with loans they cannot repay.
This could spell economic disaster. A U.S. Chamber of Commerce survey released Friday found that one in four small businesses say they are two months or less away from closing permanently. Such mass closures would almost certainly mean a long, hard economic recovery, a double blow to a country already fighting a deadly disease.


freebeacon--2020-04-03--U.S. Prosecutors Resist Calls to Free Inmates as Coronavirus Spreads

WASHINGTON ( Reuters ) – Five inmates at a federal prison in Oakdale , Louisiana , have died since March 28 after contracting the coronavirus .
Harold Lee ’ s family fears he could be next .
Lee , who was sentenced in 2018 for a bank fraud conviction , has asked a federal court for release on home confinement .
The 59-year-old has hypertension and requires a breathing machine to sleep .
Oakdale was the country ’ s first federal prison to report fatalities from COVID-19 , the respiratory illness caused by the coronavirus .
The head of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of inmates at the complex ’ s low-security unit , where Lee is housed with nearly 1,000 other prisoners , are showing flu-like symptoms .
The U.S. Justice Department , which oversees the nation ’ s largest prison system , wants to keep Lee behind bars .
Lee ’ s concerns `` are based entirely on speculation and generalized fear , '' a federal prosecutor said in a filing this week .
The case is still pending .
Prosecutors have been making similar arguments in federal courts across the United States , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dozens of court cases , and interviews with attorneys , legal advocates and inmates ’ relatives .
At a time when some prison authorities in states from New York to California are rushing to free non-violent offenders , elderly criminals and other medically high-risk prisoners , the DOJ so far has taken a more cautious line on coronavirus-related releases from federal facilities .
Court documents show federal prosecutors have contended that judges can not force the government to put prisoners on home confinement .
They have urged courts to deny bond to defendants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They have suggested that some inmates with pre-existing medical conditions would be safer in prison than at home .
And they have expressed skepticism about claims of virus-related illness among people facing incarceration .
In West Virginia , for example , prosecutors on March 27 asked a court not to postpone the date when a man convicted on a gun possession charge was supposed to report to jail , after the defendant ’ s attorney asked for more time because his client , Ricky Nelson , was displaying COVID-19 symptoms .
A judge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based on a doctor ’ s note .
`` They ’ re fighting the release of vulnerable people on technicalities .
It ’ s disgusting , '' said Kevin Ring , president of Families Against Mandatory Minimums , a group that has pushed to reduce the number of people in prisons .
Criminal-justice advocates like Ring have warned for months that U.S. jails and prison are potential hothouses for infection .
Inmates live in close quarters , share bathrooms and dining halls , and often have limited access to health care .
Nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States in 2017 , according to the latest count by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics ; it ’ s the highest incarceration figure in the world by far .
The federal prison system alone houses approximately 175,000 inmates .
The Justice Department told Reuters it is working towards transferring more inmates to home confinement .
And it has instructed prosecutors to utilize video-teleconferencing and to seek continuances in cases of non-violent offenders awaiting sentencing .
Since last week , the federal Bureau of Prisons ( BOP ) has approved 500 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice Department spokesman Wyn Hornbuckle said .
The Justice Department is `` focusing on how to best protect the health of vulnerable inmates and the general public , '' Hornbuckle said .
In addition , the $ 2 trillion stimulus bill signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on March 27 included a provision designed to make it easier for federal prisons to release more people into home confinement to help control the coronavirus outbreak .
Still , states and municipalities are far outpacing the federal system , particularly in areas hard hit by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ released more than 1,700 detainees before the end of March , while New Jersey ’ s chief justice recently ordered the release of 1,000 jail inmates statewide .
Coronavirus case numbers are exploding in Louisiana .
Emily Arseneau , Lee ’ s daughter , said she fears for his safety and wants to see him released .
Lee , who originally was sentenced to five years for lying to banks to obtain $ 2 million in loans , has served about 1½ years .
He is due to be re-sentenced because a court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ m afraid that if he gets sick , that ’ s it , '' she said .
`` He doesn ’ t deserve to lose his life over bank fraud . ''
Medical experts say people with underlying respiratory problems are especially vulnerable to the coronavirus , which has killed at least 54,000 people across the globe including more than 6,000 in the United States .
There are about 10,000 people over the age of 60 in federal custody , and federal defenders say about a third of them have preexisting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a spate of inmate releases will reduce the overall risk to society .
Prisons must continue operating , so the best course is to take measures inside those facilities to deal with the virus , according to Jon Guze , director of legal studies at the John Locke Foundation , a conservative think tank in North Carolina .
`` Jails and prisons are not like schools and universities , '' Guze wrote in a recent research brief .
`` Sending everyone home is not an option . ''
Even before the coronavirus pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was under strain .
The Justice Department ’ s inspector general last year cited prison healthcare as a major management challenge , saying the prison population ’ s demographics `` heighten the challenge of providing proper care for inmates , including aging inmates , inmates with chronic illnesses , and inmates with mental health issues . ''
Around 75 inmates and 39 staffers have contracted the coronavirus in U.S. federal lockups , according to the BOP .
But public defenders , families of incarcerated loved ones , and union leaders at prisons suspect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the BOP has started to presume people showing symptoms are positive .
Fearful of the spread , inmates nationwide have started asking the courts to set them free , be it shortening their sentences , freeing them on bond or granting a compassionate release if they are elderly , sick or terminally ill .
In filings reviewed by Reuters , prosecutors echoed the argument they made in the case of Lee – that inmates ’ anxieties are unwarranted , and that detainees are likely to be as safe in prison as they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carolina inmate Larry Winckler .
A convicted embezzler , the 59-year-old has terminal cancer .
He asked a judge for compassionate release as the coronavirus has spread through his prison in rural Butner .
Assistant U.S. Attorney Ross Lenhardt wanted the court to deny that request .
In a filing , Lenhardt said conditions in his neighborhood were similar to those in the prison in the respect that both he and Winckler were located close to medical treatment facilities and had neighbors who were quarantined .
On Friday , a judge ordered that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to his terminal cancer .
The judge did not directly address the threat of the coronavirus pandemic .
Elsewhere , federal prosecutors have said there is no need to free prisoners from facilities where authorities have not yet confirmed cases of the virus .
Prosecutors objected when 64-year-old Teresa Gonzalez , who has emphysema and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease , asked to be released a few months early from a jail in Spokane , Washington , where she had begun a short sentence for her role in a scheme to defraud insurance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had tested positive for COVID-19 , thus her request was `` currently predicated on a hypothetical . ''
A federal judge disagreed and sent Gonzalez home this week .
Her lawyer , Sandy Baggett , said the Justice Department ’ s resistance was surprising .
Gonzalez , Baggett said , `` ticked every box '' for the kind of prisoner who should be released – an older , sick , non-violent offender with no prior record .
`` If you ’ re going to oppose that one , I would assume you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' she said .
In other cases , federal prosecutors have said old or ill prisoners would be worse off at home .
When a jailed 78-year-old awaiting trial on drug charges in Michigan recently asked a judge to be released on bond because his age puts him at risk from the virus , prosecutors objected .
`` An argument can be made that he potentially is safer where he is – sheltered in place in a facility that has the ability to control people ’ s interactions , screening of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they wrote in a filing .
Prosecutors have also asserted that judges lack the power to let prisoners serve out their sentences at home .
That was one of the arguments prosecutors made in the case of Lee , the Oakdale inmate .
David Joseph , the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana , told Reuters his office would not oppose an expedited re-sentencing hearing by video conference , where Lee ’ s defense lawyer could bring up concerns about his client ’ s health in the face of the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joseph ’ s office contended that it fears that Lee now has more incentive to flee if released `` due to the unique circumstances associated with the COVID-19 pandemic . ''
Prior to the new economic stimulus law , the BOP could only release inmates to home confinement who had already served 90 % of their sentence or had no more than six months left to go .
The new law allows the BOP director more discretion .
But Attorney General William Barr must first declare a state of emergency for the federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do .
Hornbuckle , the department spokesman , said officials are considering that , and `` will take a reasonable , lawful and safe approach '' to deciding on home confinement for non-violent defenders .
A day before Trump signed the stimulus bill into law , Barr issued a memo ordering BOP to begin considering who can be released into home confinement .
The memo requires BOP to weigh factors beyond age and health , including the inmate ’ s criminal history and behavior in prison .
It also requires a determination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community transmission of the virus .
`` We can not take any risk of transferring inmates to home confinement that will contribute to the spread of COVID-19 , '' Barr wrote .
Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch and Brad Heath in Washington , D.C. ; Editing by Marla Dickerson

By Brad Heath, Sarah N. Lynch
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Five inmates at a federal prison in Oakdale, Louisiana, have died since March 28 after contracting the coronavirus. Harold Lee’s family fears he could be next.
Lee, who was sentenced in 2018 for a bank fraud conviction, has asked a federal court for release on home confinement. The 59-year-old has hypertension and requires a breathing machine to sleep.
Oakdale was the country’s first federal prison to report fatalities from COVID-19, the respiratory illness caused by the coronavirus. The head of the local guard’s union says dozens of inmates at the complex’s low-security unit, where Lee is housed with nearly 1,000 other prisoners, are showing flu-like symptoms.
The U.S. Justice Department, which oversees the nation’s largest prison system, wants to keep Lee behind bars. Lee’s concerns "are based entirely on speculation and generalized fear," a federal prosecutor said in a filing this week. The case is still pending.
Prosecutors have been making similar arguments in federal courts across the United States, according to a Reuters review of documents from dozens of court cases, and interviews with attorneys, legal advocates and inmates’ relatives.
At a time when some prison authorities in states from New York to California are rushing to free non-violent offenders, elderly criminals and other medically high-risk prisoners, the DOJ so far has taken a more cautious line on coronavirus-related releases from federal facilities.
Court documents show federal prosecutors have contended that judges cannot force the government to put prisoners on home confinement. They have urged courts to deny bond to defendants who are in jail awaiting trial. They have suggested that some inmates with pre-existing medical conditions would be safer in prison than at home. And they have expressed skepticism about claims of virus-related illness among people facing incarceration.
In West Virginia, for example, prosecutors on March 27 asked a court not to postpone the date when a man convicted on a gun possession charge was supposed to report to jail, after the defendant’s attorney asked for more time because his client, Ricky Nelson, was displaying COVID-19 symptoms. A judge has twice-delayed his surrender date anyway, based on a doctor’s note.
"They’re fighting the release of vulnerable people on technicalities. It’s disgusting," said Kevin Ring, president of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, a group that has pushed to reduce the number of people in prisons.
Criminal-justice advocates like Ring have warned for months that U.S. jails and prison are potential hothouses for infection. Inmates live in close quarters, share bathrooms and dining halls, and often have limited access to health care.
Nearly 2.3 million people were locked up in the United States in 2017, according to the latest count by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics; it’s the highest incarceration figure in the world by far. The federal prison system alone houses approximately 175,000 inmates.
The Justice Department told Reuters it is working towards transferring more inmates to home confinement. And it has instructed prosecutors to utilize video-teleconferencing and to seek continuances in cases of non-violent offenders awaiting sentencing.
Since last week, the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has approved 500 inmates for release to home confinement, Justice Department spokesman Wyn Hornbuckle said.
The Justice Department is "focusing on how to best protect the health of vulnerable inmates and the general public," Hornbuckle said.
In addition, the $2 trillion stimulus bill signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on March 27 included a provision designed to make it easier for federal prisons to release more people into home confinement to help control the coronavirus outbreak.
Still, states and municipalities are far outpacing the federal system, particularly in areas hard hit by the virus. Los Angeles County alone released more than 1,700 detainees before the end of March, while New Jersey’s chief justice recently ordered the release of 1,000 jail inmates statewide.
Coronavirus case numbers are exploding in Louisiana. Emily Arseneau, Lee’s daughter, said she fears for his safety and wants to see him released.
Lee, who originally was sentenced to five years for lying to banks to obtain $2 million in loans, has served about 1½ years. He is due to be re-sentenced because a court calculated his prison term incorrectly.
"I’m afraid that if he gets sick, that’s it," she said. "He doesn’t deserve to lose his life over bank fraud."
Medical experts say people with underlying respiratory problems are especially vulnerable to the coronavirus, which has killed at least 54,000 people across the globe including more than 6,000 in the United States. There are about 10,000 people over the age of 60 in federal custody, and federal defenders say about a third of them have preexisting conditions.
Some legal scholars doubt that a spate of inmate releases will reduce the overall risk to society. Prisons must continue operating, so the best course is to take measures inside those facilities to deal with the virus, according to Jon Guze, director of legal studies at the John Locke Foundation, a conservative think tank in North Carolina.
"Jails and prisons are not like schools and universities," Guze wrote in a recent research brief. "Sending everyone home is not an option."
ARGUING AGAINST RELEASE
Even before the coronavirus pandemic, the quality of federal prison healthcare was under strain. The Justice Department’s inspector general last year cited prison healthcare as a major management challenge, saying the prison population’s demographics "heighten the challenge of providing proper care for inmates, including aging inmates, inmates with chronic illnesses, and inmates with mental health issues."
Around 75 inmates and 39 staffers have contracted the coronavirus in U.S. federal lockups, according to the BOP. But public defenders, families of incarcerated loved ones, and union leaders at prisons suspect the numbers are higher. At Oakdale, the BOP has started to presume people showing symptoms are positive.
Fearful of the spread, inmates nationwide have started asking the courts to set them free, be it shortening their sentences, freeing them on bond or granting a compassionate release if they are elderly, sick or terminally ill.
Federal prosecutors have broadly opposed those requests.
In filings reviewed by Reuters, prosecutors echoed the argument they made in the case of Lee - that inmates’ anxieties are unwarranted, and that detainees are likely to be as safe in prison as they are on the outside.
Take North Carolina inmate Larry Winckler. A convicted embezzler, the 59-year-old has terminal cancer. He asked a judge for compassionate release as the coronavirus has spread through his prison in rural Butner.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Ross Lenhardt wanted the court to deny that request. In a filing, Lenhardt said conditions in his neighborhood were similar to those in the prison in the respect that both he and Winckler were located close to medical treatment facilities and had neighbors who were quarantined.
On Friday, a judge ordered that Winckler should be released from prison immediately due to his terminal cancer. The judge did not directly address the threat of the coronavirus pandemic.
Elsewhere, federal prosecutors have said there is no need to free prisoners from facilities where authorities have not yet confirmed cases of the virus.
Prosecutors objected when 64-year-old Teresa Gonzalez, who has emphysema and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asked to be released a few months early from a jail in Spokane, Washington, where she had begun a short sentence for her role in a scheme to defraud insurance companies. They argued that no inmates had tested positive for COVID-19, thus her request was "currently predicated on a hypothetical."
A federal judge disagreed and sent Gonzalez home this week. Her lawyer, Sandy Baggett, said the Justice Department’s resistance was surprising. Gonzalez, Baggett said, "ticked every box" for the kind of prisoner who should be released - an older, sick, non-violent offender with no prior record. "If you’re going to oppose that one, I would assume you’re not going to consent to any," she said.
In other cases, federal prosecutors have said old or ill prisoners would be worse off at home.
When a jailed 78-year-old awaiting trial on drug charges in Michigan recently asked a judge to be released on bond because his age puts him at risk from the virus, prosecutors objected.
"An argument can be made that he potentially is safer where he is – sheltered in place in a facility that has the ability to control people’s interactions, screening of people coming in from the outside," they wrote in a filing.
Prosecutors have also asserted that judges lack the power to let prisoners serve out their sentences at home. That was one of the arguments prosecutors made in the case of Lee, the Oakdale inmate.
David Joseph, the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana, told Reuters his office would not oppose an expedited re-sentencing hearing by video conference, where Lee’s defense lawyer could bring up concerns about his client’s health in the face of the coronavirus pandemic.
In a filing Friday, Joseph’s office contended that it fears that Lee now has more incentive to flee if released "due to the unique circumstances associated with the COVID-19 pandemic."
BIG NEW POWERS
Prior to the new economic stimulus law, the BOP could only release inmates to home confinement who had already served 90% of their sentence or had no more than six months left to go.
The new law allows the BOP director more discretion. But Attorney General William Barr must first declare a state of emergency for the federal prison system, something he has yet to do.
Hornbuckle, the department spokesman, said officials are considering that, and "will take a reasonable, lawful and safe approach" to deciding on home confinement for non-violent defenders.
A day before Trump signed the stimulus bill into law, Barr issued a memo ordering BOP to begin considering who can be released into home confinement. The memo requires BOP to weigh factors beyond age and health, including the inmate’s criminal history and behavior in prison. It also requires a determination as to whether a release could worsen community transmission of the virus.
"We cannot take any risk of transferring inmates to home confinement that will contribute to the spread of COVID-19," Barr wrote.
Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch and Brad Heath in Washington, D.C.; Editing by Marla Dickerson


freebeacon--2020-04-03--Biden Has Earned 11 Pinocchios From Fact-Checkers During Coronavirus Crisis

Presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden has been dinged several times by fact-checkers over claims he has made during the coronavirus crisis , including a total of 11 `` Pinocchios '' from the Washington Post .
Over the course of three weeks between March 13 and April 3 , Biden was fact-checked five separate times for making false or misleading claims concerning the Trump administration 's handling of the pandemic .
A Washington Post fact check on March 13 awarded Biden four Pinocchios , the fact-checker 's most severe rating , for two manipulated videos the Biden campaign circulated .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Feb. 28 rally saying Democrats were turning the coronavirus into `` their new hoax '' after they failed to bring Trump down through impeachment .
Biden 's video was edited to make it appear that Trump was calling the coronavirus a hoax .
Trump , however , was referring to the Democrats ' attempts to blame him for the virus , not the virus itself .
The second Biden campaign video showed Trump saying the phrase `` the American Dream is dead , '' which the Post found was taken out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump 's statement where he promised to `` bring it back bigger and better and stronger than ever before . ''
Another Post fact check on March 24 gave the campaign four Pinocchios after adviser Ron Klain accused Trump of silencing Dr. Nancy Messonnier of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
`` The president and the White House sent a clear message to scientists in the government—there would be a price for speaking out and speaking up , '' he said in a campaign video released on March 21 .
Messonnier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporters in the weeks after she raised the alarm about the virus at a press conference with Trump .
Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler wrote that Klain 's framing was `` simply wrong . ''
Messonnier 's alarming rhetoric did irritate Trump , but the idea that she was silenced was a `` false narrative , '' Kessler added .
At a CNN town hall on March 27 , Biden repeated an earlier claim that Trump had eliminated the White House pandemic office .
He also claimed Trump made `` no effort '' to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jinping and reduced the CDC 's staff in China prior to the outbreak .
Biden added he called for China to admit medical experts from the United States when the outbreak in China was still in its early stages .
The Post ‘ s fact check gave Biden three Pinocchios due to his imprecise language .
The Trump administration sought access for CDC experts , and the administration told the Post that Trump offered to send experts to China to help with the outbreak .
Biden also did not specifically call for experts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Those were n't the only times Biden has been fact-checked for rhetoric during the crisis .
On March 15 , during the Democratic presidential debate , Biden falsely claimed that Trump refused coronavirus testing kits from the World Health Organization .
The kits were never offered in the first place .
PolitiFact rated his statement `` Mostly False . ''
CNN , after initially deeming his statement factual , retracted its rating after a report by the Washington Free Beacon .
On March 19 , Biden first tweeted that Trump `` eliminated '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Post fact check found this claim `` overstated '' due to the fact that the global health directorate was folded into another office under the guidance of former national security adviser John Bolton .
Citing `` dueling narratives , '' however , it did n't give a rating to Biden 's claim .

Presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden has been dinged several times by fact-checkers over claims he has made during the coronavirus crisis, including a total of 11 "Pinocchios" from the Washington Post.
Over the course of three weeks between March 13 and April 3, Biden was fact-checked five separate times for making false or misleading claims concerning the Trump administration's handling of the pandemic.
A Washington Post fact check on March 13 awarded Biden four Pinocchios, the fact-checker's most severe rating, for two manipulated videos the Biden campaign circulated.
The first video claimed to show Trump at a Feb. 28 rally saying Democrats were turning the coronavirus into "their new hoax" after they failed to bring Trump down through impeachment. Biden's video was edited to make it appear that Trump was calling the coronavirus a hoax. Trump, however, was referring to the Democrats' attempts to blame him for the virus, not the virus itself.
The second Biden campaign video showed Trump saying the phrase "the American Dream is dead," which the Post found was taken out of context and missing the second part of Trump's statement where he promised to "bring it back bigger and better and stronger than ever before."
Another Post fact check on March 24 gave the campaign four Pinocchios after adviser Ron Klain accused Trump of silencing Dr. Nancy Messonnier of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
"The president and the White House sent a clear message to scientists in the government—there would be a price for speaking out and speaking up," he said in a campaign video released on March 21.
Messonnier continued to hold routine phone briefings with reporters in the weeks after she raised the alarm about the virus at a press conference with Trump.
Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler wrote that Klain's framing was "simply wrong." Messonnier's alarming rhetoric did irritate Trump, but the idea that she was silenced was a "false narrative," Kessler added.
At a CNN town hall on March 27, Biden repeated an earlier claim that Trump had eliminated the White House pandemic office. He also claimed Trump made "no effort" to put any pressure on Chinese president Xi Jinping and reduced the CDC's staff in China prior to the outbreak. Biden added he called for China to admit medical experts from the United States when the outbreak in China was still in its early stages.
The Post's fact check gave Biden three Pinocchios due to his imprecise language. The Trump administration sought access for CDC experts, and the administration told the Post that Trump offered to send experts to China to help with the outbreak. Biden also did not specifically call for experts to be sent until late February.
Those weren't the only times Biden has been fact-checked for rhetoric during the crisis.
On March 15, during the Democratic presidential debate, Biden falsely claimed that Trump refused coronavirus testing kits from the World Health Organization. The kits were never offered in the first place. PolitiFact rated his statement "Mostly False." CNN, after initially deeming his statement factual, retracted its rating after a report by the Washington Free Beacon.
On March 19, Biden first tweeted that Trump "eliminated" the pandemic response team. The Washington Post fact check found this claim "overstated" due to the fact that the global health directorate was folded into another office under the guidance of former national security adviser John Bolton. Citing "dueling narratives," however, it didn't give a rating to Biden's claim.


freebeacon--2020-04-03--China Appointed to U.N. Human Rights Group Despite Routine Human Rights Violations

China has been appointed to an elite United Nations human rights group despite the country 's routine abuse of human rights , stifling of free speech , and imprisonment of dissidents .
Jiang Duan , a minister at China 's mission to the U.N. , was selected to serve on the U.N. Human Rights Council ’ s Consultative Group , a five-nation body that plays a key role in selecting human rights investigators who will oversee abuses across the globe .
With a spot on the committee , China will be in a prime position to thwart investigations into its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China 's oppressive and inhumane regime to choose the world investigators on freedom of speech , arbitrary detention , and enforced disappearances is like making a pyromaniac into the town fire chief , '' Hillel Neuer , executive director of U.N. Watch , an organization dedicated to performing oversight work on the U.N. , said in a statement .
As a member of the Consultative Group , China will help select people to `` investigate , monitor , and publicly report '' on human rights issues , according to U.N. Watch .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` How can China be involved in choosing the U.N. special rapporteur on the protection of freedom of opinion and expression , when the regime routinely imposes draconian censorship , and seeks to shut down dissenting voices ? ''
Neuer asked .
China will now also help vet candidates for a range of key U.N. human rights positions .
`` It 's absurd and immoral for the U.N. to allow China 's oppressive government a key role in selecting officials who shape international human rights standards and report on violations worldwide , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase China 's influence at the U.N. , where it has been a constant critic of U.S. actions , including its sanctions on Iran and push to hold human rights violators accountable .
The U.N. is `` voting itself into irrelevance and oblivion , '' Rabbi Abraham Cooper , associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center , told the Free Beacon in reaction to China 's appointment .
`` Until it puts China in docket for human rights outrages , the U.N. will continue to mock core values upon which it was founded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China faces backlash for lying about its number of coronavirus infections and deaths .
A portion of its work on the U.N. body will be focused on health-related issues .

China has been appointed to an elite United Nations human rights group despite the country's routine abuse of human rights, stifling of free speech, and imprisonment of dissidents.
Jiang Duan, a minister at China's mission to the U.N., was selected to serve on the U.N. Human Rights Council’s Consultative Group, a five-nation body that plays a key role in selecting human rights investigators who will oversee abuses across the globe.
With a spot on the committee, China will be in a prime position to thwart investigations into its own human rights abuses.
"Allowing China's oppressive and inhumane regime to choose the world investigators on freedom of speech, arbitrary detention, and enforced disappearances is like making a pyromaniac into the town fire chief," Hillel Neuer, executive director of U.N. Watch, an organization dedicated to performing oversight work on the U.N., said in a statement.
As a member of the Consultative Group, China will help select people to "investigate, monitor, and publicly report" on human rights issues, according to U.N. Watch. This includes matters of free speech and religion.
"How can China be involved in choosing the U.N. special rapporteur on the protection of freedom of opinion and expression, when the regime routinely imposes draconian censorship, and seeks to shut down dissenting voices?" Neuer asked.
China will now also help vet candidates for a range of key U.N. human rights positions.
"It's absurd and immoral for the U.N. to allow China's oppressive government a key role in selecting officials who shape international human rights standards and report on violations worldwide," Neuer said.
The position will increase China's influence at the U.N., where it has been a constant critic of U.S. actions, including its sanctions on Iran and push to hold human rights violators accountable.
The U.N. is "voting itself into irrelevance and oblivion," Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, told the Free Beacon in reaction to China's appointment. "Until it puts China in docket for human rights outrages, the U.N. will continue to mock core values upon which it was founded."
The selection also comes as China faces backlash for lying about its number of coronavirus infections and deaths. A portion of its work on the U.N. body will be focused on health-related issues.