talkingpointsmemo--2020-08-17--TeleTracking Claims NDA On Trump Admin Contract, Baffling Senators And Experts

How could the details of a contract with the federal government , subject to congressional oversight , be hidden from scrutiny behind a non-disclosure agreement ?
You ’ re not the only one wondering .
The New York Times on Friday revealed a letter in which the firm collecting hospitals ’ COVID-19 data , TeleTracking , told two U.S. senators that its contract with the Trump administration was covered by an NDA .
Government contracting experts were stumped .
“ The idea that the whole contract is under an NDA , and that they can ’ t , somehow , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ duties — to me , that ’ s crazy , ” said Jessica Tillipman , an assistant dean at George Washington University Law School who focuses on government procurement .
Tillipman told TPM she spoke to a colleague about TeleTracking ’ s claim , “ and we both just had this reaction , like , ‘ Huh ?
’ ” “ I ’ m just not aware of this being a normal protocol , ” she said .
“ It ’ s not a normal practice .
So I have no idea how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s not typical.
” The Trump administration last month ordered hospitals to stop reporting their COVID-19 data to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , and to instead begin sending numbers to TeleTracking on just a few days ’ notice .
TPM reported on the chaos that ensued from the rapid switch , which also caught the attention of congressional investigators .
In a letter dated Aug. 3 to Sens Chuck Schumer ( D-NY ) and Patty Murray ( D-WA ) , which the Times revealed on Friday , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that TeleTracking sought to fully cooperate in response to questions the pair had sent in July about the contract .
“ However , ” the attorney wrote , “ we are obligated to advise you that the Contract is subject to a broad Non-Disclosure Agreement ( NDA ) that restricts TeleTracking ’ s release of non-public information , including , but not limited to , confidential privileged and procurement-sensitive information.
” “ Notwithstanding these contractual restrictions , we are pleased to cooperate and provide other information , ” wrote the attorney , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts who said they hadn ’ t heard of an NDA getting in the way of congressional oversight .
The law professor Charles Tiefer , for example , served as acting general counsel of the House of Representatives in the ‘ 90s and was later a member of the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan .
“ I have performed legal analysis on many withholdings of evidence from Congress , and thousands of pages of contracts , ” he wrote in Forbes .
“ I have never yet seen one page @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that experience , that expressly directed a contractor to withhold information from Congress.
” The senators who requested information from TeleTracking were not pleased .
“ Instead of helping answer why the Trump Administration required hospitals to switch the way they report critical data to a new system , in the middle of a pandemic , with 48-hours notice — this response raises new questions , ” Murray said in a statement to TPM .
“ The Department ’ s decision to include a nondisclosure agreement in this contract is yet another unusual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she added .
“ I ’ m going to keep pressing for more information about this.
” Schumer , in a separate statement , said the administration ’ s decision “ to hire a private vendor and then cloak that vendor in a non-disclosure agreement raises numerous questions about their motivations and risks the ability of our public health experts to understand and effectively fight this virus.
” The decision to switch to TeleTracking as the government ’ s preferred data destination for hospitals — and to ice out the CDC , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was made — has led to concern and frustration in public health circles .
Karen Hoffmann , the former president of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology , called the TeleTracking system a “ black box ” because of the uncertainty surrounding the data .
And TPM and other outlets have identified discrepancies between state and federal hospital capacity numbers that remained uncorrected for weeks .
But TeleTracking ’ s claim of an NDA covering contradicting details adds new transparency questions to the mix .
For now , those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nor HHS responded to TPM ’ s request for comment .

How could the details of a contract with the federal government, subject to congressional oversight, be hidden from scrutiny behind a non-disclosure agreement?
You’re not the only one wondering. The New York Times on Friday revealed a letter in which the firm collecting hospitals’ COVID-19 data, TeleTracking, told two U.S. senators that its contract with the Trump administration was covered by an NDA. Government contracting experts were stumped.
“The idea that the whole contract is under an NDA, and that they can’t, somehow, cooperate with Congress providing its constitutionally-authorized oversight duties — to me, that’s crazy,” said Jessica Tillipman, an assistant dean at George Washington University Law School who focuses on government procurement.
Tillipman told TPM she spoke to a colleague about TeleTracking’s claim, “and we both just had this reaction, like, ‘Huh?’”
“I’m just not aware of this being a normal protocol,” she said. “It’s not a normal practice. So I have no idea how this would’ve worked, because it’s not typical.”
The Trump administration last month ordered hospitals to stop reporting their COVID-19 data to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and to instead begin sending numbers to TeleTracking on just a few days’ notice. TPM reported on the chaos that ensued from the rapid switch, which also caught the attention of congressional investigators.
In a letter dated Aug. 3 to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Patty Murray (D-WA), the ranking member of the Senate Health Committee, a lawyer for the health care data firm said that TeleTracking sought to fully cooperate in response to questions the pair had sent in July about the contract.
“However,” the attorney wrote, “we are obligated to advise you that the Contract is subject to a broad Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) that restricts TeleTracking’s release of non-public information, including, but not limited to, confidential privileged and procurement-sensitive information.”
“Notwithstanding these contractual restrictions, we are pleased to cooperate and provide other information,” wrote the attorney, A. Scott Bolden.
That floored some experts who said they hadn’t heard of an NDA getting in the way of congressional oversight. The law professor Charles Tiefer, for example, served as acting general counsel of the House of Representatives in the ‘90s and was later a member of the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“I have performed legal analysis on many withholdings of evidence from Congress, and thousands of pages of contracts,” he wrote in Forbes. “I have never yet seen one page, in all that time and all that experience, that expressly directed a contractor to withhold information from Congress.”
The senators who requested information from TeleTracking were not pleased.
“Instead of helping answer why the Trump Administration required hospitals to switch the way they report critical data to a new system, in the middle of a pandemic, with 48-hours notice — this response raises new questions,” Murray said in a statement to TPM.
“The Department’s decision to include a nondisclosure agreement in this contract is yet another unusual development that demands an explanation,” she added. “I’m going to keep pressing for more information about this.”
Schumer, in a separate statement, said the administration’s decision “to hire a private vendor and then cloak that vendor in a non-disclosure agreement raises numerous questions about their motivations and risks the ability of our public health experts to understand and effectively fight this virus.”
The decision to switch to TeleTracking as the government’s preferred data destination for hospitals — and to ice out the CDC, which was not aware of the decision until it was made — has led to concern and frustration in public health circles.
Karen Hoffmann, the former president of the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, called the TeleTracking system a “black box” because of the uncertainty surrounding the data. And TPM and other outlets have identified discrepancies between state and federal hospital capacity numbers that remained uncorrected for weeks.
But TeleTracking’s claim of an NDA covering contradicting details adds new transparency questions to the mix. For now, those questions are going unanswered — neither TeleTracking nor HHS responded to TPM’s request for comment.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-08-17--CO Sec Of State: Let’s Not Take Voting Advice From POTUS Who Asks For Foreign Election Meddling

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold ( D ) torched President Donald Trump on Monday in the face of his crusade against voting by mail , which he falsely claims jeopardizes election security , given that he ’ s openly encouraged countries like China and Russia to get involved in U.S elections on his behalf .
“ The President ’ s attacks aren ’ t really about the security of the election or drop boxes , ” Griswold told MSNBC anchor Katy Tur .
“ They ’ re about trying to drive down confidence in our elections.
” “ And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t take election advice from someone who has invited foreign interference into our elections , ” she added .
The state official stated that her office has received an “ increased level of calls and concern ” about the security of mailing in their votes due to Trump ’ s attacks .
“ Unfortunately , the President is doing everything he can to undermine confidence and take away the people ’ s right to vote , ” she said .
Unlike most states , Colorado had been holding all its elections via mail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many other states to ramp up their mail-in voting efforts .

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D) torched President Donald Trump on Monday in the face of his crusade against voting by mail, which he falsely claims jeopardizes election security, given that he’s openly encouraged countries like China and Russia to get involved in U.S elections on his behalf.
“The President’s attacks aren’t really about the security of the election or drop boxes,” Griswold told MSNBC anchor Katy Tur. “They’re about trying to drive down confidence in our elections.”
“And I would just say we shouldn’t take election advice from someone who has invited foreign interference into our elections,” she added.
The state official stated that her office has received an “increased level of calls and concern” about the security of mailing in their votes due to Trump’s attacks.
“Unfortunately, the President is doing everything he can to undermine confidence and take away the people’s right to vote,” she said.
Unlike most states, Colorado had been holding all its elections via mail for years before the COVID-19 pandemic prompted many other states to ramp up their mail-in voting efforts.
Watch Griswold below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-08-17--Former USPS Board Of Governors Chair Hits Back At Trump’s False Claims On Mail-In Voting

Former USPS Board of Governors chair David Fineman on Monday dismissed President Trump ’ s baseless claim that voting by mail leads to voter fraud , amid the President ’ s explicit efforts to sabotage the agency .
After calling Trump ’ s moves to cripple the USPS a “ disgrace ” — which include Postmaster General Louis DeJoy implementing cost-cutting changes to the USPS that could hamper mail-in voting ahead of the November election — Fineman called on the President to produce evidence when asked about his false assertions on mail-in voting .
Fineman , who serves as director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Center , then rebuked the President ’ s baseless claims by saying that “ mail-in ballots do not produce fraud.
” “ Mail-in ballots are safe and they create a fair election , ” Fineman said in an interview with CNN .
Fineman ’ s remarks come on the heels of Democrats ramping up efforts to combat Trump ’ s war on mail-in voting .
On Sunday night , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) called on House members to return from recess early this week to vote on legislation that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changes .
On Monday , DeJoy agreed to testify before the House Oversight Committee next week , following the panel ’ s request that he testify at an “ urgent ” congressional hearing on Aug. 24 in light of growing concerns that cutting funding to the U.S .
Postal Service will hamper mail-in voting in the November election .

Former USPS Board of Governors chair David Fineman on Monday dismissed President Trump’s baseless claim that voting by mail leads to voter fraud, amid the President’s explicit efforts to sabotage the agency.
After calling Trump’s moves to cripple the USPS a “disgrace” — which include Postmaster General Louis DeJoy implementing cost-cutting changes to the USPS that could hamper mail-in voting ahead of the November election — Fineman called on the President to produce evidence when asked about his false assertions on mail-in voting.
Fineman, who serves as director on the board of the Federal Election Center, then rebuked the President’s baseless claims by saying that “mail-in ballots do not produce fraud.”
“Mail-in ballots are safe and they create a fair election,” Fineman said in an interview with CNN.
Fineman’s remarks come on the heels of Democrats ramping up efforts to combat Trump’s war on mail-in voting. On Sunday night, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called on House members to return from recess early this week to vote on legislation that would restrict the Postal Service from implementing operational changes.
On Monday, DeJoy agreed to testify before the House Oversight Committee next week, following the panel’s request that he testify at an “urgent” congressional hearing on Aug. 24 in light of growing concerns that cutting funding to the U.S. Postal Service will hamper mail-in voting in the November election.
Watch Fineman’s remarks below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-08-17--What Happens If the 2020 Census Fails?

What Happens If the 2020 Census Fails?

A botched decennial census — a possibility that is looking more likely with the Trump administration ’ s push to rush the count — will create a nightmare next year and beyond .
In the event the 2020 survey is unusable , there are simply no easy , or even realistic , ways to fix the problem for the aspects of government , and of society , that depend on the census .
“ This is going to be a constitutional crisis .
It will be a demographic disaster , ” William Frey , a census expert at the Brookings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a massive legal fight is ramping up around how the census — which President Trump has hijacked for the purposes of implementing his anti-immigrant agenda — will be used for the doling out political power across the country .
Back when the coronavirus outbreak was taking hold last spring , the Census Bureau asked Congress to extend by four months the statutory deadlines for releasing apportionment and redistricting data — which are typically produced , respectively , at the end of December and March — so that it could have extra time to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But in recent weeks , the administration has walked back that request , and instead announced that the Bureau will spend one month fewer counting than its proposed pandemic timeline had planned .
The reversal appears aimed at making sure Trump is still in office when the apportionment data is produced , so he can try to exclude undocumented immigrants from that count .
Regardless , the move to rush the count is causing grave concerns about its accuracy .
As one former Census director recently told Congress , the truncated timeline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accurate enough to use.
” It ’ s difficult to even grapple with the consequences of an unacceptably flawed count , given the vast and complicated ways census data are used by both the public and private sector .
But as the Trump administration digs in on its plan to expedite the 2020 count former Census officials , redistricting gurus , research specialists and other experts are beginning to game out what happens if those challenges can not be overcome .
“ There are no easy ways to fix a very inaccurate census @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a consultant widely regarded for her census expertise .
But she stressed that those mobilized around the success of the census shouldn ’ t think the towel is being thrown in yet .
“ Any alternatives are not as good as having a good first count , there ’ s no good Plan B , ” Denice Ross , who worked as a data expert in the Obama White House and is now at Georgetown ’ s Beeck Center , told TPM .
Here ’ s what could be up for discussion if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How Flawed , But In What Ways Is It Flawed ?
The Constitution mandates a decennial census to determine how many House seats each state gets ( a process known as apportionment ) , and states also use census data for the purposes of drawing those districts and their own legislative maps .
The data furthermore help decide how $ 1.5 trillion in federal funding is allocated , and how state and local funding is also doled out .
In addition to the government agencies that use it , countless businesses and private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for their own studies .
Before policymakers and private-sector census users decided what to do with the data produced by the 2020 census , they ’ ll need to figure out how to assess its quality .
“ Everyone expects this 2020 census to not be as good as 2010 for lots of reasons , even before the Trump administration ’ s politicization of it , ” Bill O ’ Hare , a demographer who ’ s studied the accuracy of past censuses , told TPM .
“ I don ’ t think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad it has to be before rejected , for lack of a better word.
” A key question in the coming months is not just how bad of an undercount a shortened census would produce , but which places and people will be left out of the survey .
Four former Census Bureau directors have called on Congress to tap an independent entity that can develop , ahead of the data ’ s release , various metrics to determine its quality , and there are other proposals for bringing more transparency into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ count ’ s accuracy .
After data collection finishes , the Bureau usually spends four or five months on post-enumeration quality checks , including programs that happen in the field .
The administration hasn ’ t clearly laid out how those programs will fit into its expedited timeline .
Self-response rates — which currently lag behind the 2010 census — offer an early indicator of potential trouble spots .
But , absent additional transparency measures , “ it would be really towards March … that people would see that things are really bad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the current deadline for producing redistricting data .
Unlike the congressional apportionment data slated for release in late December , redistricting data are packaged at an extremely granular geographic level and includes characteristics like race and age .
Given the internal benchmarks the Bureau uses , it may know internally before that “ whether they are far off the mark , ” Lowenthal said .
“ But they may not be allowed to say so , and I am concerned about that.
” Can The Census Be Redone ?
The most ambitious response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just try to do the census over again .
But the 2020 version would have to be horrifically flawed for that to be a serious option , experts told TPM , because of the sheer logistical , technical and financial obstacles involved in conducting the national count .
There are also , right now , legal limits on how such a redo could be used .
While federal law contemplates the possibility of mid-decade census , the statute bans such a survey from being used for apportionment or for congressional redistricting .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , such a move would still face a constitutional challenge in court .
“ I don ’ t think the courts will be inclined to swap one enumeration for a modestly improved recount a couple years later , just because that creates the incentive to spend a billion of dollars every couple years in order to try to regame the nature of representation , ” Justin Levitt , a Loyola Law School professor who worked in Obama ’ s Justice Department , told TPM .
That being said — costs and logistics aside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flexibility to redo the census to produce data for its various other uses , including for government funding and for informational purposes .
But the practical challenges can ’ t be overstated .
It would cost billions of dollars , take several years of planning and also a good deal of political will , as states that benefited from a flawed census would likely oppose the move to redo it .
“ My sense is the probability [ of a redo ] is very , very low , ” said Margo Anderson , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A Social History ” covered Congress ’ rejection of the 1920 census .
Are States Stuck With the Bad Data For Drawing Their Maps ?
When the Bureau announced at the beginning of the COVID outbreak that it wanted until late July 2021 to release the count ’ s redistricting data , it sent states scrambling to rework their own decennial redistricting calendars .
Some states have elections in 2021 that typically require them to finish up redistricting by early summer .
Despite the Trump administration ’ s reversal on the extension request @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York Law School adjunct professor Jeff Wice , especially amid the hopes that the Bureau will be given additional time for its post-enumeration processing of the data .
States are also now looking at what kind of flexibility they ’ d have to not use the federal census data for state legislative redistricting if its quality is suspect , but several states would have to change either their laws or constitutions to use for redistricting a data source other than the U.S. Census .
What states would use instead is a difficult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counts poses the same logistical and financial challenges of a federal census .
“ I don ’ t think that many states have the resources to really do the kind of state census that would be acceptable to the courts for redistricting , ” O ’ Hare told TPM .
Another option would be to find an alternative data source — including looking at commercial data cases — that could be proven to to be more accurate as the 2020 federal decennial ’ s numbers .
“ People are giving thought to this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet , ” Wice , a veteran redistricting lawyer , said .
Can Sampling Fill In the Gaps ?
It may be possible to avoid some of these extreme steps if statistical sampling can be used to mitigate the count ’ s shortcomings , though the Bureau ’ s ability to do so likely depends on how much time it is given for post-enumeration work that typically happens on the back end .
There are also legal and political hurdles to this approach as well .
By law , sampling can not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were to change that law , there ’ d be a court battle over the constitutionality of the use of sampling for that purpose .
But the path is a little clearer for using modeling to correct the numbers for other purposes , and federal law already commands the Commerce Secretary to consider using sampling in non-apportionment circumstances .
But there could be political resistance to that route , as it would create a new set of winners and losers .
“ If the data are improved , there will be losers .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] would no longer be winners , ” said Andrew Reamer , a George Washington professor who is an expert in the funding implications of the census .
And beyond the legal and political questions , the effectiveness of this approach will depend on just how flawed the hard count is in the first place .
“ The more screwed up the original count , the farther away from real information you end up , even with adjustment , ” Levitt said .

A botched decennial census — a possibility that is looking more likely with the Trump administration’s push to rush the count — will create a nightmare next year and beyond.
In the event the 2020 survey is unusable, there are simply no easy, or even realistic, ways to fix the problem for the aspects of government, and of society, that depend on the census.
“This is going to be a constitutional crisis. It will be a demographic disaster,” William Frey, a census expert at the Brookings Institution, told TPM.
Already, a massive legal fight is ramping up around how the census — which President Trump has hijacked for the purposes of implementing his anti-immigrant agenda — will be used for the doling out political power across the country.
Back when the coronavirus outbreak was taking hold last spring, the Census Bureau asked Congress to extend by four months the statutory deadlines for releasing apportionment and redistricting data — which are typically produced, respectively, at the end of December and March — so that it could have extra time to work around the delays the pandemic caused.
But in recent weeks, the administration has walked back that request, and instead announced that the Bureau will spend one month fewer counting than its proposed pandemic timeline had planned. The reversal appears aimed at making sure Trump is still in office when the apportionment data is produced, so he can try to exclude undocumented immigrants from that count.
Regardless, the move to rush the count is causing grave concerns about its accuracy. As one former Census director recently told Congress, the truncated timeline risked a count that is not “accurate enough to use.”
It’s difficult to even grapple with the consequences of an unacceptably flawed count, given the vast and complicated ways census data are used by both the public and private sector.
But as the Trump administration digs in on its plan to expedite the 2020 count former Census officials, redistricting gurus, research specialists and other experts are beginning to game out what happens if those challenges cannot be overcome.
“There are no easy ways to fix a very inaccurate census,” said Terri Ann Lowenthal, a consultant widely regarded for her census expertise. But she stressed that those mobilized around the success of the census shouldn’t think the towel is being thrown in yet.
“Any alternatives are not as good as having a good first count, there’s no good Plan B,” Denice Ross, who worked as a data expert in the Obama White House and is now at Georgetown’s Beeck Center, told TPM.
Here’s what could be up for discussion if the census falls short.
Not Just How Flawed, But In What Ways Is It Flawed?
The Constitution mandates a decennial census to determine how many House seats each state gets (a process known as apportionment), and states also use census data for the purposes of drawing those districts and their own legislative maps. The data furthermore help decide how $1.5 trillion in federal funding is allocated, and how state and local funding is also doled out. In addition to the government agencies that use it, countless businesses and private research entities draw on the decennial census for their own studies.
Before policymakers and private-sector census users decided what to do with the data produced by the 2020 census, they’ll need to figure out how to assess its quality.
“Everyone expects this 2020 census to not be as good as 2010 for lots of reasons, even before the Trump administration’s politicization of it,” Bill O’Hare, a demographer who’s studied the accuracy of past censuses, told TPM. “I don’t think there’s any consensus for how bad it has to be before rejected, for lack of a better word.”
A key question in the coming months is not just how bad of an undercount a shortened census would produce, but which places and people will be left out of the survey.
Four former Census Bureau directors have called on Congress to tap an independent entity that can develop, ahead of the data’s release, various metrics to determine its quality, and there are other proposals for bringing more transparency into the Bureau’s process of assessing the count’s accuracy.
After data collection finishes, the Bureau usually spends four or five months on post-enumeration quality checks, including programs that happen in the field. The administration hasn’t clearly laid out how those programs will fit into its expedited timeline.
Self-response rates — which currently lag behind the 2010 census — offer an early indicator of potential trouble spots. But, absent additional transparency measures, “it would be really towards March … that people would see that things are really bad,” Frey said, referring to the current deadline for producing redistricting data.
Unlike the congressional apportionment data slated for release in late December, redistricting data are packaged at an extremely granular geographic level and includes characteristics like race and age.
Given the internal benchmarks the Bureau uses, it may know internally before that “whether they are far off the mark,” Lowenthal said. “But they may not be allowed to say so, and I am concerned about that.”
Can The Census Be Redone?
The most ambitious response to a botched census would be to just try to do the census over again. But the 2020 version would have to be horrifically flawed for that to be a serious option, experts told TPM, because of the sheer logistical, technical and financial obstacles involved in conducting the national count.
There are also, right now, legal limits on how such a redo could be used. While federal law contemplates the possibility of mid-decade census, the statute bans such a survey from being used for apportionment or for congressional redistricting. If Congress chose to reverse that statutory prohibition, such a move would still face a constitutional challenge in court.
“I don’t think the courts will be inclined to swap one enumeration for a modestly improved recount a couple years later, just because that creates the incentive to spend a billion of dollars every couple years in order to try to regame the nature of representation,” Justin Levitt, a Loyola Law School professor who worked in Obama’s Justice Department, told TPM.
That being said — costs and logistics aside — Congress appears to have more legal flexibility to redo the census to produce data for its various other uses, including for government funding and for informational purposes.
But the practical challenges can’t be overstated. It would cost billions of dollars, take several years of planning and also a good deal of political will, as states that benefited from a flawed census would likely oppose the move to redo it.
“My sense is the probability [of a redo] is very, very low,” said Margo Anderson, whose book “The American Census: A Social History” covered Congress’ rejection of the 1920 census.
Are States Stuck With the Bad Data For Drawing Their Maps?
When the Bureau announced at the beginning of the COVID outbreak that it wanted until late July 2021 to release the count’s redistricting data, it sent states scrambling to rework their own decennial redistricting calendars. Some states have elections in 2021 that typically require them to finish up redistricting by early summer.
Despite the Trump administration’s reversal on the extension request, that scrambling continues, according to New York Law School adjunct professor Jeff Wice, especially amid the hopes that the Bureau will be given additional time for its post-enumeration processing of the data. States are also now looking at what kind of flexibility they’d have to not use the federal census data for state legislative redistricting if its quality is suspect, but several states would have to change either their laws or constitutions to use for redistricting a data source other than the U.S. Census.
What states would use instead is a difficult question.
Embarking on their own state-wide counts poses the same logistical and financial challenges of a federal census.
“I don’t think that many states have the resources to really do the kind of state census that would be acceptable to the courts for redistricting,” O’Hare told TPM.
Another option would be to find an alternative data source — including looking at commercial data cases — that could be proven to to be more accurate as the 2020 federal decennial’s numbers.
“People are giving thought to this, but there’s no solution yet,” Wice, a veteran redistricting lawyer, said.
Can Sampling Fill In the Gaps?
It may be possible to avoid some of these extreme steps if statistical sampling can be used to mitigate the count’s shortcomings, though the Bureau’s ability to do so likely depends on how much time it is given for post-enumeration work that typically happens on the back end.
There are also legal and political hurdles to this approach as well. By law, sampling cannot be used for apportionment. And if Congress were to change that law, there’d be a court battle over the constitutionality of the use of sampling for that purpose.
But the path is a little clearer for using modeling to correct the numbers for other purposes, and federal law already commands the Commerce Secretary to consider using sampling in non-apportionment circumstances.
But there could be political resistance to that route, as it would create a new set of winners and losers.
“If the data are improved, there will be losers. The winners [under the flawed data] would no longer be winners,” said Andrew Reamer, a George Washington professor who is an expert in the funding implications of the census.
And beyond the legal and political questions, the effectiveness of this approach will depend on just how flawed the hard count is in the first place.
“The more screwed up the original count, the farther away from real information you end up, even with adjustment,” Levitt said.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-08-17--Postmaster General Agrees To Testify Before Congress On USPS Overhaul

Postmaster General Louis DeJoy has agreed to testify before the House Oversight Committee next Monday amid changes he ’ s making at the Postal Service that have triggered a nationwide uproar .
The chairman of the U.S .
Postal Service Board of Governors , Robert Duncan , has also agreed to testify , per the Oversight Committee .
The hearing will start at 10:00 AM E.T .
“ The American people want their mail , medicines , and mail-in ballots delivered in a timely way , and they certainly do not want drastic changes and delays in the midst of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election , ” wrote Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney ( D-NY ) in a statement with news of the testimony .
Democrats were not being blasé about their demand for DeJoy to agree to testify by Monday — Rep. Jim Cooper ( D-TN ) , a more moderate member , expressed his desire for DeJoy to be arrested by the House Sergeant at Arms if he refused to appear .
Maloney also mentioned that she was looking forward to Duncan ’ s production of documents requested by a slew of top Democrats last week .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ laid out the changes DeJoy is implementing , and the chaos they could cause , not least on the administration of what is expected to be a mail-heavy election .
“ Rather than strongly advocating for the Postal Service ’ s request for emergency funding , it appears that you are now using funding shortfalls — which are being aggravated by the President himself — to justify sweeping operational changes that experts warn could degrade delivery standards , slow the mail , jeopardize crucial deliveries such as prescription medicines and essential goods , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans to cast their votes through the mail in the upcoming November elections , ” the Democrats wrote , requesting the documents by Friday , August 21 .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) recalled her members to Washington on Sunday so they can vote in an emergency session to block DeJoy ’ s overhaul of the USPS .
The House will convene on Saturday at 10:00 AM E.T.
, with votes expected to begin an hour afterwards , per House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer ’ s ( D-MD ) office .

Postmaster General Louis DeJoy has agreed to testify before the House Oversight Committee next Monday amid changes he’s making at the Postal Service that have triggered a nationwide uproar.
The chairman of the U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors, Robert Duncan, has also agreed to testify, per the Oversight Committee. The hearing will start at 10:00 AM E.T.
“The American people want their mail, medicines, and mail-in ballots delivered in a timely way, and they certainly do not want drastic changes and delays in the midst of a global pandemic just months before the election,” wrote Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) in a statement with news of the testimony.
Democrats were not being blasé about their demand for DeJoy to agree to testify by Monday — Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN), a more moderate member, expressed his desire for DeJoy to be arrested by the House Sergeant at Arms if he refused to appear.
We need to subpoena the Postmaster General, and if he fails to appear, we should send the Sgt at Arms to arrest him. — Jim Cooper (@repjimcooper) August 15, 2020
Maloney also mentioned that she was looking forward to Duncan’s production of documents requested by a slew of top Democrats last week. In a ten-page letter, the Democrats laid out the changes DeJoy is implementing, and the chaos they could cause, not least on the administration of what is expected to be a mail-heavy election.
“Rather than strongly advocating for the Postal Service’s request for emergency funding, it appears that you are now using funding shortfalls — which are being aggravated by the President himself — to justify sweeping operational changes that experts warn could degrade delivery standards, slow the mail, jeopardize crucial deliveries such as prescription medicines and essential goods, and potentially impair the rights of eligible Americans to cast their votes through the mail in the upcoming November elections,” the Democrats wrote, requesting the documents by Friday, August 21.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) recalled her members to Washington on Sunday so they can vote in an emergency session to block DeJoy’s overhaul of the USPS. The House will convene on Saturday at 10:00 AM E.T., with votes expected to begin an hour afterwards, per House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer’s (D-MD) office.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-08-17--Dem Senators Demand USPS Board ‘Immediately’ Reverse DeJoy’s Changes

A group of Democratic senators sent the U.S .
Postal Service Board of Governors a letter on Monday urging the officials to roll back Postmaster General Louis DeJoy ’ s sweeping procedural changes at the USPS , which have set off a crisis in recent days .
The letter , signed by Sens .
Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) , Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) , Tina Smith ( D-MN ) , Chuck Schumer ( D-NY ) , Ron Wyden ( D-OR ) , Gary Peters ( D-MI ) and Amy Klobuchar ( D-MN ) , laid out how DeJoy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agency ’ s ability to process urgent deliveries , such as mail-in ballots – which just happen to be a target President Donald Trump ’ s ire ahead of the November elections .
“ Mr .
DeJoy appears to be engaged in a partisan effort , with the support of President Trump , to delay and degrade mail service and undermine the mission of the United States Postal Service , ” the senators wrote .
“ You have the responsibility to reverse those changes and the authority to do so.
” The Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s campaign , has taken “ numerous actions that threaten the service and integrity ” such as reducing operational hours and having mail sorting machines removed .
“ It is time to use your full power and authority on behalf of the Postal Service , the American people , and the ‘ public interest ’ you are required to represent , ” the senators told the board .
“ We ask that you immediately take action to reverse any and all changes put in place by Mr. DeJoy that degrade or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mail.
” The senators noted that the governors have the power to remove DeJoy if he refuses to roll back the new rules .

A group of Democratic senators sent the U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors a letter on Monday urging the officials to roll back Postmaster General Louis DeJoy’s sweeping procedural changes at the USPS, which have set off a crisis in recent days.
The letter, signed by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Gary Peters (D-MI) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), laid out how DeJoy’s new rules have kneecapped his agency’s ability to process urgent deliveries, such as mail-in ballots – which just happen to be a target President Donald Trump’s ire ahead of the November elections.
“Mr. DeJoy appears to be engaged in a partisan effort, with the support of President Trump, to delay and degrade mail service and undermine the mission of the United States Postal Service,” the senators wrote. “You have the responsibility to reverse those changes and the authority to do so.”
The Democrats stated that DeJoy, who donated to Trump’s campaign, has taken “numerous actions that threaten the service and integrity” such as reducing operational hours and having mail sorting machines removed.
“It is time to use your full power and authority on behalf of the Postal Service, the American people, and the ‘public interest’ you are required to represent,” the senators told the board. “We ask that you immediately take action to reverse any and all changes put in place by Mr. DeJoy that degrade or delay postal operations and the delivery of the mail.”
The senators noted that the governors have the power to remove DeJoy if he refuses to roll back the new rules.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-08-17--Trump: Voting By Mail Is Great For Me But Not For Thee

President Trump on Monday said that he “ totally ” endorses absentee voting while continuing to baselessly assert that universal mail-in voting is “ fraught with fraud ” amid his explicit efforts to cripple the U.S .
Postal Service .
When asked during a pool spray Monday morning whether he ’ s worried about cutbacks in the USPS affecting those receiving medication and prescriptions through the mail , Trump insisted that the post office is “ running very well.
” The President added that his administration will “ run it well ” by not losing so much money .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ packages from companies such as Amazon , even though that ’ s not the case .
Trump was then asked about his opposition to mail-in ballots , given that they ’ re not at risk of being hacked into .
Trump touted that “ absentee ballots are great ” and acknowledged that he ’ s casted ballots by mail in the past .
After saying that absentee ballots have been proven to work , pointing to how they ’ re “ good like in Florida , ” the President reverted back to falsely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nationwide is “ dangerous ” due to fraud .
“ This universal mail-in is a very dangerous thing .
It is fraught with fraud and every other thing that could happen , ” Trump said .
“ We have to be very , very careful.
” The President predicted that he ’ s “ going to do very well ” in the November election , despite his lagging poll numbers , and that he wants to “ make sure the election is not stolen.
” Trump went on to rehash his warning against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absurdly claiming that he “ totally ” endorses absentee ballots .
When pressed on whether he ’ s asked Postmaster General Louis DeJoy — who ’ s come under fire for implementing cost-cutting and organizational changes to post offices , which critics say hamper mail-in voting ahead of the November election — to slow the mail , Trump denied the notion by saying that he “ wouldn ’ t do that.
” “ No , I have encouraged everybody to speed up the mail , not slow the mail , ” Trump said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a post office that runs without losing billions and billions of dollars a year , as it has been doing for 50 years.
” Although Trump walked away as a reporter asked how he can speed up the mail by removing machines — appearing to reference reports that the USPS began removing letter collection boxes in at least four states — the President insinuated in a tweet shortly after the pool spray that sending absentee ballots via “ drop boxes ” will lead to fraud .

President Trump on Monday said that he “totally” endorses absentee voting while continuing to baselessly assert that universal mail-in voting is “fraught with fraud” amid his explicit efforts to cripple the U.S. Postal Service.
When asked during a pool spray Monday morning whether he’s worried about cutbacks in the USPS affecting those receiving medication and prescriptions through the mail, Trump insisted that the post office is “running very well.”
The President added that his administration will “run it well” by not losing so much money. Trump largely blamed the USPS losses on delivering packages from companies such as Amazon, even though that’s not the case.
Trump was then asked about his opposition to mail-in ballots, given that they’re not at risk of being hacked into. Trump touted that “absentee ballots are great” and acknowledged that he’s casted ballots by mail in the past.
After saying that absentee ballots have been proven to work, pointing to how they’re “good like in Florida,” the President reverted back to falsely claiming that sending ballots to all voters nationwide is “dangerous” due to fraud.
“This universal mail-in is a very dangerous thing. It is fraught with fraud and every other thing that could happen,” Trump said. “We have to be very, very careful.”
The President predicted that he’s “going to do very well” in the November election, despite his lagging poll numbers, and that he wants to “make sure the election is not stolen.”
Trump went on to rehash his warning against “this universal mail-in ballot” before absurdly claiming that he “totally” endorses absentee ballots.
When pressed on whether he’s asked Postmaster General Louis DeJoy — who’s come under fire for implementing cost-cutting and organizational changes to post offices, which critics say hamper mail-in voting ahead of the November election — to slow the mail, Trump denied the notion by saying that he “wouldn’t do that.”
“No, I have encouraged everybody to speed up the mail, not slow the mail,” Trump said. “And I also want to have a post office that runs without losing billions and billions of dollars a year, as it has been doing for 50 years.”
Although Trump walked away as a reporter asked how he can speed up the mail by removing machines — appearing to reference reports that the USPS began removing letter collection boxes in at least four states — the President insinuated in a tweet shortly after the pool spray that sending absentee ballots via “drop boxes” will lead to fraud.
Some states use “drop boxes” for the collection of Universal Mail-In Ballots. So who is going to “collect” the Ballots, and what might be done to them prior to tabulation? A Rigged Election? So bad for our Country. Only Absentee Ballots acceptable! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 17, 2020
Watch Trump’s remarks below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-08-18--DeJoy Collected Millions From Company With Ties To Postal Service

Trump-allied postmaster general Louis DeJoy , who has been criticized for maintaining financial ties to a company that conducts business with the US Postal Service , received $ 1.2 million to $ 7 million in income from XPO Logistics last year .
The New York Times reported that the former Republican mega-donor continues to hold $ 25 million to $ 50 million in the transportation and logistics company where he formerly served as chief executive until 2015 and was member of its board until 2018 .
The Times reviewed documents filed with the Office of Government Ethics that show DeJoy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ payments from XPO at buildings that he owns .
The news comes as DeJoy , a major donor to President Donald Trump , agreed to testify before the House Oversight Committee next week following cost-cutting measures and policy changes at the mail service that many Democratic lawmakers have said are explicit attempts to interfere with mail voting during the upcoming presidential election .
According to The Times , XPO ’ s filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission show the company paid DeJoy $ 1.86 million in rent in 2018 .
In reports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which requires government officials submit an income range instead of a specific dollar amount — DeJoy said that he could earn $ 1.2 million to $ 7 million from the arrangements .
DeJoy has said he takes his ethical obligations “ seriously.
” “ I have done what is necessary to ensure that I am and will remain in compliance with those obligations , ” DeJoy said in a statement to The Times .
In next week ’ s hearing , Democrats are expected to address the postmaster general on potential conflicts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that many have criticized as contributing to the Trump campaign ’ s attempts to attack and undermine mail voting .

Trump-allied postmaster general Louis DeJoy, who has been criticized for maintaining financial ties to a company that conducts business with the US Postal Service, received $1.2 million to $7 million in income from XPO Logistics last year.
The New York Times reported that the former Republican mega-donor continues to hold $25 million to $50 million in the transportation and logistics company where he formerly served as chief executive until 2015 and was member of its board until 2018.
The Times reviewed documents filed with the Office of Government Ethics that show DeJoy also received millions of dollars in rental payments from XPO at buildings that he owns.
The news comes as DeJoy, a major donor to President Donald Trump, agreed to testify before the House Oversight Committee next week following cost-cutting measures and policy changes at the mail service that many Democratic lawmakers have said are explicit attempts to interfere with mail voting during the upcoming presidential election.
According to The Times, XPO’s filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission show the company paid DeJoy $1.86 million in rent in 2018. In reports to the Office of Government Ethics — which requires government officials submit an income range instead of a specific dollar amount — DeJoy said that he could earn $1.2 million to $7 million from the arrangements.
DeJoy has said he takes his ethical obligations “seriously.”
“I have done what is necessary to ensure that I am and will remain in compliance with those obligations,” DeJoy said in a statement to The Times.
In next week’s hearing, Democrats are expected to address the postmaster general on potential conflicts of interest and seek answers regarding new policies that many have criticized as contributing to the Trump campaign’s attempts to attack and undermine mail voting.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-08-18--Trump Teases A Pardon For A ‘Very, Very Important’ Person

President Donald Trump apparently has a new bombshell pardon in the pipes .
“ Doing a pardon tomorrow on someone @ @ @ @ @ important , ” Trump said during a press gaggle on Monday evening , according to @ @ @ @ @ reporters that it would not be his former adviser Michael Flynn nor NSA whistleblower Edward @ @ @ @ @ not disclose who the pardon recipient would be , his former confidant Roger Stone , @ @ @ @ @ persistently attacked before commuting Stone ’ s sentence , abruptly dropped his appeals case against @ @ @ @ @ night after the President made the remark about the pardon .

President Donald Trump apparently has a new bombshell pardon in the pipes.
“Doing a pardon tomorrow on someone who is very, very important,” Trump said during a press gaggle on Monday evening, according to Reuters.
The President told reporters that it would not be his former adviser Michael Flynn nor NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.
Though Trump did not disclose who the pardon recipient would be, his former confidant Roger Stone, whose criminal case Trump has persistently attacked before commuting Stone’s sentence, abruptly dropped his appeals case against his criminal convictions on Monday night after the President made the remark about the pardon.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-08-18--Four Ways In Which Senate Intel’s Bipartisan Russia Report Went Further Than Mueller’s

The nearly 1,000 page report released by the Senate Thursday morning reveals new details about Russian interference in the 2016 election , going beyond — and at times openly contradicting — the findings of the Mueller report .
The Senate Intelligence Committee released the report into Russian meddling and allegations of ties between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin after four years of GOP-led work investigating the issue .
The report is chock-full of new revelations that go further towards suggesting serious infiltration by the Russian government at the highest levels of the Trump campaign , and even calling Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ grave counterintelligence threat.
” The panel ’ s investigators , however , faced a much lower standard of proof than Mueller ’ s prosecutors did .
As opposed to applying the criminal standard of proof — “ beyond a reasonable doubt ” — lawmakers “ endeavored to convey a detailed accounting of relevant events , and sometimes included conflicting information that the Committee could not reliably resolve.
” Notably , the bipartisan committee not only backed several of Mueller ’ s findings , it went further in some of its conclusions and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Trump campaign and their associates .
The Senate committee ’ s assessments were at times based on evidence provided by federal investigators .
Yet the Senate panel was more candid about the substance of what that investigation covered and how it fit into the larger conclusions about Russia ’ s 2016 influence campaign .
Here ’ s a look at the fuller — and at times , more complicated — picture the Senate painted with its probe : Throughout the Mueller investigation , mystery surrounded a close associate of Paul Manafort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russian political consultant who received internal Trump campaign polling data from Manafort .
Mueller investigated Kilimnik , and even indicted him in 2018 on witness tampering charges .
But he never publicly nailed down exactly what the longtime Manafort associate ’ s affiliation was with the Russian government , saying only that he is a person “ who the FBI assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence.
” The GOP-led Senate Intelligence Committee took it far further .
“ The Committee found that Konstantin Kilimnik is a Russian intelligence officer , ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as “ part of a cadre of individuals ostensibly operating outside of the Russian government but who nonetheless implement Kremlin-directed influence operations.
” The probe bases its conclusion on “ electronic communications , interviews , law enforcement information , ” and categories of evidence that are redacted .
The Senate also suggests that Mueller got at least one key detail about Kilimnik wrong in his 2019 report .
Kilimnik first began working alongside Americans in the 1990s , at the Moscow office International Republican Institute — a D.C.-based non-profit that pushes for liberalizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ joined IRI in 1998 .
But Senate investigators said that the report “ misstates ” that date .
Rather , Kilimnik joined IRI in 1995 — the same year that he was discharged as a lieutenant from the Russian military .
For Kilimnik , a linguist trained at the GRU ’ s language academy , this means that it was a matter of months , and not years , between his departure from the Russian military and arrival at a Western think tank .
The Mueller report noted that two GOP operatives that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gates and Sam Patten , did not believe that Kilimnik was a spy .
But the Senate report suggests that Kilimnik effectively duped them , saying that the Russian national “ intentionally downplayed and mischaracterized — including in private to his associates like Patten — the profile of Russian intelligence officers and his connections to them in order to distance himself from these allegations.
” And whereas the Mueller report suggests that Kilimnik was almost a passive actor , who would periodically receive Trump campaign polling data throughout 2016 and forward it onwards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ read on the situation .
The Senate report portrays Kilimnik as a “ Kremlin agent , ” actively seeking to infiltrate and compromise the American political operatives with which he ingratiated himself .
Kilimnik , the Senate suggests , solicited the polling data from Manafort .
The pair discussed the data and briefings , the lawmakers believed , as a means of paying back debts to a Russian oligarch while holding out the value of the information as a way to induce Ukrainian oligarch clients of Manafort ’ s to repay him .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kilimnik peppering Manafort with questions about the polling data at an August 2016 meeting .
Kilimnik , at that point , already served as a channel for the information to the former Soviet Union .
2 .
A ‘ Potential Connection ’ Between Manafort And The GRU Hacking Effort The Senate took a far dimmer view of Manafort and his intentions than Mueller , going so far as to lightly chide the Trump campaign for doing no vetting of the longtime GOP political consultant .
Manafort , the Senate report suggests , joined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ settle debts he had to oligarchs from the former Soviet Union .
But where the Senate report goes furthest is in approaching a conclusion about Manafort and Kilimnik ’ s ties to the other half of Russian interference in the 2016 election : the GRU ’ s effort to hack the Clinton campaign and spread the stolen emails through WikiLeaks .
Mueller wrote that he could not draw a conclusion about Kilimnik or Manafort ’ s knowledge of the parallel effort .
The Senate , however , found “ fragmentary ” evidence suggesting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” to the GRU , and that two redacted pieces of evidence point towards Manafort having a “ potential connection ” to the GRU campaign .
The Mueller report also took Manafort at his word in saying that he did not believe Kilimnik was a spy , saying flatly that “ Manafort told the Office that he did not believe Kilimnik was working as a Russian ‘ spy.
’ ” But the Senate investigators uncovered evidence that Manafort , while working in Ukraine in 2010 , had advised his bosses to “ have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not have to hold back during ‘ sensitive ’ conversations in Kilimnik ’ s presence.
” “ Manafort was undeniably aware — often from first-hand experience — of suspicious aspects of Kilimnik ’ s behavior and network , ” one footnote in the Senate report reads .
“ Nevertheless , Manafort later asserted to the [ Special Counsel ] that Kilimnik was not a spy.
” Finally , the Mueller investigators offered no motive for why Manafort lied to them about Kilimnik .
But the Senate report frames up the situation much more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ direct insight into a series of interactions and communications which represent the single most direct tie between senior Trump Campaign officials and the Russian intelligence services.
” “ Manafort ’ s true motive in deciding to face more severe criminal penalties rather than provide complete answers about his interactions with Kilimnik is unknown , but the result is that many interactions between Manafort and Kilimnik remain hidden , ” the report reads .
3 .
Why It ’ s Obvious Trump Spoke To Stone About WikiLeaks — Despite His Claims To Mueller Most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upon the 2018 release of Mueller report because of the ongoing criminal case against Stone .
Once those redactions were removed , it became clear that Mueller had significant evidence that two claims Trump made in his written answers to Mueller were bogus : that Trump didn ’ t recall speaking to Stone during the last five months of the campaign and that Trump did not recall speaking to his campaign about Stone ’ s outreach to WikiLeaks .
Mueller himself alluded to the discrepancy in congressional testimony .
But the Senate Intelligence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why the bipartisan group of lawmakers themselves have concluded with confidence that “ on multiple occasions , ” Trump had those kinds of conversations .
The lawmakers pointed to phone records that backed the accounts of campaign officials who recalled Trump conversations with Stone that were apparently about WikiLeaks .
Stone had told Manafort and Gates “ approximately ” in May that WikiLeaks was planning to release damaging information about Clinton , according to the Senate report .
Several significantly-timed Stone phone calls with Trump happened after that .
For instance , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ multiple Trump-Stone conversations in June , in the days after “ Guccifer 2.0 ” — an online pseudonym we now know was GRU-backed — went public about hacking the DNC emails .
“ Any of these calls would have provided Stone with an opportunity to share additional information about WikiLeaks directly with Trump , and given the content of his conversations with Manafort and Gates combined with Trump ’ s known interest in the issue , the Committee assesses he likely did , ” the Senate panel said .
Trump ’ s apparent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ summer , including at key moments in the WikiLeaks timeline .
The Mueller report had previously laid out accounts by Michael Cohen , Manafort and Gates of their recollections of Trump ’ s discussions with Stone about WikiLeaks .
The lawmakers pointed to phone records that verified those accounts .
One of those calls was a Sept. 29 call between Stone and Trump that had previously been described publicly by Gates .
The committee matched that account to the phone records of then-Trump aide Keith Schiller , whose phone , according to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ hide his communications.
” Like the Mueller report , the committee details the frustration within the campaign in early October that WikiLeaks had not released emails that had been publicly and privately hyped .
On Oct. 6 — the same day that Stone tweeted a prediction of more Clinton-related document dumps — Stone had a six-minute phone call with the number tied to Schiller .
The record for that call was not previously public , even as similar phone records played a prominent role in Stone ’ s trial .
The committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certainly ” with Trump , though the substance is “ not known ” to the committee .
“ However , at the time , Stone was focused on the potential for a WikiLeaks release , the Campaign was following WikiLeaks ’ s announcements , and Trump ’ s prior call with Stone on September 29 , also using Schiller ’ s phone , related to a WikiLeaks release , ” the report said .
“ Given these facts , it appears quite likely that Stone and Trump spoke about WikiLeaks.
” 4 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ And The WikiLeaks Dump That Followed Like Mueller , the committee had trouble parsing an account provided to federal investigators by Jerome Corsi of what unfolded the day the “ Access Hollywood ” tape came out .
But the Senate panel revealed new details about Corsi ’ s unconfirmed claims , which suggested that Stone had a heads-up that a story about the tape was coming and that Stone instructed Corsi to pressure WikiLeaks to dump emails to counteract that .
WikiLeaks released its John Podesta emails half-an-hour after the Washington Post published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mueller report recounted the special counsel ’ s examination of Corsi ’ s claims , which was hampered by Corsi contradicting himself in his FBI interviews .
Like Mueller , the committee failed to obtain evidence that would confirm Corsi ’ s account of Stone encouraging the WikiLeaks release .
Despite being unable to vet Corsi ’ s shifting stories , the committee laid out his accounts more fully than Mueller did .
In one FBI interview , Corsi claimed that Stone told him to that he “ [ w ] anted the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and that Corsi should have WikiLeaks release those emails “ immediately.
” The Senate report also fleshed out another element of Corsi ’ s account only alluded to in the Mueller report : that Corsi previewed the release of the Access Hollywood tape on a conference call before the Post story went up and that he had told the call attendees to reach out to Assange because the tape was a problem .
Echoing claims made in Corsi ’ s book , the Senate report suggested he could have been referring to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or a call with a company that Corsi advised that also included Ted Malloch , an associate who Corsi had been previously working with to reach out to WikiLeaks .
After the special counsel failed to find anyone on these calls who recalled Corsi delivering that message , the committee did not try to confirm the account itself .

The nearly 1,000 page report released by the Senate Tuesday morning reveals new details about Russian interference in the 2016 election, going beyond — and at times openly contradicting — the findings of the Mueller report.
The Senate Intelligence Committee released the report into Russian meddling and allegations of ties between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin after four years of GOP-led work investigating the issue.
The report is chock-full of new revelations that go further towards suggesting serious infiltration by the Russian government at the highest levels of the Trump campaign, and even calling Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort in particular a “grave counterintelligence threat.”
The panel’s investigators, however, faced a much lower standard of proof than Mueller’s prosecutors did. As opposed to applying the criminal standard of proof — “beyond a reasonable doubt” — lawmakers “endeavored to convey a detailed accounting of relevant events, and sometimes included conflicting information that the Committee could not reliably resolve.”
Notably, the bipartisan committee not only backed several of Mueller’s findings, it went further in some of its conclusions and included damning new details about the members of the Trump campaign and their associates.
The Senate committee’s assessments were at times based on evidence provided by federal investigators. Yet the Senate panel was more candid about the substance of what that investigation covered and how it fit into the larger conclusions about Russia’s 2016 influence campaign.
Here’s a look at the fuller — and at times, more complicated — picture the Senate painted with its probe:
1. Paul Manafort’s Closest Lieutenant Was A Russian Intelligence Officer. Mueller Hedged.
Throughout the Mueller investigation, mystery surrounded a close associate of Paul Manafort’s: Konstantin Kilimnik, the Russian political consultant who received internal Trump campaign polling data from Manafort.
Mueller investigated Kilimnik, and even indicted him in 2018 on witness tampering charges. But he never publicly nailed down exactly what the longtime Manafort associate’s affiliation was with the Russian government, saying only that he is a person “who the FBI assesses to have ties to Russian intelligence.”
The GOP-led Senate Intelligence Committee took it far further. “The Committee found that Konstantin Kilimnik is a Russian intelligence officer,” the report reads.
Senate investigators identified Kilimnik as “part of a cadre of individuals ostensibly operating outside of the Russian government but who nonetheless implement Kremlin-directed influence operations.”
The probe bases its conclusion on “electronic communications, interviews, law enforcement information,” and categories of evidence that are redacted.
The Senate also suggests that Mueller got at least one key detail about Kilimnik wrong in his 2019 report.
Kilimnik first began working alongside Americans in the 1990s, at the Moscow office International Republican Institute — a D.C.-based non-profit that pushes for liberalizing reforms abroad.
Mueller wrote that Kilimnik joined IRI in 1998. But Senate investigators said that the report “misstates” that date. Rather, Kilimnik joined IRI in 1995 — the same year that he was discharged as a lieutenant from the Russian military.
For Kilimnik, a linguist trained at the GRU’s language academy, this means that it was a matter of months, and not years, between his departure from the Russian military and arrival at a Western think tank.
The Mueller report noted that two GOP operatives that Kilimnik was in business with, Rick Gates and Sam Patten, did not believe that Kilimnik was a spy. But the Senate report suggests that Kilimnik effectively duped them, saying that the Russian national “intentionally downplayed and mischaracterized — including in private to his associates like Patten — the profile of Russian intelligence officers and his connections to them in order to distance himself from these allegations.”
And whereas the Mueller report suggests that Kilimnik was almost a passive actor, who would periodically receive Trump campaign polling data throughout 2016 and forward it onwards, the Senate report offers a darker read on the situation.
The Senate report portrays Kilimnik as a “Kremlin agent,” actively seeking to infiltrate and compromise the American political operatives with which he ingratiated himself.
Kilimnik, the Senate suggests, solicited the polling data from Manafort. The pair discussed the data and briefings, the lawmakers believed, as a means of paying back debts to a Russian oligarch while holding out the value of the information as a way to induce Ukrainian oligarch clients of Manafort’s to repay him.
Gates, the Committee said, recalled Kilimnik peppering Manafort with questions about the polling data at an August 2016 meeting. Kilimnik, at that point, already served as a channel for the information to the former Soviet Union.
2. A ‘Potential Connection’ Between Manafort And The GRU Hacking Effort
The Senate took a far dimmer view of Manafort and his intentions than Mueller, going so far as to lightly chide the Trump campaign for doing no vetting of the longtime GOP political consultant.
Manafort, the Senate report suggests, joined the Trump campaign as a way to settle debts he had to oligarchs from the former Soviet Union.
But where the Senate report goes furthest is in approaching a conclusion about Manafort and Kilimnik’s ties to the other half of Russian interference in the 2016 election: the GRU’s effort to hack the Clinton campaign and spread the stolen emails through WikiLeaks.
Mueller wrote that he could not draw a conclusion about Kilimnik or Manafort’s knowledge of the parallel effort. The Senate, however, found “fragmentary” evidence suggesting that Kilimnik acted as a “channel” to the GRU, and that two redacted pieces of evidence point towards Manafort having a “potential connection” to the GRU campaign.
The Mueller report also took Manafort at his word in saying that he did not believe Kilimnik was a spy, saying flatly that “Manafort told the Office that he did not believe Kilimnik was working as a Russian ‘spy.’”
But the Senate investigators uncovered evidence that Manafort, while working in Ukraine in 2010, had advised his bosses to “have Kilimnik checked out so that they would not have to hold back during ‘sensitive’ conversations in Kilimnik’s presence.”
“Manafort was undeniably aware — often from first-hand experience — of suspicious aspects of Kilimnik’s behavior and network,” one footnote in the Senate report reads. “Nevertheless, Manafort later asserted to the [Special Counsel] that Kilimnik was not a spy.”
Finally, the Mueller investigators offered no motive for why Manafort lied to them about Kilimnik.
But the Senate report frames up the situation much more clearly.
His lies “effectively foreclosed direct insight into a series of interactions and communications which represent the single most direct tie between senior Trump Campaign officials and the Russian intelligence services.”
“Manafort’s true motive in deciding to face more severe criminal penalties rather than provide complete answers about his interactions with Kilimnik is unknown, but the result is that many interactions between Manafort and Kilimnik remain hidden,” the report reads.
3. Why It’s Obvious Trump Spoke To Stone About WikiLeaks — Despite His Claims To Mueller
Most of the Roger Stone details were redacted upon the 2018 release of Mueller report because of the ongoing criminal case against Stone. Once those redactions were removed, it became clear that Mueller had significant evidence that two claims Trump made in his written answers to Mueller were bogus: that Trump didn’t recall speaking to Stone during the last five months of the campaign and that Trump did not recall speaking to his campaign about Stone’s outreach to WikiLeaks. Mueller himself alluded to the discrepancy in congressional testimony.
But the Senate Intelligence report goes into much more detail about why the bipartisan group of lawmakers themselves have concluded with confidence that “on multiple occasions,” Trump had those kinds of conversations. The lawmakers pointed to phone records that backed the accounts of campaign officials who recalled Trump conversations with Stone that were apparently about WikiLeaks.
Stone had told Manafort and Gates “approximately” in May that WikiLeaks was planning to release damaging information about Clinton, according to the Senate report. Several significantly-timed Stone phone calls with Trump happened after that.
For instance, the Senate committee surfaced phone records pointing to multiple Trump-Stone conversations in June, in the days after “Guccifer 2.0” — an online pseudonym we now know was GRU-backed — went public about hacking the DNC emails.
“Any of these calls would have provided Stone with an opportunity to share additional information about WikiLeaks directly with Trump, and given the content of his conversations with Manafort and Gates combined with Trump’s known interest in the issue, the Committee assesses he likely did,” the Senate panel said.
Trump’s apparent phone contact with Stone continued through the summer, including at key moments in the WikiLeaks timeline. The Mueller report had previously laid out accounts by Michael Cohen, Manafort and Gates of their recollections of Trump’s discussions with Stone about WikiLeaks. The lawmakers pointed to phone records that verified those accounts.
One of those calls was a Sept. 29 call between Stone and Trump that had previously been described publicly by Gates. The committee matched that account to the phone records of then-Trump aide Keith Schiller, whose phone, according to the report, Trump liked to use to “hide his communications.”
Like the Mueller report, the committee details the frustration within the campaign in early October that WikiLeaks had not released emails that had been publicly and privately hyped.
On Oct. 6 — the same day that Stone tweeted a prediction of more Clinton-related document dumps — Stone had a six-minute phone call with the number tied to Schiller. The record for that call was not previously public, even as similar phone records played a prominent role in Stone’s trial. The committee concluded that this call was “almost certainly” with Trump, though the substance is “not known” to the committee.
“However, at the time, Stone was focused on the potential for a WikiLeaks release, the Campaign was following WikiLeaks’s announcements, and Trump’s prior call with Stone on September 29, also using Schiller’s phone, related to a WikiLeaks release,” the report said. “Given these facts, it appears quite likely that Stone and Trump spoke about WikiLeaks.”
4. The Mystery Around The Access Hollywood Tape And The WikiLeaks Dump That Followed
Like Mueller, the committee had trouble parsing an account provided to federal investigators by Jerome Corsi of what unfolded the day the “Access Hollywood” tape came out.
But the Senate panel revealed new details about Corsi’s unconfirmed claims, which suggested that Stone had a heads-up that a story about the tape was coming and that Stone instructed Corsi to pressure WikiLeaks to dump emails to counteract that. WikiLeaks released its John Podesta emails half-an-hour after the Washington Post published its story about the tape.
The Mueller report recounted the special counsel’s examination of Corsi’s claims, which was hampered by Corsi contradicting himself in his FBI interviews. Like Mueller, the committee failed to obtain evidence that would confirm Corsi’s account of Stone encouraging the WikiLeaks release.
Despite being unable to vet Corsi’s shifting stories, the committee laid out his accounts more fully than Mueller did. In one FBI interview, Corsi claimed that Stone told him to that he “[w]anted the Podesta stuff to balance the news cycle” and that Corsi should have WikiLeaks release those emails “immediately.”
The Senate report also fleshed out another element of Corsi’s account only alluded to in the Mueller report: that Corsi previewed the release of the Access Hollywood tape on a conference call before the Post story went up and that he had told the call attendees to reach out to Assange because the tape was a problem.
Echoing claims made in Corsi’s book, the Senate report suggested he could have been referring to either a call with the WorldNetDaily staff or a call with a company that Corsi advised that also included Ted Malloch, an associate who Corsi had been previously working with to reach out to WikiLeaks.
After the special counsel failed to find anyone on these calls who recalled Corsi delivering that message, the committee did not try to confirm the account itself.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-08-18--Former Deputy Postmaster Skeptical Of DeJoy’s Assurances That Mail Slowdown Is On Hold

Around 90 minutes after the postmaster general sought to assure Americans that he was pausing certain new initiatives “ to avoid even the appearance of any impact on election mail , ” the former deputy postmaster general appeared via webcam before an assembly of reporters , unimpressed .
“ It ’ s important to be candid here , ” said Ronald Stroman , the former deputy postmaster general and now a senior fellow at Democracy Fund .
“ I mean , as far as we can tell , this is more than just the appearance of a problem , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mail across the system.
” Stroman resigned his position in mid-May , a few days after news broke that Republican megadonor Louis DeJoy would be the Postal Service ’ s next leader .
DeJoy ’ s statement Tuesday , following a week of intense and critical news coverage , announced he was “ suspending ” various initiatives a few days before he ’ s set to testify before the Senate .
DeJoy is expected to answer questions about widespread reports of a slowdown in mail delivery across the country .
Critics have cited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extra delivery trips necessary to get mail delivered without unnecessary delays .
It hasn ’ t helped that President Donald Trump recently suggested he ’ s against a proposed $ 25 billion package for the USPS because it would enable more Americans to vote by mail .
But DeJoy ’ s statement Tuesday , Stroman told reporters , “ raises more questions than it provides answers.
” For one thing , Stroman said , DeJoy didn ’ t actually define what policies he was talking about .
For example , DeJoy ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts that predate my arrival at the Postal Service.
” But Stroman said the postmaster general had that wrong .
“ Unless these were implemented in the two weeks between the time when I left and the time that the new PMG arrived , certainly these were not implemented , ” he said .
Stroman did appreciate that DeJoy was actually releasing a public statement himself — but that only underlined the extent to which the postmaster hasn ’ t been “ transparent ” on operational changes , he said .
“ There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Postal Service was actually implemented , ” he observed .
The statement didn ’ t really help .
For example , DeJoy said Tuesday that “ Retail hours at Post Offices will not change.
” But Stroman pointed out this did not answer whether hours have already been changed — nor whether those changes would now be reversed .
Mail processing equipment and blue collection boxes , DeJoy said , “ will remain where they are.
” But if sorting machines have already been dismantled or removed , Stroman said , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the machinery will be returned .
“ Part of it is a lack of transparency , ” he said .
“ We just don ’ t know .
There has not been clarity about what has happened with regard to the mail processing equipment.
” Then there ’ s the question of the USPS overtime policy .
Despite reported documents showing DeJoy slashing overtime , DeJoy said in his statement that “ we reassert that overtime has , and will continue to be , approved as needed .
“ What does that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One could determine , at any point , that overtime is not needed in a particular instance.
” “ Is the Post Office going to deliver all of the ballots that it has received that day ?
” Stroman asked .
Tammy Patrick , senior elections adviser at Democracy Fund , said later in the call that the postmaster general needed to be explicit — the statement wasn ’ t enough .
“ We need to make sure , as Election Day draws near , that late trips are absolutely going to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be authorized , that postal carriers will complete their routes , even if it means overtime ” she said .
“ We need to have some definitive statements from the postmaster general to ensure that all of the ballots that are being dropped — whether it ’ s in a blue box or someone ’ s mailbox at the their home — that they are going to be picked up that day and postmarked that day , no matter whether or not it means an additional trip or additional overtime , ” Patrick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DeJoy ’ s statement , a USPS spokesperson told Government Executive that DeJoy ’ s statement only applied to the specific policies he mentioned — which did not include an assurance about late trips .
The genie , Stroman said , was out of the bottle .
He urged the postmaster general to hold regular briefings focused on election mail , and for members of Congress to hold his feet to the fire .
“ When you make changes that potentially have detrimental impacts , and you do it without a clear explanation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he said .

Around 90 minutes after the postmaster general sought to assure Americans that he was pausing certain new initiatives “to avoid even the appearance of any impact on election mail,” the former deputy postmaster general appeared via webcam before an assembly of reporters, unimpressed.
“It’s important to be candid here,” said Ronald Stroman, the former deputy postmaster general and now a senior fellow at Democracy Fund.
“I mean, as far as we can tell, this is more than just the appearance of a problem,” Stroman said. “There is delayed mail across the system.”
Stroman resigned his position in mid-May, a few days after news broke that Republican megadonor Louis DeJoy would be the Postal Service’s next leader.
DeJoy’s statement Tuesday, following a week of intense and critical news coverage, announced he was “suspending” various initiatives a few days before he’s set to testify before the Senate. DeJoy is expected to answer questions about widespread reports of a slowdown in mail delivery across the country.
Critics have cited reports of DeJoy slashing overtime hours and extra delivery trips necessary to get mail delivered without unnecessary delays. It hasn’t helped that President Donald Trump recently suggested he’s against a proposed $25 billion package for the USPS because it would enable more Americans to vote by mail.
But DeJoy’s statement Tuesday, Stroman told reporters, “raises more questions than it provides answers.”
For one thing, Stroman said, DeJoy didn’t actually define what policies he was talking about.
For example, DeJoy’s statement referenced “longstanding operational initiatives — efforts that predate my arrival at the Postal Service.” But Stroman said the postmaster general had that wrong.
“Unless these were implemented in the two weeks between the time when I left and the time that the new PMG arrived, certainly these were not implemented,” he said.
Stroman did appreciate that DeJoy was actually releasing a public statement himself — but that only underlined the extent to which the postmaster hasn’t been “transparent” on operational changes, he said.
“There has not been transparency about what initiatives the Postal Service was actually implemented,” he observed.
The statement didn’t really help.
For example, DeJoy said Tuesday that “Retail hours at Post Offices will not change.” But Stroman pointed out this did not answer whether hours have already been changed — nor whether those changes would now be reversed.
Mail processing equipment and blue collection boxes, DeJoy said, “will remain where they are.” But if sorting machines have already been dismantled or removed, Stroman said, the statement doesn’t assure the public that the machinery will be returned.
“Part of it is a lack of transparency,” he said. “We just don’t know. There has not been clarity about what has happened with regard to the mail processing equipment.”
Then there’s the question of the USPS overtime policy. Despite reported documents showing DeJoy slashing overtime, DeJoy said in his statement that “we reassert that overtime has, and will continue to be, approved as needed.
“What does that mean?” Stroman said. “One could determine, at any point, that overtime is not needed in a particular instance.”
“Is the Post Office going to deliver all of the ballots that it has received that day?” Stroman asked.
Tammy Patrick, senior elections adviser at Democracy Fund, said later in the call that the postmaster general needed to be explicit — the statement wasn’t enough.
“We need to make sure, as Election Day draws near, that late trips are absolutely going to be authorized, that overtime is going to be authorized, that postal carriers will complete their routes, even if it means overtime” she said.
“We need to have some definitive statements from the postmaster general to ensure that all of the ballots that are being dropped — whether it’s in a blue box or someone’s mailbox at the their home — that they are going to be picked up that day and postmarked that day, no matter whether or not it means an additional trip or additional overtime,” Patrick added.
In fact, shortly after DeJoy’s statement, a USPS spokesperson told Government Executive that DeJoy’s statement only applied to the specific policies he mentioned — which did not include an assurance about late trips.
The genie, Stroman said, was out of the bottle. He urged the postmaster general to hold regular briefings focused on election mail, and for members of Congress to hold his feet to the fire.
“When you make changes that potentially have detrimental impacts, and you do it without a clear explanation, then it fosters concern,” he said.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-08-18--Ex-DHS Official Warns He Is Just ‘Opening Salvo’ In Trump Alumn Crusade Against POTUS

Former Department of Homeland Security chief of staff Miles Taylor publicly warned President Donald Trump on Tuesday that he is just the “ opening salvo ” of former administration officials who will be coming forward with their own testimonies in the coming weeks to ensure Trump is not re-elected in November .
“ The President hasn ’ t heard the last of us , ” Taylor told ABC ’ s George Stephanopoulos Tuesday morning when asked if there was more to come .
“ In fact , me speaking out yesterday , you can think of it as an opening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coming weeks , the President can expect to hear from other ex-administration officials who can speak firsthand to “ the same testimonies that I gave which is that he ’ s ill-equipped to hold the office that he has , and that a second term would be more dangerous than a first term.
” Good Morning America reported that Taylor became the highest-ranking former administration official to endorse Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden after publicly airing his criticism of President Trump in a video released Monday by Republican Voters for Trump .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repeatedly exploiting the Department of Homeland Security to advance his own political agenda .
Following the the video ’ s release during the ABC interview on Tuesday , Taylor said working in Trump ’ s White House was like playing “ whack-a-mole with bad presidential decisions.
” He cited family separation policy at the Mexico border and the President ’ s callous attitude toward relief assistance following wildfires in California as the key reasons for his departure fro the Trump administration .
“ Every single month I served in that administration , after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the President would come to us and say , not only he wanted to reinstate it , ” Taylor said .
“ He wanted to double down and implement a deliberate policy of ripping any kid apart from their parents that showed up at the border , any kid at the border.
” Although Taylor has said he left the administration on his own terms , the President ’ s son-in-law and senior White House adviser Jared Kushner sought to discredit Taylor by suggesting during a CNN interview on Monday that the former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the task.
” Trump also without addressing the assertions made by Taylor dismissed the former White House official as a “ DISGRUNTLED EMPLOYEE ” who is “ said to be a real ‘ stiff . '
”

Former Department of Homeland Security chief of staff Miles Taylor publicly warned President Donald Trump on Tuesday that he is just the “opening salvo” of former administration officials who will be coming forward with their own testimonies in the coming weeks to ensure Trump is not re-elected in November.
“The President hasn’t heard the last of us,” Taylor told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos Tuesday morning when asked if there was more to come. “In fact, me speaking out yesterday, you can think of it as an opening salvo.”
Taylor said that in the coming weeks, the President can expect to hear from other ex-administration officials who can speak firsthand to “the same testimonies that I gave which is that he’s ill-equipped to hold the office that he has, and that a second term would be more dangerous than a first term.”
.@ABC NEWS EXCLUSIVE: Former Trump administration official Miles Taylor speaks out on breaking with Pres. Trump and endorsing Joe Biden. https://t.co/io8dW4sq7E pic.twitter.com/hBZsncaZz5 — Good Morning America (@GMA) August 18, 2020
Good Morning America reported that Taylor became the highest-ranking former administration official to endorse Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden after publicly airing his criticism of President Trump in a video released Monday by Republican Voters Against Trump.
In the video, Taylor accused Trump of repeatedly exploiting the Department of Homeland Security to advance his own political agenda.
Following the the video’s release during the ABC interview on Tuesday, Taylor said working in Trump’s White House was like playing “whack-a-mole with bad presidential decisions.” He cited family separation policy at the Mexico border and the President’s callous attitude toward relief assistance following wildfires in California as the key reasons for his departure fro the Trump administration.
“Every single month I served in that administration, after we’ve ended family separation, the President would come to us and say, not only he wanted to reinstate it,” Taylor said. “He wanted to double down and implement a deliberate policy of ripping any kid apart from their parents that showed up at the border, any kid at the border.”
Although Taylor has said he left the administration on his own terms, the President’s son-in-law and senior White House adviser Jared Kushner sought to discredit Taylor by suggesting during a CNN interview on Monday that the former administration official “wasn’t up for the task.”
Trump also without addressing the assertions made by Taylor dismissed the former White House official as a “DISGRUNTLED EMPLOYEE” who is “said to be a real ‘stiff.'”
Correction: This post originally misidentified the name of the group Republican Voters Against Trump.