talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-01--America Doesn’t Have A Coherent Strategy For Asymptomatic Testing. It Needs One.

This story first appeared at ProPublica .
ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom .
Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox .
Dr. Sara Cody , health officer of Santa Clara County , California , was tired of seeing the same thing over and over again .
Her contact tracers were telling people exposed to COVID-19 that they needed to get tested , but when some went to testing sites , health care providers turned them away because they didn ’ t have any symptoms .
This posed a problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if a contact was infected would help her department keep an accurate count of her county ’ s coronavirus infection rate ; also , if a contact tested positive , it ’ d spur a new round of contact tracing from her staff , to help stop any further transmission from that asymptomatic carrier .
Cody decided to issue a countywide health officer order in June requiring certain health care facilities to provide testing for all close contacts , and also all front-line workers , such as mass transit drivers and retail workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Then last week , the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention quietly changed guidelines on its website to say that people without symptoms did not necessarily need to be tested , even if they had been in contact with someone who had COVID-19 .
Cody was confused .
” Was it because there isn ’ t enough testing capacity ?
” she initially wondered .
But there was no such explanation from the agency .
The CDC was met with a degree of pushback that was notable in its intensity ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ follow the guidelines , including California , where Gov .
Gavin Newsom said , “ I don ’ t agree with the new CDC guidance .
Period .
Full stop.
” The controversy surrounding the CDC guideline change is all just a symptom of a deeper issue that has plagued America ’ s coronavirus response : Even though we have spent more than half a year battling a virus whose insidious hallmark is its ability to spread through those with no symptoms , the country has not yet articulated a coherent strategy to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact that we ’ re this far into the pandemic and we ’ re still talking about how to do asymptomatic testing and going back and forth on this is a major part of the reason why we ’ re struggling to open schools and colleges , and why people are still dying in prisons , ” said Dr. Ashish Jha , dean of the Brown University School of Public Health .
The lack of consistent asymptomatic testing guidelines means that from state to state , county to county , a hodgepodge of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , testing methods and levels of access .
Decisions are being made sometimes by people who have been thrust into the role of public-health officer with no training — school principals and college deans , leaders of companies and daycares and churches , who are just trying to do right by the people they are responsible for .
It ’ s unfair to ask them to have to come up with their own testing strategies , or to have to navigate the maze of their local health authority ’ s often shifting recommendations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to various strategies experts have proposed , with variables to consider like testing technologies , supply chains and federal funding , but perhaps the more urgent need at this point is picking a plan and actually seeing it through .
To understand why , we need to start with a clearer understanding of the pivotal role asymptomatic testing plays in containing this virus , particularly in the absence of a vaccine .
Let ’ s start with the most basic question : Why do we bother testing in the first place ?
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to use a test .
The first is as a clinical diagnostic ; the other is as a public health tool .
Both are important , but for different reasons .
Doctors use a clinical diagnostic like a strep test to tell whether a patient is sick with a disease that can be treated with particular medicines .
“ The purpose of the test is based around doing one thing when it ’ s negative and doing another thing when it ’ s positive , ” said Dr. Patrick O ’ Carroll , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Task Force for Global Health , who previously worked at the CDC for 18 years .
From this perspective , it seems pointless for an asymptomatic person who might have COVID-19 to take a test , because there ’ s not going to be any difference in how they will be treated — there are no symptoms to medicate .
You might have even heard your doctor say , “ Don ’ t bother taking a test if you only have mild symptoms , because I ’ m not going to tell you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking Tylenol and resting.
” But from a public health standpoint , testing asymptomatic people can yield actionable information .
COVID-19 is unlike many other diseases , in which a patient ’ s peak contagiousness coincides with the height of their symptoms .
With COVID-19 , about 40 % of patients do not show any symptoms or have such mild ones that it would never have occurred to them that they had been infected .
In a recent study of 192 young people with suspected COVID-19 in Boston , only half who tested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ studies have shown that among patients who do develop symptoms , viral load , which correlates with a patient ’ s contagiousness , is highest right before or at the time when symptoms start appearing .
Put together , these features have explained why the coronavirus has been able to spread so perniciously across the globe .
It ’ s one sneaky virus .
If an asymptomatic person tests positive , public health officials can ask them to isolate from others and begin the process of contact tracing in order to break chains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it also helps them keep tabs on where the virus is spreading in their city .
( This is what ’ s known as “ surveillance ” in public health parlance : They ’ re not spying on you .
They ’ re tracking the virus . )
“ Since the beginning , testing has been the foundation of our response , because it tells us who is positive , where they are , in which demographic , and what the patterns are , ” said Dr. Umair Shah , executive director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Understanding population prevalence also helps guide public health actions .
For example , said O ’ Carroll , “ if testing shows that only 2 % of the population is positive , I ’ m going to call all of those people , interview them , put all of the contacts in quarantine and really try to stamp it out .
But if I find that 30 % are positive , then I really don ’ t have the resources to interview and chase down thousands and thousands of people — that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for contact tracing to be useful.
” When testing is restricted to symptomatic patients , health officials will only have limited signals about the extent of the virus ’ s spread , leaving them to operate partially blind .
There are two categories of asymptomatic people to consider : The first includes those who had close contact with someone who has already tested positive for the virus .
The second includes people who don ’ t have any reason to believe they have been exposed .
The first group is a higher testing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far greater chance that they have been infected and can be spreading the virus .
In an ideal world , if testing were abundant and cheap and results were fast , we would test everyone daily and catch all of the asymptomatic carriers .
But when there aren ’ t enough tests to go around , public health officials need to triage .
In the earliest stages of the pandemic , when there were hardly any tests available across the country , public health officials had to limit tests to the most urgent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hospitals .
As tests became more available , they started to widen the criteria , first to people with symptoms , then to asymptomatic people with known exposure .
Finally , in some areas of the country , anyone who wanted a test could get one , whether or not they had symptoms .
But to this day , the decisions have been made piecemeal .
I reached out to health departments around the country , and found that testing criteria still vary depending on where you live .
In Delaware , close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at the end of their 14-day quarantine period .
The state lets anyone get tested , whether or not they were exposed or have symptoms .
Maryland recommends that people who suspect they ’ ve been exposed to the virus get a test , whether they are symptomatic or not .
Arkansas says it works to facilitate testing for all close contacts of positive cases , and also tries to provide testing for anyone in the state who wants a test , asymptomatic or not .
But Oregon and Wisconsin don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have not had close contact with a confirmed case .
( Oregon makes an exception for people in a high-risk category , such as agricultural workers . )
Some states have more nuance to their recommendations .
New Jersey said testing is available to all , but noted that if you are asymptomatic , testing is recommended if you are a front-line worker , if you were in a large crowd with difficulty social distancing , if you are a member of a vulnerable population or if you recently traveled somewhere with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state , however , guidelines aren ’ t always followed consistently by test providers .
Cody , the health officer in California , isn ’ t the only one whose contact tracers are unable to get asymptomatic people tested .
Rebecca Fischer , an assistant professor at Texas A & M University School of Public Health , said she ’ s seen the same thing happen in Brazos County .
“ We call them and say , ‘ How did the test go ?
And they ’ ll say , ‘ They sent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have symptoms.
’ and we ’ ll say , ‘ You need to go back and say the health department sent you , ’ and often they get turned away again.
” Sometimes , Fischer said , the health department would have to give the person a letter to verify that they needed a test .
“ We get on the local news station and plead with test providers to help us facilitate widespread testing , ” Fischer said .
It ’ s unclear why providers are turning down asymptomatic patients .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the perceived purpose of the test .
Dr. Michael Hochman , a primary care doctor and director of the Gehr Family Center for Health Systems Science and Innovation at the University of Southern California , said he thinks the value of testing contacts without symptoms is “ modest ” and would rather make them stay home for 14 days instead of come into a clinic for a test , “ which is bringing them together with other people , the opposite of what you want.
” He worries that a false negative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security and prompt contacts to leave quarantine before they ’ re supposed to .
Hochman says he sometimes has patients calling who say they have potential exposure and want a test , but when he explains to them that regardless of the result , they still will need to quarantine , the patients often then decide they won ’ t bother with a test .
Cody countered that many people don ’ t always adhere to the 14-day guidelines .
“ We ’ re not doing legal orders , so there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” she said .
Given the opportunity to test and find out that an asymptomatic contact is positive is always preferable , she said , because people are more likely to take precautions and isolate properly , particularly around family members .
Into this already chaotic environment came the CDC ’ s guidance change on Aug. 24 .
Normally , when the agency updates its guidances , it gives a heads-up to state and local health departments , so they can decide how to adjust their own recommendations or how to communicate to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executive director of the Big Cities Health Coalition , which represents large metropolitan health departments .
“ Usually at minimum , there ’ s a big tent call … and normally at the top of the call , they say , we ’ re going to update this.
” But this time , it didn ’ t happen .
“ It was buried in an email , ” she said .
“ If you hadn ’ t clicked on it , you wouldn ’ t have known.
” Previously , the CDC recommended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with known COVID-19 infection , specifically noting that “ because of the potential for asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission , it is important that contacts … be quickly identified and tested.
” The new guidance , however , said , “ If you have been in close contact … you do not necessarily need a test unless you are a vulnerable individual or your health care provider or state or local public health officials recommend you take one.
” The new guidance for asymptomatic people who had no known exposure conveyed a number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the website you read .
On one hand , it said , “ If you do not have COVID-19 symptoms and have not been in close contact with an infected person : You do not need a test.
” But farther down the page , the site also said , “ If there is significant spread of the virus in your community , state or local public health officials may request to test more asymptomatic ‘ healthy people.
’ ” In the absence of explanation or context , confusion ensued .
Calling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to interpret , ” Dr. Jeff Duchin , health officer for public health for Seattle & King County said in a statement that “ testing asymptomatic close contacts of COVID-19 cases is important to identify cases and interrupt transmission and we intend to continue to do that pending additional information that would lead us to reconsider.
” When I asked the CDC to explain the change in guidance , it didn ’ t respond , instead pointing me toward the Department of Health and Human Services .
HHS sent me a statement from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ czar , saying that the updated guidance “ places an emphasis on testing individuals with symptomatic illness , those with a significant exposure or for vulnerable populations , including residents and staff in nursing homes or long term care facilities , critical infrastructure workers , healthcare workers and first responders , and those individuals ( who may be asymptomatic ) when prioritized by public health officials.
” The revised guidance did not appear to be generated internally by the CDC .
Giroir later told reporters that the recommendations were approved by members of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying , “ We all worked together to make sure that there was absolute consensus that reflected the best possible evidence.
” Dr. Anthony Fauci , however , said he was undergoing surgery and was not part of the discussion .
A few days later , CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield verbally softened the changes , saying that testing “ may be considered ” for asymptomatic contacts , though the guidelines online were not changed .
“ Ultimately , it may not actually be a huge change , ” said Juliano , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government “ is really pushing the decision down to states and local.
” “ It means when public health says you should get tested , someone could say , ‘ well , the CDC says it ’ s not necessary.
’ It leads to public confusion , and you ’ re really putting state and local in a line of fire that ’ s not necessary.
” Use the Right Test for the Right Situation Now that we ’ ve talked about the reasons it ’ s important to do asymptomatic testing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resources .
In recent months , many experts have been advocating that different types of tests be used for different purposes , in order to optimize available supplies and avoid testing delays .
The idea goes like this : We should save the most sensitive tests — known as PCR tests — for diagnostic purposes , when we need to be absolutely sure that a patient has COVID-19 , because we ’ re going to be treating them or asking them to isolate , based on the results .
So these tests should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and people who were known to be exposed to the virus .
But for public health purposes , when it comes to keeping tabs on how broadly the virus is spreading , we could instead be using slightly less sensitive — though not poor quality — rapid tests , known as antigen tests , which typically can provide results in minutes to hours .
Such tests should be used for screening people en masse in settings like nursing homes , essential workplaces , and communities that have limited testing resources , proposes a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Center for Health Policy .
Any positives that turn up could then be confirmed with a PCR test .
The goal is to avoid the long testing turnaround times that the country was plagued with this summer .
PCR tests , while highly accurate , usually require at least a day or two to return results even under optimal conditions , and require more specialized equipment , labs and staff .
This summer , when the majority of tests were being shoved into the PCR queue , turnaround times stretched out , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for test results .
This is not just an annoyance for individuals .
It ’ s a massive public health problem , because a test that takes more than two days to come back is pretty much useless .
“ Patients don ’ t know what to do in those two weeks , and guess what , we can ’ t do our contact tracing , so we can ’ t fight the pandemic — all of that gums up the system.
” said Shah , of Harris County .
Such long turnaround @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no sense.
” Dr. Mark McClellan , one of the authors of the Duke paper , said the government must set aside funding to pay for antigen tests in at-risk populations , including low-income , minority and immigrant communities , and public schools and colleges .
The University of Illinois is requiring all faculty , staff and students to participate in screening testing twice a week , using a rapid saliva-based test .
Not every college has the resources to perform these routine tests , but advocates for this kind of testing point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t a fantasy .
“ It is feasible , ” said Carl Bergstrom , a computational biologist at the University of Washington .
“ It ’ s just a matter of will.
” McClellan and his co-authors estimate that about 14 million people are in high-risk settings that need regular screening testing , requiring an average of two tests per week .
“ There needs to be a lot more financial support to get that capacity up , something like Operation Warp Speed , with the government going in jointly with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We Need to Do : Pick a Plan , and See It Through For now , though , the federal government doesn ’ t appear to embrace this vision .
Testing czar Giroir told reporters in a call on Aug. 13 , “ I ’ m really tired of hearing , by people who are not involved in the system , that we need millions of tests every day .
… You don ’ t need this degree of testing .
You need strategic testing combined with smart policies.
” Giroir explained that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ symptomatic patients as well as vulnerable populations , such as nursing home residents , coupled with policies including mask wearing , social distancing and hand washing .
“ That plan is being implemented and that plan is working , ” he told reporters .
Some public health experts say that approach won ’ t be enough to curb the pandemic .
“ Masks are a very powerful tool for virus control , and they ’ re not completely off the table , but a lot of our population has not been able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become politicized , ” said Dr. Michael Mina , assistant professor of epidemiology at the Harvard T.H .
Chan School of Public Health .
And while social distancing is important , said Jha , he doesn ’ t think that alone will work in places where people are regularly congregating , like schools .
“ It ’ s not the real world , ” he said .
“ Do we really think kids will never get close to each other ?
” Mina argues for an audacious plan that calls for far more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of to date .
His testing strategy , particularly when it comes to how it approaches asymptomatics , seems directly at odds with Giroir ’ s .
Mina envisions tests so cheap ( $ 1 apiece ) and so widely available ( over the counter ) that every American can test themselves at least twice a week .
The tests we ’ d use are paper strips that require only a saliva sample .
They would certainly be less sensitive than PCR tests , but sensitive enough to catch people when their viral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when they are most infectious .
The technology for a cheap , rapid antigen test certainly exists : Abbott Laboratories ’ $ 5 test , authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration last week , goes a long way to prove this point .
But Abbott ’ s test is intended to be used on symptomatic patients , and needs to be performed by a doctor .
Mina wants people to be able to test themselves .
Mina ’ s vision has gained broad support in recent weeks by numerous public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the federal government , particularly the FDA , to become reality .
Many otherplans have been proposed , but at this point , more time has been spent talking about what we should be doing and debating the various options , rather than mustering the necessary regulatory , financial and political power to get any one of the plans fully executed .
“ Choosing not to test those who are asymptomatic is like saying we won ’ t fight the fire until it reaches the second floor , ” said Brian Castrucci , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ de Beaumont Foundation .
The pandemic has been raging across America for more than half a year .
It ’ s past time we had a coherent national plan to put out the fire .

This story first appeared at ProPublica. ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
Dr. Sara Cody, health officer of Santa Clara County, California, was tired of seeing the same thing over and over again. Her contact tracers were telling people exposed to COVID-19 that they needed to get tested, but when some went to testing sites, health care providers turned them away because they didn’t have any symptoms.
This posed a problem for Cody’s work. Knowing if a contact was infected would help her department keep an accurate count of her county’s coronavirus infection rate; also, if a contact tested positive, it’d spur a new round of contact tracing from her staff, to help stop any further transmission from that asymptomatic carrier.
Cody decided to issue a countywide health officer order in June requiring certain health care facilities to provide testing for all close contacts, and also all front-line workers, such as mass transit drivers and retail workers, whether or not they had symptoms.
Then last week, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention quietly changed guidelines on its website to say that people without symptoms did not necessarily need to be tested, even if they had been in contact with someone who had COVID-19. Cody was confused. ”Was it because there isn’t enough testing capacity?” she initially wondered. But there was no such explanation from the agency.
The CDC was met with a degree of pushback that was notable in its intensity; several states flat-out said they would not follow the guidelines, including California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom said, “I don’t agree with the new CDC guidance. Period. Full stop.”
The controversy surrounding the CDC guideline change is all just a symptom of a deeper issue that has plagued America’s coronavirus response: Even though we have spent more than half a year battling a virus whose insidious hallmark is its ability to spread through those with no symptoms, the country has not yet articulated a coherent strategy to test these silent carriers.
“The fact that we’re this far into the pandemic and we’re still talking about how to do asymptomatic testing and going back and forth on this is a major part of the reason why we’re struggling to open schools and colleges, and why people are still dying in prisons,” said Dr. Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health.
The lack of consistent asymptomatic testing guidelines means that from state to state, county to county, a hodgepodge of strategies are being used with varying standards, testing methods and levels of access. Decisions are being made sometimes by people who have been thrust into the role of public-health officer with no training — school principals and college deans, leaders of companies and daycares and churches, who are just trying to do right by the people they are responsible for.
It’s unfair to ask them to have to come up with their own testing strategies, or to have to navigate the maze of their local health authority’s often shifting recommendations. There may be pros and cons to various strategies experts have proposed, with variables to consider like testing technologies, supply chains and federal funding, but perhaps the more urgent need at this point is picking a plan and actually seeing it through.
To understand why, we need to start with a clearer understanding of the pivotal role asymptomatic testing plays in containing this virus, particularly in the absence of a vaccine.
Why Asymptomatic Testing Is Important
Let’s start with the most basic question: Why do we bother testing in the first place? There are, broadly speaking, two reasons to use a test. The first is as a clinical diagnostic; the other is as a public health tool. Both are important, but for different reasons.
Doctors use a clinical diagnostic like a strep test to tell whether a patient is sick with a disease that can be treated with particular medicines. “The purpose of the test is based around doing one thing when it’s negative and doing another thing when it’s positive,” said Dr. Patrick O’Carroll, head of health systems strengthening at the Task Force for Global Health, who previously worked at the CDC for 18 years.
From this perspective, it seems pointless for an asymptomatic person who might have COVID-19 to take a test, because there’s not going to be any difference in how they will be treated — there are no symptoms to medicate. You might have even heard your doctor say, “Don’t bother taking a test if you only have mild symptoms, because I’m not going to tell you do anything different besides drinking fluids, taking Tylenol and resting.”
But from a public health standpoint, testing asymptomatic people can yield actionable information. COVID-19 is unlike many other diseases, in which a patient’s peak contagiousness coincides with the height of their symptoms. With COVID-19, about 40% of patients do not show any symptoms or have such mild ones that it would never have occurred to them that they had been infected. In a recent study of 192 young people with suspected COVID-19 in Boston, only half who tested positive had a fever.
Furthermore, studies have shown that among patients who do develop symptoms, viral load, which correlates with a patient’s contagiousness, is highest right before or at the time when symptoms start appearing. Put together, these features have explained why the coronavirus has been able to spread so perniciously across the globe. It’s one sneaky virus.
If an asymptomatic person tests positive, public health officials can ask them to isolate from others and begin the process of contact tracing in order to break chains of transmission. In the bigger picture, it also helps them keep tabs on where the virus is spreading in their city. (This is what’s known as “surveillance” in public health parlance: They’re not spying on you. They’re tracking the virus.)
“Since the beginning, testing has been the foundation of our response, because it tells us who is positive, where they are, in which demographic, and what the patterns are,” said Dr. Umair Shah, executive director for Harris County Public Health in Texas.
Understanding population prevalence also helps guide public health actions. For example, said O’Carroll, “if testing shows that only 2% of the population is positive, I’m going to call all of those people, interview them, put all of the contacts in quarantine and really try to stamp it out. But if I find that 30% are positive, then I really don’t have the resources to interview and chase down thousands and thousands of people — that’s when spread is too high for contact tracing to be useful.”
When testing is restricted to symptomatic patients, health officials will only have limited signals about the extent of the virus’s spread, leaving them to operate partially blind.
Standards Vary From State to State
There are two categories of asymptomatic people to consider: The first includes those who had close contact with someone who has already tested positive for the virus. The second includes people who don’t have any reason to believe they have been exposed. The first group is a higher testing priority, because there’s a far greater chance that they have been infected and can be spreading the virus.
In an ideal world, if testing were abundant and cheap and results were fast, we would test everyone daily and catch all of the asymptomatic carriers. But when there aren’t enough tests to go around, public health officials need to triage.
In the earliest stages of the pandemic, when there were hardly any tests available across the country, public health officials had to limit tests to the most urgent need — people with severe symptoms in hospitals. As tests became more available, they started to widen the criteria, first to people with symptoms, then to asymptomatic people with known exposure. Finally, in some areas of the country, anyone who wanted a test could get one, whether or not they had symptoms.
But to this day, the decisions have been made piecemeal. I reached out to health departments around the country, and found that testing criteria still vary depending on where you live.
In Delaware, close contacts are asked to get tested once, at the end of their 14-day quarantine period. The state lets anyone get tested, whether or not they were exposed or have symptoms. Maryland recommends that people who suspect they’ve been exposed to the virus get a test, whether they are symptomatic or not. Arkansas says it works to facilitate testing for all close contacts of positive cases, and also tries to provide testing for anyone in the state who wants a test, asymptomatic or not.
But Oregon and Wisconsin don’t recommend testing for asymptomatic people who have not had close contact with a confirmed case. (Oregon makes an exception for people in a high-risk category, such as agricultural workers.)
Some states have more nuance to their recommendations. New Jersey said testing is available to all, but noted that if you are asymptomatic, testing is recommended if you are a front-line worker, if you were in a large crowd with difficulty social distancing, if you are a member of a vulnerable population or if you recently traveled somewhere with a high COVID-19 infection rate.
Effective Contact Tracing Can’t Happen Without Efficient Testing
Within each state, however, guidelines aren’t always followed consistently by test providers. Cody, the health officer in California, isn’t the only one whose contact tracers are unable to get asymptomatic people tested.
Rebecca Fischer, an assistant professor at Texas A&M University School of Public Health, said she’s seen the same thing happen in Brazos County. “We call them and say, ‘How did the test go? And they’ll say, ‘They sent me away because I don’t have symptoms.’ and we’ll say, ‘You need to go back and say the health department sent you,’ and often they get turned away again.” Sometimes, Fischer said, the health department would have to give the person a letter to verify that they needed a test.
“We get on the local news station and plead with test providers to help us facilitate widespread testing,” Fischer said.
It’s unclear why providers are turning down asymptomatic patients. It may be, in part, due to the perceived purpose of the test. Dr. Michael Hochman, a primary care doctor and director of the Gehr Family Center for Health Systems Science and Innovation at the University of Southern California, said he thinks the value of testing contacts without symptoms is “modest” and would rather make them stay home for 14 days instead of come into a clinic for a test, “which is bringing them together with other people, the opposite of what you want.”
He worries that a false negative could give patients a misguided sense of security and prompt contacts to leave quarantine before they’re supposed to. Hochman says he sometimes has patients calling who say they have potential exposure and want a test, but when he explains to them that regardless of the result, they still will need to quarantine, the patients often then decide they won’t bother with a test.
Cody countered that many people don’t always adhere to the 14-day guidelines. “We’re not doing legal orders, so there’s not going to be perfect compliance,” she said. Given the opportunity to test and find out that an asymptomatic contact is positive is always preferable, she said, because people are more likely to take precautions and isolate properly, particularly around family members.
Without a Clear National Strategy, Confusion Abounds
Into this already chaotic environment came the CDC’s guidance change on Aug. 24.
Normally, when the agency updates its guidances, it gives a heads-up to state and local health departments, so they can decide how to adjust their own recommendations or how to communicate to the public, said Chrissie Juliano, executive director of the Big Cities Health Coalition, which represents large metropolitan health departments.
“Usually at minimum, there’s a big tent call … and normally at the top of the call, they say, we’re going to update this.”
But this time, it didn’t happen. “It was buried in an email,” she said. “If you hadn’t clicked on it, you wouldn’t have known.”
Previously, the CDC recommended testing for all close contacts of people with known COVID-19 infection, specifically noting that “because of the potential for asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission, it is important that contacts … be quickly identified and tested.” The new guidance, however, said, “If you have been in close contact … you do not necessarily need a test unless you are a vulnerable individual or your health care provider or state or local public health officials recommend you take one.”
The new guidance for asymptomatic people who had no known exposure conveyed a number of different messages, depending on which part of the website you read. On one hand, it said, “If you do not have COVID-19 symptoms and have not been in close contact with an infected person: You do not need a test.”
But farther down the page, the site also said, “If there is significant spread of the virus in your community, state or local public health officials may request to test more asymptomatic ‘healthy people.’”
In the absence of explanation or context, confusion ensued.
Calling the new guidelines “vexing and hard to interpret,” Dr. Jeff Duchin, health officer for public health for Seattle & King County said in a statement that “testing asymptomatic close contacts of COVID-19 cases is important to identify cases and interrupt transmission and we intend to continue to do that pending additional information that would lead us to reconsider.”
When I asked the CDC to explain the change in guidance, it didn’t respond, instead pointing me toward the Department of Health and Human Services.
HHS sent me a statement from Adm. Brett Giroir, the federal testing czar, saying that the updated guidance “places an emphasis on testing individuals with symptomatic illness, those with a significant exposure or for vulnerable populations, including residents and staff in nursing homes or long term care facilities, critical infrastructure workers, healthcare workers and first responders, and those individuals (who may be asymptomatic) when prioritized by public health officials.”
The revised guidance did not appear to be generated internally by the CDC. Giroir later told reporters that the recommendations were approved by members of the White House coronavirus task force, saying, “We all worked together to make sure that there was absolute consensus that reflected the best possible evidence.” Dr. Anthony Fauci, however, said he was undergoing surgery and was not part of the discussion.
A few days later, CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield verbally softened the changes, saying that testing “may be considered” for asymptomatic contacts, though the guidelines online were not changed.
“Ultimately, it may not actually be a huge change,” said Juliano, but in practice it means that the federal government “is really pushing the decision down to states and local.”
“It means when public health says you should get tested, someone could say, ‘well, the CDC says it’s not necessary.’ It leads to public confusion, and you’re really putting state and local in a line of fire that’s not necessary.”
Use the Right Test for the Right Situation
Now that we’ve talked about the reasons it’s important to do asymptomatic testing, it’s time to think about resources. In recent months, many experts have been advocating that different types of tests be used for different purposes, in order to optimize available supplies and avoid testing delays.
The idea goes like this: We should save the most sensitive tests — known as PCR tests — for diagnostic purposes, when we need to be absolutely sure that a patient has COVID-19, because we’re going to be treating them or asking them to isolate, based on the results. So these tests should be used for people with COVID-19 symptoms and people who were known to be exposed to the virus.
But for public health purposes, when it comes to keeping tabs on how broadly the virus is spreading, we could instead be using slightly less sensitive — though not poor quality — rapid tests, known as antigen tests, which typically can provide results in minutes to hours. Such tests should be used for screening people en masse in settings like nursing homes, essential workplaces, and communities that have limited testing resources, proposes a team at Duke University’s Margolis Center for Health Policy. Any positives that turn up could then be confirmed with a PCR test.
The goal is to avoid the long testing turnaround times that the country was plagued with this summer. PCR tests, while highly accurate, usually require at least a day or two to return results even under optimal conditions, and require more specialized equipment, labs and staff. This summer, when the majority of tests were being shoved into the PCR queue, turnaround times stretched out, with some people waiting more than two weeks for test results.
This is not just an annoyance for individuals. It’s a massive public health problem, because a test that takes more than two days to come back is pretty much useless.
“Patients don’t know what to do in those two weeks, and guess what, we can’t do our contact tracing, so we can’t fight the pandemic — all of that gums up the system.” said Shah, of Harris County. Such long turnaround times are “shameful. It makes no sense.”
Dr. Mark McClellan, one of the authors of the Duke paper, said the government must set aside funding to pay for antigen tests in at-risk populations, including low-income, minority and immigrant communities, and public schools and colleges.
The University of Illinois is requiring all faculty, staff and students to participate in screening testing twice a week, using a rapid saliva-based test. Not every college has the resources to perform these routine tests, but advocates for this kind of testing point to the university to show that it isn’t a fantasy.
“It is feasible,” said Carl Bergstrom, a computational biologist at the University of Washington. “It’s just a matter of will.”
McClellan and his co-authors estimate that about 14 million people are in high-risk settings that need regular screening testing, requiring an average of two tests per week. “There needs to be a lot more financial support to get that capacity up, something like Operation Warp Speed, with the government going in jointly with manufacturers,” he said.
What We Need to Do: Pick a Plan, and See It Through
For now, though, the federal government doesn’t appear to embrace this vision. Testing czar Giroir told reporters in a call on Aug. 13, “I’m really tired of hearing, by people who are not involved in the system, that we need millions of tests every day. … You don’t need this degree of testing. You need strategic testing combined with smart policies.”
Giroir explained that the administration’s focus was testing symptomatic patients as well as vulnerable populations, such as nursing home residents, coupled with policies including mask wearing, social distancing and hand washing. “That plan is being implemented and that plan is working,” he told reporters.
Some public health experts say that approach won’t be enough to curb the pandemic.
“Masks are a very powerful tool for virus control, and they’re not completely off the table, but a lot of our population has not been able to adhere to them because it’s become politicized,” said Dr. Michael Mina, assistant professor of epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
And while social distancing is important, said Jha, he doesn’t think that alone will work in places where people are regularly congregating, like schools. “It’s not the real world,” he said. “Do we really think kids will never get close to each other?”
Mina argues for an audacious plan that calls for far more testing than the U.S. has been capable of to date. His testing strategy, particularly when it comes to how it approaches asymptomatics, seems directly at odds with Giroir’s.
Mina envisions tests so cheap ($1 apiece) and so widely available (over the counter) that every American can test themselves at least twice a week. The tests we’d use are paper strips that require only a saliva sample. They would certainly be less sensitive than PCR tests, but sensitive enough to catch people when their viral load is highest, which is exactly when they are most infectious.
The technology for a cheap, rapid antigen test certainly exists: Abbott Laboratories’ $5 test, authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration last week, goes a long way to prove this point. But Abbott’s test is intended to be used on symptomatic patients, and needs to be performed by a doctor. Mina wants people to be able to test themselves.
Mina’s vision has gained broad support in recent weeks by numerous public health experts, but would need buy-in from the federal government, particularly the FDA, to become reality.
Many otherplans have been proposed, but at this point, more time has been spent talking about what we should be doing and debating the various options, rather than mustering the necessary regulatory, financial and political power to get any one of the plans fully executed.
“Choosing not to test those who are asymptomatic is like saying we won’t fight the fire until it reaches the second floor,” said Brian Castrucci, chief executive officer of health philanthropy the de Beaumont Foundation.
The pandemic has been raging across America for more than half a year. It’s past time we had a coherent national plan to put out the fire.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-01--WaPo: Federal Prosecutors Close In On GOP Fundraiser Elliott Broidy

Federal prosecutors are close to filing charges against GOP fundraiser Elliott Broidy over his role in a foreign influence campaign , the Washington Post reported on Tuesday .
Broidy is in discussions with the Justice Department over a potential plea deal , the newspaper reported .
Federal prosecutors have been investigating Broidy over his purported efforts to persuade the Trump administration to extradite a Chinese billionaire from the U.S. and to halt an investigation into a massive corruption scheme in the Malaysian government .
The dissident Chinese billionaire , Guo Wengui , sued Broidy in California state court in Los @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ secretly working as an unregistered foreign agent for the Chinese government and its Communist Party.
” Attorneys for Broidy have , in the past , denied that he committed any wrongdoing .
An associate of Broidy ’ s , Nickie Lum Davis , pleaded guilty on Monday to charges emanating from a scheme in which she helped target the highest levels of the Trump administration to remove Guo and halt an investigation into 1MDB , the Malaysian development fund .
Charging documents in the case suggested that Broidy had reached out to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same lobbying campaign , and had spoken directly to President Trump about the matter while on the yacht of casino magnate and GOP mega-donor Steve Wynn .
Davis admitted in her plea that she “ aided and abetted ” two other unnamed individuals .
Federal prosecutors said at her Monday plea hearing that they plan on filing additional charges in the matter .
Broidy raised millions of dollars for President Trump ’ s 2016 election campaign as vice chairman of the Trump Victory Committee , and has also faced scrutiny for allegedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ postal inspectors arrested former Trump campaign chairman Steve Bannon aboard Guo ’ s yacht last month .
The Washington Post report did not specify what Broidy may be charged with .

Federal prosecutors are close to filing charges against GOP fundraiser Elliott Broidy over his role in a foreign influence campaign, the Washington Post reported on Tuesday.
Broidy is in discussions with the Justice Department over a potential plea deal, the newspaper reported.
Federal prosecutors have been investigating Broidy over his purported efforts to persuade the Trump administration to extradite a Chinese billionaire from the U.S. and to halt an investigation into a massive corruption scheme in the Malaysian government.
The dissident Chinese billionaire, Guo Wengui, sued Broidy in California state court in Los Angeles last year, accusing him of “secretly working as an unregistered foreign agent for the Chinese government and its Communist Party.”
Attorneys for Broidy have, in the past, denied that he committed any wrongdoing.
An associate of Broidy’s, Nickie Lum Davis, pleaded guilty on Monday to charges emanating from a scheme in which she helped target the highest levels of the Trump administration to remove Guo and halt an investigation into 1MDB, the Malaysian development fund.
Charging documents in the case suggested that Broidy had reached out to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions as part of the same lobbying campaign, and had spoken directly to President Trump about the matter while on the yacht of casino magnate and GOP mega-donor Steve Wynn.
Davis admitted in her plea that she “aided and abetted” two other unnamed individuals. Federal prosecutors said at her Monday plea hearing that they plan on filing additional charges in the matter.
Broidy raised millions of dollars for President Trump’s 2016 election campaign as vice chairman of the Trump Victory Committee, and has also faced scrutiny for allegedly hawking access to the inauguration.
Federal postal inspectors arrested former Trump campaign chairman Steve Bannon aboard Guo’s yacht last month.
The Washington Post report did not specify what Broidy may be charged with.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-01--PA Supreme Court To Tackle Ballot Dropboxes And Other Vote-By-Mail Disputes

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court said Tuesday that it will hear a lawsuit brought by Democrats seeking to head-off a dispute Republicans have raised about the use of dropboxes for mail ballots and other aspects of how absentee voting works in the state .
The high court had previously agreed to hear a similar case looking to extend Pennsylvania ’ s deadline for receiving mail ballots , so that absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day but arriving within a few days later will be counted .
The latest case was brought by the state Democratic Party after Republicans , with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stop election officials from using dropboxes and to also narrow the rules around absentee voting .
Republicans had also threatened , but ultimately did not carry out , a lawsuit challenging emergency move by Gov .
Tom Wolf ahead of June ’ s primary to let certain counties accept ballots that arrived after the June 3 election , as long as they were postmarked in time .
In addition to asking the court to settle that issue , the Democratic lawsuit wants the court to solidify the state ’ s residency requirement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to loosen — while clarifying that election officials can accept mail ballots missing their secrecy envelopes .
The federal GOP lawsuit hit a road block last month when the judge , a President Trump appointee , said he was going to wait for the state court to address the related cases it had before it .
The Republicans have since requested that he issue a preliminary order in their favor .

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court said Tuesday that it will hear a lawsuit brought by Democrats seeking to head-off a dispute Republicans have raised about the use of dropboxes for mail ballots and other aspects of how absentee voting works in the state.
The high court had previously agreed to hear a similar case looking to extend Pennsylvania’s deadline for receiving mail ballots, so that absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day but arriving within a few days later will be counted.
The latest case was brought by the state Democratic Party after Republicans, with the Trump campaign, sued in federal court to stop election officials from using dropboxes and to also narrow the rules around absentee voting.
Republicans had also threatened, but ultimately did not carry out, a lawsuit challenging emergency move by Gov. Tom Wolf ahead of June’s primary to let certain counties accept ballots that arrived after the June 3 election, as long as they were postmarked in time.
In addition to asking the court to settle that issue, the Democratic lawsuit wants the court to solidify the state’s residency requirement for poll watchers — something Republicans are trying to loosen — while clarifying that election officials can accept mail ballots missing their secrecy envelopes.
The federal GOP lawsuit hit a road block last month when the judge, a President Trump appointee, said he was going to wait for the state court to address the related cases it had before it. The Republicans have since requested that he issue a preliminary order in their favor.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-01--Bogus Russian News Story Shows How Election Disinfo Can ‘Hack Your Mind’

A quickly debunked Russian report on how U.S. voter roll data was supposedly making it to the “ dark web ” presented a perfect case study in the disinformation challenges election officials are facing , amid a voting season already in turmoil due to the pandemic .
Overnight Monday , a Russian business daily called Kommersant published a report , later aggregated in English by the Moscow Times and others , claiming that “ hackers ” had accessed and released the voter registration data of millions of Americans Election veterans would quickly recognize that the voter roll information described — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and gender — is already publicly available in most states and usually pretty simple to obtain .
Election officials in two of the states cited in the reports , Connecticut and Michigan , quickly confirmed as much to TPM .
But that didn ’ t stop others from credulously amplifying the report on Twitter without this key context , spreading disinformation that could cause voters to doubt the security of the coming election .
“ What it does is obviously undermine confidence in the electoral system and plays into a narrative that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election , ” Jeffrey Edmonds , former Russia director on the National Security Council , told TPM .
State election officials expressed similar concerns , saying that the mere suggestion of a hack is enough to sow doubt among voters .
“ The alarm bell that this rings for us is that it has the potential to erode voters ’ trust in the process if it is reported as a ‘ hack , ’ ” Gabe Rosenberg , a spokesperson for Connecticut Secretary of State Denise Merrill , told TPM .
He noted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purchase the Connecticut voter roll information described in the report and that , because others have already purchased it and put it online , these bogus “ hackers ” probably wouldn ’ t have needed to even front that cost themselves .
In Michigan , meanwhile , voter roll information is available via an open records request , according to Tracy Wimmer , a spokesperson for Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson .
“ We encourage all Michigan voters to be wary of attempts to ‘ hack ’ their minds , however , by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they encounter and seeking out trusted sources , including their local election clerk and our office , ” she told TPM in an email , while encouraging voters to report suspected misinformation to misinformation @ michigan.gov .
This is the second time in recent days that Benson ’ s office has had to stamp down false information about voting security .
Last week , she announced an investigation into “ racially-charged ” robocalls that had gone out to Detroit residents and others claiming falsely that voting by mail would put them in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collection or “ mandatory vaccines.
” There are several reasons why people working in the election space are able to obtain voter roll data in most states .
Campaigns like to use registration information to help them get out the vote for their candidates .
Voter advocates use the rolls to make sure the ballot is accessible to all eligible voters .
Election prognosticators use them to help shape their predictions .
But that awareness doesn ’ t necessarily translate to a broader electorate that doesn ’ t pay too much attention to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When such misleading reports arise , election officials must grapple with how to clarify the situation without further elevating the false allegations in a way that adds to the confusion .
Meanwhile , the American public faces an unrelenting onslaught of reports that are potentially targeted at spreading misleading narratives that cast doubt on the election .
Edmonds , now a research scientist at the national security think tank CNA , compared grappling with incoming sources of disinformation to “ whack-a-mole ” — “ you can ’ t stop all the sources.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ do is inoculate the receivers so when they see something like that , they ’ re primed to receive it skeptically , ” Edmonds added .
“ But it ’ s not clear to me that the patient wants to be inoculated.
” Later Tuesday , the FBI and the arm of the Department of Homeland Security that assists election officials with cybersecurity issues released their own statement knocking down the Russian report .
“ Early , unverified claims should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism , ” the statement said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters to look to trusted sources of info , in this case state election officials who have correctly pointed out that a lot of voter registration data is publicly available or easily purchased .
”

A quickly debunked Russian report on how U.S. voter roll data was supposedly making it to the “dark web” presented a perfect case study in the disinformation challenges election officials are facing, amid a voting season already in turmoil due to the pandemic.
Overnight Monday, a Russian business daily called Kommersant published a report, later aggregated in English by the Moscow Times and others, claiming that “hackers” had accessed and released the voter registration data of millions of Americans
Election veterans would quickly recognize that the voter roll information described — such as name, date of birth, and gender — is already publicly available in most states and usually pretty simple to obtain. Election officials in two of the states cited in the reports, Connecticut and Michigan, quickly confirmed as much to TPM.
But that didn’t stop others from credulously amplifying the report on Twitter without this key context, spreading disinformation that could cause voters to doubt the security of the coming election.
“What it does is obviously undermine confidence in the electoral system and plays into a narrative that casts doubt on the legitimacy of the election,” Jeffrey Edmonds, former Russia director on the National Security Council, told TPM.
State election officials expressed similar concerns, saying that the mere suggestion of a hack is enough to sow doubt among voters.
“The alarm bell that this rings for us is that it has the potential to erode voters’ trust in the process if it is reported as a ‘hack,’” Gabe Rosenberg, a spokesperson for Connecticut Secretary of State Denise Merrill, told TPM. He noted that it costs just $300 to purchase the Connecticut voter roll information described in the report and that, because others have already purchased it and put it online, these bogus “hackers” probably wouldn’t have needed to even front that cost themselves.
In Michigan, meanwhile, voter roll information is available via an open records request, according to Tracy Wimmer, a spokesperson for Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson.
“We encourage all Michigan voters to be wary of attempts to ‘hack’ their minds, however, by questioning the sources of information and advertisements they encounter and seeking out trusted sources, including their local election clerk and our office,” she told TPM in an email, while encouraging voters to report suspected misinformation to [email protected].
This is the second time in recent days that Benson’s office has had to stamp down false information about voting security. Last week, she announced an investigation into “racially-charged” robocalls that had gone out to Detroit residents and others claiming falsely that voting by mail would put them in a database that could be used for debt collection or “mandatory vaccines.”
There are several reasons why people working in the election space are able to obtain voter roll data in most states. Campaigns like to use registration information to help them get out the vote for their candidates. Voter advocates use the rolls to make sure the ballot is accessible to all eligible voters. Election prognosticators use them to help shape their predictions.
But that awareness doesn’t necessarily translate to a broader electorate that doesn’t pay too much attention to how these voting mechanisms work between elections. When such misleading reports arise, election officials must grapple with how to clarify the situation without further elevating the false allegations in a way that adds to the confusion.
Meanwhile, the American public faces an unrelenting onslaught of reports that are potentially targeted at spreading misleading narratives that cast doubt on the election.
Edmonds, now a research scientist at the national security think tank CNA, compared grappling with incoming sources of disinformation to “whack-a-mole” — “you can’t stop all the sources.”
“What you can try to do is inoculate the receivers so when they see something like that, they’re primed to receive it skeptically,” Edmonds added. “But it’s not clear to me that the patient wants to be inoculated.”
Later Tuesday, the FBI and the arm of the Department of Homeland Security that assists election officials with cybersecurity issues released their own statement knocking down the Russian report.
“Early, unverified claims should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism,” the statement said. “More importantly, we encourage voters to look to trusted sources of info, in this case state election officials who have correctly pointed out that a lot of voter registration data is publicly available or easily purchased.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-01--Doctor Insists Trump Never Suffered Any ‘Mini Strokes’ After POTUS Himself Brings It Up

Dr. Sean Conley , physician to the President , issued a statement on Tuesday hitting back at a suggestion that Trump suffered from a stroke during his unexpected visit to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center late last year .
Conley issued his statement shortly after the President dismissed suggestions that he had suffered from a stroke as “ fake news ” in a Tuesday morning tweet .
Trump ’ s tweet came on the heels of New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt reportedly writing in his forthcoming book that Vice President Mike Pence was privately put on “ standby @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if Trump had to undergo a procedure that would have required him to be anesthetized ” during a previously unscheduled trip to Walter Reed last year , according to CNN .
At the time , the White House claimed that the President was “ fine ” and that Trump ’ s November 2019 visit to the Maryland-baed medical center just involved a series of “ quick exam and labs ” ahead of a “ very busy 2020.
” However , a CNN source noted that Trump ’ s visit did not follow the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which prompted speculation over why the President paid an unscheduled visit .
In Conley ’ s statement , which he said was made at the request of the President , the doctor wrote that he can confirm that the President had not experienced nor had been evaluated for stroke , mini stroke or any acute cardiovascular emergencies .
Conley added that recent comments surrounding Trump ’ s health have been “ incorrectly reported in the media.
” Conley wrote that the President “ remains healthy ” and that he has “ no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rigorous schedule ahead of him .
”

Dr. Sean Conley, physician to the President, issued a statement on Tuesday hitting back at a suggestion that Trump suffered from a stroke during his unexpected visit to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center late last year.
Conley issued his statement shortly after the President dismissed suggestions that he had suffered from a stroke as “fake news” in a Tuesday morning tweet. Trump’s tweet came on the heels of New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt reportedly writing in his forthcoming book that Vice President Mike Pence was privately put on “standby” to assume presidential powers “temporarily if Trump had to undergo a procedure that would have required him to be anesthetized” during a previously unscheduled trip to Walter Reed last year, according to CNN.
It never ends! Now they are trying to say that your favorite President, me, went to Walter Reed Medical Center, having suffered a series of mini-strokes. Never happened to THIS candidate – FAKE NEWS. Perhaps they are referring to another candidate from another Party! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 1, 2020
At the time, the White House claimed that the President was “fine” and that Trump’s November 2019 visit to the Maryland-baed medical center just involved a series of “quick exam and labs” ahead of a “very busy 2020.” However, a CNN source noted that Trump’s visit did not follow the protocol of a routine presidential medical exam, which prompted speculation over why the President paid an unscheduled visit.
In Conley’s statement, which he said was made at the request of the President, the doctor wrote that he can confirm that the President had not experienced nor had been evaluated for stroke, mini stroke or any acute cardiovascular emergencies. Conley added that recent comments surrounding Trump’s health have been “incorrectly reported in the media.”
Conley wrote that the President “remains healthy” and that he has “no concerns about his ability to maintain the rigorous schedule ahead of him.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-01--Second Circuit Delays Enforcement Of Criminal Subpoena For Trump Financial Records

President Trump won a brief reprieve from New York law enforcement on Tuesday , as Manhattan ’ s Second Circuit Court of Appeals further delayed a subpoena for his tax returns from going into effect .
The move came the same day that a lawyer for Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance told a three-judge appeals panel that the office ’ s investigation into Trump remained broad and far-reaching .
The ruling stays enforcement of a lower court order that threw out arguments from President Trump seeking to invalidate the subpoena , issued last year by a grand jury empaneled by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rejected an earlier challenge by Trump in July in which he claimed that he was immune from state criminal process , which delayed the subpoena ’ s enforcement for the past twelve months .
The high court then ordered the district court judge to hear any further arguments that Trump wished to raise .
The President raised them , and was shot down last month .
The Second Circuit scheduled oral arguments in the case for Sept. 25 .
The appeals court will decide whether arguments from Trump that the current subpoena is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ William Consovoy , a personal attorney hired by the President in the case , has said that Trump will appeal the case once again to the Supreme Court in the event of a loss .
The effect of all the legal tangling has been to delay the subpoena ’ s enforcement from its initial issuance in August 2019 , likely keeping the records out of reach of investigators before the November elections .

President Trump won a brief reprieve from New York law enforcement on Tuesday, as Manhattan’s Second Circuit Court of Appeals further delayed a subpoena for his tax returns from going into effect.
The move came the same day that a lawyer for Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance told a three-judge appeals panel that the office’s investigation into Trump remained broad and far-reaching.
The ruling stays enforcement of a lower court order that threw out arguments from President Trump seeking to invalidate the subpoena, issued last year by a grand jury empaneled by Manhattan state prosecutors.
The Supreme Court rejected an earlier challenge by Trump in July in which he claimed that he was immune from state criminal process, which delayed the subpoena’s enforcement for the past twelve months.
The high court then ordered the district court judge to hear any further arguments that Trump wished to raise. The President raised them, and was shot down last month.
The Second Circuit scheduled oral arguments in the case for Sept. 25. The appeals court will decide whether arguments from Trump that the current subpoena is “wildly overbroad” stand muster.
William Consovoy, a personal attorney hired by the President in the case, has said that Trump will appeal the case once again to the Supreme Court in the event of a loss.
The effect of all the legal tangling has been to delay the subpoena’s enforcement from its initial issuance in August 2019, likely keeping the records out of reach of investigators before the November elections.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-02--Kenosha Shop Owner Was Replaced In Trump’s Damage Tour After Declining To Be Featured

A Kenosha business owner rebuked President Donald Trump for appearing to use his leveled shop for political gain after he refused to participate in the President ’ s tour of the city ’ s damage and was later replaced by a man who was misrepresented as the shop ’ s current owner .
Tom Gram who owns an old camera shop that was leveled in fires last Monday after protests broke out in the Wisconsin city told an NBC-affiliate in Milwaukee that he immediately refused when the White House called on Monday , asking if he would accompany the President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leveled business .
“ I think everything he does turns into a circus and I just didn ’ t want to be involved in it , ” Gram told WTMJ-TV .
The White House had called with a request from President Trump for Gram to be featured in a presidential tour of damage following demonstrations that turned destructive in the aftermath of the shooting of Jacob Blake after Trump arrived in Kenosha on Tuesday .
When Gram said no , it appears that a former owner of the shop who lavishly praised the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Gram told WTMJ-TV that he has been the shop owner of the century-old Rode ’ s Camera Shop for the past eight years after he purchased the shop from the Rode family .
A website for the business confirms that when the business reached its 100-year milestone in 2011 , in preparation to retire then-owner John Rode III sold the business to his employees .
Before purchasing the shop , Gram said he worked at the store for more than four decades .
Co-owner Paul Willette joined the business in 2001 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ discovered while watching on television that President Trump had replaced him .
Trump is featured in the video alongside the camera shop ’ s former owner in a doctored scene that makes it look like the business still belongs to him even though he sold it to Gram several years ago .
Gram ’ s story is not the first case of President Trump bending facts to suit his political campaign objectives .
He featured several public housing tenants in a self-aggrandizing video without their knowledge that aired at the Republican National Convention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rode is still the property owner at 2204 Roosevelt Road in Kenosha , where Gram ran the camera business which is now in ruins , Rode is not the rightful owner of the shop that he sold to his employee .
“ I just appreciate President Trump coming today ; everybody here does , ” Rode — Gram ’ s false stand-in– said in the clip .
“ We ’ re so thankful that we got the federal troops in to help because once they got here , things did calm down quite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rode as the “ owner of Rode ’ s Camera Shop , ” during a round table conversation on Tuesday .
“ I think he needs to bring this country together rather than divide it , ” Gram said of Trump , adding that he did not believe it was correct to solely focus on law enforcement when “ there ’ s a lot of good people in this community .
”

A Kenosha business owner rebuked President Donald Trump for appearing to use his leveled shop for political gain after he refused to participate in the President’s tour of the city’s damage and was later replaced by a man who was misrepresented as the shop’s current owner.
Tom Gram who owns an old camera shop that was leveled in fires last Monday after protests broke out in the Wisconsin city told an NBC-affiliate in Milwaukee that he immediately refused when the White House called on Monday, asking if he would accompany the President on a tour that would showcase his leveled business.
“I think everything he does turns into a circus and I just didn’t want to be involved in it,” Gram told WTMJ-TV.
The White House had called with a request from President Trump for Gram to be featured in a presidential tour of damage following demonstrations that turned destructive in the aftermath of the shooting of Jacob Blake after Trump arrived in Kenosha on Tuesday. When Gram said no, it appears that a former owner of the shop who lavishly praised the president’s efforts was featured instead.
Gram told WTMJ-TV that he has been the shop owner of the century-old Rode’s Camera Shop for the past eight years after he purchased the shop from the Rode family. A website for the business confirms that when the business reached its 100-year milestone in 2011, in preparation to retire then-owner John Rode III sold the business to his employees. Before purchasing the shop, Gram said he worked at the store for more than four decades. Co-owner Paul Willette joined the business in 2001.
To Gram’s surprise, he discovered while watching television that President Trump had replaced him. Trump is featured in the video alongside the camera shop’s former owner in a doctored scene that makes it look like the business still belongs to him even though he sold it to Gram several years ago.
Gram’s story is not the first case of President Trump bending facts to suit his political campaign objectives. He featured several public housing tenants in a self-aggrandizing video that aired without their knowledge at the Republican National Convention last week.
While WTMJ-TV found that Rode is still the property owner at 2204 Roosevelt Road in Kenosha, where Gram ran the camera business which is now in ruins, Rode is not the rightful owner of the shop that he sold to his employee.
“I just appreciate President Trump coming today; everybody here does,” Rode — Gram’s false stand-in– said in the clip. “We’re so thankful that we got the federal troops in to help because once they got here, things did calm down quite a bit.”
President Trump also introduced Rode as the “owner of Rode’s Camera Shop,” during a round table conversation on Tuesday.
“I think he needs to bring this country together rather than divide it,” Gram said of Trump, telling WTMJ-TV that he did not believe it was correct to solely focus on law enforcement when “there’s a lot of good people in this community.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-02--Markey Triumphs Over Kennedy In Primary, Dealing First Defeat In Kennedy Dynasty

Sen. Ed Markey ( D-MA ) fended off primary challenger Rep. Joe Kennedy III ( D-MA ) in the Massachusetts elections on Tuesday night .
Markey , who co-sponsored the Green New Deal with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-NY ) and had cultivated mass support among progressives in the race , described via Twitter his victory as an “ undeniable mandate for change.
” “ Tonight is more than just a celebration of an election , it is a celebration of a movement , ” the senator tweeted .
“ Thank you to the thousands of grassroots supporters who organized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Markey highlighted his commitment to progressive values , stating that “ we made it clear that we ’ d rather lose fighting as hard as we could for what we believe in than in finding the middle ground.
” Kennedy told supporters that he had called Markey to congratulate the incumbent and “ pledge my support to him and his campaign in the months ahead.
” “ The senator is a good man , ” he said .
“ You have never heard me say otherwise.
” The congressman also tweeted that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we built together.
” “ I ’ d do it with you all again in a heartbeat , ” he wrote .
The primary marks the first defeat in the long-reigning Kennedy dynasty .

Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) fended off primary challenger Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D-MA) in the Massachusetts elections on Tuesday night.
Markey, who co-sponsored the Green New Deal with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and had cultivated mass support among progressives in the race, described via Twitter his victory as an “undeniable mandate for change.”
“Tonight is more than just a celebration of an election, it is a celebration of a movement,” the senator tweeted. “Thank you to the thousands of grassroots supporters who organized around the principles that we believe in.”
Markey highlighted his commitment to progressive values, stating that “we made it clear that we’d rather lose fighting as hard as we could for what we believe in than in finding the middle ground.”
Kennedy told supporters that he had called Markey to congratulate the incumbent and “pledge my support to him and his campaign in the months ahead.”
“The senator is a good man,” he said. “You have never heard me say otherwise.”
The congressman also tweeted that he was “so proud of what we built together.”
“I’d do it with you all again in a heartbeat,” he wrote.
The primary marks the first defeat in Massachusetts for the long-reigning Kennedy dynasty.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-02--Barr Says ‘Logic’ Informed His Baseless Assertion That Foreign Countries May Send Fake Ballots

Attorney General Bill Barr on Wednesday shared an absurd response when pressed on why he ’ s floated the baseless assertion of foreign countries potentially producing and sending out fake mail-in ballots in the November election , during an interview on CNN .
In an interview published in the New York Times Magazine in June , Barr said that he ’ s concerned about foreign influence as states have expanded access to mail-in voting in light of the COVID-19 pandemic .
“ We ’ ve been talking about how , in terms of foreign influence , there are a number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counterfeit ballots , put names on them , send them in , ” Barr told NYT Magazine , without providing evidence behind his claim .
“ And it ’ d be very hard to sort out what ’ s happening.
” Barr echoed similar remarks during a House Judiciary Committee hearing in late July .
Barr said that although he had “ no reason to think ” that the November election will be “ rigged , ” he believes that “ if you have wholesale mail-in voting , it substantially increases the risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barr said that although there is no evidence that shows foreign countries could successfully influence elections in the U.S. with fraudulent ballots , it would be “ common sense ” for them to attempt to do so .
On Wednesday evening , Barr found himself in a head-scratching exchange with CNN ’ s Wolf Blitzer as he attempted to explain the rationale behind his baseless assertion , which bolsters President Trump ’ s false claims that mail-in voting leads to voter fraud .
“ As I ’ ve said repeatedly , I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barr said , which prompted Blitzer to ask , “ pardon ?
” Barr insisted again that “ logic ” informed his baseless assertion , before Blitzer asked whether he has seen any evidence that a foreign country is trying to interfere in the November election by producing and sending out counterfeit ballots .
“ No , I ’ m saying people are concerned about foreign influence , ” Barr said , adding that sending ballots to voters “ leaves open the possibility ” of ballots being of counterfeited domestically or abroad .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign country could do that , Barr replied that “ anyone can do that ” before conceding again that he has not seen evidence of foreign countries attempting to send out fake ballots .
“ No , but most things can be counterfeited , ” Barr said .
“ But that ’ s why we go to the trouble of making our money the way we make it.
” Barr then posed a baffling rhetorical question on whether Minnesota should print money on regular parchment paper , before Blitzer pointed out that intelligence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that foreign countries are planning to produce or send out fake ballots .
Barr reiterated that he does not have any information supporting his baseless assertion .
The attorney general went on to say that he ’ s unsure about the exact number of indictments the Justice Department has brought against people committing voter fraud .
“ I don ’ t know how many we have , ” Barr said .
“ I know there are a number of investigations right now , some very big ones in states .
”

Attorney General Bill Barr on Wednesday shared an absurd response when pressed on why he’s floated the baseless assertion of foreign countries potentially producing and sending out fake mail-in ballots in the November election, during an interview on CNN.
In an interview published in the New York Times Magazine in June, Barr said that he’s concerned about foreign influence as states have expanded access to mail-in voting in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“We’ve been talking about how, in terms of foreign influence, there are a number of foreign countries that could easily make counterfeit ballots, put names on them, send them in,” Barr told NYT Magazine, without providing evidence behind his claim. “And it’d be very hard to sort out what’s happening.”
Barr echoed similar remarks during a House Judiciary Committee hearing in late July. Barr said that although he had “no reason to think” that the November election will be “rigged,” he believes that “if you have wholesale mail-in voting, it substantially increases the risk of fraud.”
During the hearing, Barr said that although there is no evidence that shows foreign countries could successfully influence elections in the U.S. with fraudulent ballots, it would be “common sense” for them to attempt to do so.
On Wednesday evening, Barr found himself in a head-scratching exchange with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer as he attempted to explain the rationale behind his baseless assertion, which bolsters President Trump’s false claims that mail-in voting leads to voter fraud.
“As I’ve said repeatedly, I’m basing that on logic,” Barr said, which prompted Blitzer to ask, “pardon?”
Barr insisted again that “logic” informed his baseless assertion, before Blitzer asked whether he has seen any evidence that a foreign country is trying to interfere in the November election by producing and sending out counterfeit ballots.
“No, I’m saying people are concerned about foreign influence,” Barr said, adding that sending ballots to voters “leaves open the possibility” of ballots being of counterfeited domestically or abroad.
Pressed on whether he believes that a foreign country could do that, Barr replied that “anyone can do that” before conceding again that he has not seen evidence of foreign countries attempting to send out fake ballots.
“No, but most things can be counterfeited,” Barr said. “But that’s why we go to the trouble of making our money the way we make it.”
Barr then posed a baffling rhetorical question on whether Minnesota should print money on regular parchment paper, before Blitzer pointed out that intelligence officials have not seen information or intelligence that foreign countries are planning to produce or send out fake ballots.
Barr reiterated that he does not have any information supporting his baseless assertion. The attorney general went on to say that he’s unsure about the exact number of indictments the Justice Department has brought against people committing voter fraud.
“I don’t know how many we have,” Barr said. “I know there are a number of investigations right now, some very big ones in states.”
Watch Barr’s remarks below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-02--New CDC Move Stokes Fear That Trump Re-elect Is Driving COVID Vaccine Plans

The Trump administration is doubling down on distributing a COVID-19 vaccine before Election Day , aligning the timeline for a crucial public health measure with the President ’ s political fortunes .
The director of the Centers for Disease Control sent a letter last week to state governors asking that they prepare to have vaccine distribution facilities be “ fully operational ” by Nov. 1 , and that the states waive requirements that would purportedly prevent a private vendor from meeting that deadline .
The CDC followed the letter with additional materials telling states to be ready to distribute the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported the letter on Wednesday morning .
The move is the latest and perhaps starkest example of President Trump leveraging the fight against COVID-19 for his re-election .
Instead of emphasizing safety and prudence , the President has been making extravagant promises and raising expectations that a vaccine will be ready in time for the November elections .
His public conduct has ignited fears among vaccine experts , including members of the FDA advisory panel , that politics rather than good science will drive the production of a new vaccine , creating its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Operation Warp Speed , the administration ’ s effort to accelerate a COVID-19 vaccine , have already said that they plan to “ overwhelm ” the airwaves with vaccine messaging in October , while Trump himself has said that he wants a vaccine “ right around ” Election Day .
In so doing , experts say , Trump is taking a sledgehammer to trust two institutions critical to public health : vaccines and the Food and Drug Administration , responsible for ensuring safety in drugs and other treatments .
The Aug. 27 CDC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not condition the vaccine on whether the FDA has approved one for use .
Rather , the letter “ urgently ” asks that state waive safety regulations for vaccine distribution “ that would prevent these facilities from becoming fully operational by November 1 , 2020.
” “ I think that the key to do with timing is really the FDA approval , ” Claire Hannan , executive director of the association of immunization managers , told TPM .
“ And the timing of that is just unknown , and we don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because we want that approval to be done thoroughly and correctly.
” There is nothing to suggest that the phase III trials currently testing the efficacy and safety of three vaccines are compromised in any way .
The statement does come amid broad concerns , however , about whether the FDA may give into ongoing political pressure to approve a vaccine before enough data has come in to assess it .
“ Everybody is nervous out there because , as we say , we live in very unconventional times , ” Dr. William @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vanderbilt University , told TPM .
“ The last thing you ’ d want is a vaccine announcement and have the public health community and doctors all over the country saying it ’ s too early , we ’ re going to wait for more data.
” The CDC documents came as part of Operation Warp Speed , a joint effort between the Defense Department and Health and Human Services .
The effort relies on a strategy in which the government pays for massive amounts of vaccine to be produced as those same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the FDA , that would allow the government to immediately begin large-scale vaccinations , drastically shortening the time it normally takes to develop , test , and distribute a vaccine .
To some , Redfield ’ s letter simply reflects that policy .
Dr. Kelly Moore of the Immunization Action Coalition told TPM that the letter has to do with the CDC ensuring that state are prepared for the COVID-19 vaccine program .
“ The letter relates to CDC ’ s preparations for a COVID-19 vaccine distribution program .
Obviously , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccine distribution infrastructure prepared before the earliest moment a vaccine might be approved in order to prevent any delays in distribution of an approved product , ” she wrote .
“ I do not infer from it that a vaccine should be expected to be approved by that date.
” But others expressed concern about the letter ’ s apparent certainty that a vaccine would be ready for distribution by Nov. 1 – two days before the 2020 election .
Schaffner told TPM that the Nov. 1 date struck him as unnecessary and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t put that date in there .
That was a bad idea , ” Schaffner said .
To Gary Slutkin , a former WHO epidemiologist who fought disease in Africa , it was difficult to assess because “ nobody knows two things – what the vaccine trials are really showing in terms of efficacy , and what kind of politics are surrounding this.
” The two vaccine candidates that are the farthest along their phase III trials have each enrolled a little over half of the 30,000 people that need to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the manufacturers say .
Both vaccines require two shots , weeks apart , and started in late July , meaning that only a few of the participants have actually received the full course of the vaccine .
“ We basically don ’ t know the most important thing about this , which is what the trials are actually showing , ” said Gary Slutkin , a former WHO epidemiologist who fought disease in Africa .
Schaffer added that the key would be to see whether the FDA ’ s vaccine advisory committee recommends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ committee being sidestepped , he said , would be a final nail in the coffin of politicization .
“ Talk about chaos , ” he said .

The Trump administration is doubling down on distributing a COVID-19 vaccine before Election Day, aligning the timeline for a crucial public health measure with the President’s political fortunes.
The director of the Centers for Disease Control sent a letter last week to state governors asking that they prepare to have vaccine distribution facilities be “fully operational” by Nov. 1, and that the states waive requirements that would purportedly prevent a private vendor from meeting that deadline.
The CDC followed the letter with additional materials telling states to be ready to distribute the vaccine by late October.
McClatchy first reported the letter on Wednesday morning.
The move is the latest and perhaps starkest example of President Trump leveraging the fight against COVID-19 for his re-election.
Instead of emphasizing safety and prudence, the President has been making extravagant promises and raising expectations that a vaccine will be ready in time for the November elections. His public conduct has ignited fears among vaccine experts, including members of the FDA advisory panel, that politics rather than good science will drive the production of a new vaccine, creating its own public health risk.
Officials with Operation Warp Speed, the administration’s effort to accelerate a COVID-19 vaccine, have already said that they plan to “overwhelm” the airwaves with vaccine messaging in October, while Trump himself has said that he wants a vaccine “right around” Election Day.
In so doing, experts say, Trump is taking a sledgehammer to trust two institutions critical to public health: vaccines and the Food and Drug Administration, responsible for ensuring safety in drugs and other treatments.
The Aug. 27 CDC letter sent by Dr. Robert Redfield does not condition the vaccine on whether the FDA has approved one for use.
Rather, the letter “urgently” asks that state waive safety regulations for vaccine distribution “that would prevent these facilities from becoming fully operational by November 1, 2020.”
“I think that the key to do with timing is really the FDA approval,” Claire Hannan, executive director of the association of immunization managers, told TPM. “And the timing of that is just unknown, and we don’t want to race to a certain date because we want that approval to be done thoroughly and correctly.”
There is nothing to suggest that the phase III trials currently testing the efficacy and safety of three vaccines are compromised in any way. The statement does come amid broad concerns, however, about whether the FDA may give into ongoing political pressure to approve a vaccine before enough data has come in to assess it.
“Everybody is nervous out there because, as we say, we live in very unconventional times,” Dr. William Schaffner, professor of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University, told TPM. “The last thing you’d want is a vaccine announcement and have the public health community and doctors all over the country saying it’s too early, we’re going to wait for more data.”
The CDC documents came as part of Operation Warp Speed, a joint effort between the Defense Department and Health and Human Services. The effort relies on a strategy in which the government pays for massive amounts of vaccine to be produced as those same vaccine candidates are tested. If approved by the FDA, that would allow the government to immediately begin large-scale vaccinations, drastically shortening the time it normally takes to develop, test, and distribute a vaccine.
To some, Redfield’s letter simply reflects that policy. Dr. Kelly Moore of the Immunization Action Coalition told TPM that the letter has to do with the CDC ensuring that state are prepared for the COVID-19 vaccine program.
“The letter relates to CDC’s preparations for a COVID-19 vaccine distribution program. Obviously, the goal is to have all of the vaccine distribution infrastructure prepared before the earliest moment a vaccine might be approved in order to prevent any delays in distribution of an approved product,” she wrote. “I do not infer from it that a vaccine should be expected to be approved by that date.”
But others expressed concern about the letter’s apparent certainty that a vaccine would be ready for distribution by Nov. 1 – two days before the 2020 election.
Schaffner told TPM that the Nov. 1 date struck him as unnecessary and unusual.
“I wish they hadn’t put that date in there. That was a bad idea,” Schaffner said.
To Gary Slutkin, a former WHO epidemiologist who fought disease in Africa, it was difficult to assess because “nobody knows two things – what the vaccine trials are really showing in terms of efficacy, and what kind of politics are surrounding this.”
The two vaccine candidates that are the farthest along their phase III trials have each enrolled a little over half of the 30,000 people that need to be inoculated before the trial is full, the manufacturers say. Both vaccines require two shots, weeks apart, and started in late July, meaning that only a few of the participants have actually received the full course of the vaccine.
“We basically don’t know the most important thing about this, which is what the trials are actually showing,” said Gary Slutkin, a former WHO epidemiologist who fought disease in Africa.
Schaffer added that the key would be to see whether the FDA’s vaccine advisory committee recommends that a vaccine be approved. The committee being sidestepped, he said, would be a final nail in the coffin of politicization.
“Talk about chaos,” he said.
Read the letter here:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-02--Rubio: Senate Intel Still Gets In-Person Election Security Briefings Despite Ratcliffe’s Order

Sen. Marco Rubio ( R-FL ) on Wednesday claimed that DNI John Ratcliffe will continue holding election security briefings with the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee , despite Ratcliffe telling Congress last week that he would halt the in-person briefings due to lawmakers allegedly leaking classified information .
Rubio , who serves as the interim chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee , told Spectrum News on Wednesday that he expects the GOP-led panel to continue receiving in-person briefings even after a House Intelligence Committee briefing was canceled .
Rubio said that because the Senate Intelligence Committee oversees the intelligence community , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re not coming in to talk to us.
” “ I don ’ t care what the letter says .
They can ’ t do that and they ’ re not going to do that , is what I ’ ve been told , ” Rubio said .
Rubio added that the Senate Intelligence Committee will continue to schedule the in-person election security briefings and that the panel expects “ them to come in and to provide us that information and answer our questions in person.
” Last week , Ratcliffe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members as a House Intelligence Committee ’ s previously scheduled briefing was canceled .
Ratcliffe cited concerns over lawmakers allegedly leaking classified information as the rationale behind his move to instead provide them with written intelligence reports .
Rubio ’ s latest remarks come days after he said that congressional oversight is “ facing a historic crisis ” in light of Ratcliffe ’ s directive .
“ Intelligence agencies have a legal obligation to keep Congress informed of their activities , ” Rubio said in a statement on Saturday .
Rubio ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day after House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff ( D-CA ) revealed in a letter that Ratcliffe and his office had “ proactively ” scheduled two election-security briefings for later this month — one for the Intelligence Committee on Sept. 17 and another series for the full House on Sept. 24-25 — and urged Ratcliffe to reinstate those briefings .
Along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) and Rep. Pete Visclosky ( D-IN ) , Schiff floated the possibility of issuing a subpoena or using the Sept. 30 government funding deadline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the previously scheduled briefings .
“ If you are unwilling to resume election-related intelligence briefings to Congress , we will have no choice but to consider the full range of tools available to compel compliance , ” the Democratic lawmakers wrote .

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) on Wednesday claimed that DNI John Ratcliffe will continue holding election security briefings with the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee, despite Ratcliffe telling Congress last week that he would halt the in-person briefings due to lawmakers allegedly leaking classified information.
Rubio, who serves as the interim chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told Spectrum News on Wednesday that he expects the GOP-led panel to continue receiving in-person briefings even after a House Intelligence Committee briefing was canceled.
Rubio said that because the Senate Intelligence Committee oversees the intelligence community, “they can’t tell us they’re not coming in to talk to us.”
“I don’t care what the letter says. They can’t do that and they’re not going to do that, is what I’ve been told,” Rubio said.
Rubio added that the Senate Intelligence Committee will continue to schedule the in-person election security briefings and that the panel expects “them to come in and to provide us that information and answer our questions in person.”
Last week, Ratcliffe’s directive drew outrage from Democratic members as a House Intelligence Committee’s previously scheduled briefing was canceled. Ratcliffe cited concerns over lawmakers allegedly leaking classified information as the rationale behind his move to instead provide them with written intelligence reports.
Rubio’s latest remarks come days after he said that congressional oversight is “facing a historic crisis” in light of Ratcliffe’s directive.
“Intelligence agencies have a legal obligation to keep Congress informed of their activities,” Rubio said in a statement on Saturday.
Rubio’s interview with Spectrum News also comes a day after House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) revealed in a letter that Ratcliffe and his office had “proactively” scheduled two election-security briefings for later this month — one for the Intelligence Committee on Sept. 17 and another series for the full House on Sept. 24-25 — and urged Ratcliffe to reinstate those briefings.
Along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-IN), Schiff floated the possibility of issuing a subpoena or using the Sept. 30 government funding deadline as leverage if Ratcliffe refuses to reinstate the previously scheduled briefings.
“If you are unwilling to resume election-related intelligence briefings to Congress, we will have no choice but to consider the full range of tools available to compel compliance,” the Democratic lawmakers wrote.