talkingpointsmemo--2020-10-06--The Justice Department May Have Violated Attorney General Barr’s Own Policy Memo

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 .
When the Justice Department recently publicized an ongoing investigation into potentially improperly discarded Trump ballots , critics accused it of violating long-standing agency policy against interfering in an election .
But the unusual decision to publicly detail the Pennsylvania case may also have run afoul of guidelines that Attorney General William Barr himself issued to federal prosecutors this year , according to a memo obtained by ProPublica .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to all Justice Department employees imploring them to be “ particularly sensitive to safeguarding the Department ’ s reputation for fairness , neutrality , and non-partisanship ” when it comes to election-related crimes .
“ Partisan politics , ” he wrote , “ must play no role in the decisions of federal investigators or prosecutors regarding any investigations or criminal charges .
Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of public statements ( attributed or not ) , investigative steps , criminal charges , or any other action in any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affecting any election , or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.
” Nevertheless , last month Barr ’ s Justice Department issued a press release announcing an investigation into whether local elections officials illegally discarded nine mail-in military ballots in Pennsylvania .
The announcement of an open investigation was highly unusual .
Even more abnormal was that the press release specified that at least seven of those ballots were for President Donald Trump .
While the motivation of the Pennsylvania press release is unclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the matter before the announcement , The Washington Post subsequently reported , citing an anonymous source .
The president raised it in a media interview and then DOJ ’ s Pennsylvania office announced the investigation .
Then , the Trump campaign quickly jumped on the Pennsylvania case to bolster those claims .
“ BREAKING : FBI finds military mail-in ballots discarded in Pennsylvania .
100 % of them were cast for President Trump .
Democrats are trying to steal the election , ” a campaign official tweeted .
Justin Levitt , a former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s civil rights division , said the Pennsylvania press release was “ flatly inconsistent ” with Barr ’ s memo “ and shamefully so.
” “ There ’ s absolutely no legitimate law enforcement reason I know of to mention who the ballots were cast for : They were either dealt with properly or not properly , ” he said .
“ And if there ’ s no good reason , it leaves only the most likely bad reason : that the identity of the candidate was revealed for partisan political purposes.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Samuel Buell , a former federal prosecutor who is now a professor at Duke Law School , said Barr could argue that “ any public announcement about a ballot investigation complies with [ the memo ] because the language is so broad.
” Barr , he said , could say the “ purpose ” of the Pennsylvania announcement was not to affect the outcome of the election or support a particular candidate , but some other non-prohibited motivation like “ protecting the vote.
” The Barr memo closelymirrored election-year guidance that previous attorneys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and George W. Bush administrations .
Barr himself said at his Senate confirmation hearings last year that the election policies were in place because the incumbent party has “ their hands on the levers of the law enforcement apparatus of the country , and you do not want it used against the opposing political party.
” Asked whether the Pennsylvania announcement ran afoul of the agency ’ s election policies , Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec responded : “ No.
” She declined to elaborate .
The U.S. attorney overseeing the case is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Pennsylvania state attorney general who was nominated for his current role by Trump in 2017 .
In a publicly released letter , Freed said he was detailing initial findings despite an ongoing investigation “ based on the limited amount of time before the general election and the vital public importance of these issues.
” A second memo obtained by ProPublica , issued in August by Corey Amundson , chief of the DOJ ’ s Public Integrity Section , was even more explicit .
In it , Amundson reiterated the Justice Department ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ Overt criminal investigative measures should not ordinarily be taken in matters involving alleged fraud in the manner in which votes were cast or counted until the election in question has been concluded.
” The memo was addressed to the Attorney General Advisory Committee , a group of U.S. attorneys that advise the attorney general .
The policy Amundson cites appears to make an exception for extraordinary cases .
But it seems unlikely that would apply to the case in Pennsylvania .
That involved only nine ballots , which appear to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The motivation may have been an innocuous attempt to follow Pennsylvania rules barring ballots sent back without the proper envelope .
Current and former Justice Department officials told ProPublica that , even without the memos from top agency officials including Barr , the Pennsylvania press release violated long-standing department policy .
They explained that prosecutors not only should not announce that they are investigating , but that they should be slow even to start an election-sensitive investigation during the campaign .
Such an investigation is so sensitive , an opposing candidate could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opponent .
“ That ’ s what they drill into us : the policy of non-interference and never , ever , ever announcing an investigation , ” one official said .
“ That ’ s why the thing in Pennsylvania is bonkers , completely bonkers.
” Barr has amplified Trump ’ s attempt to discredit mail-in voting before , claiming falsely that there is widespread fraud .

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.
When the Justice Department recently publicized an ongoing investigation into potentially improperly discarded Trump ballots, critics accused it of violating long-standing agency policy against interfering in an election.
But the unusual decision to publicly detail the Pennsylvania case may also have run afoul of guidelines that Attorney General William Barr himself issued to federal prosecutors this year, according to a memo obtained by ProPublica.
In May, Barr wrote a directive to all Justice Department employees imploring them to be “particularly sensitive to safeguarding the Department’s reputation for fairness, neutrality, and non-partisanship” when it comes to election-related crimes.
“Partisan politics,” he wrote, “must play no role in the decisions of federal investigators or prosecutors regarding any investigations or criminal charges. Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of public statements (attributed or not), investigative steps, criminal charges, or any other action in any matter or case for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.”
Nevertheless, last month Barr’s Justice Department issued a press release announcing an investigation into whether local elections officials illegally discarded nine mail-in military ballots in Pennsylvania. The announcement of an open investigation was highly unusual. Even more abnormal was that the press release specified that at least seven of those ballots were for President Donald Trump.
While the motivation of the Pennsylvania press release is unclear, Barr had personally briefed Trump on the matter before the announcement, The Washington Post subsequently reported, citing an anonymous source. The president raised it in a media interview and then DOJ’s Pennsylvania office announced the investigation.
Then, the Trump campaign quickly jumped on the Pennsylvania case to bolster those claims.
“BREAKING: FBI finds military mail-in ballots discarded in Pennsylvania. 100% of them were cast for President Trump. Democrats are trying to steal the election,” a campaign official tweeted.
Justin Levitt, a former deputy assistant attorney general in the DOJ’s civil rights division, said the Pennsylvania press release was “flatly inconsistent” with Barr’s memo “and shamefully so.”
“There’s absolutely no legitimate law enforcement reason I know of to mention who the ballots were cast for: They were either dealt with properly or not properly,” he said. “And if there’s no good reason, it leaves only the most likely bad reason: that the identity of the candidate was revealed for partisan political purposes.”
Some experts did not agree . Samuel Buell, a former federal prosecutor who is now a professor at Duke Law School, said Barr could argue that “any public announcement about a ballot investigation complies with [the memo] because the language is so broad.”
Barr, he said, could say the “purpose” of the Pennsylvania announcement was not to affect the outcome of the election or support a particular candidate, but some other non-prohibited motivation like “protecting the vote.”
The Barr memo closelymirrored election-year guidance that previous attorneys general sent out under both the Obama and George W. Bush administrations. Barr himself said at his Senate confirmation hearings last year that the election policies were in place because the incumbent party has “their hands on the levers of the law enforcement apparatus of the country, and you do not want it used against the opposing political party.”
Asked whether the Pennsylvania announcement ran afoul of the agency’s election policies, Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec responded: “No.” She declined to elaborate.
The U.S. attorney overseeing the case is David Freed, a former Republican nominee for Pennsylvania state attorney general who was nominated for his current role by Trump in 2017. In a publicly released letter, Freed said he was detailing initial findings despite an ongoing investigation “based on the limited amount of time before the general election and the vital public importance of these issues.”
A second memo obtained by ProPublica, issued in August by Corey Amundson, chief of the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section, was even more explicit.
In it, Amundson reiterated the Justice Department’s long-standing policy in election fraud cases: “Overt criminal investigative measures should not ordinarily be taken in matters involving alleged fraud in the manner in which votes were cast or counted until the election in question has been concluded.”
The memo was addressed to the Attorney General Advisory Committee, a group of U.S. attorneys that advise the attorney general.
The policy Amundson cites appears to make an exception for extraordinary cases. But it seems unlikely that would apply to the case in Pennsylvania. That involved only nine ballots, which appear to have been discarded by a sole contract employee. The motivation may have been an innocuous attempt to follow Pennsylvania rules barring ballots sent back without the proper envelope.
Current and former Justice Department officials told ProPublica that, even without the memos from top agency officials including Barr, the Pennsylvania press release violated long-standing department policy. They explained that prosecutors not only should not announce that they are investigating, but that they should be slow even to start an election-sensitive investigation during the campaign. Such an investigation is so sensitive, an opposing candidate could use it to smear his or her opponent.
“That’s what they drill into us: the policy of non-interference and never, ever, ever announcing an investigation,” one official said. “That’s why the thing in Pennsylvania is bonkers, completely bonkers.”
A spokeswoman for Freed declined to comment.
Barr has amplified Trump’s attempt to discredit mail-in voting before, claiming falsely that there is widespread fraud.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-10-06--McEnany Says Trump’s Balcony Stunt Sends Message That ‘America Will Overcome’ COVID

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany , who announced that she had tested positive for coronavirus on Monday , touted President Donald Trump ’ s ongoing recovery from the virus , saying it showed how “ America will overcome.
” “ I am pleased to see our commander-in-chief is doing well , ” McEnany told Fox News ’ Sean Hannity during an interview on Monday .
“ Watching him on the balcony just showing that we will overcome , America will overcome just as he is overcoming this illness , I think was a really nice moment for our country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Trump was discharged from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center earlier in the day after receiving treatment for COVID-19 .
The President has sought to project an image of strength amid his illness , even suggesting that Americans shouldn ’ t “ be afraid of COVID , ” as he received the kind of top quality health care and advanced treatment for coronavirus that remains inaccessible to a majority of Americans .
McEnany sought to defend the President ’ s leadership on the public health crisis by telling Hannity on Monday that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the United States were on track to create history .
“ This was a novel virus that came in from China .
No one had seen it .
There were no tests .
There were no therapeutics , ” McEnany said .
“ In short order , President Trump developed them , and this vaccine is on pace to be the fastest vaccine for a novel pathogen in human history.
” But McEnany appeared to leave out a different takeaway message that some of the President ’ s critics have said is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting sick .
Leading up to his own illness , the President had repeatedly mocked prominent lawmakers who donned masks to protect against the spread of coronavirus and worked diligently at undermining the guidance of health experts within his own administration .
Several prominent Republicans including three GOP senators have come forward with positive tests for coronavirus amid Trump ’ s announcement early Friday .
Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden on Monday suggested that the President had acted irresponsibly by ignoring precautions put in place to reduce the spread of coronavirus .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying masks don ’ t matter , social distancing doesn ’ t matter I think is responsible for what happens to them , ” Biden told NBC News ’ Lester Holt during a town hall .
“ Every major scientist and doctor and immunologist has said that ’ s a very dangerous thing to do , ” Biden added .
The Democratic presidential candidate said that he wears a mask as “ a patriotic responsibility ” to protect others .

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, who announced that she had tested positive for coronavirus on Monday, touted President Donald Trump’s ongoing recovery from the virus, saying it showed how “America will overcome.”
“I am pleased to see our commander-in-chief is doing well,” McEnany told Fox News’ Sean Hannity during an interview on Monday. “Watching him on the balcony just showing that we will overcome, America will overcome just as he is overcoming this illness, I think was a really nice moment for our country to see.”
The comments come after President Trump was discharged from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center earlier in the day after receiving treatment for COVID-19.
The President has sought to project an image of strength amid his illness, even suggesting that Americans shouldn’t “be afraid of COVID,” as he received the kind of top quality health care and advanced treatment for coronavirus that remains inaccessible to a majority of Americans.
McEnany sought to defend the President’s leadership on the public health crisis by telling Hannity on Monday that Trump’s efforts to tackle coronavirus in the United States were on track to create history.
“This was a novel virus that came in from China. No one had seen it. There were no tests. There were no therapeutics,” McEnany said. “In short order, President Trump developed them, and this vaccine is on pace to be the fastest vaccine for a novel pathogen in human history.”
But McEnany appeared to leave out a different takeaway message that some of the President’s critics have said is a critical warning to prevent others from getting sick.
Leading up to his own illness, the President had repeatedly mocked prominent lawmakers who donned masks to protect against the spread of coronavirus and worked diligently at undermining the guidance of health experts within his own administration.
Several prominent Republicans including three GOP senators have come forward with positive tests for coronavirus amid Trump’s announcement early Friday.
Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden on Monday suggested that the President had acted irresponsibly by ignoring precautions put in place to reduce the spread of coronavirus.
“Anybody who contracts the virus by essentially saying masks don’t matter, social distancing doesn’t matter I think is responsible for what happens to them,” Biden told NBC News’ Lester Holt during a town hall.
“Every major scientist and doctor and immunologist has said that’s a very dangerous thing to do,” Biden added.
The Democratic presidential candidate said that he wears a mask as “a patriotic responsibility” to protect others.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-10-07--Trump Was Not Tested Daily For COVID-19 Before Diagnosis

White House officials said on Tuesday that in spite of an image of daily testing , President Donald Trump had not been tested everyday for COVID-19 before he announced his diagnosis with the virus last week , according to The New York Times .
A senior administration official would only confirm to the Times on Tuesday that Trump was tested “ regularly.
” The revelation , confirmed to the Times by two people familiar with the protocol , provides new insight into a crumbling image of the White House which has routinely flouted the guidance of health experts on mask-wearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diagnosis for President Trump and one of his senior aides back-to-back appeared to signal what has become a domino effect of new cases .
Republican leaders in close proximity with the President at a Rose Garden event celebrating the nomination of conservative Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court 11 days ago have since come forward to announce that they had tested positive for coronavirus .
Many White House offices , in addition to the Capitol , have since been emptied as officials , including many Chiefs of Staff quarantine amid possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a hotspot for the virus , a memo entitled “ Precautions and POTUS Interactions ” was circulated to White House staffers this week with instructions on how to properly protect themselves in interactions with the President .
According to the memo from the White House Management Office reviewed by the Times , the Oval Office and the residence where the first family lives , are off-limits unless a staff member is specifically requested to go and expected to be there .
The many layers of protective equipment required in close interactions with Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s reckless urgency to return to the White House amid his infection has put at risk the health of many White House staffers who work within its walls and by extension their families .
Per the memo , if staff members keep a distance of more than six feet away from President Trump only a “ surgical mask ” and hand sanitizer are required , but within six feet , sanitizer and additional PPE provided and required , including , “ Yellow gown , ” “ Surgical mask , ” “ Protective eye @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remains unclear how the President will protect others as he continues to battle his infection .
On Monday , he was criticized for what ’ s been dubbed by critics as a joyride that endangered the health of Secret Service agents when the still sick President got into a car with at least two agents to wave to supporters .

White House officials said on Tuesday that in spite of an image of daily testing, President Donald Trump had not been tested everyday for COVID-19 before he announced his diagnosis with the virus last week, according to The New York Times.
A senior administration official would only confirm to the Times on Tuesday that Trump was tested “regularly.”
The revelation, confirmed to the Times by two people familiar with the protocol, provides new insight into a crumbling image of the White House which has routinely flouted the guidance of health experts on mask-wearing until it was rocked by a positive diagnosis for President Trump and one of his senior aides back-to-back appeared to signal what has become a domino effect of new cases.
Republican leaders in close proximity with the President at a Rose Garden event celebrating the nomination of conservative Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court 11 days ago have since come forward to announce that they had tested positive for coronavirus.
Many White House offices, in addition to the Capitol, have since been emptied as officials, including many Chiefs of Staff quarantine amid possible exposure.
After the White House became a hotspot for the virus, a memo entitled “Precautions and POTUS Interactions” was circulated to White House staffers this week with instructions on how to properly protect themselves in interactions with the President.
According to the memo from the White House Management Office reviewed by the Times, the Oval Office and the residence where the first family lives, are off-limits unless a staff member is specifically requested to go and expected to be there.
The many layers of protective equipment required in close interactions with Trump, shows just how the President’s reckless urgency to return to the White House amid his infection has put at risk the health of many White House staffers who work within its walls and by extension their families.
Per the memo, if staff members keep a distance of more than six feet away from President Trump only a “surgical mask” and hand sanitizer are required, but within six feet, sanitizer and additional PPE provided and required, including, “Yellow gown,” “Surgical mask,” “Protective eye wear” and “Gloves.”
It remains unclear how the President will protect others as he continues to battle his infection. On Monday, he was criticized for what’s been dubbed by critics as a joyride that endangered the health of Secret Service agents when the still sick President got into a car with at least two agents to wave to supporters.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-10-07--Trump Suddenly Walks Back Cancellation Of Stimulus Talks Amid Unrestrained Twitter Spree

President Donald Trump abruptly switched gears on Tuesday night after ending negotiations over a much-needed new COVID-19 relief bill earlier that day .
“ The House & Senate should IMMEDIATELY Approve 25 Billion Dollars for Airline Payroll Support , & 135 Billion Dollars for Paycheck Protection Program for Small Business , ” Trump tweeted .
“ Both of these will be fully paid for with unused funds from the Cares Act .
Have this money .
I will sign now !
” “ If I am sent a Stand Alone Bill for Stimulus Checks ( $ 1,200 ) , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ IMMEDIATELY , ” he tweeted less than a half hour later .
“ I am ready to sign right now .
Are you listening Nancy ?
” The President ’ s demands were a full 180 from his Twitter announcement on Tuesday afternoon in which he stated that he had directed White House aids to cease negotiations on the stimulus bill with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) until after Election Day on November 3 .
“ I have asked Mitch McConnell not to delay , but to instead focus full time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States Supreme Court , Amy Coney Barrett , ” Trump tweeted .
His about-face came in the middle of a head-spinning Twitter spree that saw Trump repost dozens of tweets , sprinkled with a few of his own , about a variety of the typical grievances the President has long held : The FBI Russia probe , negative media coverage , mail-in voting , and so on .

President Donald Trump abruptly switched gears on Tuesday night after ending negotiations over a much-needed new COVID-19 relief bill earlier that day.
“The House & Senate should IMMEDIATELY Approve 25 Billion Dollars for Airline Payroll Support, & 135 Billion Dollars for Paycheck Protection Program for Small Business,” Trump tweeted. “Both of these will be fully paid for with unused funds from the Cares Act. Have this money. I will sign now!”
“If I am sent a Stand Alone Bill for Stimulus Checks ($1,200), they will go out to our great people IMMEDIATELY,” he tweeted less than a half hour later. “I am ready to sign right now. Are you listening Nancy?”
The President’s demands were a full 180 from his Twitter announcement on Tuesday afternoon in which he stated that he had directed White House aids to cease negotiations on the stimulus bill with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) until after Election Day on November 3.
“I have asked Mitch McConnell not to delay, but to instead focus full time on approving my outstanding nominee to the United States Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett,” Trump tweeted.
His about-face came in the middle of a head-spinning Twitter spree that saw Trump repost dozens of tweets, sprinkled with a few of his own, about a variety of the typical grievances the President has long held: The FBI Russia probe, negative media coverage, mail-in voting, and so on.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-10-08--Trump Administration Asks For Emergency SCOTUS Intervention On Census

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to intervene immediately in the census , hours after an appellate court ordered the count extended until the end of the month .
The request comes after a three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a federal judge ’ s ruling that ordered data collection for the census extended until the end of October .
In the new filing , Justice Department attorneys asked the Supreme Court to intervene on an emergency basis , saying that it would be able to complete an accurate census count without any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ embroiled in litigation for months over the 2020 census , which is used to determine House apportionment , state-level redistricting , and federal funding for the coming decade .
On top of all that , the COVID-19 pandemic has thrown a further wrench in the government ’ s ability to ensure an accurate count .
After initially saying that it would need four extra months to complete the count , the Trump administration decided to end it early .
Now , in its petition to the Supreme Court , the Trump administration is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ track to achieve a suitably accurate census count .
”

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Wednesday to intervene immediately in the census, hours after an appellate court ordered the count extended until the end of the month.
The request comes after a three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a federal judge’s ruling that ordered data collection for the census extended until the end of October.
In the new filing, Justice Department attorneys asked the Supreme Court to intervene on an emergency basis, saying that it would be able to complete an accurate census count without any further counting.
The Trump administration been embroiled in litigation for months over the 2020 census, which is used to determine House apportionment, state-level redistricting, and federal funding for the coming decade.
On top of all that, the COVID-19 pandemic has thrown a further wrench in the government’s ability to ensure an accurate count. After initially saying that it would need four extra months to complete the count, the Trump administration decided to end it early.
Now, in its petition to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration is averring that “the Bureau is on track to achieve a suitably accurate census count.”
Read the filing here:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-10-07--‘Completely Inadequate’: Epidemiologists Question Abrupt End To WH Contact Tracing

The White House ’ s sudden announcement on Tuesday that it had completed “ contact tracing ” for its COVID-19 outbreak raises far more questions than it answers .
The process that the White House has alluded to has been shrouded in needless secrecy , with even basic details like how officials are investigating the outbreak not released to the public .
Some people who have been in close contact with President Trump have said that they weren ’ t contacted by White House medical officials , while those same medical officials have remained tight-lipped about what exactly it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Times reported on Wednesday that those exposed were being contacted by email , and that the investigation was focused on establishing who was in close contact with President Trump in the 48 hours before his Thursday positive test .
Deputy White House Press Secretary Brian Morgenstern told reporters on Wednesday that medical professionals from the White House Medical Unit were interviewing people and identifying close contacts of President Trump ’ s from 48 hours before his positive test .
“ And the purpose is to mitigate further transmission of the virus correctly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and identify patients zero , ” Morgenstern said , adding that others who test positive besides President Trump are also having their contacts investigated .
All this leaves crucial questions unanswered — the sort of questions that would typically be answered as part of the contact tracing process .
Among them are how long the virus has been spreading around the top of the government , how it entered and via whom , and how serious the infections of key members of the executive branch — including President Trump — have been .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ falls far short of contact tracing as it is typically understood .
Susan Hassig , an epidemiologist at Tulane University , described the process to TPM as “ completely inadequate.
” She added that had the CDC been asked to get involved , it likely would have “ looked at all of the test results for everyone in the White House in terms of when they last tested negative and tried to build a timeline of what was really the introduction point.
” “ Because right now , we don ’ t know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public health experts have pointed out that what the White House has described as a “ contact tracing ” effort has in fact shed almost no light on what actually happened .
Former Centers for Disease Control Director Dr. Tom Frieden wrote in a Wednesday tweet that “ we still don ’ t know the basics ” around the timeline of President Trump ’ s infection .
Dr. Ashish Jha , Dean of the Brown University School of Public Health , said on Wednesday that he was “ baffled ” about why the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this.
” “ He is the President , a lot of people have been around him , they should just release the information , ” Jha said .
It also remains unclear whether the “ contact tracing ” effort described by the White House has really ended .
White House staff were reportedly informed on Tuesday that medical staff had finished “ all contact tracing ” from the outbreak , while Morgenstern ’ s comments to reporters on Wednesday made it sound like Trump administration officials were ready to continue with the effort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the results could also reveal how infectious Trump himself was at the time of each test , said Hassig , the Tulane epidemiologist .
The more sensitive and specific tests — known as PCR tests — run cycles on the sample material to identify the virus .
“ The more cycles you have to do , the less virus there was , so a low cycle count suggests a highly infectious viral threat , ” Hassig said .
Determining President Trump ’ s viral load could also provide a clue to finding out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the number of events and meetings he had .
But the White House has not released those results .
If the did , they could also help determine who is a superspreader : people with high viral loads that emit large volumes of COVID-19 can infect far more of those around them than other patients .
And this isn ’ t a purely intellectual exercise : it ’ s a matter of health concern not only for the President , but for everyone who has met with him in recent days .
Hassig @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why the White House ’ s “ contact tracing ” appeared to only focus on Trump specifically .
“ The contact tracing is associated with every positive , not just the President — that ’ s the point , ” she said .
“ Once positives are identified the pool of people metastasizes , and the investigation metastasizes as well .
”

The White House’s sudden announcement on Tuesday that it had completed “contact tracing” for its COVID-19 outbreak raises far more questions than it answers.
The process that the White House has alluded to has been shrouded in needless secrecy, with even basic details like how officials are investigating the outbreak not released to the public. Some people who have been in close contact with President Trump have said that they weren’t contacted by White House medical officials, while those same medical officials have remained tight-lipped about what exactly it is that they’re doing.
The Times reported on Wednesday that those exposed were being contacted by email, and that the investigation was focused on establishing who was in close contact with President Trump in the 48 hours before his Thursday positive test.
Deputy White House Press Secretary Brian Morgenstern told reporters on Wednesday that medical professionals from the White House Medical Unit were interviewing people and identifying close contacts of President Trump’s from 48 hours before his positive test.
“And the purpose is to mitigate further transmission of the virus correctly, it’s not to go back and identify patients zero,” Morgenstern said, adding that others who test positive besides President Trump are also having their contacts investigated.
All this leaves crucial questions unanswered — the sort of questions that would typically be answered as part of the contact tracing process. Among them are how long the virus has been spreading around the top of the government, how it entered and via whom, and how serious the infections of key members of the executive branch — including President Trump — have been.
The process described by the White House falls far short of contact tracing as it is typically understood.
Susan Hassig, an epidemiologist at Tulane University, described the process to TPM as “completely inadequate.”
She added that had the CDC been asked to get involved, it likely would have “looked at all of the test results for everyone in the White House in terms of when they last tested negative and tried to build a timeline of what was really the introduction point.”
“Because right now, we don’t know that,” Hassig added.
Prominent public health experts have pointed out that what the White House has described as a “contact tracing” effort has in fact shed almost no light on what actually happened.
Former Centers for Disease Control Director Dr. Tom Frieden wrote in a Wednesday tweet that “we still don’t know the basics” around the timeline of President Trump’s infection.
We still don't know the basics of when the President was last negative, when he was first positive, and who else he may have exposed. This is the kind of investigation the CDC and state and local health departments do every day to help stop outbreaks before they spread. — Dr. Tom Frieden (@DrTomFrieden) October 7, 2020
Dr. Ashish Jha, Dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, said on Wednesday that he was “baffled” about why the White House is “being evasive on this.”
“He is the President, a lot of people have been around him, they should just release the information,” Jha said.
It also remains unclear whether the “contact tracing” effort described by the White House has really ended. White House staff were reportedly informed on Tuesday that medical staff had finished “all contact tracing” from the outbreak, while Morgenstern’s comments to reporters on Wednesday made it sound like Trump administration officials were ready to continue with the effort.
Had Trump been regularly tested, the results could also reveal how infectious Trump himself was at the time of each test, said Hassig, the Tulane epidemiologist. The more sensitive and specific tests — known as PCR tests — run cycles on the sample material to identify the virus.
“The more cycles you have to do, the less virus there was, so a low cycle count suggests a highly infectious viral threat,” Hassig said.
Determining President Trump’s viral load could also provide a clue to finding out when he was infected, narrowing down the number of events and meetings he had. But the White House has not released those results.
If the did, they could also help determine who is a superspreader: people with high viral loads that emit large volumes of COVID-19 can infect far more of those around them than other patients.
And this isn’t a purely intellectual exercise: it’s a matter of health concern not only for the President, but for everyone who has met with him in recent days.
Hassig added that it wasn’t clear why the White House’s “contact tracing” appeared to only focus on Trump specifically.
“The contact tracing is associated with every positive, not just the President — that’s the point,” she said. “Once positives are identified the pool of people metastasizes, and the investigation metastasizes as well.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-10-07--Trump Admin Suffers Another Setback In Census Gambit, But Still Has Options

An appeals court left in place on Wednesday a federal judge ’ s order extending to the end of the month the data collection operations for the 2020 census .
But the appellate decision was nonetheless a partial victory for the Trump administration ’ s efforts to speed up the 2020 count , and leaves the administration plenty of room to continue to monkey around with the process .
The Justice Department has additionally signaled a willingness to go to the Supreme Court if the appeals court did not grant everything the administration was seeking .
The constitutionally mandated decennial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as delays caused by the COVID-19 outbreak have collided with attempts by President Trump to hijack the count for political purposes .
Wednesday ’ s order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit came in a legal challenge to the Trump administration ’ s efforts to speed up the counting timeline after previously claiming that , because of the pandemic , the Census Bureau needed four extra months to finish the survey .
The appeals court denied the administration ’ s request to reinstate its plans , under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this week .
However , the appeals court has put on hold the district court ’ s order blocking the Dec. 31 deadline the Census Bureau is facing to produce the 2020 count ’ s apportionment data , which determines how many House seats each state gets .
The 9th Circuit opinion warned that if the “ Bureau meets the December 31 date by using procedures that violate ” administrative law or the.Constitution ’ s mandate for accuracy , then it could be forced to re-do the processing steps that come after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court also speculated that the bureau might still get the extra time it needs to finish the final phases of the count .
However , the appeals court expressed wariness towards ordering that the Bureau ignore a deadline set by Congress , as the district court had ordered in the case .
“ Serious separation of powers concerns arise when a court seeks to override a congressional directive to an Executive Branch agency , ” the 9th Circuit said .
The Justice Department claims that the the Trump administration is now seeking to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has failed to postpone the statutory deadlines for producing its major data products .
Those statutory deadlines include the Dec. 31 date for apportionment data .
However , the administration ’ s opponents — as well as officials within the Census Bureau — believe that Trump has backed away from efforts to give the count more time for more partisan reasons .
The slower counting timeline puts at risk the President ’ s ability to implement an anti-immigrant apportionment policy he announced in July .
Under the plan the Census Bureau unveiled last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data collection — which includes both census self-response and work in the field to count those who don ’ t respond on their own — was to last through Oct. 31 .
The bureau would then have five months to process and review that data for the apportionment count ( which has how much that phase typically takes ) before delivering the apportionment numbers at the end of March , assuming that Congress granted that extension .
But the expedited plan , which was put together and announced in the days after Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data collection on Sept. 30 , while chopping nearly in half the processing phase , so that the Dec. 31 deadline could be met .
Trump ’ s new apportionment policy , which faces several legal challenges of its own , seeks to exclude undocumented immigrants from apportionment count .
Giving the Census Bureau until March 31 to produce that data — as it requested because at the beginning of the pandemic — would mean that Trump , if he lost his re-election , would no longer be in office to implement the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and local government that are challenging the more recent expedited plan allege it poses serious risks to the count ’ s accuracy — an assessment that the bureau ’ s own experts made when presenting the plan to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in August .
Last month , U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh blocked both the Sept. 30 data collection cut-off and the Dec. 31 deadline for the apportionment data .
She later found that the administration was in violation of that order when it tried to cut off counting on Oct. 5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Dec. 31 production of data .
The 9th Circuit upheld her order to continue counting through Oct. 31 .
But , in granting Trump a partial victory , it gave the administration room to find other ways to meet the Dec. 31 deadline .
The administration also has the option of seeking the Supreme Court ’ s intervention , as Justice Department had previously signaled it was willing to do if the appeals court forced it to continue data collection through the end of the month .

An appeals court left in place on Wednesday a federal judge’s order extending to the end of the month the data collection operations for the 2020 census. But the appellate decision was nonetheless a partial victory for the Trump administration’s efforts to speed up the 2020 count, and leaves the administration plenty of room to continue to monkey around with the process.
The Justice Department has additionally signaled a willingness to go to the Supreme Court if the appeals court did not grant everything the administration was seeking.
The constitutionally mandated decennial census has been rocked by unprecedented chaos, as delays caused by the COVID-19 outbreak have collided with attempts by President Trump to hijack the count for political purposes.
Wednesday’s order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit came in a legal challenge to the Trump administration’s efforts to speed up the counting timeline after previously claiming that, because of the pandemic, the Census Bureau needed four extra months to finish the survey.
The appeals court denied the administration’s request to reinstate its plans, under the expedited timeline, to end data collection this week. However, the appeals court has put on hold the district court’s order blocking the Dec. 31 deadline the Census Bureau is facing to produce the 2020 count’s apportionment data, which determines how many House seats each state gets.
The 9th Circuit opinion warned that if the “Bureau meets the December 31 date by using procedures that violate” administrative law or the.Constitution’s mandate for accuracy, then it could be forced to re-do the processing steps that come after the end of data collection. The appeals court also speculated that the bureau might still get the extra time it needs to finish the final phases of the count.
However, the appeals court expressed wariness towards ordering that the Bureau ignore a deadline set by Congress, as the district court had ordered in the case.
“Serious separation of powers concerns arise when a court seeks to override a congressional directive to an Executive Branch agency,” the 9th Circuit said.
The Justice Department claims that the the Trump administration is now seeking to implement the truncated counting timeline because Congress has failed to postpone the statutory deadlines for producing its major data products. Those statutory deadlines include the Dec. 31 date for apportionment data.
However, the administration’s opponents — as well as officials within the Census Bureau — believe that Trump has backed away from efforts to give the count more time for more partisan reasons. The slower counting timeline puts at risk the President’s ability to implement an anti-immigrant apportionment policy he announced in July.
Under the plan the Census Bureau unveiled last spring as the pandemic took hold, data collection — which includes both census self-response and work in the field to count those who don’t respond on their own — was to last through Oct. 31. The bureau would then have five months to process and review that data for the apportionment count (which has how much that phase typically takes) before delivering the apportionment numbers at the end of March, assuming that Congress granted that extension.
But the expedited plan, which was put together and announced in the days after Trump announced the new apportionment policy, ended data collection on Sept. 30, while chopping nearly in half the processing phase, so that the Dec. 31 deadline could be met.
Trump’s new apportionment policy, which faces several legal challenges of its own, seeks to exclude undocumented immigrants from apportionment count.
Giving the Census Bureau until March 31 to produce that data — as it requested because at the beginning of the pandemic — would mean that Trump, if he lost his re-election, would no longer be in office to implement the apportionment policy.
The civil rights groups and local government that are challenging the more recent expedited plan allege it poses serious risks to the count’s accuracy — an assessment that the bureau’s own experts made when presenting the plan to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in August.
Last month, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh blocked both the Sept. 30 data collection cut-off and the Dec. 31 deadline for the apportionment data. She later found that the administration was in violation of that order when it tried to cut off counting on Oct. 5 in order to stay on track for the Dec. 31 production of data.
The 9th Circuit upheld her order to continue counting through Oct. 31. But, in granting Trump a partial victory, it gave the administration room to find other ways to meet the Dec. 31 deadline.
The administration also has the option of seeking the Supreme Court’s intervention, as Justice Department had previously signaled it was willing to do if the appeals court forced it to continue data collection through the end of the month.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-10-07--Typhoid Trump Is At The Center Of An Ever-Expanding COVID Web (INFOGRAPHIC)

Ever since President Donald Trump announced his positive COVID-19 diagnosis , members of his White House and campaign orbit have @ @ @ @ @ flies .
The spread has been supercharged by the administration ’ s highly questionable commitment @ @ @ @ @ opposition to best practices like mask-wearing and quarantining .
Here ’ s the circle of @ @ @ @

Ever since President Donald Trump announced his positive COVID-19 diagnosis, members of his White House and campaign orbit have been dropping into self-quarantine like flies.
The spread has been supercharged by the administration’s highly questionable commitment to contact tracing and general opposition to best practices like mask-wearing and quarantining.
Here’s the circle of infection so far:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-10-07--A Journey Into The Perilous Wilderness Of Trump’s Post-Hospital Tweeting

Since President Donald Trump left Walter Reed Medical Center Monday , cyberspace has run thick with his tweets , many of them indecipherable and contradictory — even by his standards .
As if trying to compensate for his few hours of social media silence Friday after he announced his positive COVID-19 diagnosis , Trump has tweeted or retweeted about 120 times since his return home , by this beleaguered reporter ’ s count .
Twitter removed one of those for violating the site ’ s rules , and flagged another about voter fraud with a link encouraging readers to learn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tweets is to take a journey through Trump ’ s mind , to ascertain where he is emotionally days after a politically devastating and physically trying diagnosis and treatment , and with just 27 days left in the campaign .
When Trump settled back into the White House a bit after 7 p.m. Monday evening ( just after timing his departure and bizarre balcony performance to fit into a cable news primetime slot ) , he apparently got down to some reading .
Namely , a very flattering article in the New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s diagnosis based on the enthusiasm of the MAGA fans gathered outside the hospital .
He seemed to especially like the prediction that he ’ ll be an “ invincible hero ” if he bounces back from his illness .
Riding high , he next sent out a Michael Bay-esque video of Marine One dropping him back at the White House .
No words , evidentially , were needed .
By the next morning , his sense of triumph had given way to a reversion to the President ’ s default setting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lie about former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s stance on late-term abortion , saying that Biden was more liberal than Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-MA ) “ at her highest ” ( ? )
.
It was a high-level tactical adjustment from the last debate , during which the President donned his pundit hat to declare that Biden “ just lost the left !
” whenever he staked out a moderate position .
Then , his mind clearly on his rival , Trump tweeted letting us know that he ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forward to the next presidential debate ( which will also be “ great ” ) next week .
Hopefully for the Biden campaign , he is planning to bring his own plexiglass .
He then pivoted to his true nemesis in this election : Mike Bloomberg .
Nicknaming him “ mini ” and Biden “ sleepy ” in a Snow White turn , he deployed his famous quotation marks that have broken all the bounds of grammatical convention to assert that Bloomberg is going “ crazy ” ( quotation marks his ) trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liberal left .
As a President is wont to do , he then essentially turned his feed over to Fox News , tweeting out a series of clips from the morning programming .
Some real news must have accidentally crossed his path though , as he was soon back to bashing the “ fake news media ” for having the gall to discuss the pandemic that has cost over 200,000 American lives and infected the President .
“ All they want to discuss is COVID 19 , where they won ’ t say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all day long , also !
!
!
” he proclaimed .
It ’ s unclear what metric he was using to assess his purported win as he tweeted from his convalescence .
He then unveiled a particularly complex 3D chess move , publicly walking away from the lifeless COVID-19 relief negotiations and gift wrapping to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) a way for her to shift the blame solely to the President and leave vulnerable congressional Republicans floundering all in one fell tweet .
In case there was any doubt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he made sure to add that he ’ ll play ball on a stimulus bill again just as soon as he wins the election .
The random caps-lock usage was a clever slight of hand to make sure Americans forget that he is the President currently , and still unable to deliver any stimulus .
“ I have instructed my representatives to stop negotiating until after the election when , immediately after I win , we will pass a major Stimulus Bill that focuses on hardworking Americans and Small Business , ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Market is at record levels , JOBS and unemployment also coming back at record numbers.
” In perhaps his most baffling retweet of all , he then amplified a CNBC headline about Fed Chair Jerome Powell begging Congress for financial assistance and saying that there is little chance they could greenlight too much money for the limping economy .
Four hours after his decision to kill any chance of economic stimulus , Trump was surprisingly receptive to Powell ’ s argument : “ true !
” he blithely tweeted .
Completing the head-spinning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ natural posture of blaming Pelosi and Democrats for the failure to pass economic stimulus .
They , unlike him , were just playing “ games , ” after all .
As the night got later , Trump gave his fingers a break to retweet a series of BREAKING bulletins from conservative author and conspiracy theorist Paul Sperry that seem to be related to the idea that the Trump-Russia investigation was a politically-driven travesty .
Trump retweeted Sperry 22 times , sometimes chiming in with a “ hoax !
” or a “ scam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t always agree with his Twitter buddy though , countering that Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett ’ s nomination will be “ fast and easy , ” not the “ bloody ” battle Sperry predicted .
Trump , perhaps sick of Sperry , found a new ally in the form of Fox News commentator Gregg Jarrett who has penned a book called “ The Russia Hoax , ” called by one reviewer a “ Trump hagiography.
” Trump retweeted a bunch of articles from thegreggjarrett.com about the Russia investigation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He infused his retweets with exclamation marks and a heaping dose of self-pity .
He then decided he wanted to do economic stimulus after all , promising he would sign standalone bills for airline aid and the Paycheck Protection Program “ now ” and send out stimulus checks .
Perhaps he glimpsed some TV punditry and gleaned that deciding to publicly give up on granting people economic help less than a month before the election was not quite the masterstroke he thought .
“ The House & Senate should IMMEDIATELY Approve 25 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ & 135 Billion Dollars for Paycheck Protection Program for Small Business , ” he said .
“ Both of these will be fully paid for with unused funds from the Cares Act .
Have this money .
I will sign now !
” He seemed rejuvenated this morning .
Gaining steam from retweeting a bunch of flattering posts , Trump made an audacious prediction : that he can win California !
Hey , he ’ s only down 30 points .
In a quick pivot , he retweeted his old call to “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the repeal of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act would almost certainly cut down on his ability to tweet , since it would make social media companies liable for user-generated content , and force them to moderate posts to remove anything potentially libelous .
Maybe it ’ s a call for help .
Maybe he actually enjoyed Twitter taking down his posts and is clamoring for more .
Reminding Pelosi that he is “ Waiting To Sign , ” he reupped his new call for economic stimulus , before amplifying a bunch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vindication for some inscrutable “ gotcha ” of Hillary Clinton .
It was a masterclass in message discipline that is sure to lure Pelosi back to the negotiating table .
He gave a nice shoutout to one of his most passionate fans , retweeting with a polite “ Thank you Heather !
” a woman who proclaimed that she would swim through COVID-19-infested waters to vote for him .
He again reminded voters to focus on the true battleground state of the 2020 election : “ VOTE TRUMP CALIFORNIA !
” He then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ messages from his campaign with suspiciously conventional grammar and capitalization , all which focused on content other than the COVID-19 pandemic .
And finally , he finished much where he began — an all-caps retweet of a video from an account that promises it ’ s not a bot heralding the “ BIGGEST OF ALL POLITICAL SCANDALS ( IN HISTORY ) !
!
!
” over a picture , confusingly , of former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein .
Biden , Trump exclaimed in his retweet , “ SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO @ @ @

Since President Donald Trump left Walter Reed Medical Center Monday, cyberspace has run thick with his tweets, many of them indecipherable and contradictory — even by his standards.
As if trying to compensate for his few hours of social media silence Friday after he announced his positive COVID-19 diagnosis, Trump has tweeted or retweeted about 120 times since his return home, by this beleaguered reporter’s count. Twitter removed one of those for violating the site’s rules, and flagged another about voter fraud with a link encouraging readers to learn about mail-in voting.
To track these tweets is to take a journey through Trump’s mind, to ascertain where he is emotionally days after a politically devastating and physically trying diagnosis and treatment, and with just 27 days left in the campaign.
Monday, October 5
When Trump settled back into the White House a bit after 7 p.m. Monday evening (just after timing his departure and bizarre balcony performance to fit into a cable news primetime slot), he apparently got down to some reading. Namely, a very flattering article in the New York Post about the political upside of Trump’s diagnosis based on the enthusiasm of the MAGA fans gathered outside the hospital. He seemed to especially like the prediction that he’ll be an “invincible hero” if he bounces back from his illness.
Riding high, he next sent out a Michael Bay-esque video of Marine One dropping him back at the White House. No words, evidentially, were needed.
Tuesday, October 6
By the next morning, his sense of triumph had given way to a reversion to the President’s default setting: fact-optional belligerence. He tweeted out a lie about former Vice President Joe Biden’s stance on late-term abortion, saying that Biden was more liberal than Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) “at her highest” (?). It was a high-level tactical adjustment from the last debate, during which the President donned his pundit hat to declare that Biden “just lost the left!” whenever he staked out a moderate position.
Then, his mind clearly on his rival, Trump tweeted letting us know that he’s “FEELING GREAT” and is looking forward to the next presidential debate (which will also be “great”) next week. Hopefully for the Biden campaign, he is planning to bring his own plexiglass.
He then pivoted to his true nemesis in this election: Mike Bloomberg. Nicknaming him “mini” and Biden “sleepy” in a Snow White turn, he deployed his famous quotation marks that have broken all the bounds of grammatical convention to assert that Bloomberg is going “crazy” (quotation marks his) trying to win back the love of the liberal left.
As a President is wont to do, he then essentially turned his feed over to Fox News, tweeting out a series of clips from the morning programming. Some real news must have accidentally crossed his path though, as he was soon back to bashing the “fake news media” for having the gall to discuss the pandemic that has cost over 200,000 American lives and infected the President.
“All they want to discuss is COVID 19, where they won’t say it, but we beat the Dems all day long, also!!!” he proclaimed. It’s unclear what metric he was using to assess his purported win as he tweeted from his convalescence.
He then unveiled a particularly complex 3D chess move, publicly walking away from the lifeless COVID-19 relief negotiations and gift wrapping to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) a way for her to shift the blame solely to the President and leave vulnerable congressional Republicans floundering all in one fell tweet. In case there was any doubt that his motives were completely selfish, he made sure to add that he’ll play ball on a stimulus bill again just as soon as he wins the election. The random caps-lock usage was a clever slight of hand to make sure Americans forget that he is the President currently, and still unable to deliver any stimulus.
“I have instructed my representatives to stop negotiating until after the election when, immediately after I win, we will pass a major Stimulus Bill that focuses on hardworking Americans and Small Business,” he said, adding that “The Stock Market is at record levels, JOBS and unemployment also coming back at record numbers.”
In perhaps his most baffling retweet of all, he then amplified a CNBC headline about Fed Chair Jerome Powell begging Congress for financial assistance and saying that there is little chance they could greenlight too much money for the limping economy. Four hours after his decision to kill any chance of economic stimulus, Trump was surprisingly receptive to Powell’s argument: “true!” he blithely tweeted.
Completing the head-spinning reversal, he then returned to his natural posture of blaming Pelosi and Democrats for the failure to pass economic stimulus. They, unlike him, were just playing “games,” after all.
As the night got later, Trump gave his fingers a break to retweet a series of BREAKING bulletins from conservative author and conspiracy theorist Paul Sperry that seem to be related to the idea that the Trump-Russia investigation was a politically-driven travesty. Trump retweeted Sperry 22 times, sometimes chiming in with a “hoax!” or a “scam!” of his own. He didn’t always agree with his Twitter buddy though, countering that Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination will be “fast and easy,” not the “bloody” battle Sperry predicted.
Trump, perhaps sick of Sperry, found a new ally in the form of Fox News commentator Gregg Jarrett who has penned a book called “The Russia Hoax,” called by one reviewer a “Trump hagiography.” Trump retweeted a bunch of articles from thegreggjarrett.com about the Russia investigation, Hillary Clinton and claims of voter fraud. He infused his retweets with exclamation marks and a heaping dose of self-pity.
He then decided he wanted to do economic stimulus after all, promising he would sign standalone bills for airline aid and the Paycheck Protection Program “now” and send out stimulus checks. Perhaps he glimpsed some TV punditry and gleaned that deciding to publicly give up on granting people economic help less than a month before the election was not quite the masterstroke he thought.
“The House & Senate should IMMEDIATELY Approve 25 Billion Dollars for Airline Payroll Support, & 135 Billion Dollars for Paycheck Protection Program for Small Business,” he said. “Both of these will be fully paid for with unused funds from the Cares Act. Have this money. I will sign now!”
Wednesday, October 7
He seemed rejuvenated this morning. Gaining steam from retweeting a bunch of flattering posts, Trump made an audacious prediction: that he can win California! Hey, he’s only down 30 points.
In a quick pivot, he retweeted his old call to “REPEAL SECTION 230!” Ironically, the repeal of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act would almost certainly cut down on his ability to tweet, since it would make social media companies liable for user-generated content, and force them to moderate posts to remove anything potentially libelous. Maybe it’s a call for help. Maybe he actually enjoyed Twitter taking down his posts and is clamoring for more.
Reminding Pelosi that he is “Waiting To Sign,” he reupped his new call for economic stimulus, before amplifying a bunch of tweets about #Obamagate and claiming vindication for some inscrutable “gotcha” of Hillary Clinton. It was a masterclass in message discipline that is sure to lure Pelosi back to the negotiating table.
He gave a nice shoutout to one of his most passionate fans, retweeting with a polite “Thank you Heather!” a woman who proclaimed that she would swim through COVID-19-infested waters to vote for him.
He again reminded voters to focus on the true battleground state of the 2020 election: “VOTE TRUMP CALIFORNIA!”
He then churned out a series of retweets of messages from his campaign with suspiciously conventional grammar and capitalization, all which focused on content other than the COVID-19 pandemic.
And finally, he finished much where he began — an all-caps retweet of a video from an account that promises it’s not a bot heralding the “BIGGEST OF ALL POLITICAL SCANDALS (IN HISTORY)!!!” over a picture, confusingly, of former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
Biden, Trump exclaimed in his retweet, “SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO RUN.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-10-07--DOJ Admits To Post-It Flub That Has Helped Trump Allies Skew Russia Probe Timeline

The Justice Department told the judge presiding over Michael Flynn ’ s case Wednesday that it “ inadvertently ” forgot to remove post-its it had attached to documents it produced to Flynn as part of the Bill Barr-ordered review of Flynn ’ s prosecution .
The post-its , when left on the documents while they were scanned for their production , looked like alterations to the documents themselves .
The documents were 2017 notes taken by top FBI officials who were leading the Russia probe .
The FBI notes had been produced to Flynn as part of the review of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s directive , by U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen .
The DOJ has claimed that information Jensen has turned up in the review has promoted doubts about the case , which have led the Department to seek its dismissal .
Flynn ’ s attorneys , meanwhile , filed the 2017 FBI notes in court to further their claims that Flynn was railroaded by a Deep State coup against President Trump .
The Justice Department ’ s admission on Wednesday adds to the picture of how Trump ’ s allies have been able to skew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amp up claims that former Vice President Joe Biden — Trump ’ s presidential opponent — was deeply involved in the FBI ’ s supposed anti-Trump plot .
One of the FBI officials whose notes have been touted by Flynn , former counterintelligence chief Peter Strzok , flagged for Flynn ’ s judge the seeming alterations last week , on the eve of the hearing the judge held on the DOJ ’ s request to dismiss the case .
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said he he was unsettled by the alteration allegations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department to explain them , leading to the explanation it produced Wednesday .
According to Wednesday ’ s DOJ response , the post-its reflected what the Jensen team “ estimated ” were the dates that the 2017 notes were taken .
The post-its suggested that Strzok ’ s 2017 notes were from either January 4 or January 5 of that year .
As the legal commentator Marcy Wheeler has pointed out on her website , other documents released from the investigation pointed clearly to the notes being contemporaneous to a White House meeting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Wheeler has also pointed out that versions of the notes without the added dates were previously filed in the case . )
Strzok ’ s lawyer , in his notice to the court last week , pointed out this discrepancy as well .
“ On at least one occasion , the date added to the notes is wrong and could be read to suggest that a meeting at the White House happened before it did , ” Strzok ’ s lawyer wrote to the court .
Yet , since the effort to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both the DOJ and Flynn ’ s team have injected some ambiguity into this timeline .
In a June 23 letter to Flynn ’ s team , the Department said the meeting referenced in Strzok ’ s notes could have taken place on Jan. 3 , 4 or 5 .
In a filing the same day , Flynn ’ s lawyers focused on Jan. 4 .
“ Strzok ’ s notes believed to be of January 4 , 2017 , reveal that former President Obama , James Comey , Sally Yates , Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the transcripts of Flynn ’ s calls and how to proceed against him , ” Flynn ’ s lawyers said .
The Flynn filing emphasized the Biden connection , pointing to indications in Strzok ’ s notes that appeared to show “ that Vice President Biden personally raised the idea of the Logan Act.
” The Logan Act criminalizes private citizens negotiating with foreign governments on behalf of the U.S .
In September , Flynn ’ s team filed the version of the notes with the Jan. 4-to-Jan. 5 post-it attached .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media playing up the role Biden supposedly played in the Russia probe , which right-wing commentators have sought to cast as a politically motived attempt by the Obama administration to undermine the incoming President .
Trump himself repeated a version of the allegations at last week ’ s debate , by claiming that Biden gave “ the idea for the Logan Act against General Flynn.
” However , as Politico noted , other documents released in the case have shown that the Logan Act was being discussed among FBI officials before the Jan. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden was somehow the genesis of the idea .
The post-it appended to the Jan. 5 notes was not the only post-it that “ inadvertently ’ got scanned into the versions of the documents produced for Flynn .
Another set of Strzok notes were scanned and produced to the Flynn team with the Jensen team ’ s post-its , as were a set of notes from former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe .
The post-it on McCabe ’ s notes suggested they were from May 10 .
Flynn ’ s team has used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ content of the notes , to allege that McCabe was “ trying very hard to pin something on General Flynn ” while supposedly briefing the Senate Intelligence Committee .
But as McCabe ’ s lawyers pointed out in their own notice to the court last week , there was no such McCabe Senate Intel briefing on that day .
“ That was the day after President Trump had fired FBI Director Comey and Mr. McCabe was consumed with various other responsibilities , ” the letter to the court said .
“ Mr .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Select Committee on Intelligence hearing and closed briefing on worldwide threats , along with other intelligence community officials , on May 11 .
Neither the public hearing nor the secret briefing had anything to do with Mr. Flynn .
”

The Justice Department told the judge presiding over Michael Flynn’s case Wednesday that it “inadvertently” forgot to remove post-its it had attached to documents it produced to Flynn as part of the Bill Barr-ordered review of Flynn’s prosecution.
The post-its, when left on the documents while they were scanned for their production, looked like alterations to the documents themselves. The documents were 2017 notes taken by top FBI officials who were leading the Russia probe.
The FBI notes had been produced to Flynn as part of the review of his case led, on Barr’s directive, by U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen. The DOJ has claimed that information Jensen has turned up in the review has promoted doubts about the case, which have led the Department to seek its dismissal. Flynn’s attorneys, meanwhile, filed the 2017 FBI notes in court to further their claims that Flynn was railroaded by a Deep State coup against President Trump.
The Justice Department’s admission on Wednesday adds to the picture of how Trump’s allies have been able to skew the timeline around the Russia probe to amp up claims that former Vice President Joe Biden — Trump’s presidential opponent — was deeply involved in the FBI’s supposed anti-Trump plot.
One of the FBI officials whose notes have been touted by Flynn, former counterintelligence chief Peter Strzok, flagged for Flynn’s judge the seeming alterations last week, on the eve of the hearing the judge held on the DOJ’s request to dismiss the case.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said he he was unsettled by the alteration allegations at the hearing and ordered the Justice Department to explain them, leading to the explanation it produced Wednesday.
According to Wednesday’s DOJ response, the post-its reflected what the Jensen team “estimated” were the dates that the 2017 notes were taken.
The post-its suggested that Strzok’s 2017 notes were from either January 4 or January 5 of that year. As the legal commentator Marcy Wheeler has pointed out on her website, other documents released from the investigation pointed clearly to the notes being contemporaneous to a White House meeting that took place on January 5. (Wheeler has also pointed out that versions of the notes without the added dates were previously filed in the case.)
Strzok’s lawyer, in his notice to the court last week, pointed out this discrepancy as well.
“On at least one occasion, the date added to the notes is wrong and could be read to suggest that a meeting at the White House happened before it did,” Strzok’s lawyer wrote to the court.
Yet, since the effort to get the case dropped took off, both the DOJ and Flynn’s team have injected some ambiguity into this timeline. In a June 23 letter to Flynn’s team, the Department said the meeting referenced in Strzok’s notes could have taken place on Jan. 3, 4 or 5. In a filing the same day, Flynn’s lawyers focused on Jan. 4.
“Strzok’s notes believed to be of January 4, 2017, reveal that former President Obama, James Comey, Sally Yates, Joe Biden, and apparently Susan Rice discussed the transcripts of Flynn’s calls and how to proceed against him,” Flynn’s lawyers said.
The Flynn filing emphasized the Biden connection, pointing to indications in Strzok’s notes that appeared to show “that Vice President Biden personally raised the idea of the Logan Act.” The Logan Act criminalizes private citizens negotiating with foreign governments on behalf of the U.S.
In September, Flynn’s team filed the version of the notes with the Jan. 4-to-Jan. 5 post-it attached.
The Flynn filings have prompted headlines in Trump-aligned media playing up the role Biden supposedly played in the Russia probe, which right-wing commentators have sought to cast as a politically motived attempt by the Obama administration to undermine the incoming President. Trump himself repeated a version of the allegations at last week’s debate, by claiming that Biden gave “the idea for the Logan Act against General Flynn.”
However, as Politico noted, other documents released in the case have shown that the Logan Act was being discussed among FBI officials before the Jan. 5 meeting, undercutting the suggestion that Biden was somehow the genesis of the idea.
The post-it appended to the Jan. 5 notes was not the only post-it that “inadvertently’ got scanned into the versions of the documents produced for Flynn. Another set of Strzok notes were scanned and produced to the Flynn team with the Jensen team’s post-its, as were a set of notes from former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
The post-it on McCabe’s notes suggested they were from May 10. Flynn’s team has used that date, in conjunction with the content of the notes, to allege that McCabe was “trying very hard to pin something on General Flynn” while supposedly briefing the Senate Intelligence Committee.
But as McCabe’s lawyers pointed out in their own notice to the court last week, there was no such McCabe Senate Intel briefing on that day.
“That was the day after President Trump had fired FBI Director Comey and Mr. McCabe was consumed with various other responsibilities,” the letter to the court said. “Mr. McCabe did participate in a public Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing and closed briefing on worldwide threats, along with other intelligence community officials, on May 11. Neither the public hearing nor the secret briefing had anything to do with Mr. Flynn.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-10-07--Claiming A Grand Obama Conspiracy, Flynn Asks Judge To Recuse Himself From Case

Michael Flynn is asking that the federal judge in his case recuse himself from further proceedings , after a fiery hearing last week in which the former national security adviser ’ s attorney said that the case against him was actually part of a “ coup ” attempt against President Trump .
“ The court ’ s contempt and disdain for the defense was palpable throughout the hearing on September 29 , 2020 , including when defense counsel made an oral motion for his immediate disqualification , which he refused to allow even to be fully stated for the record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attorney for Flynn .
Powell accused District Judge Emmett Sullivan for the District of Columbia in the filing of “ actively litigating against [ Flynn ] , ” saying that Sullivan ’ s presence in the case was a “ national scandal undermining confidence in the impartiality of the federal judicial system and faith in the rule of law writ large.
” The Justice Department made the unprecedented decision in May to move to drop charges against Flynn , repudiating its own theory of the case and siding with right-wing conspiracy theories alleging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ late Obama administration plot to sabotage President Trump .
Since then , Sullivan appointed former federal judge John Gleeson as an amicus to argue against the government ’ s motion in court .
After the case spent the summer on appeal , Sullivan was allowed to continue with the proceedings , resulting in a hearing last week .
Powell said at the hearing that she would file a motion for Sullivan to recuse , which he is unlikely to grant .
But in the Wednesday filing , she went further , implying that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and saying that “ it goes all the way to the Obama oval office.
” Powell cited the judge ’ s role in the case of Sen. Ted Stevens ( R-AK ) , where Sullivan examined prosecutorial misconduct in the matter that led to the DOJ withdrawing its charges .
“ There are only two material differences between the government misconduct here and that in the Stevens case .
The first is that the government misconduct against General Flynn is far worse—and it goes all the way to the Obama oval office , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the name of the Attorney General .
As the court noted on the record last week , ‘ Eric ’ moved to dismiss the wrongful Stevens case—with prejudice—and the court granted it immediately on a two-page motion.
” Powell went on in the filing to cite Sullivan ’ s “ antipathy for defense counsel Sidney Powell.
” She also said that it was “ improper for the court to seek to draw public attention to ” a letter that Powell sent to Attorney General Bill Barr last year asking him to toss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The bias of the court and accompanying assumptions are so thoroughly accepted on ‘ the Left ’ that the bias does not even register to them , ” Powell added .
“ Yet it is just that—a bias with no basis in anything but prejudice against another political party or persons.
” She went on to conclude that Sullivan ’ s bias was “ terrifying ” and constituted “ his own prosecution of General Flynn .
”

Michael Flynn is asking that the federal judge in his case recuse himself from further proceedings, after a fiery hearing last week in which the former national security adviser’s attorney said that the case against him was actually part of a “coup” attempt against President Trump.
“The court’s contempt and disdain for the defense was palpable throughout the hearing on September 29, 2020, including when defense counsel made an oral motion for his immediate disqualification, which he refused to allow even to be fully stated for the record,” argued Sidney Powell, an attorney for Flynn.
Powell accused District Judge Emmett Sullivan for the District of Columbia in the filing of “actively litigating against [Flynn],” saying that Sullivan’s presence in the case was a “national scandal undermining confidence in the impartiality of the
federal judicial system and faith in the rule of law writ large.”
The Justice Department made the unprecedented decision in May to move to drop charges against Flynn, repudiating its own theory of the case and siding with right-wing conspiracy theories alleging that Flynn is the victim of a late Obama administration plot to sabotage President Trump.
Since then, Sullivan appointed former federal judge John Gleeson as an amicus to argue against the government’s motion in court. After the case spent the summer on appeal, Sullivan was allowed to continue with the proceedings, resulting in a hearing last week.
Powell said at the hearing that she would file a motion for Sullivan to recuse, which he is unlikely to grant.
But in the Wednesday filing, she went further, implying that Sullivan himself was part of the conspiracy and saying that “it goes all the way to the Obama oval office.”
Powell cited the judge’s role in the case of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), where Sullivan examined prosecutorial misconduct in the matter that led to the DOJ withdrawing its charges.
“There are only two material differences between the government misconduct here and that in the Stevens case. The first is that the government misconduct against General Flynn is far worse—and it goes all the way to the Obama oval office,” Powell wrote. “The second is the name of the Attorney General. As the court noted on the record last week, ‘Eric’ moved to dismiss the wrongful Stevens case—with prejudice—and the court granted it immediately on a two-page motion.”
Powell went on in the filing to cite Sullivan’s “antipathy for defense counsel Sidney Powell.” She also said that it was “improper for the court to seek to draw public attention to” a letter that Powell sent to Attorney General Bill Barr last year asking him to toss out Flynn’s case.
“The bias of the court and accompanying assumptions are so thoroughly
accepted on ‘the Left’ that the bias does not even register to them,” Powell added. “Yet it is just that—a bias with no basis in anything but prejudice against another political party or persons.”
She went on to conclude that Sullivan’s bias was “terrifying” and constituted “his own prosecution of General Flynn.”
Read the filing here:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-10-07--DOJ Frees Federal Prosecutors To Take Steps That Could Interfere With Elections, Weakening Long-Stan

DOJ Frees Federal Prosecutors To Take Steps That Could Interfere With Elections, Weakening Long-Standing Policy

This article was first published in ProPublica , a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom .
Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox .
The Department of Justice has weakened its long-standing prohibition against interfering in elections , according to two department officials .
Avoiding election interference is the overarching principle of DOJ policy on voting-related crimes .
In place since at least 1980 , the policy generally bars prosecutors not only from making any announcement about ongoing investigations close to an election but also from taking public steps — such as an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote is finalized because the publicity could tip the balance of a race .
But according to an email sent Friday by an official in the Public Integrity Section in Washington , now if a U.S. attorney ’ s office suspects election fraud that involves postal workers or military employees , federal investigators will be allowed to take public investigative steps before the polls close , even if those actions risk affecting the outcome of the election .
The email announced “ an exception to the general non-interference with elections policy.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ applied to instances in which “ the integrity of any component of the federal government is implicated by election offenses within the scope of the policy including but not limited to misconduct by federal officials or employees administering an aspect of the voting process through the United States Postal Service , the Department of Defense or any other federal department or agency.
” Specifically citing postal workers and military employees is noteworthy , former DOJ officials said .
But the exception is written so broadly that it could cover other types of investigations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups have been falsely singled out , in different ways , by President Donald Trump and his campaign for being involved in voter fraud .
Trump has repeatedly attempted to delegitimize ballots sent through the postal service , just as the country experiences increased voting by mail spurred by the coronavirus pandemic .
He has also raised the specter that the ballots of military members , among whom he enjoys broad support , might be suppressed .
The DOJ and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment .
Experts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerned it could be exploited to help the DOJ bolster Trump ’ s campaign .
“ It ’ s unusual that they ’ re carving out this exception , ” said Vanita Gupta , the former head of the DOJ Civil Rights Division under President Barack Obama .
“ It may be creating a predicate for the Justice Department to make inflated announcements about mail-in vote fraud and the like in the run-up to the election.
” In a break from long-standing practice last month , a U.S. attorney in Pennsylvania publicly announced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elections officials illegally discarded nine mail-in military ballots .
Attorney General William Barr personally briefed Trump on the case before it was publicly announced , The Washington Post reported .
Trump later cited it as an example to support his claims of widespread mail-in voter fraud , a false assertion Barr has has helped amplify .
It ’ s not clear where the federal probe stands , but Pennsylvania ’ s top elections official said early indications point to an error , not fraud .
The new policy carveout , Gupta said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ widely criticized Pennsylvania announcement and open the door for more such moves in the coming weeks .
Justin Levitt , a former deputy assistant attorney general in the DOJ ’ s civil rights division , also expressed concern that the department could be encouraging prosecutors to make more public announcements about incomplete investigations , as they did in the Pennsylvania case .
“ It alarms me that the DOJ would want to authorize more of the same in and around the election , ” he said .
“ It ’ s incredibly painful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what we ’ ve seen recently , Americans shouldn ’ t trust DOJ announcements right now.
” The Friday email was sent to a group of dozens of prosecutors around the country known as district election officers .
They monitor election procedures and take complaints on Election Day from the public about alleged crimes and serve as the federal points of contact for local election officials .
For decades , the work of federal prosecutors has been guided by a strict policy of non-interference in elections .
A 281-page document titled “ Federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handbook for district election officers .
The latest edition , from 2017 , warns against launching public investigations , without approval granted for extraordinary cases , into alleged fraud before an election is over .
Such a step , the handbook says , “ runs the obvious risk of chilling legitimate voting and campaign activities .
It also runs the significant risk of interjecting the investigation itself as an issue , both in the campaign and in the adjudication of any ensuing election contest.
” One current DOJ official told ProPublica that prosecutors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves to be dragged into candidate disputes .
“ That ’ s what they drill into us : the policy of non-interference and never , ever , ever announce an investigation , ” the official said .

This article was first published in ProPublica, a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
The Department of Justice has weakened its long-standing prohibition against interfering in elections, according to two department officials.
Avoiding election interference is the overarching principle of DOJ policy on voting-related crimes. In place since at least 1980, the policy generally bars prosecutors not only from making any announcement about ongoing investigations close to an election but also from taking public steps — such as an arrest or a raid — before a vote is finalized because the publicity could tip the balance of a race.
But according to an email sent Friday by an official in the Public Integrity Section in Washington, now if a U.S. attorney’s office suspects election fraud that involves postal workers or military employees, federal investigators will be allowed to take public investigative steps before the polls close, even if those actions risk affecting the outcome of the election.
The email announced “an exception to the general non-interference with elections policy.” The new exemption, the email stated, applied to instances in which “the integrity of any component of the federal government is implicated by election offenses within the scope of the policy including but not limited to misconduct by federal officials or employees administering an aspect of the voting process through the United States Postal Service, the Department of Defense or any other federal department or agency.”
Specifically citing postal workers and military employees is noteworthy, former DOJ officials said. But the exception is written so broadly that it could cover other types of investigations as well, they said.
Both groups have been falsely singled out, in different ways, by President Donald Trump and his campaign for being involved in voter fraud. Trump has repeatedly attempted to delegitimize ballots sent through the postal service, just as the country experiences increased voting by mail spurred by the coronavirus pandemic. He has also raised the specter that the ballots of military members, among whom he enjoys broad support, might be suppressed.
The DOJ and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Experts who reviewed the revision said they were concerned it could be exploited to help the DOJ bolster Trump’s campaign.
“It’s unusual that they’re carving out this exception,” said Vanita Gupta, the former head of the DOJ Civil Rights Division under President Barack Obama. “It may be creating a predicate for the Justice Department to make inflated announcements about mail-in vote fraud and the like in the run-up to the election.”
In a break from long-standing practice last month, a U.S. attorney in Pennsylvania publicly announced that the DOJ was investigating whether local elections officials illegally discarded nine mail-in military ballots. Attorney General William Barr personally briefed Trump on the case before it was publicly announced, The Washington Post reported. Trump later cited it as an example to support his claims of widespread mail-in voter fraud, a false assertion Barr has has helped amplify. It’s not clear where the federal probe stands, but Pennsylvania’s top elections official said early indications point to an error, not fraud.
The new policy carveout, Gupta said, could be designed to both justify the widely criticized Pennsylvania announcement and open the door for more such moves in the coming weeks.
Justin Levitt, a former deputy assistant attorney general in the DOJ’s civil rights division, also expressed concern that the department could be encouraging prosecutors to make more public announcements about incomplete investigations, as they did in the Pennsylvania case.
“It alarms me that the DOJ would want to authorize more of the same in and around the election,” he said. “It’s incredibly painful for me to say, but given what we’ve seen recently, Americans shouldn’t trust DOJ announcements right now.”
The Friday email was sent to a group of dozens of prosecutors around the country known as district election officers. They monitor election procedures and take complaints on Election Day from the public about alleged crimes and serve as the federal points of contact for local election officials.
For decades, the work of federal prosecutors has been guided by a strict policy of non-interference in elections.
A 281-page document titled “Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses” is the handbook for district election officers. The latest edition, from 2017, warns against launching public investigations, without approval granted for extraordinary cases, into alleged fraud before an election is over.
Such a step, the handbook says, “runs the obvious risk of chilling legitimate voting and campaign activities. It also runs the significant risk of interjecting the investigation itself as an issue, both in the campaign and in the adjudication of any ensuing election contest.”
One current DOJ official told ProPublica that prosecutors have historically been warned not to allow themselves to be dragged into candidate disputes. “That’s what they drill into us: the policy of non-interference and never, ever, ever announce an investigation,” the official said.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-10-07--Whistleblower Who Criticized White House’s COVID Response Resigns From NIH

Rick Bright , a top government vaccine scientist who warned earlier this year that the Trump administration ’ s COVID-19 response had been politicized , resigned from his post at the National Institutes of Health on Tuesday .
The New York Times first reported Bright ’ s resignation .
Last spring , Bright was demoted from his post as the head of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority ( BARDA ) and reassigned to a narrower role at NIH .
In an extensive whistleblower complaint , Bright alleged that his early warnings about the coronavirus were ignored and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump-touted hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 led to his removal .
Bright also told reporters during a call at the time that the Trump administration had put “ politics and cronyism ahead of science.
” Bright argued that rather than invest in “ safe and scientifically vetted solutions , ” it had pursued “ drugs , vaccines and other technologies that lack scientific merit.
” In a letter written on Sept. 25 to Dr. Francis Collins , the director of the institutes , Bright wrote that he longs to “ serve the American people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic , ” and that “ taxpayers who pay my salary deserve no less.
” In an addendum to his complaint released by Bright ’ s attorneys on Tuesday , Bright is resigning from his federal government post after being “ sidelined ” at NIH .
“ Although not allowed at NIH to utilize his expertise in vaccines or therapeutics , Dr .
Bright developed a plan to implement a robust national testing infrastructure , which emphasized the critical need to provide screening tests for asymptomatic individuals and to provide services to underserved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bright ’ s attorneys , Debra Katz and Lisa Banks , said in a statement .
Bright ’ s attorneys wrote that NIH leadership declined to support Bright ’ s recommendations due to “ political considerations , plain and simple.
” “ After having his work suppressed for political reasons to the detriment of public health and safety , Dr .
Bright was sidelined from doing any further work to combat this deadly virus , ” Bright ’ s attorneys wrote , adding that “ this was the proverbial straw that broke the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ he can no longer countenance working for an administration that puts politics over science to the great detriment of the American people.
” Bright ’ s attorneys added that Bright has been assigned “ no meaningful work ” since September 4 , 2020 , after he had completed one assignment given to him at NIH , and “ has been idle for weeks.
” “ Having exhausted all efforts , on October 6 , 2020 , Dr .
Bright submitted his involuntary resignation , ” Bright ’ s attorneys wrote .

Rick Bright, a top government vaccine scientist who warned earlier this year that the Trump administration’s COVID-19 response had been politicized, resigned from his post at the National Institutes of Health on Tuesday.
The New York Times first reported Bright’s resignation.
Last spring, Bright was demoted from his post as the head of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) and reassigned to a narrower role at NIH. In an extensive whistleblower complaint, Bright alleged that his early warnings about the coronavirus were ignored and that his caution against the use of the Trump-touted hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 led to his removal.
Bright also told reporters during a call at the time that the Trump administration had put “politics and cronyism ahead of science.” Bright argued that rather than invest in “safe and scientifically vetted solutions,” it had pursued “drugs, vaccines and other technologies that lack scientific merit.”
In a letter written on Sept. 25 to Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the institutes, Bright wrote that he longs to “serve the American people by using my skills to fight this pandemic,” and that “taxpayers who pay my salary deserve no less.”
In an addendum to his complaint released by Bright’s attorneys on Tuesday, Bright is resigning from his federal government post after being “sidelined” at NIH.
“Although not allowed at NIH to utilize his expertise in vaccines or therapeutics, Dr. Bright developed a plan to implement a robust national testing infrastructure, which emphasized the critical need to provide screening tests for asymptomatic individuals and to provide services to underserved populations disproportionately impacted by COVID-19,” Bright’s attorneys, Debra Katz and Lisa Banks, said in a statement.
Bright’s attorneys wrote that NIH leadership declined to support Bright’s recommendations due to “political considerations, plain and simple.”
“After having his work suppressed for political reasons to the detriment of public health and safety, Dr. Bright was sidelined from doing any further work to combat this deadly virus,” Bright’s attorneys wrote, adding that “this was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back” given how “he can no longer countenance working for an administration that puts politics over science to the great detriment of the American people.”
Bright’s attorneys added that Bright has been assigned “no meaningful work” since September 4, 2020, after he had completed one assignment given to him at NIH, and “has been idle for weeks.”
“Having exhausted all efforts, on October 6, 2020, Dr. Bright submitted his involuntary resignation,” Bright’s attorneys wrote.