talkingpointsmemo--2020-04-15--‘Hold Your Nose And Vote’: Progressives Weigh Backing Biden

CHICAGO ( AP ) — When Bernie Sanders didn ’ t win the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 , Silvia Machado and Patrick Gibbons voted for Green Party candidate Jill Stein in protest .
Four years later , the couple is still passionate about the Vermont senator ’ s progressive agenda .
But they ’ re open to voting for the relatively centrist Joe Biden if that ’ s what it takes to defeat President Donald Trump .
“ It ’ s like hold your nose and vote , ” said Gibbons , 59 .
A week after Sanders ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominee , the former vice president is working to win over voters such as Machado and Gibbons .
The party is desperate to avoid a repeat of 2016 , when ideological divides helped Trump win the White House .
Biden has made a series of proposals intended to appeal to progressives and won endorsements this week from Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren , another liberal rival during the Democratic primary .
But the tensions that have weighed on Democrats for years aren ’ t suddenly evaporating .
While some voters are making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporting Biden , other leaders of the movement are urging caution until Biden embraces priorities such as the universal health care plan known as “ Medicare for All.
” “ The Biden that exists now will not get a lot of votes from progressives currently inclined to not vote at all or to vote third party , ” said Norman Solomon , co-founder of the activist organization Roots Action .
“ The only tool now to defeat Trump is Joe Biden , and the only way to sharpen that tool is to move @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AP VoteCast surveys of the electorate conducted before Sanders dropped out of the race show skepticism among his supporters about Biden .
Across 17 states where the survey was conducted , 54 % of Sanders backers said they would be dissatisfied if Biden were the nominee .
Just 28 % of all Democratic primary voters said the same .
In the three states that voted on March 17 — Florida , Arizona and Illinois — some Sanders supporters went further , vowing not to support Biden .
Thirteen percent said they would definitely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ additional 10 % said they probably would not .
A slim majority , 54 % , indicated that they definitely would support the Democrat against Trump , while 23 % said they probably would .
In Arizona , a state that Democrats are hoping to flip in November , 8 % of Democratic primary voters overall said they would not vote for Biden in November .
But among Sanders supporters , that figure increased to 17 % .
In Michigan , which flipped to support Trump in 2016 and is now a key @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primary voters said their vote in November depended on which candidate the party nominated .
That figure climbed to 26 % among Sanders voters .
There are factors working in Biden ’ s favor .
For one , he ’ s consolidating support in the party much earlier than nominee Hillary Clinton did in 2016 .
That year , Sanders waited until just before the party ’ s July convention to endorse Clinton .
Warren also waited until the primary was over to back Clinton .
In 2020 , they are backing Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told The Associated Press on Tuesday that it would be “ irresponsible ” for his supporters to sit back and see “ the most dangerous president in modern American history ” reelected .
“ My job now is to not only rally my supporters , but to do everything I can to bring the party together to see that ( Trump ) is not elected president , ” Sanders said .
The future of the progressive movement may rest with leaders such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez .
The New York Democrat has long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nominee .
She told Politico on Wednesday that she supports Biden “ in solidarity with the families I represent.
” In an earlier interview with the AP , she urged Biden to take seriously both young voters and Latinos , two groups with whom he has struggled .
“ I just want to make sure that we have a winning electoral strategy , ” she said .
“ And if that strategy is 100 % more affluent suburban voters , then fine .
Perhaps districts and communities like mine aren ’ t as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be , and I think that they should be , and I think young voters matter.
” Prospects for reconciliation between Biden and progressives may not all be bleak , however , especially with the election still more than six months away .
Jorge Trejo-Ibarra , a Las Vegas high school senior who will turn 18 in July , said he flirted with the idea of not backing Biden .
But with the economy largely shuttered amid the coronavirus outbreak , he said he doesn ’ t think the U.S. can survive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We can ’ t come back from this unless we have some very strong leadership in the next four years , ” Trejo-Ibarra said , adding that he ’ s not excited about Biden , but is a realist .
“ In democracies , you never have wins , you have compromises , ” he said .
“ I guess I must compromise.
” Jack Wilsbach , a 21-year-old junior at Ohio State University , said he knows many Sanders supporters who will not support Biden .
But he is convinced by his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gay who he thinks will be hurt by a Trump victory .
“ I would feel bad if I didn ’ t vote for ( Biden ) and that affected the outcome , ” Wilsbach said .
“ I mean , I ’ m a white guy .
I can kind of make the sacrifice to maybe live and be OK under Trump , but other people don ’ t have that luxury.
” Weissert reported from Washington .
Associated Press writers Hannah Fingerhut and Laurie Kellman in Washington , Steve Peoples in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Las Vegas and Julie Carr Smyth in Columbus , Ohio , contributed to this report .

CHICAGO (AP) — When Bernie Sanders didn’t win the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, Silvia Machado and Patrick Gibbons voted for Green Party candidate Jill Stein in protest.
Four years later, the couple is still passionate about the Vermont senator’s progressive agenda. But they’re open to voting for the relatively centrist Joe Biden if that’s what it takes to defeat President Donald Trump.
“It’s like hold your nose and vote,” said Gibbons, 59.
A week after Sanders’ exit left Biden as the presumptive Democratic nominee, the former vice president is working to win over voters such as Machado and Gibbons. The party is desperate to avoid a repeat of 2016, when ideological divides helped Trump win the White House.
Biden has made a series of proposals intended to appeal to progressives and won endorsements this week from Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, another liberal rival during the Democratic primary.
But the tensions that have weighed on Democrats for years aren’t suddenly evaporating. While some voters are making a practical calculation to beat Trump by supporting Biden, other leaders of the movement are urging caution until Biden embraces priorities such as the universal health care plan known as “ Medicare for All.”
“The Biden that exists now will not get a lot of votes from progressives currently inclined to not vote at all or to vote third party,” said Norman Solomon, co-founder of the activist organization Roots Action. “The only tool now to defeat Trump is Joe Biden, and the only way to sharpen that tool is to move him in a more progressive direction.”
AP VoteCast surveys of the electorate conducted before Sanders dropped out of the race show skepticism among his supporters about Biden. Across 17 states where the survey was conducted, 54% of Sanders backers said they would be dissatisfied if Biden were the nominee. Just 28% of all Democratic primary voters said the same.
In the three states that voted on March 17 — Florida, Arizona and Illinois — some Sanders supporters went further, vowing not to support Biden. Thirteen percent said they would definitely not vote for Biden, and an additional 10% said they probably would not.
A slim majority, 54%, indicated that they definitely would support the Democrat against Trump, while 23% said they probably would.
In Arizona, a state that Democrats are hoping to flip in November, 8% of Democratic primary voters overall said they would not vote for Biden in November. But among Sanders supporters, that figure increased to 17%. In Michigan, which flipped to support Trump in 2016 and is now a key 2020 battleground, 19% of Democratic primary voters said their vote in November depended on which candidate the party nominated. That figure climbed to 26% among Sanders voters.
There are factors working in Biden’s favor. For one, he’s consolidating support in the party much earlier than nominee Hillary Clinton did in 2016. That year, Sanders waited until just before the party’s July convention to endorse Clinton. Warren also waited until the primary was over to back Clinton.
In 2020, they are backing Biden sooner, and more aggressively.
Sanders told The Associated Press on Tuesday that it would be “irresponsible” for his supporters to sit back and see “the most dangerous president in modern American history” reelected.
“My job now is to not only rally my supporters, but to do everything I can to bring the party together to see that (Trump) is not elected president,” Sanders said.
The future of the progressive movement may rest with leaders such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The New York Democrat has long said she would back the ultimate Democratic nominee. She told Politico on Wednesday that she supports Biden “in solidarity with the families I represent.”
In an earlier interview with the AP, she urged Biden to take seriously both young voters and Latinos, two groups with whom he has struggled.
“I just want to make sure that we have a winning electoral strategy,” she said. “And if that strategy is 100% more affluent suburban voters, then fine. Perhaps districts and communities like mine aren’t as important, but I would like them to be, and I think that they should be, and I think young voters matter.”
Prospects for reconciliation between Biden and progressives may not all be bleak, however, especially with the election still more than six months away.
Jorge Trejo-Ibarra, a Las Vegas high school senior who will turn 18 in July, said he flirted with the idea of not backing Biden. But with the economy largely shuttered amid the coronavirus outbreak, he said he doesn’t think the U.S. can survive another four years of Trump.
“We can’t come back from this unless we have some very strong leadership in the next four years,” Trejo-Ibarra said, adding that he’s not excited about Biden, but is a realist.
“In democracies, you never have wins, you have compromises,” he said. “I guess I must compromise.”
Jack Wilsbach, a 21-year-old junior at Ohio State University, said he knows many Sanders supporters who will not support Biden. But he is convinced by his mother, sister and friends who are gay who he thinks will be hurt by a Trump victory.
“I would feel bad if I didn’t vote for (Biden) and that affected the outcome,” Wilsbach said. “I mean, I’m a white guy. I can kind of make the sacrifice to maybe live and be OK under Trump, but other people don’t have that luxury.”
___
Weissert reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Hannah Fingerhut and Laurie Kellman in Washington, Steve Peoples in Montclair, N.J., Nicholas Riccardi in Las Vegas and Julie Carr Smyth in Columbus, Ohio, contributed to this report.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-04-15--Tech Companies Step Up Fight Against Coronavirus Misinformation Online

CHICAGO ( AP ) — Potentially dangerous coronavirus misinformation has spread from continent to continent like the pandemic itself , forcing the world ’ s largest tech companies to take unprecedented action to protect public health .
Facebook , Google and others have begun using algorithms , new rules and factual warnings to knock down harmful coronavirus conspiracy theories , questionable ads and unproven remedies that regularly crop up on their services — and which could jeopardize lives .
Health officials , critics and others who have long implored the tech companies to step up their response to viral falsehoods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the platforms are now working faster than ever to scrub their sites of coronavirus misinformation .
“ It was definitely , within the companies , a shift , ” said Andy Pattison , manager of digital solutions for the World Health Organization , who for nearly two years has urged companies like Facebook to take more aggressive action against anti-vaccination misinformation .
Pattison said he and his team now directly flag misleading coronavirus information and , at times , lobby for it to be removed from Facebook , Google and Google ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media reported more than 300 people had died and 1,000 were sickened in the country after ingesting methanol , a toxic alcohol rumored to be a remedy on social media .
An Arizona man also died after taking chloroquine phosphate — a product that some mistake for the anti-malaria drug chloroquine , which President Donald Trump and conservative pundits have touted as a treatment for COVID-19 .
Health officials have warned the drug hasn ’ t been proven safe or effective as a virus therapy .
Days later , Twitter and Facebook began @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promoting unverified treatments .
Twitter deleted a post by Trump ’ s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani that described hydroxychloroqine , a cousin to chloroquine , as “ 100 percent effective ” against coronavirus .
The company also removed a tweet from Fox News personality Laura Ingraham touting what she called the drug ’ s “ promising results.
” Other widely shared claims that hydroxychloroquine cures COVID-19 live on .
A conservative radio host ’ s tweet claiming that “ ALL hospitals and health care workers are using it with total success ” has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In what may be a first , Facebook removed a post from Brazilian President Jair Bolsanaro , who promoted hydroxychloroquine as “ working in every place ” to treat coronavirus .
Twitter also removed an associated video .
Facebook has long resisted calls to fact check or remove false claims directly made by politicians , arguing the public should be able to see what their elected officials say .
In this pandemic , however , the platforms have no choice but to rethink their rules around misinformation , said Dipayan Ghosh , co-director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kennedy School .
“ The damage to society is clear cut : it ’ s death , ” Ghosh said .
“ They don ’ t want to be held responsible in any way for perpetuating rumors that could lead directly to death.
” Other sites have also tightened their policies .
YouTube began removing videos that claimed coronavirus was caused by 5G wireless networks last week .
Some of the videos had racked up hundreds of thousands of views .
Google searches for “ 5G ” and “ coronavirus ” now redirect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook-owned private messaging service WhatsApp has limited how many chats users can forward messages to in an effort to limit the spread of COVID-19 misinformation .
Since WhatsApp encrypts all messages , it can ’ t read them to determine if they contain misinformation .
The pandemic has thrown up new challenges to content moderation .
Early on , health considerations forced the contractors that employ human moderators to send most of them home , where for privacy reasons they couldn ’ t do their jobs .
Facebook eventually shifted some of that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heavily on artificial-intelligence programs .
More recently , it has made new arrangements for contract moderators to do their jobs remotely .
Meanwhile , bogus ads for masks , hand sanitizer and unregulated blood tests for COVID-19 still appear on Facebook and Google .
And one North Carolina man with 44,000 YouTube subscribers who complained that his videos promoting the 5G and coronavirus theory were removed is now using the platform to hawk $ 99 subscriptions to view his videos .
The tech platforms point out they are putting facts about the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and health officials in front of their users when their safeguards fail .
Google “ coronavirus ” and you ’ ll be directed to your local health department .
Search on Twitter for “ coronavirus hoax ” and you ’ ll get a link to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
Watch a coronavirus conspiracy theory video on YouTube and you ’ ll see a label promoting legitimate news outlets and COVID-19 information from the CDC hovering over it .
“ There ’ s a lot of misinformation when there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” said Pattison .
“ People will fill the void out of fear .
”

CHICAGO (AP) — Potentially dangerous coronavirus misinformation has spread from continent to continent like the pandemic itself, forcing the world’s largest tech companies to take unprecedented action to protect public health.
Facebook, Google and others have begun using algorithms, new rules and factual warnings to knock down harmful coronavirus conspiracy theories, questionable ads and unproven remedies that regularly crop up on their services — and which could jeopardize lives.
Health officials, critics and others who have long implored the tech companies to step up their response to viral falsehoods have welcomed the new effort, saying the platforms are now working faster than ever to scrub their sites of coronavirus misinformation.
“It was definitely, within the companies, a shift,” said Andy Pattison, manager of digital solutions for the World Health Organization, who for nearly two years has urged companies like Facebook to take more aggressive action against anti-vaccination misinformation.
Pattison said he and his team now directly flag misleading coronavirus information and, at times, lobby for it to be removed from Facebook, Google and Google’s YouTube service.
Last month, Iranian media reported more than 300 people had died and 1,000 were sickened in the country after ingesting methanol, a toxic alcohol rumored to be a remedy on social media. An Arizona man also died after taking chloroquine phosphate — a product that some mistake for the anti-malaria drug chloroquine, which President Donald Trump and conservative pundits have touted as a treatment for COVID-19. Health officials have warned the drug hasn’t been proven safe or effective as a virus therapy.
Days later, Twitter and Facebook began cracking down in unprecedented ways on posts promoting unverified treatments.
Twitter deleted a post by Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani that described hydroxychloroqine, a cousin to chloroquine, as “100 percent effective” against coronavirus. The company also removed a tweet from Fox News personality Laura Ingraham touting what she called the drug’s “promising results.”
Other widely shared claims that hydroxychloroquine cures COVID-19 live on. A conservative radio host’s tweet claiming that “ALL hospitals and health care workers are using it with total success” has been shared more than 12,000 times.
In what may be a first, Facebook removed a post from Brazilian President Jair Bolsanaro, who promoted hydroxychloroquine as “working in every place” to treat coronavirus. Twitter also removed an associated video.
Facebook has long resisted calls to fact check or remove false claims directly made by politicians, arguing the public should be able to see what their elected officials say. In this pandemic, however, the platforms have no choice but to rethink their rules around misinformation, said Dipayan Ghosh, co-director of the Platform Accountability Project at Harvard Kennedy School.
“The damage to society is clear cut: it’s death,” Ghosh said. “They don’t want to be held responsible in any way for perpetuating rumors that could lead directly to death.”
Other sites have also tightened their policies.
YouTube began removing videos that claimed coronavirus was caused by 5G wireless networks last week. Some of the videos had racked up hundreds of thousands of views. Google searches for “5G” and “coronavirus” now redirect users news videos debunking the theory.
Facebook-owned private messaging service WhatsApp has limited how many chats users can forward messages to in an effort to limit the spread of COVID-19 misinformation. Since WhatsApp encrypts all messages, it can’t read them to determine if they contain misinformation.
The pandemic has thrown up new challenges to content moderation. Early on, health considerations forced the contractors that employ human moderators to send most of them home, where for privacy reasons they couldn’t do their jobs. Facebook eventually shifted some of that work to in-house employees and leaned more heavily on artificial-intelligence programs. More recently, it has made new arrangements for contract moderators to do their jobs remotely.
Meanwhile, bogus ads for masks, hand sanitizer and unregulated blood tests for COVID-19 still appear on Facebook and Google. And one North Carolina man with 44,000 YouTube subscribers who complained that his videos promoting the 5G and coronavirus theory were removed is now using the platform to hawk $99 subscriptions to view his videos.
The tech platforms point out they are putting facts about the virus from news outlets, fact checkers, and health officials in front of their users when their safeguards fail.
Google “coronavirus” and you’ll be directed to your local health department. Search on Twitter for “coronavirus hoax” and you’ll get a link to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Watch a coronavirus conspiracy theory video on YouTube and you’ll see a label promoting legitimate news outlets and COVID-19 information from the CDC hovering over it.
“There’s a lot of misinformation when there is a lack of good information,” said Pattison. “People will fill the void out of fear.”
__
Ortutay reported from Oakland, Calif.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-04-15--Kentucky GOP Celebrates Win On Voter ID While Beshear Criticizes Their Timing

The Kentucky legislature , girded by Republican supermajorities in both chambers , easily overturned Gov .
Andy Beshear ’ s ( D ) veto of a voter ID requirement Tuesday .
Beshear expressed his incredulity during his daily coronavirus press briefing .
“ I don ’ t know how somebody gets an ID during the coronavirus where every place you ’ d get it is closed , ” he said .
“ Can ’ t they at least wait until next session when we ’ re not facing this ?
They can do it next year — they ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he added of the state Republicans .
The law , requiring every voter to present photo ID when voting , was gleefully signed by Secretary of State Michael Adams ( R ) who ran on getting such a law passed during his 2019 campaign .
Adams noted that the secretary of state signs laws enacted over the governor ’ s veto .
The law will be in effect for the November general election , barring any legal action .
While the presidential election is essentially a foregone conclusion in Kentucky —Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote in the deep red state in 2016 — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is facing a challenge from Amy McGrath , a Marine veteran , who mounted an unsuccessful but attention-grabbing bid for Kentucky ’ s 6th District congressional seat in 2018 .
Though there has been scant polling in the state , Five Thirty Eight and the Cook Political Report give McConnell a narrow edge .
Cory Shapiro , the director of the ACLU ’ s Kentucky branch , said that the organization is considering legal action .
“ We remain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of resources to implement this new law just months before a highly anticipated general election and in the middle of a national emergency , ” Shapiro said in a statement .
“ We are currently evaluating whether to seek court intervention to make sure every eligible voter can still cast a ballot under this oppressive measure.
” Shapiro said that , since the law requires a photocopy of an ID for absentee voting , Kentuckians may have to endanger themselves during the coronavirus pandemic to obtain IDs or copies .
“ They have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ name of election security , yet not a single proponent of this law has ever provided any instance of in-person voter fraud in Kentucky , ” he added .
Wednesday afternoon , the Republican legislature was looking to override a slew of Beshear ’ s other , unrelated vetos on the last day of a legislative session curtailed by the pandemic .

The Kentucky legislature, girded by Republican supermajorities in both chambers, easily overturned Gov. Andy Beshear’s (D) veto of a voter ID requirement Tuesday.
Beshear expressed his incredulity during his daily coronavirus press briefing.
“I don’t know how somebody gets an ID during the coronavirus where every place you’d get it is closed,” he said. “Can’t they at least wait until next session when we’re not facing this? They can do it next year — they’ll have the numbers to override any veto,” he added of the state Republicans.
The law, requiring every voter to present photo ID when voting, was gleefully signed by Secretary of State Michael Adams (R) who ran on getting such a law passed during his 2019 campaign. Adams noted that the secretary of state signs laws enacted over the governor’s veto.
After nearly 2 years campaigning around KY for a Photo ID to Vote law, and 5 months helping to draft/ negotiate one, tonight I had the honor to sign it (the SOS signs veto overrides). Amazing what a constitutional officer can achieve when he treats the legislature with respect. pic.twitter.com/xal38brxuZ — SecretaryAdams (@Adams4SecState) April 15, 2020
The law will be in effect for the November general election, barring any legal action.
While the presidential election is essentially a foregone conclusion in Kentucky —Trump scooped up nearly 63 percent of the vote in the deep red state in 2016 — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is facing a challenge from Amy McGrath, a Marine veteran, who mounted an unsuccessful but attention-grabbing bid for Kentucky’s 6th District congressional seat in 2018. Though there has been scant polling in the state, Five Thirty Eight and the Cook Political Report give McConnell a narrow edge.
Cory Shapiro, the director of the ACLU’s Kentucky branch, said that the organization is considering legal action.
“We remain concerned about the rushed timeline and lack of resources to implement this new law just months before a highly anticipated general election and in the middle of a national emergency,” Shapiro said in a statement. “We are currently evaluating whether to seek court intervention to make sure every eligible voter can still cast a ballot under this oppressive measure.”
Shapiro said that, since the law requires a photocopy of an ID for absentee voting, Kentuckians may have to endanger themselves during the coronavirus pandemic to obtain IDs or copies. “They have pushed this voter suppression measure in the name of election security, yet not a single proponent of this law has ever provided any instance of in-person voter fraud in Kentucky,” he added.
The law’s Republican sponsors celebrated its passage.
A BIG thanks to all those involved in passing SB2. This bill will build confidence in KY’s election process and will ensure that every KYian has a photo ID. https://t.co/jC9cNSRmTW — Robby Mills (@RobbyMillsforKY) April 15, 2020
Today was a great day for the @KYSenateGOP & @KYHouseGOP supermajorities. We overrode five vetoed bills by Gov. Andy Beshear including two Senate priority bills (SB2&SB5). Conservative agendas are still winning, & elections matter!@KYGOP @KentuckySRCCC @FayetteKYGOP — damon thayer (@damon_thayer) April 15, 2020
Wednesday afternoon, the Republican legislature was looking to override a slew of Beshear’s other, unrelated vetos on the last day of a legislative session curtailed by the pandemic.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-04-15--Trump Administration Officials Warned Against Halting Funding to WHO, Leaked Memo Shows

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 .
An internal memorandum written by U.S. officials and addressed to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warns that cutting funding to the World Health Organization , as President Donald Trump said he would do Tuesday , would erode America ’ s global standing , threaten U.S. lives and hobble global efforts to combat the coronavirus pandemic .
The memo , which was prepared before Trump ’ s Rose Garden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the State Department ’ s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs and includes a detailed list of how U.S. funding to the WHO helps countries in the Middle East control the pandemic .
A draft version of the memo , which was labeled “ Sensitive But Unclassified ” and was titled “ Information Memo for the Secretary , ” was seen by ProPublica .
It ’ s unclear if the memo has been sent to Pompeo , and the draft version reviewed by ProPublica was still unfinished .
The State Department , the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House did not immediately respond to requests for comment .
The Trump administration has worked closely with the WHO on pandemic response , especially in places where the United States has a limited presence .
One U.S. official with knowledge of the State Department memo said it was likely written so that Pompeo could justify waiving parts of Trump ’ s order , allowing U.S. funding to the WHO to continue .
The emphasis on how the halt in funding could bolster China was likely meant to appeal to anti-China hawks in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the condition of anonymity .
Trump announced on Tuesday that he would halt WHO funding while his administration reviews what he described as mismanaging and “ covering up ” the coronavirus spread .
He said the WHO had not done enough to call out China ’ s lack of transparency .
The virus originated in China before spreading worldwide .
But Trump himself has praised China for its coronavirus response .
On Jan. 24 , he tweeted that China “ has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus , ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s “ transparency.
” A White House fact sheet issued on Wednesday said the administration will “ redirect global health aid to others directly engaged in the fight.
” But in some countries with weak health sectors , the WHO is by far the strongest conduit for U.S. and other international funds meant to protect public health , a U.S. official with knowledge of the situation said .
That could mean the administration will find it difficult to reprogram funding originally meant for the agency .
The U.S. is the largest donor to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 400 million per year .
And the administration had chosen to funnel extra funds provided by Congress through the WHO as well , a tacit endorsement of its capabilities .
“ Current discussions regarding pausing U.S. assistance to the WHO to combat the pandemic risks not only further undermining our ability to help host governments address urgent needs , but also undermines the U.S. narrative of a long-standing partner at precisely the time posts are most reliant on that narrative , ” the memo said .
Pausing funding to the organization , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 50 million in U.S. assistance planned to help host governments address urgent needs and risks undermining the U.S. narrative of a long-standing health leader , ceding ground to the ( People ’ s Republic of China ) .
” Congress provided that funding in supplemental packages in March , the memo said .
Congressional Democrats quickly denounced Trump ’ s decision to halt funding to the WHO , and they argue that at least some of the U.S. funding to the organization is beyond his power to stop .
“ President Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funds that Congress has appropriated for the United States ’ assessed contribution to the World Health Organization , ” said Evan Hollander , a spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee .
But the emergency funds given to the State Department and USAID and referenced in the memo are separate from the “ assessed contributions.
” The additional funding that Congress provided for the coronavirus response gave the administration much more flexibility to determine recipients , meaning that Trump is legally able to halt those funds .
The memo detailed a number of key @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In Lebanon , the WHO sent test kits in February and planned to send masks , gloves and other supplies afterward , the memo said .
In Yemen , which is already experiencing a humanitarian crisis because of years of war , the WHO was working to open ports for humanitarian supplies and providing American and Chinese tests .
In Libya , which is also in ongoing conflict , the memo said the WHO is “ the most technically viable implementing partner on public health issues ; very limited alternatives exist.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said they want to return to the U.S. , but the State Department can not help them do this for now , the memo said , and the agency has urged them to shelter in place .
“ Any one of them who encounters a health crisis will likely depend on WHO-provided assistance to make it through , ” the memo said .
In Algeria , where the coronavirus pandemic has proven especially deadly , USAID had approved half a million dollars in funding for the WHO ’ s response in the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1.5 million , the memo said .
“ The PRC , meanwhile , has sent a medical team of 13 doctors and eight medical assistants , while private organizations have donated over $ 450,000 worth of medical equipment , ” the memo said , referring to China .

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.
An internal memorandum written by U.S. officials and addressed to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warns that cutting funding to the World Health Organization, as President Donald Trump said he would do Tuesday, would erode America’s global standing, threaten U.S. lives and hobble global efforts to combat the coronavirus pandemic.
The memo, which was prepared before Trump’s Rose Garden announcement, was written by officials within the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs and includes a detailed list of how U.S. funding to the WHO helps countries in the Middle East control the pandemic.
A draft version of the memo, which was labeled “Sensitive But Unclassified” and was titled “Information Memo for the Secretary,” was seen by ProPublica.
It’s unclear if the memo has been sent to Pompeo, and the draft version reviewed by ProPublica was still unfinished. The State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The Trump administration has worked closely with the WHO on pandemic response, especially in places where the United States has a limited presence. One U.S. official with knowledge of the State Department memo said it was likely written so that Pompeo could justify waiving parts of Trump’s order, allowing U.S. funding to the WHO to continue. The emphasis on how the halt in funding could bolster China was likely meant to appeal to anti-China hawks in the administration, this person said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
Trump announced on Tuesday that he would halt WHO funding while his administration reviews what he described as mismanaging and “covering up” the coronavirus spread. He said the WHO had not done enough to call out China’s lack of transparency. The virus originated in China before spreading worldwide.
But Trump himself has praised China for its coronavirus response. On Jan. 24, he tweeted that China “has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus,” and that the U.S. appreciates the country’s “transparency.”
A White House fact sheet issued on Wednesday said the administration will “redirect global health aid to others directly engaged in the fight.” But in some countries with weak health sectors, the WHO is by far the strongest conduit for U.S. and other international funds meant to protect public health, a U.S. official with knowledge of the situation said. That could mean the administration will find it difficult to reprogram funding originally meant for the agency.
The U.S. is the largest donor to the WHO, contributing more than $400 million per year. And the administration had chosen to funnel extra funds provided by Congress through the WHO as well, a tacit endorsement of its capabilities.
“Current discussions regarding pausing U.S. assistance to the WHO to combat the pandemic risks not only further undermining our ability to help host governments address urgent needs, but also undermines the U.S. narrative of a long-standing partner at precisely the time posts are most reliant on that narrative,” the memo said.
Pausing funding to the organization, the memo said, “will impact over $50 million in U.S. assistance planned to help host governments address urgent needs and risks undermining the U.S. narrative of a long-standing health leader, ceding ground to the (People’s Republic of China).”
Congress provided that funding in supplemental packages in March, the memo said.
Congressional Democrats quickly denounced Trump’s decision to halt funding to the WHO, and they argue that at least some of the U.S. funding to the organization is beyond his power to stop.
“President Trump does not have the authority to withhold funds that Congress has appropriated for the United States’ assessed contribution to the World Health Organization,” said Evan Hollander, a spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee.
But the emergency funds given to the State Department and USAID and referenced in the memo are separate from the “assessed contributions.” The additional funding that Congress provided for the coronavirus response gave the administration much more flexibility to determine recipients, meaning that Trump is legally able to halt those funds.
The memo detailed a number of key WHO activities related to the pandemic fight. In Lebanon, the WHO sent test kits in February and planned to send masks, gloves and other supplies afterward, the memo said. In Yemen, which is already experiencing a humanitarian crisis because of years of war, the WHO was working to open ports for humanitarian supplies and providing American and Chinese tests.
In Libya, which is also in ongoing conflict, the memo said the WHO is “the most technically viable implementing partner on public health issues; very limited alternatives exist.” Around two dozen Americans in Libya have said they want to return to the U.S., but the State Department cannot help them do this for now, the memo said, and the agency has urged them to shelter in place. “Any one of them who encounters a health crisis will likely depend on WHO-provided assistance to make it through,” the memo said.
In Algeria, where the coronavirus pandemic has proven especially deadly, USAID had approved half a million dollars in funding for the WHO’s response in the country and was considering sending a further $1.5 million, the memo said.
“The PRC, meanwhile, has sent a medical team of 13 doctors and eight medical assistants, while private organizations have donated over $450,000 worth of medical equipment,” the memo said, referring to China.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-04-15--Fauci Says ‘There’s A Way’ For Sports To Return. Here’s How.

Dr. Anthony Fauci , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , said that “ there ’ s a way ” for sports seasons to return later this year , but with some restrictions in place .
When asked whether sports seasons are in jeopardy during an interview on Snapchat on Wednesday , Fauci outlined stipulations that would need to happen for sports events to return , which would include no spectators at games .
“ There ’ s a way of doing that — nobody comes to the stadium , ” Fauci said .
“ Put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you know , or wherever you want to play .
Keep them very well-surveilled and have them tested every week and make sure they don ’ t wind up infecting each other or their family.
” After saying that ’ s how we ’ ll “ let them play their season out , ” Fauci refuted the idea that you can ’ t have sports without spectators .
“ Well I think you probably get enough buy in from people who are dying to see a baseball game , ” Fauci said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particularly ” in that group because he lives in Washington , D.C. and that he wants to see the world champion Washington Nationals play again .
Fauci ’ s latest remarks come a day after President Trump griped about wanting to get sports back in season because he ’ s “ tired of watching baseball games that are 14 years old .
”

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said that “there’s a way” for sports seasons to return later this year, but with some restrictions in place.
When asked whether sports seasons are in jeopardy during an interview on Snapchat on Wednesday, Fauci outlined stipulations that would need to happen for sports events to return, which would include no spectators at games.
“There’s a way of doing that — nobody comes to the stadium,” Fauci said. “Put (athletes) in big hotels, you know, or wherever you want to play. Keep them very well-surveilled and have them tested every week and make sure they don’t wind up infecting each other or their family.”
After saying that’s how we’ll “let them play their season out,” Fauci refuted the idea that you can’t have sports without spectators.
“Well I think you probably get enough buy in from people who are dying to see a baseball game,” Fauci said, before saying that he’s “particularly” in that group because he lives in Washington, D.C. and that he wants to see the world champion Washington Nationals play again.
Fauci’s latest remarks come a day after President Trump griped about wanting to get sports back in season because he’s “tired of watching baseball games that are 14 years old.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-04-15--CDC Director Vows To Continue Working With WHO Despite Trump Halting Funds

CDC Director Robert Redfield wouldn ’ t condemn President Trump ’ s move to halt funding to the World Health Organization , but insisted that its longstanding partnership with the CDC won ’ t change , during an interview on CBS Wednesday morning .
During the White House coronavirus task force briefing Tuesday night , Trump announced that the U.S. will halt funding to the WHO while a review is underway .
He also accused the largely U.S.-funded organization of “ severely mismanaging and covering up ” the spread of COVID-19 .
Asked whether Trump ’ s move to cut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Redfield dodged by simply saying that the WHO has been a “ longstanding partner ” for the CDC and that they ’ re continuing to work together to “ fight health crises all around the world.
” That includes ongoing joint efforts to end the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo .
In response to the impact of cutting off funding to the WHO amid the COVID-19 pandemic , Redfield reiterated that the organization is a “ long-term ” and “ great partner ” for the CDC .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do all we can together to try to limit this , ” Redfield said , referring to COVID-19 .
“ Those decisions that are going to be made above , related to some of the geopolitical issues , I have to leave to those that really have that expertise .
But for me and for CDC , in the public health arena , we ’ re continuing to work side-by-side with WHO to do the best that we can to limit the spread of disease and to protect the American people.
” Redfield @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first to be at odds with the President ’ s .
On Monday , Redfield argued that the availability of swift testing for COVID-19 is crucial before reopening the economy , which Trump said during a briefing last week isn ’ t needed .

CDC Director Robert Redfield wouldn’t condemn President Trump’s move to halt funding to the World Health Organization, but insisted that its longstanding partnership with the CDC won’t change, during an interview on CBS Wednesday morning.
During the White House coronavirus task force briefing Tuesday night, Trump announced that the U.S. will halt funding to the WHO while a review is underway. He also accused the largely U.S.-funded organization of “severely mismanaging and covering up” the spread of COVID-19.
Asked whether Trump’s move to cut off funding to the WHO is dangerous, Redfield dodged by simply saying that the WHO has been a “longstanding partner” for the CDC and that they’re continuing to work together to “fight health crises all around the world.” That includes ongoing joint efforts to end the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
In response to the impact of cutting off funding to the WHO amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Redfield reiterated that the organization is a “long-term” and “great partner” for the CDC.
“We’re going to continue to do all we can together to try to limit this,” Redfield said, referring to COVID-19. “Those decisions that are going to be made above, related to some of the geopolitical issues, I have to leave to those that really have that expertise. But for me and for CDC, in the public health arena, we’re continuing to work side-by-side with WHO to do the best that we can to limit the spread of disease and to protect the American people.”
Redfield’s latest remarks aren’t the first to be at odds with the President’s.
On Monday, Redfield argued that the availability of swift testing for COVID-19 is crucial before reopening the economy, which Trump said during a briefing last week isn’t needed.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-04-15--Report: Trump Advisers Prep To Shield POTUS If Economy Reopening Results In More Deaths

President Donald Trump ’ s advisers are reportedly gearing up to spread the blame if the President ’ s plan to jumpstart the economy by May 1 amid the COVID-19 pandemic crashes and burns and results in the loss of additional American lives .
The Washington Post reported that while the White House is frantically piecing together a strategy to reopen businesses at the end of the month , it also hopes to shield Trump from the political consequences of the outbreak and his sluggish response to it .
Staffers are reportedly aware of the risks of lifting social distancing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knows that suddenly forcing the economy to open up again spells danger .
“ Even he realizes that ’ s a bad idea , ” an unnamed former official told the Post .
Therefore , Trump ’ s advisers have been reportedly attempting to sell the plan , which has not been fully formed , to business leaders , economists and other high profile figures , with the hope that Trump won ’ t be held solely responsible if the reopening backfires .
Despite health officials ’ warnings against encouraging people to go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the outbreak , Trump has been desperate to restore the economy to its pre-outbreak state as soon as possible .
He ’ s even gone as far as to falsely claim he has the “ total authority ” to force governors to allow businesses to reopen .
Trump backed away from that claim on Tuesday night , but still insisted that some states can reopen “ almost immediately .
”

President Donald Trump’s advisers are reportedly gearing up to spread the blame if the President’s plan to jumpstart the economy by May 1 amid the COVID-19 pandemic crashes and burns and results in the loss of additional American lives.
The Washington Post reported that while the White House is frantically piecing together a strategy to reopen businesses at the end of the month, it also hopes to shield Trump from the political consequences of the outbreak and his sluggish response to it. Staffers are reportedly aware of the risks of lifting social distancing guidelines so soon, and Trump himself knows that suddenly forcing the economy to open up again spells danger.
“Even he realizes that’s a bad idea,” an unnamed former official told the Post.
Therefore, Trump’s advisers have been reportedly attempting to sell the plan, which has not been fully formed, to business leaders, economists and other high profile figures, with the hope that Trump won’t be held solely responsible if the reopening backfires.
Despite health officials’ warnings against encouraging people to go back to work at this stage of the outbreak, Trump has been desperate to restore the economy to its pre-outbreak state as soon as possible. He’s even gone as far as to falsely claim he has the “total authority” to force governors to allow businesses to reopen.
Trump backed away from that claim on Tuesday night, but still insisted that some states can reopen “almost immediately.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-04-15--Majority Of COVID-19 Deaths At NYC Nursing Homes Weren’t Confirmed Cases

New Yorkers in nursing homes , long-term care facilities and hospices are dying of COVID-19 at rates far beyond what testing has shown , new data from the city indicates .
Just 292 people who died in these facilities had undergone tests and been confirmed as coronavirus carriers , or 4.8 % of the total deaths resulting from confirmed cases of the disease .
But according to the city , a staggering 673 New Yorkers with unconfirmed but “ probable ” COVID-19 cases died in nursing homes , long-term care and hospice settings — a full 17.8 % of deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Put another way : 70 % of New Yorkers who died of COVID-19 in nursing homes and other long-term care settings never actually tested positive for the disease .
“ It ’ s an awful thing , ” said Don Shulman , President and CEO of the Association of Jewish Aging Services , whose member facilities Shulman said are home to more than 10,000 people in New York City .
“ The morbidity is real , and it ’ s going to continue.
” The data represent the disease ’ s uncounted toll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a trend represented in other COVID-19 hotspots around the world where the disease ’ s impact on the elderly , especially those living in communal settings , has been dramatic .
Before Tuesday , New York City — like most state and local governments nationwide , as well as the CDC — did not publish numbers on unconfirmed but probable COVID-19 deaths in its total count of fatalities from the disease .
But after reporting on data from the fire department and city medical examiner ’ s office showed that lab-confirmed cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the city released data on “ probable ” deaths from the disease .
Nearly 3,800 New Yorkers who had not been confirmed carriers of the virus nonetheless likely died of COVID-19 since March , according to the newly released data .
According to a press release accompanying New York ’ s “ probable ” death data Tuesday , the term defines decedents who had no known positive laboratory test for COVID-19 , but whose “ death certificate lists as a cause of death ‘ COVID-19 ’ or an equivalent.
” Gothamist first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ begin reporting these “ probable ” figures Shulman said the virus has hit nursing homes and other long-term care facilities on multiple fronts .
Not only are residents more susceptible , but sick staff members have had to stay home from work , leaving the remaining workforce short-staffed .
“ Residents are isolated in their rooms , which is not a healthy situation , ” he said .
“ Activities are somewhat limited and difficult.
” Testing , though limited , has been concentrated in hospitals : More than twice the number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tested positive for COVID-19 than those who died in hospitals without having tested positive for the disease , according to the city ’ s data .
In nursing homes and among at-home decedents , another poorly tested group , the opposite was clear : The vast majority of COVID-19 deaths occurred among people who had not actually tested positive for the disease .
“ Obviously , and rightly so , a lot of attention has been placed on the acute care side of things , ” Shulman said .
“ I think more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care side of things.
” Gothamist on Tuesday quoted an unnamed nurse at Fairview Rehab & Nursing Home who said the facility had run out of room to properly store bodies in recent weeks .
“ The ones who died here were not tested , ” the nurse said .
“ We know it ’ s because of the virus because it ’ s people who ’ ve been here for years who suddenly can not breathe .
They die very quickly .
”

New Yorkers in nursing homes, long-term care facilities and hospices are dying of COVID-19 at rates far beyond what testing has shown, new data from the city indicates.
Just 292 people who died in these facilities had undergone tests and been confirmed as coronavirus carriers, or 4.8% of the total deaths resulting from confirmed cases of the disease.
But according to the city, a staggering 673 New Yorkers with unconfirmed but “probable” COVID-19 cases died in nursing homes, long-term care and hospice settings — a full 17.8% of deaths from these “probable” cases.
Put another way: 70% of New Yorkers who died of COVID-19 in nursing homes and other long-term care settings never actually tested positive for the disease.
“It’s an awful thing,” said Don Shulman, President and CEO of the Association of Jewish Aging Services, whose member facilities Shulman said are home to more than 10,000 people in New York City.
“The morbidity is real, and it’s going to continue.”
The data represent the disease’s uncounted toll on elder care facilities in the city, a trend represented in other COVID-19 hotspots around the world where the disease’s impact on the elderly, especially those living in communal settings, has been dramatic.
Before Tuesday, New York City — like most state and local governments nationwide, as well as the CDC — did not publish numbers on unconfirmed but probable COVID-19 deaths in its total count of fatalities from the disease.
But after reporting on data from the fire department and city medical examiner’s office showed that lab-confirmed cases represented just a fraction of COVID-19 deaths, the city released data on “probable” deaths from the disease.
Nearly 3,800 New Yorkers who had not been confirmed carriers of the virus nonetheless likely died of COVID-19 since March, according to the newly released data.
According to a press release accompanying New York’s “probable” death data Tuesday, the term defines decedents who had no known positive laboratory test for COVID-19, but whose “death certificate lists as a cause of death ‘COVID-19’ or an equivalent.” Gothamist first reported last week that the city would begin reporting these “probable” figures
Shulman said the virus has hit nursing homes and other long-term care facilities on multiple fronts. Not only are residents more susceptible, but sick staff members have had to stay home from work, leaving the remaining workforce short-staffed.
“Residents are isolated in their rooms, which is not a healthy situation,” he said. “Activities are somewhat limited and difficult.”
Testing, though limited, has been concentrated in hospitals: More than twice the number of New Yorkers who died in hospitals had tested positive for COVID-19 than those who died in hospitals without having tested positive for the disease, according to the city’s data.
In nursing homes and among at-home decedents, another poorly tested group, the opposite was clear: The vast majority of COVID-19 deaths occurred among people who had not actually tested positive for the disease.
“Obviously, and rightly so, a lot of attention has been placed on the acute care side of things,” Shulman said. “I think more attention needs to placed on the long-term care side of things.”
Gothamist on Tuesday quoted an unnamed nurse at Fairview Rehab & Nursing Home who said the facility had run out of room to properly store bodies in recent weeks.
“The ones who died here were not tested,” the nurse said. “We know it’s because of the virus because it’s people who’ve been here for years who suddenly cannot breathe. They die very quickly.”
Read through the city data released Tuesday below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-04-15--Missouri Gov Calls Absentee Voting ‘More Of A Political Issue Than Anything’

Missouri Gov .
Mike Parson ( R ) said Tuesday that fear of getting sick from COVID-19 or abiding by the his own stay-at-home order does not qualify voters to request an absentee ballot , calling absentee voting “ more of a political issue than anything.
” “ This is a Democrat-Republican issue and that ’ s where this is all headed , is to a political answer and what ’ s driving behind this force , ” he added at his daily press briefing .
Parson ’ s office did not immediately respond to requests for clarification .
Going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that now is not the time to talk about election administration , though his state is slated to conduct local elections at the beginning of June .
“ It ’ s about getting the economy started back up .
It ’ s about getting people back to work , ” he said .
“ There will be time to talk about the elections in November and August .
But now is not the time for that.
” August 4 is the date of statewide primaries , and November 3 is , of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elections were postponed to June 2 .
Missouri already held its presidential primary , won by former Vice President Joe Biden , in early March .
Per the Kansas City Star , the governor has previously said that he would not support legislation to expand absentee voting , saying “ our system is fine.
” Currently , Missouri requires an excuse to cast an absentee ballot .
“ Incapacity or confinement due to illness or physical disability ” counts , but there is no explicit allowance for people who fear getting ill at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t want to run afoul of the Governor ’ s stay-at-home order .
Secretary of State John Ashcroft ( R ) has said that he does not have the authority to interpret the state ’ s absentee ballot laws , and that such power lies with the courts .
His office did not respond to questions about the governor ’ s comment .
This lack of action is leaving local officials to make their own call .
St. Francois County Clerk Kevin Engler is encouraging “ as many people as possible , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Meanwhile , Corey Dillon , director of the Jackson County Election Board , told the Star that “ fear of contracting or spreading the COVID-19 virus is not a legal reason to vote absentee in Missouri.
” According to Missouri law , casting an absentee ballot illegally is a felony .

Missouri Gov. Mike Parson (R) said Tuesday that fear of getting sick from COVID-19 or abiding by the his own stay-at-home order does not qualify voters to request an absentee ballot, calling absentee voting “more of a political issue than anything.”
“This is a Democrat-Republican issue and that’s where this is all headed, is to a political answer and what’s driving behind this force,” he added at his daily press briefing.
Parson’s office did not immediately respond to requests for clarification.
Going a step further, the Governor said that now is not the time to talk about election administration, though his state is slated to conduct local elections at the beginning of June.
“It’s about getting the economy started back up. It’s about getting people back to work,” he said. “There will be time to talk about the elections in November and August. But now is not the time for that.”
August 4 is the date of statewide primaries, and November 3 is, of course, the general election. The local elections were postponed to June 2. Missouri already held its presidential primary, won by former Vice President Joe Biden, in early March.
Per the Kansas City Star, the governor has previously said that he would not support legislation to expand absentee voting, saying “our system is fine.”
Currently, Missouri requires an excuse to cast an absentee ballot. “Incapacity or confinement due to illness or physical disability” counts, but there is no explicit allowance for people who fear getting ill at the polls, or who don’t want to run afoul of the Governor’s stay-at-home order.
Secretary of State John Ashcroft (R) has said that he does not have the authority to interpret the state’s absentee ballot laws, and that such power lies with the courts. His office did not respond to questions about the governor’s comment.
This lack of action is leaving local officials to make their own call.
St. Francois County Clerk Kevin Engler is encouraging “as many people as possible,” especially seniors, to vote absentee.
Meanwhile, Corey Dillon, director of the Jackson County Election Board, told the Star that “fear of contracting or spreading the COVID-19 virus is not a legal reason to vote absentee in Missouri.”
According to Missouri law, casting an absentee ballot illegally is a felony.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-04-15--Fauci: ‘Some Light At End Of The Tunnel’ With Flattening Of COVID-19 Cases

Dr. Anthony Fauci doubled down on his signature cautious optimism as he discussed the flattening of COVID-19 cases nationwide during an interview on the TODAY Show Wednesday morning .
After reiterating his line that he envisions a “ rolling reentry ” for states that won ’ t be uniform across the board , Fauci warned that “ pulling back ” on mitigation efforts prematurely will prompt more infections .
However , when asked whether he feels that the worst is behind us in light of New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo saying that there ’ s been a plateau in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fauci agreed that we are “ for the most part , ” with a “ couple of exceptions.
” “ There are still a couple of cities right now that we ’ re worried about that haven ’ t yet peaked and turned around , ” Fauci said .
“ But if you look at the New York metropolitan area as kind of the prototype that ’ s been driving this through the country , and then look at the country as a whole , there ’ s no doubt that what we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days is a flattening-out.
” Fauci added that COVID-19 cases New York are starting to come down regarding hospitalizations , need for intensive care and intubation , and that he hopes that “ trend will continue.
” “ So as I say , I ’ m a very cautious person , but we are seeing some light at the end of the tunnel , ” Fauci said .

Dr. Anthony Fauci doubled down on his signature cautious optimism as he discussed the flattening of COVID-19 cases nationwide during an interview on the TODAY Show Wednesday morning.
After reiterating his line that he envisions a “rolling reentry” for states that won’t be uniform across the board, Fauci warned that “pulling back” on mitigation efforts prematurely will prompt more infections.
However, when asked whether he feels that the worst is behind us in light of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo saying that there’s been a plateau in the state’s COVID-19 cases, Fauci agreed that we are “for the most part,” with a “couple of exceptions.”
“There are still a couple of cities right now that we’re worried about that haven’t yet peaked and turned around,” Fauci said. “But if you look at the New York metropolitan area as kind of the prototype that’s been driving this through the country, and then look at the country as a whole, there’s no doubt that what we’ve seen over the past several days is a flattening-out.”
Fauci added that COVID-19 cases New York are starting to come down regarding hospitalizations, need for intensive care and intubation, and that he hopes that “trend will continue.”
“So as I say, I’m a very cautious person, but we are seeing some light at the end of the tunnel,” Fauci said.
Watch Fauci’s remarks below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-07--Iranian Foreign Minister Accuses Trump Of ‘State Terrorism’ Over Soleimani Assassination

In a pre-taped CNN interview that aired on Tuesday , Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said President Donald Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ military leader Qasem Soleimani was an act of “ state terrorism.
” “ They killed @ @ @ @ @ commanders and most senior commanders , ” Zarif told CNN correspondent Frederik Pleitgen .
“ @ @ @ @ @ it .
This is state terrorism.
” The Iranian official vowed that Tehran “ will @ @ @ @ @ s attack .
“ But we will respond proportionately , not disproportionately , because we @ @ @ @ @ ” he added .
“ We are law-abiding people .
We ’ re not lawless @ @ @ @ @ his efforts to prod Iran into war , Trump has threatened to strike at the @ @ @ @ @ in a disproportionate manner ” and also destroy its sites of cultural significance , which @ @ @ @ @ .

In a pre-taped CNN interview that aired on Tuesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said President Donald Trump’s drone strike on high-ranking military leader Qasem Soleimani was an act of “state terrorism.”
“They killed one of our most revered commanders and most senior commanders,” Zarif told CNN correspondent Frederik Pleitgen. “And they took responsibility for it. This is state terrorism.”
The Iranian official vowed that Tehran “will respond” to Trump’s attack.
“But we will respond proportionately, not disproportionately, because we are committed to law,” he added. “We are law-abiding people. We’re not lawless like President Trump.”
In his efforts to prod Iran into war, Trump has threatened to strike at the Middle Eastern nation “perhaps in a disproportionate manner” and also destroy its sites of cultural significance, which is considered a war crime.
Watch Zarif below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-07--Pentagon Chief Esper Rejects Trump’s Threats To Destroy Iran’s Cultural Sites

Secretary of Defense Mark Esper bucked President Donald Trump ’ s threats to destroy Iran ’ s cultural sites on Monday .
“ We will follow the laws of armed conflict , ” Esper told reporters in response to questions about Trump ’ s aggressive remarks , per the New York Times .
“ That ’ s the laws of armed conflict , ” the Defense secretary said when one journalist asked if his response meant U.S. forces would not attack the sites because doing so constitutes a war crime .
On Saturday , Trump declared that cultural sites in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AND VERY HARD ” if Tehran attacked “ any Americans or American assets.
” He then doubled down on his threat on Monday , several hours before Esper ’ s comments .
“ They ’ re allowed to kill our people .
They ’ re allowed to torture and maim our people .
They ’ re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people , ” Trump said .
“ And we ’ re not allowed to touch their cultural site ?
It doesn ’ t work that way .
”

Secretary of Defense Mark Esper bucked President Donald Trump’s threats to destroy Iran’s cultural sites on Monday.
“We will follow the laws of armed conflict,” Esper told reporters in response to questions about Trump’s aggressive remarks, per the New York Times.
“That’s the laws of armed conflict,” the Defense secretary said when one journalist asked if his response meant U.S. forces would not attack the sites because doing so constitutes a war crime.
However, Esper’s boss apparently believes otherwise.
On Saturday, Trump declared that cultural sites in Iran would be “HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD” if Tehran attacked “any Americans or American assets.”
He then doubled down on his threat on Monday, several hours before Esper’s comments.
“They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people,” Trump said. “And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural site? It doesn’t work that way.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-06--NYT: Pompeo Has Decided Against Senate Run In Light Of Soleimani Strike

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has reportedly shot down Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ’ s ( R-KY ) hopes of bringing him into the majority fold .
According to a New York Times report Monday evening , Pompeo told McConnell that he has no plans to run for Senate this year , four people briefed on the meeting told the Times .
Although he quietly mulled a Senate campaign for months , Pompeo told senior party officials that he is ruling out a Senate campaign launch in light of the President Trump-authorized strike that killed top Iranian military official @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who directly spoke to the secretary of state told the Times .
Despite how the filing deadline for the primary isn ’ t until June , administration officials told the Times that Pompeo appeared adamant about refusing to enter the race .
The Wall Street Journal reported in October that Republicans are concerned about retiring Sen. Pat Roberts ’ ( R-KS ) seat and would much prefer Pompeo to current contender and former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach .
Last month , Pompeo was evasive during a “ Fox and Friends ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on running for Senate in Kansas in 2020 , saying that it is his “ intention to continue to stay and serve as President Trump ’ s secretary of state.
” The Washington Post reported last month that given the mixed signals Pompeo displayed regarding a potential Kansas Senate run — such as his multiple visits to his home state last year and an appearance with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) at the University of Louisville ’ s McConnell Center last month — several officials within the Trump administration had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s not the first time Pompeo has dashed McConnell ’ s hopes of a potential Senate run .
Last February , Pompeo flatly said that a Senate run was “ ruled out ” during an interview on the “ Today ” show .

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has reportedly shot down Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) hopes of bringing him into the majority fold.
According to a New York Times report Monday evening, Pompeo told McConnell that he has no plans to run for Senate this year, four people briefed on the meeting told the Times.
Although he quietly mulled a Senate campaign for months, Pompeo told senior party officials that he is ruling out a Senate campaign launch in light of the President Trump-authorized strike that killed top Iranian military official Qasem Soleimani last week, several people who directly spoke to the secretary of state told the Times.
Despite how the filing deadline for the primary isn’t until June, administration officials told the Times that Pompeo appeared adamant about refusing to enter the race.
The Wall Street Journal reported in October that Republicans are concerned about retiring Sen. Pat Roberts’ (R-KS) seat and would much prefer Pompeo to current contender and former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach.
Last month, Pompeo was evasive during a “Fox and Friends” segment when asked about whether he planned on running for Senate in Kansas in 2020, saying that it is his “intention to continue to stay and serve as President Trump’s secretary of state.”
The Washington Post reported last month that given the mixed signals Pompeo displayed regarding a potential Kansas Senate run — such as his multiple visits to his home state last year and an appearance with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) at the University of Louisville’s McConnell Center last month — several officials within the Trump administration had begun to position themselves as potential replacements.
It’s not the first time Pompeo has dashed McConnell’s hopes of a potential Senate run. Last February, Pompeo flatly said that a Senate run was “ruled out” during an interview on the “Today” show.
Read the Times’ report here.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-06--Senate GOP In No Hurry To Hear From Bolton For Impeachment Trial

Republican senators held back on Monday from saying whether they would be willing to subpoena former National Security Adviser John Bolton , instead alternately advocating for making that decision after the upcoming impeachment trial ’ s opening phases or accusing House Democrats of presenting an incomplete case against President Trump .
As they returned to Washington Monday evening , many Republicans spoke to the press for the first time since Bolton announced Monday morning he ’ d be willing to testify if subpoenaed by the Senate .
Multiple senators shifted to blame House Democrats for allegedly failing to include the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their case .
“ I don ’ t want to do their work , ” Sen. Thom Tillis ( R-NC ) told reporters on Capitol Hill .
“ It ’ s not that I don ’ t want to hear form him , I want to hear from him when the House is willing to do their work.
” The House declined to subpoena Bolton for his testimony in November , after the longtime hawk and former U.N. ambassador ’ s attorney signaled Bolton wouldn ’ t comply with such a subpoena @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so .
Sen. John Barrasso ( R-WY ) described House Democrats as “ desperate , ” saying that they did a poor job “ of establishing a credible case.
” Sen. Josh Hawley ( R-MO ) echoed that line , criticizing the House ’ s impeachment inquiry as “ slapdash ” while saying that House Democrats “ were rushing to get to a result.
” “ I don ’ t know why we would hear from him when he ’ s not included in any of the material , any of the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Hawley said .
To Sen. Marco Rubio ( R-FL ) , Bolton ’ s willingness to testify was also the fault of House Democrats .
“ If the House thinks there ’ s additional testimony and so forth then they can take the item up again separately from what they ’ ve already done , ” Rubio said .
Other Republicans — including the few who Democrats hope could vote with them on trial procedural issues — deferred to the position laid out by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wait until after the beginning phases of the trial , once each side presents its initial case .
Echoing McConnell , Sen. Susan Collins ( R-ME ) pointed to the Clinton impeachment , where witnesses were voted on after the preliminary phases .
Sens .
Rick Scott ( R-FL ) and Mike Rounds ( R-ND ) also punted on commenting on subpoenaing Bolton by bringing up their desire to make that decision later on .
“ I think we make up our minds on who we want for witnesses after we ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what their argument is , ” Rounds said .
Sen. Pat Roberts ( R-KS ) managed to take both tacks , asking TPM , “ shouldn ’ t we determine the process first ?
” He added that the Senate ’ s job “ isn ’ t to reopen witnesses and stuff that we haven ’ t even discussed.
” The timing of President Trump ’ s impeachment trial remains unknown , with Republican senators saying that Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) has yet to transmit the articles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Senate GOPers say , prevents them from being able to schedule a start date to the trial over President Trump ’ s efforts to pressure the Ukrainian government for political dirt and alleged obstruction of Congress .

Republican senators held back on Monday from saying whether they would be willing to subpoena former National Security Adviser John Bolton, instead alternately advocating for making that decision after the upcoming impeachment trial’s opening phases or accusing House Democrats of presenting an incomplete case against President Trump.
As they returned to Washington Monday evening, many Republicans spoke to the press for the first time since Bolton announced Monday morning he’d be willing to testify if subpoenaed by the Senate. Multiple senators shifted to blame House Democrats for allegedly failing to include the former national security adviser’s testimony in their case.
“I don’t want to do their work,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) told reporters on Capitol Hill. “It’s not that I don’t want to hear form him, I want to hear from him when the House is willing to do their work.”
The House declined to subpoena Bolton for his testimony in November, after the longtime hawk and former U.N. ambassador’s attorney signaled Bolton wouldn’t comply with such a subpoena until a court ordered that he do so.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) described House Democrats as “desperate,” saying that they did a poor job “of establishing a credible case.” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) echoed that line, criticizing the House’s impeachment inquiry as “slapdash” while saying that House Democrats “were rushing to get to a result.”
“I don’t know why we would hear from him when he’s not included in any of the material, any of the case thats been made by the House Democrats,” Hawley said.
To Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Bolton’s willingness to testify was also the fault of House Democrats.
“If the House thinks there’s additional testimony and so forth then they can take the item up again separately from what they’ve already done,” Rubio said.
Other Republicans — including the few who Democrats hope could vote with them on trial procedural issues — deferred to the position laid out by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY): that decisions on witnesses should wait until after the beginning phases of the trial, once each side presents its initial case.
Echoing McConnell, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) pointed to the Clinton impeachment, where witnesses were voted on after the preliminary phases.
Sens. Rick Scott (R-FL) and Mike Rounds (R-ND) also punted on commenting on subpoenaing Bolton by bringing up their desire to make that decision later on.
“I think we make up our minds on who we want for witnesses after we’ve heard from the House in terms of what their argument is,” Rounds said.
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) managed to take both tacks, asking TPM, “shouldn’t we determine the process first?”
He added that the Senate’s job “isn’t to reopen witnesses and stuff that we haven’t even discussed.”
The timing of President Trump’s impeachment trial remains unknown, with Republican senators saying that Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has yet to transmit the articles of impeachment to their chamber. That, Senate GOPers say, prevents them from being able to schedule a start date to the trial over President Trump’s efforts to pressure the Ukrainian government for political dirt and alleged obstruction of Congress.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-06--GOP Rep. Tweets Photoshopped Pic Of Obama And Rouhani, Is Swiftly Debunked

The Twitter account of Rep. Paul Gosar ( R-AZ ) seems to have gotten him in trouble yet again .
In a Monday afternoon tweet , Gosar — who is known for letting loose on the platform and was reported by TPM to follow a few white nationalists — posted an edited photo of former President Barack Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani , which appears to be photoshopped from when Obama met Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi .
Gosar ’ s tweet comes in the wake of the backlash surrounding President Trump ’ s decision to authorize the strike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Soleimani .
It also came minutes after the Washington Post ’ s Mustafa Salim posted a copy of a letter from Marine Corps Brig .
Gen. William Seely to the Iraqi joint operations task force , announcing what appeared to be a complete pullout of U.S. forces from Iraq .
The Pentagon would later clarify that although the letter declaring a withdrawal was real , it was actually a draft that never should have been released publicly and was “ an honest mistake.
” Former Obama administration officials and media figures were quick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gosar ’ s tweet and demanded that he delete it .
Minutes after his initial tweet , Gosar defended himself by arguing that “ no one said this wasn ’ t photoshopped ” and that the point is that “ Obama coddled , appeased , nurtured and protected the world ’ s No .
1 sponsor of terror .
”

The Twitter account of Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) seems to have gotten him in trouble yet again.
In a Monday afternoon tweet, Gosar — who is known for letting loose on the platform and was reported by TPM to follow a few white nationalists — posted an edited photo of former President Barack Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, which appears to be photoshopped from when Obama met Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Gosar’s tweet comes in the wake of the backlash surrounding President Trump’s decision to authorize the strike that killed top Iranian military official Qasem Soleimani.
It also came minutes after the Washington Post’s Mustafa Salim posted a copy of a letter from Marine Corps Brig. Gen. William Seely to the Iraqi joint operations task force, announcing what appeared to be a complete pullout of U.S. forces from Iraq. The Pentagon would later clarify that although the letter declaring a withdrawal was real, it was actually a draft that never should have been released publicly and was “an honest mistake.”
The world is a better place without these guys in power. pic.twitter.com/gDoXQu9vO5 — Paul Gosar (@DrPaulGosar) January 6, 2020
Former Obama administration officials and media figures were quick to call out the edited photo in Gosar’s tweet and demanded that he delete it.
A few things: 1. @RepGosar is a moron.
2. The picture be tweeted is a fake.
3. There would have been nothing wrong with Obama meeting with Rouhani.
4. Mainstream Republicans are totally fine with this type of disinformation and hope you share it in outrage — Dan Pfeiffer (@danpfeiffer) January 6, 2020
It's disgusting that a U.S. representative would disseminate misinformation like this. — Walter Shaub (@waltshaub) January 6, 2020
Reprentative dentist is sharing a fake photo. https://t.co/Pdnv8I0Ozi — Molly Jong-Fast (@MollyJongFast) January 6, 2020
This is a photoshopped picture. Delete this. — Parker Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) January 6, 2020
Minutes after his initial tweet, Gosar defended himself by arguing that “no one said this wasn’t photoshopped” and that the point is that “Obama coddled, appeased, nurtured and protected the world’s No. 1 sponsor of terror.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-06--Letter Announcing US Troop Withdrawal From Iraq Was ‘Honest Mistake,’ Pentagon Says

For a brief moment on Monday , the Pentagon acknowledged a letter saying U.S. forces would leave Iraq .
And for a brief moment , the world was stunned .
President Donald Trump , after all , had just finished threatening Iraq with sanctions if American forces were shooed out of the country .
What accounted for the reversal ?
Within a few minutes , the Pentagon straightened itself out .
The letter declaring a withdrawal was real , but it was a draft that never should have been released publicly , military leaders said .
It all started a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monday , when The Washington Post ’ s Mustafa Salim posted a copy of a letter from Marine Corps Brig .
Gen. William Seely to the Iraqi joint operations task force , announcing what appeared to be a complete withdrawal of American forces from Iraq .
In the copy of Seely ’ s letter that circulated online Friday , the brigadier general said that , in deference to Iraq ’ s sovereignty “ and as requested by the Iraqi Parliament and the Prime Minister , ” the U.S.-led coalition in the country “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the coming days and weeks to prepare for onward movement.
” The letter later described “ movement out of Iraq.
” It was a reference to the resolution the Iraqi parliament approved Sunday calling for the expulsion of U.S. troops from the country , which came in response to the American airstrike that killed senior Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani outside a Baghdad airport last week .
“ We respect your sovereign decision to order our departure , ” Seely concluded his letter .
Before long , the Pentagon began confirming to reporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then came more news : Seely ’ s written words didn ’ t represent the actual position of the United States .
Within an hour , Defense Secretary Mark Esper told reporters that there ’ d been “ no decision whatsoever to leave Iraq.
” After that , the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , Gen. Mark Milley , told reporters that the letter was a draft that should not have been released .
The letter was “ poorly worded ” and “ implies withdrawal , ” Milley said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Rather , he said , the letter was meant to convey a repositioning of American troops within Iraq .
The implication in the message — that American forces were leaving Iraq after nearly two decades — was , he said , “ an honest mistake .
”

For a brief moment on Monday, the Pentagon acknowledged a letter saying U.S. forces would leave Iraq.
And for a brief moment, the world was stunned. President Donald Trump, after all, had just finished threatening Iraq with sanctions if American forces were shooed out of the country. What accounted for the reversal?
Within a few minutes, the Pentagon straightened itself out. The letter declaring a withdrawal was real, but it was a draft that never should have been released publicly, military leaders said.
It all started a few minutes before 3 p.m. ET Monday, when The Washington Post’s Mustafa Salim posted a copy of a letter from Marine Corps Brig. Gen. William Seely to the Iraqi joint operations task force, announcing what appeared to be a complete withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.
#Breaking: US military tells Iraqi Joint operations command that they are preparing to move out. pic.twitter.com/yqoFiEIHBD — Mustafa Salim (@Mustafa_salimb) January 6, 2020
In the copy of Seely’s letter that circulated online Friday, the brigadier general said that, in deference to Iraq’s sovereignty “and as requested by the Iraqi Parliament and the Prime Minister,” the U.S.-led coalition in the country “will be repositioning forces over the course of the coming days and weeks to prepare for onward movement.” The letter later described “movement out of Iraq.”
It was a reference to the resolution the Iraqi parliament approved Sunday calling for the expulsion of U.S. troops from the country, which came in response to the American airstrike that killed senior Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani outside a Baghdad airport last week.
“We respect your sovereign decision to order our departure,” Seely concluded his letter.
Before long, the Pentagon began confirming to reporters that the letter was authentic.
But then came more news: Seely’s written words didn’t represent the actual position of the United States.
Within an hour, Defense Secretary Mark Esper told reporters that there’d been “no decision whatsoever to leave Iraq.” After that, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, told reporters that the letter was a draft that should not have been released.
The letter was “poorly worded” and “implies withdrawal,” Milley said. “That is not what’s happening.” Rather, he said, the letter was meant to convey a repositioning of American troops within Iraq.
The implication in the message — that American forces were leaving Iraq after nearly two decades — was, he said, “an honest mistake.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-06--Collins Takes McConnell Line On Impeachment Trial

WASHINGTON — Sen. Susan Collins ( R-ME ) would not say on Monday whether she supported sending a subpoena to former National Security Advisor John Bolton in the upcoming impeachment trial of President Trump .
Collins did suggest that she supported the approach taken by Senate Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) in running an impeachment trial in which witnesses are called after the process ’ s initial phases .
When asked by TPM whether she believed the Senate should issue a subpoena to Bolton , who indicated on Monday that he would testify upon receiving a Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the kind of trial she would like to see .
“ I believe that the Senate should follow the precedent that was established in the trial of President Clinton , where we had three stages , ” Collins said .
“ First , we heard opening statements from both sides , then senators submitted our own questions through the chief justice.
” “ And then , we took up the issue of witnesses , ” she added .
Collins responded to a follow-up question about subpoenaing Bolton that “ we will decide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hear from.
” McConnell has said that the Senate will decide on which witnesses to call once the initial phases of the trial are complete .

WASHINGTON — Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) would not say on Monday whether she supported sending a subpoena to former National Security Advisor John Bolton in the upcoming impeachment trial of President Trump.
Collins did suggest that she supported the approach taken by Senate Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) in running an impeachment trial in which witnesses are called after the process’s initial phases.
When asked by TPM whether she believed the Senate should issue a subpoena to Bolton, who indicated on Monday that he would testify upon receiving a Senate subpoena, Collins launched into a description of the kind of trial she would like to see.
“I believe that the Senate should follow the precedent that was established in the trial of President Clinton, where we had three stages,” Collins said. “First, we heard opening statements from both sides, then senators submitted our own questions through the chief justice.”
“And then, we took up the issue of witnesses,” she added.
Collins responded to a follow-up question about subpoenaing Bolton that “we will decide at that stage who we need to hear from.”
McConnell has said that the Senate will decide on which witnesses to call once the initial phases of the trial are complete.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-06--SCOTUS To Weigh Whether To Fast Track Texas Obamacare Case

The Supreme Court will not go as quickly as blue states would like when it comes to deciding whether to take up a case seeking to dismantle Obamacare , but is still moving promptly to consider a request to fast-track such a review , if granted .
On Monday , the Supreme Court gave the red states behind the lawsuit until Friday at 4 p.m. to respond to the blue states ’ request that review of the case be expedited .
That means the Supreme Court is not planning on reviewing the expedition request at its private conference Friday morning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ along with the U.S. House of Representatives — had proposed in their request to fast-track the case .
However , the justices do appear to still be moving fairly quickly .
It takes the votes of only four justices for the court to take up a case , but five justices must agree in order to expedite a case .
While it ’ s plausible that the four liberal justices on the bench would grant review of the case — where so far , lower courts have sided with the Republican states — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s enough votes to get the case scheduled in time to be heard this term , as the blue states were requesting .
The lawsuit filed by Texas and several other Republican attorneys general alleges that the 2017 tax bill made the Affordable Care Act ’ s individual mandate unconstitutional , because the tax bill zeroed out the penalty .
Many of Obamacare ’ s challengers in the lawsuit , as well as the Trump administration , are also arguing that the whole law should be invalidated if the mandate is found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that argument , but an appeals court — while affirming the decision that the mandate was unconstitutional — sent the case back to the district court last month to re-asses its findings on whether some or all of the rest of the law must also be struck down .
On Friday , the blue states and House asked the Supreme Court to take up the case instead , and at the same , they requested that the justices fast-track such a review , so that the case could be decided by this summer @

The Supreme Court will not go as quickly as blue states would like when it comes to deciding whether to take up a case seeking to dismantle Obamacare, but is still moving promptly to consider a request to fast-track such a review, if granted.
On Monday, the Supreme Court gave the red states behind the lawsuit until Friday at 4 p.m. to respond to the blue states’ request that review of the case be expedited.
That means the Supreme Court is not planning on reviewing the expedition request at its private conference Friday morning, as the Democratic attorneys general — along with the U.S. House of Representatives — had proposed in their request to fast-track the case.
However, the justices do appear to still be moving fairly quickly. It takes the votes of only four justices for the court to take up a case, but five justices must agree in order to expedite a case.
While it’s plausible that the four liberal justices on the bench would grant review of the case — where so far, lower courts have sided with the Republican states — it’s less clear whether there’s enough votes to get the case scheduled in time to be heard this term, as the blue states were requesting.
The lawsuit filed by Texas and several other Republican attorneys general alleges that the 2017 tax bill made the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate unconstitutional, because the tax bill zeroed out the penalty. Many of Obamacare’s challengers in the lawsuit, as well as the Trump administration, are also arguing that the whole law should be invalidated if the mandate is found unconstitutional.
A district judge agreed with that argument, but an appeals court — while affirming the decision that the mandate was unconstitutional — sent the case back to the district court last month to re-asses its findings on whether some or all of the rest of the law must also be struck down.
On Friday, the blue states and House asked the Supreme Court to take up the case instead, and at the same, they requested that the justices fast-track such a review, so that the case could be decided by this summer.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-01-06--McConnell Dodges Bolton Subpoena, Schumer Demands It

Both Senate leaders took the floor for their planned addresses Monday , hours after former National Security Adviser John Bolton dropped the bombshell news that he ’ d be willing to testify in the impeachment trial if subpoenaed .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) referenced the news only obliquely , signaling that Bolton ’ s decision did not alter how he intends to go forward .
Democrats “ are pursuing avenues that Chairman Schiff himself didn ’ t bother to pursue , ” he said , adding later that “ the Senate does not just bob along @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” McConnell also advocated for starting the trial now and figuring out witnesses later .
Democrats object to that idea , not least because it removes all the leverage they currently have in withholding the articles of impeachment .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-NY ) took the floor a few minutes later , not mincing words about the optics of Republicans blocking such a big-ticket witness , now that Bolton publicly voiced his willingness to testify .
“ Given that Mr. Bolton ’ s lawyers have stated he has new and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate Republican opposes issuing subpoenas to the four witnesses and documents we ’ ve requested , they would make it absolutely clear they are participating in a coverup of one of the most sacred duties we have in this Congress , in this Senate —and that is to keep a President in check , ” he said .
He emphasized that Democrats only need four Republicans to defect to summon Bolton , along with other witnesses , and to obtain critical documents .
Bolton announced earlier on Monday that he would testify , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the serious competing issues as best I could , based on careful consideration and study ” after a judicial decision he was waiting on fell through .
He ’ d piggybacked on his deputy Charles Kupperman ’ s case , waiting for a judge to decide if a House subpoena or White House gag took precedence .
The House withdrew Kupperman ’ s subpoena , choosing to focus on witnesses willing to testify and lump the rest in with the case for the White House ’ s obstruction .
Bolton was never subpoenaed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the man who called the Ukraine pressure campaign a “ drug deal ” and Rudy Giuliani a “ hand grenade.
” Multiple witnesses recalled during the House Intelligence Committee impeachment hearings that Bolton was an objector to the backchannel negotiations , and that he directed some of them to pass their concerns up the chain of command .

Both Senate leaders took the floor for their planned addresses Monday, hours after former National Security Adviser John Bolton dropped the bombshell news that he’d be willing to testify in the impeachment trial if subpoenaed.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) referenced the news only obliquely, signaling that Bolton’s decision did not alter how he intends to go forward.
Democrats “are pursuing avenues that Chairman Schiff himself didn’t bother to pursue,” he said, adding later that “the Senate does not just bob along on the currents of every news cycle.”
McConnell also advocated for starting the trial now and figuring out witnesses later. Democrats object to that idea, not least because it removes all the leverage they currently have in withholding the articles of impeachment.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) took the floor a few minutes later, not mincing words about the optics of Republicans blocking such a big-ticket witness, now that Bolton publicly voiced his willingness to testify.
“Given that Mr. Bolton’s lawyers have stated he has new and relevant information to share, if any Senate Republican opposes issuing subpoenas to the four witnesses and documents we’ve requested, they would make it absolutely clear they are participating in a coverup of one of the most sacred duties we have in this Congress, in this Senate —and that is to keep a President in check,” he said.
He emphasized that Democrats only need four Republicans to defect to summon Bolton, along with other witnesses, and to obtain critical documents.
Bolton announced earlier on Monday that he would testify, saying that he “had to resolve the serious competing issues as best I could, based on careful consideration and study” after a judicial decision he was waiting on fell through. He’d piggybacked on his deputy Charles Kupperman’s case, waiting for a judge to decide if a House subpoena or White House gag took precedence.
The House withdrew Kupperman’s subpoena, choosing to focus on witnesses willing to testify and lump the rest in with the case for the White House’s obstruction. Bolton was never subpoenaed.
Democrats have long desired the testimony of the man who called the Ukraine pressure campaign a “drug deal” and Rudy Giuliani a “hand grenade.” Multiple witnesses recalled during the House Intelligence Committee impeachment hearings that Bolton was an objector to the backchannel negotiations, and that he directed some of them to pass their concerns up the chain of command.
Bolton left the administration on September 10.