talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-30--Judge Suggests Ross Violated Her Order Extending Time To Finish Census Counting

A federal judge on Tuesday suggested that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross may have violated her order blocking the administration from rushing the 2020 census count .
The judge has ordered briefing on the matter .
Among U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh ’ s concerns was Ross ’ announcement on Monday of a new “ target date ” for the census to complete its field counting operations by next week – an announcement which was apparently based on the very schedule she had previously blocked .
At one point at a hearing Tuesday evening , Koh suggested that the move could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was up to the parties challenging the expedited census schedule to decide whether they would request a contempt proceeding .
“ You don ’ t have to call it contempt , you can call it something else , ” she instructed their lawyer , Melissa Sherry .
Justice Department attorney August Flentje said the suggestions of contempt were not “ fair ” or “ realistic.
” He defended the administration ’ s move to continue to plan as if it will need to deliver the census ’ apportionment data by the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the judge had previously enjoined — because it was possible that the deadline will be reimposed .
“ If a violation of the order has been committed , there should be consequences , ” the judge said .
The dispute is the latest in what has been a dramatic and quickly evolving legal fight over the administration ’ s efforts to wind down the census count , after it previously said that the Census Bureau should be given four extra months to finish it up because of the pandemic .
The Census Bureau @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ross that the truncated timeline risked “ serious ” errors in the count ’ s accuracy , according to documents released in the litigation .
Many observers — as well as officials within the Census Bureau — believe the push to expedite the count is related to President Trump ’ s directive that the administration seek to exclude undocumented immigrants from the census data that will be used to determine how many representatives each state gets to the U.S. House .
Forcing the Bureau to stick to the end-of-the-year apportionment data would guarantee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to implement the policy , which is being challenged in court , even if he loses his re-election .
The Justice Department has claimed that the Census Bureau has no choice but to speed up the count because Congress failed to grant the four-month extensions that the administration initially requested when the pandemic began to take hold this spring .
The House has approved such extensions , and it appears that Senate Republican rank-and-file is open to the idea , but the Senate GOP ’ s leadership has yet to back such a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end-of-the-year deadline for delivering congressional apportionment last week .
The order also blocked the Census Bureau from completing its data collection on Sept. 30 , which was the plan under the truncated timeline .
The Census Bureau had said in April , when it was seeking the four-month deadline extensions , that data collection would last until the end of October .
Minutes before a hearing before Koh was scheduled to begin on Monday , the Census Bureau tweeted that Ross had set a “ target date ” for data collection to end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration filed on Tuesday , pursuant to an order from the judge , showed that Ross had chosen that date because the Census Bureau told him that continuing the field counting operation any longer would preclude the bureau from meeting the Dec. 31 data delivery deadline .
“ This October 5 date is doing exactly what I enjoined the defendants from doing , ” Judge Koh said .
The judge ordered that the challengers file their submissions by Wednesday 11 a.m .
P.T.
, and that the administration file its response by Thursday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an opportunity to file a reply before a hearing is held on the matter Friday at 3 p.m. PT .

A federal judge on Tuesday suggested that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross may have violated her order blocking the administration from rushing the 2020 census count. The judge has ordered briefing on the matter.
Among U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh’s concerns was Ross’ announcement on Monday of a new “target date” for the census to complete its field counting operations by next week – an announcement which was apparently based on the very schedule she had previously blocked.
At one point at a hearing Tuesday evening, Koh suggested that the move could warrant contempt proceedings. She later said it was up to the parties challenging the expedited census schedule to decide whether they would request a contempt proceeding.
“You don’t have to call it contempt, you can call it something else,” she instructed their lawyer, Melissa Sherry.
Justice Department attorney August Flentje said the suggestions of contempt were not “fair” or “realistic.” He defended the administration’s move to continue to plan as if it will need to deliver the census’ apportionment data by the end of the year — one the deadlines the judge had previously enjoined — because it was possible that the deadline will be reimposed.
“If a violation of the order has been committed, there should be consequences,” the judge said.
The dispute is the latest in what has been a dramatic and quickly evolving legal fight over the administration’s efforts to wind down the census count, after it previously said that the Census Bureau should be given four extra months to finish it up because of the pandemic.
The Census Bureau’s own experts last month warned Ross that the truncated timeline risked “serious” errors in the count’s accuracy, according to documents released in the litigation.
Many observers — as well as officials within the Census Bureau — believe the push to expedite the count is related to President Trump’s directive that the administration seek to exclude undocumented immigrants from the census data that will be used to determine how many representatives each state gets to the U.S. House.
Forcing the Bureau to stick to the end-of-the-year apportionment data would guarantee that Trump would still be the president to implement the policy, which is being challenged in court, even if he loses his re-election.
The Justice Department has claimed that the Census Bureau has no choice but to speed up the count because Congress failed to grant the four-month extensions that the administration initially requested when the pandemic began to take hold this spring. The House has approved such extensions, and it appears that Senate Republican rank-and-file is open to the idea, but the Senate GOP’s leadership has yet to back such a proposal.
Judge Koh shot down the end-of-the-year deadline for delivering congressional apportionment last week. The order also blocked the Census Bureau from completing its data collection on Sept. 30, which was the plan under the truncated timeline.
The Census Bureau had said in April, when it was seeking the four-month deadline extensions, that data collection would last until the end of October.
Minutes before a hearing before Koh was scheduled to begin on Monday, the Census Bureau tweeted that Ross had set a “target date” for data collection to end on Oct. 5. Documents that the administration filed on Tuesday, pursuant to an order from the judge, showed that Ross had chosen that date because the Census Bureau told him that continuing the field counting operation any longer would preclude the bureau from meeting the Dec. 31 data delivery deadline.
“This October 5 date is doing exactly what I enjoined the defendants from doing,” Judge Koh said.
The judge ordered that the challengers file their submissions by Wednesday 11 a.m. P.T., and that the administration file its response by Thursday night. The challengers will then have an opportunity to file a reply before a hearing is held on the matter Friday at 3 p.m. PT.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-29--DNI Ratcliffe Dumps A Batch Of Russian Disinfo On Clinton Hours Before Debate

Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe released Russian disinformation hours before the presidential debate Tuesday , declassifying the information without vetting or disavowing it .
Per Politico , the information had previously been rejected by both Democratic and Republican members of the Senate Intelligence Committee because it lacked any factual basis .
The information was revealed in a Tuesday letter to Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) .
“ In late July 2016 , U.S. intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian intelligence analysis alleging that U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump by tying him to Putin and the Russians ’ hacking of the Democratic National Committee , ” Ratcliffe said in the letter .
“ The IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication , ” he added .
He also said that then-CIA Director John Brennan briefed President Barack Obama on the Russian claims .
The Intel Committee came across the allegation against Clinton early on during its investigation that led to five reports on Russia ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but quickly dismissed it , per Politico .
Democrats were outraged by the seemingly unnecessary release of Russian chatter , the kind which has long aimed to sow unwarranted doubt .
“ This is Russian disinformation , ” wrote Rachel Cohen , communication director for Senate Intel Vice Chairman Mark Warner ( D-VA ) on Twitter .
“ Laundered by the Director Of National Intelligence and Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee .
This is extraordinary.
” A spokesperson for Senate Intel Chairman Mark Rubio ( R-FL ) did not immediately respond to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The letter , eagerly latched onto by the likes of Donald Trump Jr. , was just one drop in the conspiracy theory deluge pushed by the right-wing elements of the internet and Trump allies before Tuesday ’ s debate .
A virally shared claim asserted that former Vice President Joe Biden would be wearing a secret earpiece during the debate and that he had backed out of an agreement to have his ears inspected beforehand .
The Biden campaign said they made no such agreement .
Another conspiracy theory , amplified by Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter , said baselessly that Biden had been fed debate questions in advance .

Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe released Russian disinformation hours before the presidential debate Tuesday, declassifying the information without vetting or disavowing it.
Per Politico, the information had previously been rejected by both Democratic and Republican members of the Senate Intelligence Committee because it lacked any factual basis.
The information was revealed in a Tuesday letter to Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC).
“In late July 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian intelligence
analysis alleging that U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a
campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump
by tying him to Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National
Committee,” Ratcliffe said in the letter.
“The IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication,” he added.
He also said that then-CIA Director John Brennan briefed President Barack Obama on the Russian claims.
The Intel Committee came across the allegation against Clinton early on during its investigation that led to five reports on Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, but quickly dismissed it, per Politico.
Democrats were outraged by the seemingly unnecessary release of Russian chatter, the kind which has long aimed to sow unwarranted doubt.
“This is Russian disinformation,” wrote Rachel Cohen, communication director for Senate Intel Vice Chairman Mark Warner (D-VA) on Twitter. “Laundered by the Director Of National Intelligence and Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. This is extraordinary.”
A spokesperson for Senate Intel Chairman Mark Rubio (R-FL) did not immediately respond to TPM’s request for comment.
The letter, eagerly latched onto by the likes of Donald Trump Jr., was just one drop in the conspiracy theory deluge pushed by the right-wing elements of the internet and Trump allies before Tuesday’s debate.
A virally shared claim asserted that former Vice President Joe Biden would be wearing a secret earpiece during the debate and that he had backed out of an agreement to have his ears inspected beforehand. The Biden campaign said they made no such agreement. Another conspiracy theory, amplified by Trump campaign senior legal adviser Jenna Ellis on Twitter, said baselessly that Biden had been fed debate questions in advance.
Read the letter here:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-29--Sorry Mike Flynn, Judge Still Not Ready To Dismiss Your Case

Tuesday ’ s long-anticipated hearing in Michael Flynn ’ s ongoing legal drama did not bring the one thing Flynn and the President Trump ’ s Justice Department deeply desire : a dismissal of the Flynn case .
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan entertained their arguments — and the arguments of a retired judge he has tasked with opposing the dismissal request — for nearly five hours .
The Justice Department and Flynn ’ s lawyer Sidney Powell went all in on the conspiracy theories that allege that Flynn , who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI in 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as part of a Deep State “ coup ” directed at President Trump .
But Sullivan gave no indication that he was convinced by those arguments , nor did he hint that he planned on dismissing the case in the coming days .
On the contrary , he requested additional briefing , meaning that at least for the next week or so , he is unlikely to agree to drop Flynn ’ s case .
What the judge did occasionally show was just how troubled he was by the evidence — including Thursday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attorney had personally briefed President Trump on the case — that the government may have been working to undermine its own prosecution of Flynn to a greater degree than was previously known .
The arguments put in stark relief the high-stakes nature of the DOJ ’ s gambit to reverse its prosecution of Flynn , whom Trump and his allies are already hankering to get back into the President ’ s inner circle .
Repeatedly , the judge was asked to consider whether , by granting Flynn ’ s dismissal , he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowing a separate set of rules to be applied to defendants who are also allies of the President .
“ If the executive wants to take Michael Flynn off the hook , it could pardon him , ” former U.S. District Judge John Gleeson , who ’ s been tasked with opposing the DOJ ’ s arguments said .
“ Because if it does that , it doesn ’ t bind up this judge , this court in the unseemly desire to scuttle the case because the defendant is a friend of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arguments marked the first time Sullivan got to hear in court from Gleeson , the former federal prosecutor and retired judge who Sullivan appointed as a so-called friend of the court to lay out why Flynn ’ s case need not be dropped .
Gleeson kept his arguments relatively straightforward and clean , emphasizing that the Justice Department was having to “ contort itself ” for Flynn by deviating from its usual approach in similar prosecutions .
He called such contortions “ ridiculous ” but also “ sad ” because “ this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On the DOJ ’ s assertion that it no longer believed it could prove the case against Flynn at trial , Gleeson quietly scoffed .
He repeatedly challenged the Justice Department to do for other defendants what it had done for Flynn .
In Gleeson ’ s account , the Justice Department ’ s “ odd ” behavior in the Flynn case in recent months pointed to one obvious conclusion : that the Justice Department “ yielded ” to pressure from President Trump , who has aired publicly his disdain for the Russia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do with the President ’ s belief that this is some kind of witch hunt , and an attorney general who has said publicly that the President ’ s tweets … made it very difficult for the Justice Department to get the trust of the courts , ” Gleeson concluded .
The Department , which was represented at Tuesday ’ s hearing by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Hashim Mooppan and career attorney Kenneth Kohl , leaned more deeply than it ever had before into Trump ’ s claims that its investigation into his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ witch hunt.
” “ What if it ’ s true that it ’ s a witch hunt ?
” Mooppan said at one point in the hearing , arguing to Sullivan that that ’ s not Trump asking the DOJ to help a friend , but rather to relieve the anguish of a concerned citizen .
Kohl , who touted his background as a longtime career official , told Sullivan he was appearing at the hearing to push back against claims that the dismissal request was driven by a desire to help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The allegation that we would act with a corrupt political motive is just not true , ” he said .
Within minutes , Kohl instead accused former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe , both Trump foils who played key roles at the beginning of the Russia probe , of acting corruptly .
Kohl suggested also that Obama administration political appointees had manipulated evidence to place Flynn behind bars as part of an illegitimate investigation .
“ When the agents themselves aren ’ t absolutely convinced that he ’ s guilty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bring the charges , ” Kohl said , relying on piecemeal documents of unclear relevance to allege that the FBI was unsure of whether Flynn committed a crime .
Powell , not surprisingly , took the anti-FBI arguments the farthest , claiming at one point that the Russia probe was a “ coup ” and alleging baselessly that prosecutors first went after Flynn as a way “ to get to President Trump.
” Sullivan ’ s skepticism of Powell became clear when he suggested that her June 2019 outreach to the Justice Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a private letter to Attorney General Barr asking that he drop Flynn ’ s case before she formally became Flynn ’ s attorney of record in the case .
It was during Sullivan ’ s grilling about this outreach that Powell revealed she briefed Trump personally about the status of the case in recent weeks .
She at first resisted disclosing the conversation by suggesting it could be protected by executive privilege .
But upon more pressing by Sullivan , she admitted that she advised Trump against issuing a pardon for Flynn and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his campaign legal advisor Jenna Ellis .
As the hearing drew to a close , Sullivan took the time to praise both sides , thanking them for their “ excellent pleadings.
” But he betrayed no sense that he agreed with Powell or the Justice Department .
Rather , it was during the first hour of the hearing — in which Sullivan read out his summary of the case — that the judge gave a sense of his thinking .
Citing one Supreme Court case , for example , Sullivan said that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to dismiss was not “ for the court to serve merely as a rubber stamp.
” Sullivan repeated that line , stressing that the precedent was not “ to serve merely as a rubber stamp .
”

Tuesday’s long-anticipated hearing in Michael Flynn’s ongoing legal drama did not bring the one thing Flynn and the President Trump’s Justice Department deeply desire: a dismissal of the Flynn case.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan entertained their arguments — and the arguments of a retired judge he has tasked with opposing the dismissal request — for nearly five hours. The Justice Department and Flynn’s lawyer Sidney Powell went all in on the conspiracy theories that allege that Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI in 2017 about his Russian contacts, was targeted as part of a Deep State “coup” directed at President Trump.
But Sullivan gave no indication that he was convinced by those arguments, nor did he hint that he planned on dismissing the case in the coming days. On the contrary, he requested additional briefing, meaning that at least for the next week or so, he is unlikely to agree to drop Flynn’s case.
What the judge did occasionally show was just how troubled he was by the evidence — including Thursday’s revelation that Flynn’s attorney had personally briefed President Trump on the case — that the government may have been working to undermine its own prosecution of Flynn to a greater degree than was previously known.
The arguments put in stark relief the high-stakes nature of the DOJ’s gambit to reverse its prosecution of Flynn, whom Trump and his allies are already hankering to get back into the President’s inner circle. Repeatedly, the judge was asked to consider whether, by granting Flynn’s dismissal, he was being forced to play a role in allowing a separate set of rules to be applied to defendants who are also allies of the President.
“If the executive wants to take Michael Flynn off the hook, it could pardon him,” former U.S. District Judge John Gleeson, who’s been tasked with opposing the DOJ’s arguments said. “Because if it does that, it doesn’t bind up this judge, this court in the unseemly desire to scuttle the case because the defendant is a friend of the President’s.”
Tuesday’s arguments marked the first time Sullivan got to hear in court from Gleeson, the former federal prosecutor and retired judge who Sullivan appointed as a so-called friend of the court to lay out why Flynn’s case need not be dropped.
Gleeson kept his arguments relatively straightforward and clean, emphasizing that the Justice Department was having to “contort itself” for Flynn by deviating from its usual approach in similar prosecutions.
He called such contortions “ridiculous” but also “sad” because “this is our Department of Justice, too.”
On the DOJ’s assertion that it no longer believed it could prove the case against Flynn at trial, Gleeson quietly scoffed. He repeatedly challenged the Justice Department to do for other defendants what it had done for Flynn.
In Gleeson’s account, the Justice Department’s “odd” behavior in the Flynn case in recent months pointed to one obvious conclusion: that the Justice Department “yielded” to pressure from President Trump, who has aired publicly his disdain for the Russia investigation.
It “has everything to do with the President’s belief that this is some kind of witch hunt, and an attorney general who has said publicly that the President’s tweets … made it very difficult for the Justice Department to get the trust of the courts,” Gleeson concluded.
The Department, which was represented at Tuesday’s hearing by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Hashim Mooppan and career attorney Kenneth Kohl, leaned more deeply than it ever had before into Trump’s claims that its investigation into his campaign’s Russia ties was a “witch hunt.”
“What if it’s true that it’s a witch hunt?” Mooppan said at one point in the hearing, arguing to Sullivan that that’s not Trump asking the DOJ to help a friend, but rather to relieve the anguish of a concerned citizen.
Kohl, who touted his background as a longtime career official, told Sullivan he was appearing at the hearing to push back against claims that the dismissal request was driven by a desire to help out one of Trump’s friends.“The allegation that we would act with a corrupt political motive is just not true,” he said.
Within minutes, Kohl instead accused former FBI officials Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe, both Trump foils who played key roles at the beginning of the Russia probe, of acting corruptly. Kohl suggested also that Obama administration political appointees had manipulated evidence to place Flynn behind bars as part of an illegitimate investigation.
“When the agents themselves aren’t absolutely convinced that he’s guilty, career prosecutors just wouldn’t bring the charges,” Kohl said, relying on piecemeal documents of unclear relevance to allege that the FBI was unsure of whether Flynn committed a crime.
Powell, not surprisingly, took the anti-FBI arguments the farthest, claiming at one point that the Russia probe was a “coup” and alleging baselessly that prosecutors first went after Flynn as a way “to get to President Trump.”
Sullivan’s skepticism of Powell became clear when he suggested that her June 2019 outreach to the Justice Department was ethically dubious. Powell had sent a private letter to Attorney General Barr asking that he drop Flynn’s case before she formally became Flynn’s attorney of record in the case.
It was during Sullivan’s grilling about this outreach that Powell revealed she briefed Trump personally about the status of the case in recent weeks. She at first resisted disclosing the conversation by suggesting it could be protected by executive privilege. But upon more pressing by Sullivan, she admitted that she advised Trump against issuing a pardon for Flynn and that she also discussed the case with his campaign legal advisor Jenna Ellis.
As the hearing drew to a close, Sullivan took the time to praise both sides, thanking them for their “excellent pleadings.”
But he betrayed no sense that he agreed with Powell or the Justice Department. Rather, it was during the first hour of the hearing — in which Sullivan read out his summary of the case — that the judge gave a sense of his thinking.
Citing one Supreme Court case, for example, Sullivan said that the ruling found that the rule governing motions to dismiss was not “for the court to serve merely as a rubber stamp.”
Sullivan repeated that line, stressing that the precedent was not “to serve merely as a rubber stamp.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-29--Cruz: ‘Entire Reason’ For Quick Confirmation Is So Barrett Can Weigh In On Election Issues

Senator Ted Cruz ( R-TX ) said Tuesday that a potential dispute of election results is why the Senate should move quickly to confirm Trump nominee to the Supreme Court , Judge Amy Coney Barrett .
“ The entire reason the Senate should act and should act promptly to confirm a ninth justice is so that the Supreme Court can resolve any cases that arise in the wake of the election , ” Cruz told reporters .
Earlier on Tuesday , Cruz told NPR that a Supreme Court as it stands with a seat left vacant by the recent death @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the constitutional authority to decide anything , ” Cruz said .
“ And so we could have multiple conflicting opinions from multiple courts of appeals and weeks or months of chaos and uncertainty.
” Cruz told NPR ’ s Steve Inskeep that he thinks Barrett — the ideological heir of the late Justice Antonin Scalia and former Trump pick who was confirmed to the U.S. District ’ s 7th Circuit — would be a “ strong justice.
” The comments come after some Democrats , including Sen. Cory Booker ( NJ ) have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meeting with Barrett as she met with GOP senators during an appearance on Capitol Hill on Tuesday that it was important from Barrett to recuse herself from rendering any judgment related to upcoming election results .
“ If she does not recuse herself , I fear that the court will be further delegitimized , ” Booker , who is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee told NBC News ’ “ Meet the Press ” on Sunday .
Sen. Chris Coons ( D-DE ) made a likeminded suggestion before Trump had formally announced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given the “ arguable ethical complication ” of a justice confirmed so close to the election , Trump ’ s nominee “ should recuse herself ” from weighing in on election issues .
The concerns raised by Democratic leaders follow President Trump ’ s remarks last week during a White House briefing , telling reporters when asked , that he may not be committed to a peaceful transfer of power if he faces electoral defeat in November .
“ I think this [ the election ] will end up in the Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very important that we have nine justices , ” Trump said on Wednesday .
The President appeared to double down on that message during a campaign rally Friday .
He told crowds in Newport News , Virginia , that while he wanted “ a smooth , beautiful transition , ” he would only relent if the results were borne of a “ honest vote , ” adding amid an ongoing effort to delegitimize mail-in voting that the election which is just weeks away is a “ disaster waiting to happen.
” Senate Minority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday that he would decline a meeting with Barrett amid what he called an “ illegitimate process.
” He said that the effort by Republicans to jam through a confirmation put at risk the health care of roughly 23 million Americans who are insured under provisions of the Affordable Care Act– an Obama-era policy that faces its latest challenge before the high court in November — just a week after the presidential election and shortly after Barrett is confirmed if all goes as planned .

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) said Tuesday that a potential dispute of election results is why the Senate should move quickly to confirm Trump nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
“The entire reason the Senate should act and should act promptly to confirm a ninth justice is so that the Supreme Court can resolve any cases that arise in the wake of the election,” Cruz told reporters.
Earlier on Tuesday, Cruz told NPR that a Supreme Court as it stands with a seat left vacant by the recent death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg “lacks the constitutional authority to decide anything,” Cruz said. “And so we could have multiple conflicting opinions from multiple courts of appeals and weeks or months of chaos and uncertainty.”
Cruz told NPR’s Steve Inskeep that he thinks Barrett — the ideological heir of the late Justice Antonin Scalia and former Trump pick who was confirmed to the U.S. District’s 7th Circuit — would be a “strong justice.”
The comments come after some Democrats, including Sen. Cory Booker (NJ) have said that while they were open to meeting with Barrett as she met with GOP senators during an appearance on Capitol Hill on Tuesday that it was important from Barrett to recuse herself from rendering any judgment related to upcoming election results.
“If she does not recuse herself, I fear that the court will be further delegitimized,” Booker, who is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee told NBC News’ “Meet the Press” on Sunday.
Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) made a likeminded suggestion before Trump had formally announced Barrett, similarly telling NPR Thursday that given the “arguable ethical complication” of a justice confirmed so close to the election, Trump’s nominee “should recuse herself” from weighing in on election issues.
The concerns raised by Democratic leaders follow President Trump’s remarks last week during a White House briefing, telling reporters when asked, that he may not be committed to a peaceful transfer of power if he faces electoral defeat in November.
“I think this [the election] will end up in the Supreme Court, and I think it’s very important that we have nine justices,” Trump said on Wednesday.
The President appeared to double down on that message during a campaign rally Friday. He told crowds in Newport News, Virginia, that while he wanted “a smooth, beautiful transition,” he would only relent if the results were borne of a “honest vote,” adding amid an ongoing effort to delegitimize mail-in voting that the election which is just weeks away is a “disaster waiting to happen.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a tweet Tuesday that he would decline a meeting with Barrett amid what he called an “illegitimate process.”
He said that the effort by Republicans to jam through a confirmation put at risk the health care of roughly 23 million Americans who are insured under provisions of the Affordable Care Act– an Obama-era policy that faces its latest challenge before the high court in November — just a week after the presidential election and shortly after Barrett is confirmed if all goes as planned.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-29--What If The Elections Office Has To Quarantine? Officials Are Training For Nightmare Scenarios

Picture this : You ’ re an elections official in a small town , wading through the most unusual balloting process of your career .
It ’ s Nov. 1 , two days from the “ official ” Election Day , but hundreds or thousands of mail-in ballots have already arrived at your workplace .
Suddenly , you get a call : One of your coworkers has been diagnosed with COVID-19 .
The entire office must be quarantined at home .
The uncounted ballots begin to stack up .
“ There is a fair chance that the entire staff could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a research analyst at the Bipartisan Policy Center ( BPC ) , which last month staged several tabletop disaster scenarios — or “ legitimacy threats ” — like this one with state and local elections officials .
BPC ’ s day of tabletop games was just one in a number of such events aimed at preparing governments across an uneasy nation for whatever might happen five weeks from now .
The exercise , inspired by the Department of Homeland Security ’ s own cybersecurity-oriented games with local officials , included around three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials from states and counties across the country , including Oregon ’ s Director of Elections Steve Trout and Wisconsin Elections Commission Administrator Meagan Wolfe .
And while there are plenty of other ongoing threats to the legitimacy of this year ’ s elections — Donald Trump has said for weeks that he ’ s the only possible legitimate winner this November , and fringe media are raising hell about an imaginary left-wing coup plot — Orey said election officials were primarily focused on the tangibles , such as : What happens if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run the dang thing ?
What If Election Workers Have To Quarantine ?
BPC ’ s exercise shook out a few possible cures for the staffing issue .
Offices can be divided in half , slashing any potential losses due to COVID-19 quarantine .
The state of Washington ’ s board of elections has done this , Orey noted .
If one half of the group has to go into quarantine , the remaining half will split up again .
Staff can be trained as “ jacks-of-all-trades , ” so that officials with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fly .
And depending on the jurisdiction , election workers also have the authority to surge short-term staffing to meet ballot-counting needs .
Still , some offices are simply too small to take precautionary steps that others might , or don ’ t have the legal authority to carry out a last-minute hiring boost .
And some scenarios are just hard to plan for .
What happens , for example , if a poll worker tests positive for COVID-19 on Election Day — while they ’ re at a polling place ?
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and then what ?
If all else fails , BPC recommended , consider calling in the National Guard or other state officials who can fill necessary shoes .
What If Voters And Protesters Clash ?
Election problems tend to compound .
Take the process of voting itself : With more virus-related safety precautions in effect in polling places , like plexiglass buffers and social distancing rules , progress at polling places can slow down .
Lines may lengthen .
Eventually , they extend past the boundaries marking campaign-free buffer zones — leading potentially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protesters .
That ’ s what happened in Fairfax County , Virginia recently .
Excitement for the first day of early voting led to a whopper of a line outside the county ’ s government center .
A group of Trump supporters , outside of the state ’ s 40-foot limit for electioneering , yelled and waved signs .
“ Some voters , and elections staff , did feel intimidated by the crowd , ” the county ’ s general registrar said later of the scene .
Election officials participating in BPC ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing happening to them , said Matthew Weil , director of BPC ’ s Elections Project .
But there aren ’ t many good answers .
“ The problem for election officials is they don ’ t have a whole lot of control when it comes to protests outside of polling places , ” Weil told TPM .
“ It ’ s kind of just the fact of how it is.
” Bringing in law enforcement can be “ intimidating on its own , ” he noted , given the long history of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suppression .
And BPC ’ s own analysis has shown that voters wait longer in areas with more minority voters , Orey noted , as well as in low-income areas and those with more renters .
Three decades ago , the Republican Party ’ s use of off-duty law enforcement to patrol polling places in New Jersey resulted in a lawsuit and a consent decree that lasted through 2017 .
President Donald Trump ’ s musing about using law enforcement to patrol polling places ripped these memories back into the headlines , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recruit a poll-watching “ army.
” In 2018 , false social media posts forced ICE to clarify that its officers would not be present at polling places .
“ It ’ s a touchy subject , ” Weil noted of having law enforcement around voters .
“ Lots of places have pretty bad histories when it comes to law enforcement at the polls.
” What If A ‘ Tsunami ’ Of Mailed Ballots Gives Trump Ammo ?
The BPC report on its exercise takes pains to avoid calling out the President by name @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of record mail-in voting to undermine confidence in results .
He tweeted recently that it would indicate a “ rigged ” election if mail-in ballots tabulated after Nov. 3 make the winning difference for Biden .
More generally , he ’ s baselessly claimed that mail-in balloting makes for widespread fraud .
Thus , the potential “ tsunami ” of mail-in ballots poses a problem , BPC noted .
Combined with the myriad state-level restrictions on when mailed ballots can actually begin to be counted , results will likely take longer this year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highly polarized year like 2020 , delays in results or wild swings in vote totals ( as more votes get tallied ) will incentivize candidates to claim misconduct on the part of election officials , ” BPC said in its report on the exercise .
“ Even scarier , we can imagine cases where a candidate claims a victory they have not yet earned and then calls for an end to the vote counting , well ahead of statutorily-allowed deadlines.
” But Weil asserted that , regardless of the rhetoric , elections officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to do their jobs.
” “ They have enough things to worry about , ” he said .

Picture this: You’re an elections official in a small town, wading through the most unusual balloting process of your career. It’s Nov. 1, two days from the “official” Election Day, but hundreds or thousands of mail-in ballots have already arrived at your workplace.
Suddenly, you get a call: One of your coworkers has been diagnosed with COVID-19. The entire office must be quarantined at home. The uncounted ballots begin to stack up.
“There is a fair chance that the entire staff could be compromised,” said Rachel Orey, a research analyst at the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC), which last month staged several tabletop disaster scenarios — or “legitimacy threats” — like this one with state and local elections officials.
BPC’s day of tabletop games was just one in a number of such events aimed at preparing governments across an uneasy nation for whatever might happen five weeks from now.
The exercise, inspired by the Department of Homeland Security’s own cybersecurity-oriented games with local officials, included around three dozen officials. Among them were top officials from states and counties across the country, including Oregon’s Director of Elections Steve Trout and Wisconsin Elections Commission Administrator Meagan Wolfe.
And while there are plenty of other ongoing threats to the legitimacy of this year’s elections — Donald Trump has said for weeks that he’s the only possible legitimate winner this November, and fringe media are raising hell about an imaginary left-wing coup plot — Orey said election officials were primarily focused on the tangibles, such as: What happens if there’s no one around to run the dang thing?
What If Election Workers Have To Quarantine?
BPC’s exercise shook out a few possible cures for the staffing issue.
Offices can be divided in half, slashing any potential losses due to COVID-19 quarantine. The state of Washington’s board of elections has done this, Orey noted. If one half of the group has to go into quarantine, the remaining half will split up again.
Staff can be trained as “jacks-of-all-trades,” so that officials with specialty knowledge can be replaced on the fly. And depending on the jurisdiction, election workers also have the authority to surge short-term staffing to meet ballot-counting needs.
Still, some offices are simply too small to take precautionary steps that others might, or don’t have the legal authority to carry out a last-minute hiring boost.
And some scenarios are just hard to plan for. What happens, for example, if a poll worker tests positive for COVID-19 on Election Day — while they’re at a polling place? That location would have to be closed, and then what?
If all else fails, BPC recommended, consider calling in the National Guard or other state officials who can fill necessary shoes.
What If Voters And Protesters Clash?
Election problems tend to compound. Take the process of voting itself: With more virus-related safety precautions in effect in polling places, like plexiglass buffers and social distancing rules, progress at polling places can slow down. Lines may lengthen. Eventually, they extend past the boundaries marking campaign-free buffer zones — leading potentially to interactions between voters and flag-wavers or protesters.
That’s what happened in Fairfax County, Virginia recently. Excitement for the first day of early voting led to a whopper of a line outside the county’s government center. A group of Trump supporters, outside of the state’s 40-foot limit for electioneering, yelled and waved signs. “Some voters, and elections staff, did feel intimidated by the crowd,” the county’s general registrar said later of the scene.
Election officials participating in BPC’s exercise expressed concern about the same thing happening to them, said Matthew Weil, director of BPC’s Elections Project. But there aren’t many good answers.
“The problem for election officials is they don’t have a whole lot of control when it comes to protests outside of polling places,” Weil told TPM. “It’s kind of just the fact of how it is.”
Bringing in law enforcement can be “intimidating on its own,” he noted, given the long history of law enforcement’s role in voter suppression. And BPC’s own analysis has shown that voters wait longer in areas with more minority voters, Orey noted, as well as in low-income areas and those with more renters.
Three decades ago, the Republican Party’s use of off-duty law enforcement to patrol polling places in New Jersey resulted in a lawsuit and a consent decree that lasted through 2017. President Donald Trump’s musing about using law enforcement to patrol polling places ripped these memories back into the headlines, as have his campaign’s efforts to recruit a poll-watching “army.” In 2018, false social media posts forced ICE to clarify that its officers would not be present at polling places.
“It’s a touchy subject,” Weil noted of having law enforcement around voters. “Lots of places have pretty bad histories when it comes to law enforcement at the polls.”
What If A ‘Tsunami’ Of Mailed Ballots Gives Trump Ammo?
The BPC report on its exercise takes pains to avoid calling out the President by name. But Trump has used the likelihood of record mail-in voting to undermine confidence in results.
He tweeted recently that it would indicate a “rigged” election if mail-in ballots tabulated after Nov. 3 make the winning difference for Biden. More generally, he’s baselessly claimed that mail-in balloting makes for widespread fraud.
Thus, the potential “tsunami” of mail-in ballots poses a problem, BPC noted. Combined with the myriad state-level restrictions on when mailed ballots can actually begin to be counted, results will likely take longer this year.
“[I]n a highly polarized year like 2020, delays in results or wild swings in vote totals (as more votes get tallied) will incentivize candidates to claim misconduct on the part of election officials,” BPC said in its report on the exercise.
“Even scarier, we can imagine cases where a candidate claims a victory they have not yet earned and then calls for an end to the vote counting, well ahead of statutorily-allowed deadlines.”
But Weil asserted that, regardless of the rhetoric, elections officials he’s spoken with “are going to do their jobs.”
“They have enough things to worry about,” he said.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-29--Flynn’s Lawyer Reveals That She Personally Updated Trump About Flynn’s Case

Michael Flynn ’ s defense attorney personally updated President Trump on the status of Flynn ’ s case , and recommended against the idea of Trump giving Flynn a pardon , the attorney , Sidney Powell , admitted in court Tuesday .
She also said she updated Jenna Ellis , who is currently serving as a Trump campaign legal advisor , about the litigation .
At first Powell balked at giving U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan the details when Sullivan asked her whether she had spoken directly to Trump about the case .
She tried to claim that such a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , prompting Sullivan to note that she is not an employee of the government .
The exchange happened during a long-anticipated hearing Tuesday on the Justice Department ’ s request that Sullivan drop Flynn ’ s case .
Flynn had tried , and ultimately failed , to get an appeals court to force Sullivan to grant the motion immediately .
Sullivan had asked the DOJ attorneys at the hearing about a letter Powell had sent Attorney General Bill Barr in June 2019 seeking dismissal of Flynn ’ s case — a letter that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the court notice that she was taking over Flynn ’ s defense .
When the DOJ attorneys could not say whether there were conversations between Powell and the Department after the letter , Sullivan allowed Powell to give her account of her outreach to the administration .
During that explanation , Sullivan asked point blank whether Powell had spoken to the President himself .
Powell was hazy about the timing of this conversation with Trump , but said it happened after Flynn had sought that the appeals court intervene .
She also could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she ’ s had with the President , but said that she only discussed Flynn ’ s case directly on that one occassion .

Michael Flynn’s defense attorney personally updated President Trump on the status of Flynn’s case, and recommended against the idea of Trump giving Flynn a pardon, the attorney, Sidney Powell, admitted in court Tuesday.
She also said she updated Jenna Ellis, who is currently serving as a Trump campaign legal advisor, about the litigation.
At first Powell balked at giving U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan the details when Sullivan asked her whether she had spoken directly to Trump about the case.
She tried to claim that such a conversation could be covered by executive privilege, prompting Sullivan to note that she is not an employee of the government.
The exchange happened during a long-anticipated hearing Tuesday on the Justice Department’s request that Sullivan drop Flynn’s case. Flynn had tried, and ultimately failed, to get an appeals court to force Sullivan to grant the motion immediately.
Sullivan had asked the DOJ attorneys at the hearing about a letter Powell had sent Attorney General Bill Barr in June 2019 seeking dismissal of Flynn’s case — a letter that was sent before Powell had formally given the court notice that she was taking over Flynn’s defense.
When the DOJ attorneys could not say whether there were conversations between Powell and the Department after the letter, Sullivan allowed Powell to give her account of her outreach to the administration.
During that explanation, Sullivan asked point blank whether Powell had spoken to the President himself.
Powell was hazy about the timing of this conversation with Trump, but said it happened after Flynn had sought that the appeals court intervene. She also could not say how many conversations in general she’s had with the President, but said that she only discussed Flynn’s case directly on that one occassion.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-29--Biden Camp Slams ‘False, Crazy Random’ Claims From Trump Camp On Debate Rules

Democratic nominee Joe Biden ’ s campaign pushed back on Tuesday against the Trump campaign ’ s claims alleging that @ @ @ @ @ the upcoming debate on Tuesday night and that his campaign had agreed to allowing a @ @ @ @ @ his and Trump ’ s ears for electronic transmitters .
Kate Bedingfield , a top @ @ @ @ @ the Trump campaign ’ s allegations during a press call and asserted that the President @ @ @ @ @ groundwork ” for a poor debate performance .
“ We would expect nothing less from @ @ @ @ @ Bedingfield said .
“ We ’ re not going to play this game.
” Trump @ @ @ @ @ earlier on Tuesday that the Biden campaign had originally agreed to the ear checks several @ @ @ @ @ abruptly reversed themselves.
” The Trump campaign also claimed that Biden had asked for two @ @ @ @ @ 90-minute debate .

Democratic nominee Joe Biden’s campaign pushed back on Tuesday against the Trump campaign’s claims alleging that Biden had requested breaks during the upcoming debate on Tuesday night and that his campaign had agreed to allowing a third party to check both his and Trump’s ears for electronic transmitters.
Kate Bedingfield, a top Biden campaign official, denied the Trump campaign’s allegations during a press call and asserted that the President was merely “laying the groundwork” for a poor debate performance.
“We would expect nothing less from the Trump campaign,” Bedingfield said. “We’re not going to play this game.”
Biden campaign senior adviser Symone Sanders slammed the “false, crazy, random assertions.”
“This is absolutely ridiculous,” she told reporters.
Trump campaign spokesperson Tim Murtaugh alleged earlier on Tuesday that the Biden campaign had originally agreed to the ear checks several days ago, then “abruptly reversed themselves.”
The Trump campaign also claimed that Biden had asked for two breaks to break up the 90-minute debate.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-29--WH Says GOP Rep’s Call For Probe Into Sources Of NYT Tax Bombshell Is ‘Important’

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany on Tuesday threw her support behind Rep. Kevin Brady ’ s ( R-TX ) call for a probe into the sources of the New York Times ’ bombshell report revealing President Trump ’ s decades-long history of tax avoidance .
Brady , a ranking member on the House Ways and Means Committee , released a statement on Monday that accused the paper of record ’ s sources of committing a felony by disclosing Trump ’ s tax information .
“ While many critics question the article ’ s accuracy , equally troubling is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by releasing the private tax return information of an individual — in this case the President ’ s , ” Brady wrote .
Brady then demanded an investigation into the sources used in the Times ’ report .
“ To ensure every American is protected against the illegal release of their tax returns for political reasons , I am calling for an investigation of the source and to prosecute if the law was broken , ” Brady wrote .
When asked about whether the President is involved with Brady ’ s call for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during an interview on Fox News on Tuesday morning , McEnany denied that ’ s the case by saying he “ hasn ’ t been pressed for that.
” McEnany then backed Brady ’ s demand , which she called a “ fair ” and “ important ” investigation .
“ We ’ ve seen the politicization of taxes before , ” McEnany said , before echoing Trump ’ s gripe that the IRS treats him like the tea party .
“ We ’ ve seen the IRS targeting tea party groups and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that to happen and unacceptable for the documents to president to leak illegally to the “ New York Times ” who then publishes the information.
” McEnany ’ s remarks come a day after the President tweeted that the Times “ illegally obtained ” the information with “ bad intent.
” In its report on Trump ’ s tax avoidance , the Times noted that documents were retrieved by sources who had legal access to them .
Additionally , the Times declined a request by a lawyer for the Trump Organization to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the report in order to protect its sources .

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany on Tuesday threw her support behind Rep. Kevin Brady’s (R-TX) call for a probe into the sources of the New York Times’ bombshell report revealing President Trump’s decades-long history of tax avoidance.
Brady, a ranking member on the House Ways and Means Committee, released a statement on Monday that accused the paper of record’s sources of committing a felony by disclosing Trump’s tax information.
“While many critics question the article’s accuracy, equally troubling is the prospect that a felony crime was committed by releasing the private tax return information of an individual — in this case the President’s,” Brady wrote.
Brady then demanded an investigation into the sources used in the Times’ report.
“To ensure every American is protected against the illegal release of their tax returns for political reasons, I am calling for an investigation of the source and to prosecute if the law was broken,” Brady wrote.
When asked about whether the President is involved with Brady’s call for a probe into the Times’ sources during an interview on Fox News on Tuesday morning, McEnany denied that’s the case by saying he “hasn’t been pressed for that.”
McEnany then backed Brady’s demand, which she called a “fair” and “important” investigation.
“We’ve seen the politicization of taxes before,” McEnany said, before echoing Trump’s gripe that the IRS treats him like the tea party. “We’ve seen the IRS targeting tea party groups and it’s an unacceptable proposition for that to happen and unacceptable for the documents to president to leak illegally to the “New York Times” who then publishes the information.”
McEnany’s remarks come a day after the President tweeted that the Times “illegally obtained” the information with “bad intent.”
The Fake News Media, just like Election time 2016, is bringing up my Taxes & all sorts of other nonsense with illegally obtained information & only bad intent. I paid many millions of dollars in taxes but was entitled, like everyone else, to depreciation & tax credits….. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 28, 2020
In its report on Trump’s tax avoidance, the Times noted that documents were retrieved by sources who had legal access to them. Additionally, the Times declined a request by a lawyer for the Trump Organization to see the documents prior to the publishing of the report in order to protect its sources.
Watch McEnany’s remarks below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-30--Trump Sure Seems Upset At Chris Wallace After A Disastrous Debate Night

After a presidential debate performance on Tuesday night that was by all counts a complete train wreck , President Donald Trump littered his Twitter feed with attacks against debate moderator and Fox News host Chris Wallace early Wednesday morning .
At nearly midnight , Trump posted a graphic of himself pitted against not just his Democratic rival Joe Biden , but Wallace as well : Then he went on to retweet a series of posts bashing the Fox News host : What exactly drew Trump ’ s ire is unclear , but the debate did see Wallace chide the President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Biden .
“ Mr .
President , I ’ m the moderator of this debate and I ’ d like you to let me ask my question , and then you can answer , ” Wallace snapped when Trump kept cutting in as the Fox host tried to ask about health care .
Later during the debate , Wallace told Trump , “ I think that the country would be better served if we allowed both people to speak with fewer interruptions .
I ’ m appealing to you , sir , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too , ” the President said , gesturing at Biden .
“ Well frankly , you ’ ve been doing more interrupting than he has , ” Wallace shot back .

After a presidential debate performance on Tuesday night that was by all counts a complete train wreck, President Donald Trump littered his Twitter feed with attacks against debate moderator and Fox News host Chris Wallace Wednesday morning.
“Chris had a tough night,” Trump tweeted with the New York Times’ debate analysis on how Wallace “repeatedly struggled to keep the proceedings coherent.”
At nearly midnight on Tuesday, Trump posted a graphic of himself pitted against not just his Democratic rival Joe Biden, but Wallace as well:
Then he went on to retweet a series of posts bashing the Fox News host early Wednesday morning:
The debate did see Wallace chide the President several times for repeatedly interrupting both him and Biden.
“Mr. President, I’m the moderator of this debate and I’d like you to let me ask my question, and then you can answer,” Wallace snapped when Trump kept cutting in as the Fox host tried to ask about health care.
Later during the debate, Wallace told Trump, “I think that the country would be better served if we allowed both people to speak with fewer interruptions. I’m appealing to you, sir, to do that.”
“And him too,” the President said, gesturing at Biden.
“Well frankly, you’ve been doing more interrupting than he has,” Wallace shot back.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-30--Trump’s Shit Show: Media Shocked By President’s Off-The-Rails Debate Debacle

President Trump ’ s erratic and unhinged debate performance earned a swift round of rebukes late Tuesday from prominent journalists and commentators who seemed stunned by what they witnessed .
Throughout the night , moderator Chris Wallace struggled to hold the reins of the debate as Trump repeatedly attempted to cut in during Biden ’ s time to answer , and even when Wallace tried to ask a question .
At one point in the debate , Wallace had to remind the President that he was , in fact , the moderator while Trump tried to talk over him about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate went on , Biden grew increasingly irritated at Trump ’ s constant interjections .
He even told the President to simply “ shut up.
” Here ’ s how media figures weighed in on the chaos that ensued throughout the debate : She noted that because they ’ re on cable TV , they ’ re permitted to use such crude language , which she also apologized for .
“ But that is really the phrase I ’ m getting from people on both sides of the aisle on text and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ describe it.
” Tapper called the debate “ a hot mess inside a dumpster fire inside a train wreck.
” Philip said it was “ a complete disaster.
” Blitzer agreed that it was “ the most chaotic presidential debate ” he had ever seen , adding that the first debate between Trump and Biden raises “ a lot of questions about the future of a presidential debate between these two candidates.
” “ I wouldn ’ t be surprised , by the way , if this is the last presidential debate between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the former vice president of the United States , ” Blitzer said .
“ But we shall see , fairly soon.
” CNN ’ s Van Jones specifically torched Trump for his refusal to condemn white supremacy .
Stephanopoulos slammed the debate for being the “ worst ” he ever watched .
“ I have to speak personally here as someone who ’ s watched presidential debates for 40 years , as somebody who ’ s moderated presidential debates , as somebody who ’ s prepared candidates for presidential debates , as someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that was the worst presidential debate I ’ ve ever seen in my life , ” Stephanopoulos said moments after the debate ended .
Karl agreed that the debate was “ a total mess.
” “ It was a mess of interruptions , petty insults , ” Karl said .
“ I was in touch with some people on the floor who told me they were stunned by what they were seeing transpire on that stage .
Donald Trump came across as a bully.
” Shortly after the debate ended , Maddow ripped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of increasingly wild and obscene lies.
’ “ There ’ s something beyond fact-checking that needs to happen , ” Maddow said , before concluding that the President is “ running against the election ” more than Biden .
Williams and Lowry similarly offered a dim assessment of the debate , with Williams stating that it was a “ dark event ” and Lowry asserting that he wouldn ’ t be surprised if presidential debates between Trump and Biden don ’ t continue .

President Trump’s erratic and unhinged debate performance earned a swift round of rebukes late Tuesday from prominent journalists and commentators who seemed stunned by what they witnessed.
Throughout the night, moderator Chris Wallace struggled to hold the reins of the debate as Trump repeatedly attempted to cut in during Biden’s time to answer, and even when Wallace tried to ask a question.
At one point in the debate, Wallace had to remind the President that he was, in fact, the moderator while Trump tried to talk over him about the Affordable Care Act.
As the debate went on, Biden grew increasingly irritated at Trump’s constant interjections. He even told the President to simply “shut up.”
Here’s how media figures weighed in on the chaos that ensued throughout the debate:
CNN’s Dana Bash, Jake Tapper, Wolf Blitzer, Abby Philip and Van Jones
Bash put it bluntly: “that was a shit show.”
She noted that because they’re on cable TV, they’re permitted to use such crude language, which she also apologized for.
“But that is really the phrase I’m getting from people on both sides of the aisle on text and the only phrase I can think of to describe it.”
CNN's Dana Bash: That was a shit show. pic.twitter.com/3AP66I2z9w — TPM Livewire (@TPMLiveWire) September 30, 2020
Bash’s CNN colleagues Jake Tapper, Wolf Blitzer and Abby Philip echoed similar sentiments.
Tapper called the debate “a hot mess inside a dumpster fire inside a train wreck.” Philip said it was “a complete disaster.”
Blitzer agreed that it was “the most chaotic presidential debate” he had ever seen, adding that the first debate between Trump and Biden raises “a lot of questions about the future of a presidential debate between these two candidates.”
“I wouldn’t be surprised, by the way, if this is the last presidential debate between the president of the United States and the former vice president of the United States,” Blitzer said. “But we shall see, fairly soon.”
CNN’s Van Jones specifically torched Trump for his refusal to condemn white supremacy.
Van Jones: Donald Trump refused to condemn white supremacy, "that's the only thing that happened tonight." pic.twitter.com/cJ25mI34SK — TPM Livewire (@TPMLiveWire) September 30, 2020
Amy Walter, national editor of the Cook Political Report
I’d love to know how many people turned off this debate after the first 15 minutes. — amy walter (@amyewalter) September 30, 2020
Derek Thompson, writer at The Atlantic
This isn't a debate. It's a DDOS attack happening in front of a human moderator. — Derek Thompson (@DKThomp) September 30, 2020
ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos and Jon Karl
Stephanopoulos slammed the debate for being the “worst” he ever watched.
“I have to speak personally here as someone who’s watched presidential debates for 40 years, as somebody who’s moderated presidential debates, as somebody who’s prepared candidates for presidential debates, as someone who’s covered presidential debates — that was the worst presidential debate I’ve ever seen in my life,” Stephanopoulos said moments after the debate ended.
.@GStephanopoulos: "I have to speak personally here…that was the worst presidential debate I have ever seen in my life." https://t.co/k3tcWItnRn #Debates2020 pic.twitter.com/hVKRzISggi — Nightline (@Nightline) September 30, 2020
Karl agreed that the debate was “a total mess.”
“It was a mess of interruptions, petty insults,” Karl said. “I was in touch with some people on the floor who told me they were stunned by what they were seeing transpire on that stage. Donald Trump came across as a bully.”
"It looked as if both men lost this debate," @jonkarl says, "and in that sense the real loser is Donald Trump because… Donald Trump was the one that needed to change the dynamic of this race." https://t.co/k3tcWItnRn #Debates2020 pic.twitter.com/HBuLnEeY4j — Nightline (@Nightline) September 30, 2020
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, Brian Williams and Rich Lowry
Shortly after the debate ended, Maddow ripped Trump for delivering a “monstrous cavalcade of increasingly wild and obscene lies.’
“There’s something beyond fact-checking that needs to happen,” Maddow said, before concluding that the President is “running against the election” more than Biden.
This sort of debate shouldn't happen in a democracy. pic.twitter.com/e2G7T1ltIF — Maddow Blog (@MaddowBlog) September 30, 2020
Williams and Lowry similarly offered a dim assessment of the debate, with Williams stating that it was a “dark event” and Lowry asserting that he wouldn’t be surprised if presidential debates between Trump and Biden don’t continue.
Brian Williams begins #MSNBC2020 post-debate coverage: “What a dark event we have just witnessed.” pic.twitter.com/pVZNTq7xwN — MSNBC (@MSNBC) September 30, 2020


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-30--Trump Can’t Do Anything But Amp Up Threats Of Election And Transition Chaos

When President Trump could have thrown the smallest of bones towards the ideas underpinning a stable democracy , he tripled down on the idea that he owed no such thing to the country .
In a relentless and head-spinning rant , the President at Tuesday ’ s debate refused to promise a peaceful transition in the event of his defeat , he threw out some of his most sensationally bogus claims about mail-in voting yet , and he made clear that he ’ s counting on the Supreme Court to take a “ look ” at the ballots .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a President who claimed falsely that the 2016 election that he won was nonetheless marred by “ millions ” of fraudulent voters that explained his defeat in the popular vote .
On Tuesday , he predicted baselessly that the 2020 election will feature “ fraud like you have never seen.
” He conjured bizarre images of ballots of “ found in creeks , ” “ dumped in rivers ” and “ sold ” by “ mailmen.
” The diatribe was kicked off by simple question from debate moderator Chris Wallace : What would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a half to assure the American public that the next president was the legitimate winner of November ’ s election .
Former Vice President Joe Biden urged Americans to put aside all the fear-mongering Trump was doing about the election , and to embrace the power they have to end his presidency by voting him out of office .
“ This is all about trying to dissuade people from voting because he is trying to scare people into thinking it ’ s not going to be legitimate , ” Biden said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ will determine the outcome of this election.
” When Trump ’ s turn was up , he jumped immediately into the baseless idea that he was somehow denied a “ peaceful transition , ” reiterating his frequent yet ridiculous claims that the Russia probe was an attempted “ coup ” on his presidency .
“ So don ’ t tell me about a free transition , ” he sniped at Biden .
“ As far as the ballots are concerned , it ’ s a disaster , ” Trump continued .
He tried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claims of election irregularities that have been sensationalized by his allies , including his own Justice Department ’ s odd handling of an administrative error in Pennsylvania that affected a handful of military ballots .
He then landed on what appears to be the focal point of his efforts to delegitimize the election by suggesting that any election that takes longer than Election Day night to report is somehow suspect .
“ It ’ s nice , on Nov. 3 you ’ re watching and you see who won the election , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do well , ” Trump predicted .
“ But you know what ?
We might not know for months because these ballots are going to be all over.
” Wallace jumped in to pin down Trump on whether he was expecting the Supreme Court — including his nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett — to settle any disputes that arise from the election .
“ I think I ’ m counting on them to look at the ballots , definitely .
I hope we don ’ t need them , in terms of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I think so , ” Trump said , before he pivoted back to his claims of mail-in voting being a “ horrible thing for this country.
” “ This is not going to end well , ” he predicted .

When President Trump could have thrown the smallest of bones towards the ideas underpinning a stable democracy, he tripled down on the idea that he owed no such thing to the country.
In a relentless and head-spinning rant, the President at Tuesday’s debate refused to promise a peaceful transition in the event of his defeat, he threw out some of his most sensationally bogus claims about mail-in voting yet, and he made clear that he’s counting on the Supreme Court to take a “look” at the ballots.
The tirade was shocking but not surprising for a President who claimed falsely that the 2016 election that he won was nonetheless marred by “millions” of fraudulent voters that explained his defeat in the popular vote.
On Tuesday, he predicted baselessly that the 2020 election will feature “fraud like you have never seen.” He conjured bizarre images of ballots of “found in creeks,” “dumped in rivers” and “sold” by “mailmen.”
The diatribe was kicked off by simple question from debate moderator Chris Wallace: What would each candidate do in the next month and a half to assure the American public that the next president was the legitimate winner of November’s election.
Former Vice President Joe Biden urged Americans to put aside all the fear-mongering Trump was doing about the election, and to embrace the power they have to end his presidency by voting him out of office.
“This is all about trying to dissuade people from voting because he is trying to scare people into thinking it’s not going to be legitimate,” Biden said. “Show up and vote. You will determine the outcome of this election.”
When Trump’s turn was up, he jumped immediately into the baseless idea that he was somehow denied a “peaceful transition,” reiterating his frequent yet ridiculous claims that the Russia probe was an attempted “coup” on his presidency.
“So don’t tell me about a free transition,” he sniped at Biden.
“As far as the ballots are concerned, it’s a disaster,” Trump continued. He tried to walk through some of the overhyped claims of election irregularities that have been sensationalized by his allies, including his own Justice Department’s odd handling of an administrative error in Pennsylvania that affected a handful of military ballots. He then landed on what appears to be the focal point of his efforts to delegitimize the election by suggesting that any election that takes longer than Election Day night to report is somehow suspect.
“It’s nice, on Nov. 3 you’re watching and you see who won the election, and I think we’re going to do well,” Trump predicted. “But you know what? We might not know for months because these ballots are going to be all over.”
Wallace jumped in to pin down Trump on whether he was expecting the Supreme Court — including his nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett — to settle any disputes that arise from the election.
“I think I’m counting on them to look at the ballots, definitely. I hope we don’t need them, in terms of the election itself, but for the ballots, I think so,” Trump said, before he pivoted back to his claims of mail-in voting being a “horrible thing for this country.”
“This is not going to end well,” he predicted.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-30--Scranton Joe Goes After Don The Snob

Scranton Joe Goes After Don The Snob

In a relatively fresh line of attack , former Vice President Joe Biden spent many of his ( heavily interrupted ) minutes painting President Donald Trump as one of the elite he claims to so detest .
During a section about mask wearing , Biden made the argument that Trump doesn ’ t care about mask wearing — until an unmasked person appears to pose a threat to him .
The former vice president told an anecdote about Trump leaping back from a reporter who wasn ’ t wearing a mask , frantically asking if the journalist been tested for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way far away from those other people , ’ that ’ s what he said — ‘ I ’ m going to be okay , ’ ” Biden said , describing Trump ’ s attitude at his packed campaign events .
“ He ’ s not worried about you , he ’ s not worried about people out there breathing cheek to jowl , ” Biden added .
Biden made the argument more pointedly during a later exchange on racial sensitivity training .
“ It ’ s a little bit like how this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so many people , ” Biden said .
“ They look down their noses on people like Irish Catholics like me who grew up in Scranton .
They look down on people who don ’ t have money .
They look down on people who are of a different faith .
They look down on people who are a different color .
In fact , we ’ re all Americans.
” He also hijacked a favorite Trump talking point about the invasion of the suburbs to hammer the theme , saying Trump “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he took a wrong turn .
I was raised in the suburbs.
” Biden ’ s attack on Trump ’ s depiction of himself as a populist , working-class hero with a deep disdain for the “ elites ” was a valid one .
Trump was born rich , inheriting millions from his father , and attended an Ivy League school .
Biden has working-class roots , and has long touted his early distinction as ranking among the poorest in Congress .
If elected , he ’ d be the first president without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump , for his part , didn ’ t do much to distance himself from the snobbish patina .
“ Did you use the word smart ?
” Trump sneered , regurgitating a debunked right-wing attack about Biden forgetting the name of his college .
“ You graduated either the lowest or almost the lowest in your class , ” he continued , leaning over his podium towards Biden while the former Vice President chuckled .
The President kept going : “ Don ’ t ever use the word smart with me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ word with me .
There ’ s nothing smart about you , Joe .
”

In a relatively fresh line of attack, former Vice President Joe Biden spent many of his (heavily interrupted) minutes painting President Donald Trump as one of the elite he claims to so detest.
During a section about mask wearing, Biden made the argument that Trump doesn’t care about mask wearing — until an unmasked person appears to pose a threat to him. The former vice president told an anecdote about Trump leaping back from a reporter who wasn’t wearing a mask, frantically asking if the journalist been tested for COVID-19.
“‘I’m way far away from those other people,’ that’s what he said — ‘I’m going to be okay,’” Biden said, describing Trump’s attitude at his packed campaign events.
“He’s not worried about you, he’s not worried about people out there breathing cheek to jowl,” Biden added.
Biden made the argument more pointedly during a later exchange on racial sensitivity training.
“It’s a little bit like how this guy and his friends look down on so many people,” Biden said. “They look down their noses on people like Irish Catholics like me who grew up in Scranton. They look down on people who don’t have money. They look down on people who are of a different faith. They look down on people who are a different color. In fact, we’re all Americans.”
He also hijacked a favorite Trump talking point about the invasion of the suburbs to hammer the theme, saying Trump “wouldn’t know a suburb unless he took a wrong turn. I was raised in the suburbs.”
Trump revives his racist appeal to suburbanites pic.twitter.com/CoZPtDVkig — TPM Livewire (@TPMLiveWire) September 30, 2020
Biden’s attack on Trump’s depiction of himself as a populist, working-class hero with a deep disdain for the “elites” was a valid one. Trump was born rich, inheriting millions from his father, and attended an Ivy League school. Biden has working-class roots, and has long touted his early distinction as ranking among the poorest in Congress. If elected, he’d be the first president without an Ivy League degree since Ronald Reagan.
Trump, for his part, didn’t do much to distance himself from the snobbish patina.
Trump sneers at Biden: "There's nothing smart about you, Joe" pic.twitter.com/BfRJiYZRk9 — TPM Livewire (@TPMLiveWire) September 30, 2020
“Did you use the word smart?” Trump sneered, regurgitating a debunked right-wing attack about Biden forgetting the name of his college.
“You graduated either the lowest or almost the lowest in your class,” he continued, leaning over his podium towards Biden while the former Vice President chuckled.
The President kept going: “Don’t ever use the word smart with me. Don’t ever use that word with me. There’s nothing smart about you, Joe.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-30--Proud Boys Cheer Trump Shoutout As He Refuses To Condemn White Supremacy

The floor was his .
He was asked to do it .
And yet Donald Trump on Tuesday repeatedly failed to condemn white supremacists and other violent right wingers that support him .
Instead , he pivoted and dodged .
Moderator Chris Wallace tee ’ d up the question for the President .
And it was a softball : “ Are you willing , tonight , to condemn white supremacists and militia groups , and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities , as we saw in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Portland.
” Sure , Trump began , “ I ’ m willing to do that , but… ” But Trump didn ’ t : “ I would say almost everything I see is from the left-wing , not from the right-wing.
” Wallace pressed again , but Trump asked for specifics : “ What do you want to call them ?
Give me a name.
” “ The Proud Boys , ” Biden interjected , referring to the right-wing street gang that relishes physical confrontations .
Trump wound up , then let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , stand back and stand by , ” he said .
“ But I ’ ll tell you what , somebody ’ s got to do something about antifa and the left , because this is not a right-wing problem , this is a left-wing problem.
” Within minutes , a social media account for the Proud Boys had turned Trump ’ s quote into a celebratory graphic .
Their leadership cheered Trump .
Joe Biggs , a prominent Proud Boy in Portland , subsequently wrote , “ Trump basically said to go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so happy.
” “ President Trump told the proud boys to stand by because someone needs to deal with ANTIFA…well sir !
” Biggs wrote separately .
“ We ’ re ready !
!
!
It was anything but a condemnation , as civil rights groups pointed out .
“ This is all they ’ ve wanted since 2016 , ” wrote Cassie Miller , a senior research analyst at the Southern Poverty Law Center , referring to the Proud Boys leaders ’ posts and Trump ’ s non-condemnation .
“ Trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an admission , ” wrote Jonathan Greenblatt , CEO of the Anti-Defamation League .
“ @ POTUS owes America an apology or an explanation .
Now .
”

The floor was his. He was asked to do it. And yet Donald Trump on Tuesday repeatedly failed to condemn white supremacists and other violent right wingers that support him. Instead, he pivoted and dodged.
Moderator Chris Wallace tee’d up the question for the President. And it was a softball: “Are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups, and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities, as we saw in Kenosha and as we’ve seen in Portland.”
Sure, Trump began, “I’m willing to do that, but…”
“Then do it!” Joe Biden said.
But Trump didn’t: “I would say almost everything I see is from the left-wing, not from the right-wing.”
Wallace pressed again, but Trump asked for specifics: “What do you want to call them? Give me a name.”
White supremacists, Wallace said.
“The Proud Boys,” Biden interjected, referring to the right-wing street gang that relishes physical confrontations.
Trump wound up, then let out a dribbler.
“Proud Boys, stand back and stand by,” he said. “But I’ll tell you what, somebody’s got to do something about antifa and the left, because this is not a right-wing problem, this is a left-wing problem.”
Chris Wallace: "Are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down…" Trump: "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by! But I'll tell you what, somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left." pic.twitter.com/4vrPocKzcu — Axios (@axios) September 30, 2020
Within minutes, a social media account for the Proud Boys had turned Trump’s quote into a celebratory graphic. Their leadership cheered Trump. Joe Biggs, a prominent Proud Boy in Portland, subsequently wrote, “Trump basically said to go fuck them up! this makes me so happy.”
“President Trump told the proud boys to stand by because someone needs to deal with ANTIFA…well sir!” Biggs wrote separately. “We’re ready!!!
It was anything but a condemnation, as civil rights groups pointed out.
“This is all they’ve wanted since 2016,” wrote Cassie Miller, a senior research analyst at the Southern Poverty Law Center, referring to the Proud Boys leaders’ posts and Trump’s non-condemnation.
“Trying to determine if this was an answer or an admission,” wrote Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League.
“@POTUS owes America an apology or an explanation. Now.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-30--CNN’s Tapper Boots Trump Camp Spox Off After Testy Exchange: ‘I’m Not Chris Wallace’

CNN anchor Jake Tapper increasingly lost his patience on Wednesday while interviewing Trump campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh , who tried to pull off the Trumpworld ’ s tactic of deflection when grilled on the President ’ s refusal to condemn white supremacists during his disastrous debate performance the night before .
Earlier Wednesday , Trump attempted to walk back his incendiary remark during the chaotic debate — when he directed the far-right hate group Proud Boys to “ stand back and stand by ” while failing to condemn white supremacists — by nonsensically that claiming he doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I don ’ t know who Proud Boys are , ” Trump told reporters on Wednesday .
“ But whoever they are , they have to stand down and let law enforcement do their work.
” The President then deflected by calling on Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden to “ condemn ” antifa , which Trump views “ the real problem.
” Biden had pointed out to Trump during the debate that “ antifa ” is a movement , not an organization .
Trump then insisted that he ’ s “ always denounced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despite blatantly refusing to do so the night before .
When grilled about Trump ’ s refusal to condemn white supremacy during the debate , Murtaugh tried to deflect by bringing up an opt-in Twitter poll to claim that the President won the debate .
After Tapper pointed out that it isn ’ t a “ real poll , ” the Trump campaign spokesperson turned to brushing off Republicans and conservatives who joined in on the widespread criticism that the President has faced for his erratic debate performance .
Throughout the debate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chris Wallace struggled to keep things on track .
“ The President went in with a very clear plan , ” Murtaugh said .
“ And he executed that plan very well .
He was aggressive.
” Murtaugh then tried to steamroll Tapper as he rambled about a baseless accusation that Wallace interfered with Trump ’ s plan to “ rescue ” Biden , who the President constantly talked over throughout the debate .
“ Tim , the way that this works is I ask a question and you answer , not I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ten minutes , ” Tapper said , before bringing up Trump ’ s attempt to clean up his refusal to condemn white supremacy earlier in the day .
“ Why is it so difficult for President Trump to say I condemn white supremacy , I do not want the support of white supremacists ?
Why is that so difficult for this president ?
” Echoing Trump , Murtaugh insisted that the President has done so “ many , many times ” and that the “ media has to accept yes for an answer.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ as they cut into each other ’ s remarks .
When the CNN anchor brought up Trump ’ s “ very fine people ” comments after the neo-Nazi “ Unite the Right ” rally in Charlottesville in 2017 , Murtaugh fired back that he ’ s “ not going to relitigate.
” After Tapper argued that “ there were none , ” Murtaugh pivoted to railing against Biden regarding racial issues in the 1970s .
Tapper appeared to hit a breaking point from there by invoking debate moderator Wallace , who lamented to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he has regrets about the chaos that ensued as Trump went off the rails .
“ OK , you know what , I ’ m not Chris Wallace , ” Tapper said , sounding frustrated as he effectively ended the interview on a sarcastic note .
“ Thank you , Tim !
Appreciate it .
Thank you so much .
”

CNN anchor Jake Tapper increasingly lost his patience on Wednesday while interviewing Trump campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh, who tried to pull off the Trumpworld’s tactic of deflection when grilled on the President’s refusal to condemn white supremacists during his disastrous debate performance the night before.
Earlier Wednesday, Trump attempted to walk back his incendiary remark during the chaotic debate — when he directed the far-right hate group Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by” while failing to condemn white supremacists — by nonsensically claiming he doesn’t know about the extremist group.
“I don’t know who Proud Boys are,” Trump told reporters on Wednesday. “But whoever they are, they have to stand down and let law enforcement do their work.”
The President then deflected by calling on Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden to “condemn” antifa, which Trump views as “the real problem.” Biden had pointed out to Trump during the debate that “antifa” is a movement, not an organization.
Trump then insisted that he’s “always denounced any form” of white supremacy, despite blatantly refusing to do so the night before.
When grilled about Trump’s refusal to condemn white supremacy during the debate, Murtaugh tried to deflect by bringing up an opt-in Twitter poll to claim that the President won the debate.
After Tapper pointed out that it isn’t a “real poll,” the Trump campaign spokesperson turned to brushing off Republicans and conservatives who joined in on the widespread criticism that the President has faced for his erratic debate performance. Throughout the debate, Trump constantly interrupted and interjected while moderator Chris Wallace struggled to keep things on track.
“The President went in with a very clear plan,” Murtaugh said. “And he executed that plan very well. He was aggressive.”
Murtaugh then tried to steamroll Tapper as he rambled about a baseless accusation that Wallace interfered with Trump’s plan to “rescue” Biden, who the President constantly talked over throughout the debate.
Tapper wasn’t having it.
“Tim, the way that this works is I ask a question and you answer, not I ask a question and you talk for ten minutes,” Tapper said, before bringing up Trump’s attempt to clean up his refusal to condemn white supremacy earlier in the day. “Why is it so difficult for President Trump to say I condemn white supremacy, I do not want the support of white supremacists? Why is that so difficult for this president?”
Echoing Trump, Murtaugh insisted that the President has done so “many, many times” and that the “media has to accept yes for an answer.”
Tapper and Murtaugh then started clashing as they cut into each other’s remarks.
When the CNN anchor brought up Trump’s “very fine people” comments after the neo-Nazi “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville in 2017, Murtaugh fired back that he’s “not going to relitigate.”
After Tapper argued that “there were none,” Murtaugh pivoted to railing against Biden regarding racial issues in the 1970s.
Tapper appeared to hit a breaking point from there by invoking debate moderator Wallace, who lamented to the New York Times on Wednesday that he has regrets about the chaos that ensued as Trump went off the rails.
“OK, you know what, I’m not Chris Wallace,” Tapper said, sounding frustrated as he effectively ended the interview on a sarcastic note. “Thank you, Tim! Appreciate it. Thank you so much.”
Watch the exchange below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-30--Chris Wallace Laments Debate That Trump Hijacked

Fox News anchor Chris Wallace has regrets about the chaos that ensued as President Trump went off the rails during his first presidential debate against Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden on Tuesday night .
Throughout the debate , moderator Wallace struggled to keep the debate under control during Trump ’ s constant interruptions and interjections , prompting the media to swiftly rebuke the Trump train wreck that occurred .
In a phone interview with the New York Times , Wallace appeared defeated by the debate debacle as he lamented that he ’ s “ just sad with the way last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a terrible missed opportunity , ” he said .
“ I never dreamt that it would go off the tracks the way it did , ” Wallace said , before acknowledging that he should ’ ve recognized sooner that the President wouldn ’ t comply with debate rules .
“ I ’ ve read some of the reviews , I know people think , Well , gee , I didn ’ t jump in soon enough , ” Wallace told the Times , which noted that the Fox News anchor ’ s voice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate the night before .
“ I guess I didn ’ t realize — and there was no way you could , hindsight being 20/20 — that this was going to be the president ’ s strategy , not just for the beginning of the debate but the entire debate.
” After Wallace told the Times that he had never experienced an event like that over his long career , the debate moderator said that he thought it was “ great ” when Trump initially engaged directly with Biden , but that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t signal that he ’ d tone his aggressive antics down .
“ If I didn ’ t try to seize control of the debate — which I don ’ t know that I ever really did — then it was going to just go completely off the tracks , ” Wallace said .
Wallace recounted feeling “ desperation ” when he put the debate temporarily on hold to tell both Trump and Biden that “ the country would be better served if we allowed both people to speak with fewer interruptions.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the President was responsible for the debate going off the rails , Wallace replied “ well , he certainly didn ’ t help ” but declined to elaborate further .
Wallace also told the Times that he is reluctant towards the idea that moderators being given the authority to mute candidates ’ microphones .
“ As a practical matter , even if the president ’ s microphone had been shut , he still could have continued to interrupt , and it might well have been picked up on Biden ’ s microphone , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proceedings in the hall , ” Wallace said , arguing that cutting the audio feed of a presidential candidate would be a gravely consequential move given how both Trump and Biden have tens of millions of supporters .
For moderators of upcoming debates , Wallace suggested they try to learn from his mishaps .
“ If either man goes down this road , I hope you ’ ll be quicker to realize what ’ s going on than I was .
I didn ’ t have that advance warning.
” Earlier Wednesday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s considering changes to the structure of the remaining two presidential debates after the first debate “ made clear that the additional structure should be added to the format of the remaining debates to ensure a more orderly discussion of the issues.
” Shortly after the CPD released its statement , Trump rehashed his animus toward Wallace and Biden in a tweet .

Fox News anchor Chris Wallace has regrets about the chaos that ensued as President Trump went off the rails during his first presidential debate against Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden on Tuesday night.
Throughout the debate, moderator Wallace struggled to keep the debate under control during Trump’s constant interruptions and interjections, prompting the media to swiftly rebuke the Trump train wreck that occurred.
In a phone interview with the New York Times, Wallace appeared defeated by the debate debacle as he lamented that he’s “just sad with the way last night turned out.” It was “a terrible missed opportunity,” he said.
“I never dreamt that it would go off the tracks the way it did,” Wallace said, before acknowledging that he should’ve recognized sooner that the President wouldn’t comply with debate rules.
“I’ve read some of the reviews, I know people think, Well, gee, I didn’t jump in soon enough,” Wallace told the Times, which noted that the Fox News anchor’s voice had some hoarseness from moderating the chaotic debate the night before. “I guess I didn’t realize — and there was no way you could, hindsight being 20/20 — that this was going to be the president’s strategy, not just for the beginning of the debate but the entire debate.”
After Wallace told the Times that he had never experienced an event like that over his long career, the debate moderator said that he thought it was “great” when Trump initially engaged directly with Biden, but that he became increasingly concerned as the President didn’t signal that he’d tone his aggressive antics down.
“If I didn’t try to seize control of the debate — which I don’t know that I ever really did — then it was going to just go completely off the tracks,” Wallace said.
Wallace recounted feeling “desperation” when he put the debate temporarily on hold to tell both Trump and Biden that “the country would be better served if we allowed both people to speak with fewer interruptions.”
However, when bluntly asked whether the President was responsible for the debate going off the rails, Wallace replied “well, he certainly didn’t help” but declined to elaborate further.
Wallace also told the Times that he is reluctant towards the idea that moderators being given the authority to mute candidates’ microphones.
“As a practical matter, even if the president’s microphone had been shut, he still could have continued to interrupt, and it might well have been picked up on Biden’s microphone, and it still would have disrupted the proceedings in the hall,” Wallace said, arguing that cutting the audio feed of a presidential candidate would be a gravely consequential move given how both Trump and Biden have tens of millions of supporters.
For moderators of upcoming debates, Wallace suggested they try to learn from his mishaps.
“If either man goes down this road, I hope you’ll be quicker to realize what’s going on than I was. I didn’t have that advance warning.”
Earlier Wednesday, the Commission on Presidential Debates said that it’s considering changes to the structure of the remaining two presidential debates after the first debate “made clear that the additional structure should be added to the format of the remaining debates to ensure a more orderly discussion of the issues.”
Shortly after the CPD released its statement, Trump rehashed his animus toward Wallace and Biden in a tweet.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-30--Trump Now Claims He Doesn’t Know Who Proud Boys Are After Explicitly Telling Them To ‘Stand By’

President Donald Trump tried to walk back his shoutout to the far-right extremist group known as the Proud Boys on Wednesday by claiming he doesn ’ t know who they are–despite calling on them by name and telling them to “ stand by ” the night before .
“ I don ’ t know who Proud Boys are , ” Trump told reporters .
“ But whoever they are , they have to stand down and let law enforcement do their work.
” Then the President deflected by calling on his Democratic rival Joe Biden to “ condemn ” antifa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the real problem ” even though antifa ( short for “ anti-fascist ” ) is a movement , not an organization .
When asked if he welcomed the way white supremacists openly embrace him , Trump wouldn ’ t answer directly and said only that he wanted “ law and order ” and ranted against the notion of defunding the police .
“ I ’ ve always denounced any form , any form , any form of any of that , ” Trump replied , a patently false claim given his refusal to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ night presidential debate .
Instead , the President had said : “ Proud Boys , stand back and stand by.
” Additionally , he declined to condemn white supremacists after the 2017 Charlottesville neo-Nazi rally , describing them as “ very fine people .
”

President Donald Trump tried to walk back his shoutout to the far-right extremist group known as the Proud Boys on Wednesday by claiming he doesn’t know who they are–despite calling on them by name and telling them to “stand by” the night before.
“I don’t know who Proud Boys are,” Trump told reporters. “But whoever they are, they have to stand down and let law enforcement do their work.”
Then the President deflected by calling on his Democratic rival Joe Biden to “condemn” antifa, which Trump claimed to be “the real problem” even though antifa (short for “anti-fascist”) is a movement, not an organization.
When asked if he welcomed the way white supremacists openly embrace him, Trump wouldn’t answer directly and said only that he wanted “law and order” and ranted against the notion of defunding the police.
“But do you denounce [white supremacists]?” a reporter pressed.
“I’ve always denounced any form, any form, any form of any of that,” Trump replied, a patently false claim given his refusal to do so when asked during the Tuesday night presidential debate. Instead, the President had said: “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by.”
Additionally, he declined to condemn white supremacists after the 2017 Charlottesville neo-Nazi rally, describing them as “very fine people.”
Watch Trump below: