talkingpointsmemo--2020-08-19--GOP-Led Senate Committee Scolds WH, Trump Allies For Sketchy, Obstruction-y Tactics

The GOP-led Senate Intelligence Committee accused the White House of taking an approach to the committee ’ s Russia investigation that showed a “ potential for abuse of executive privilege , particularly as it relates to impeding a Congressional inquiry.
” The committee , in its Russia report released Tuesday , described behavior by the White House and by President Trump ’ s and his allies ’ personal lawyers that echoed the tactics employed during the more recent impeachment investigation into the President .
Notably , none of the Republicans who signed on to the report voted in favor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ congressional obstruction .
Yet , the frustration and the disdain expressed in the bipartisan report was striking , considering that it was coming from a legislative body that has been reluctant to challenge the President .
The committee faced a “ multitude of novel and unprecedented potential ” privilege claims from the White House Counsel , the report said .
Lawmakers had to pour considerable effort into figuring out the scope of a supposed “ Joint Defense Agreement ” that apparently involved Trump ’ s personal lawyers , several White House aides and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when the President ’ s own son tried to duck a subpoena the committee issued for his testimony , only the threat of a contempt measure seemed to convince him to cooperate .
Midway through the committee ’ s investigation , the White House and its allies introduced a novel idea into their engagements with the committee : The report described it as a “ claimed Transition Privilege ” that allowed for documents and testimony related to the presidential transition to be withheld .
The committee ’ s report was steadfast that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that executive privilege started only when a President actually took office .
The panel noted that it had expected executive privilege to come up in its interactions with Obama administration witnesses , but , “ in practice ” those officials “ freely shared their conversations ” with President Obama — a topic that could have legitimately fit under an executive privilege claim .
“ The Committee did not anticipate , ” the arguments the Trump White House would be making about his ability to assert executive privilege over things that happened in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the committee , as it was deployed “ inconsistently , ” and the White House used it to intervene in a way that “ significantly hampered ” the investigation .
In the early months of the investigation , the committee was not aware of these headwinds , particularly as certain White House officials who testified in 2017 did not bring up the potential for that privilege when asked about the transition .
Around March 2018 , the committee began receiving responses to requests for documents and testimony from witnesses that claimed “ potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transition .
When the committee sought a legal justification of this concept , the White House could point only to a letter that White House Counsel Don McGahn wrote to House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes the month prior , which included a legal argument about the Presidential Transition Act that clearly did not impress the senators .
“ This argument contorts the PTA and common understandings of executive privilege , and the Committee could identify no additional basis to support it , ” the report said .
“ The argument was particularly suspect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operation run by Transition officials who can claim no Constitutional authority to be conducting American diplomacy .
To date , the only court to address the existence of a Transition privilege has rejected it.
” By February 2019 , the committee realized that documents it had sought from the transition were being withheld under this rationale and subjected to a White House review that normally took four additional months .
“ As a result , the White House had a chance to review and control the information responsive to· Committee requests before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was seeking information from private citizens who could not themselves assert the privilege , and who were free to disregard the White House ’ s directive , ” the report said .
When interviewing witnesses , this claim also proved to be a hurdle , because witnesses would decline to answer transition-related questions before checking with the White House first .
For “ strategic ” reasons related to time constraints and other considerations , the committee decided not to challenge the White House ’ s approach in court .
It worked instead through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was seeking .
But to highlight the “ specious ” nature of the White House ’ s approach to executive privilege , the report discussed at length one of the nearly 100 transition documents that had been withheld and subjected to this White House filter process .
As part of the accommodations process , the White House described the document — which had been sought from a transition staffer — to the committee in broad terms , which helped the lawmakers realize that they had already obtained it from another witness .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Russia that had been prepared by a businessman who was not on the transition team or a part of the campaign .
Furthermore , “ a substantial part ” of the memo had been adapted from another memo that originated from an “ associate of a Kremlin insider , ” according to the committee ’ s investigation .
In no way could such a document be covered under executive privilege , the committee argued , and once it told the White House it was aware of these general facts , the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major roadblock the lawmakers ran into was the existence of a supposed Joint Defense Agreement among several of their witnesses .
It arose after Michael Cohen in 2019 told them that his 2017 written testimony had been circulated among the lawyers of other witnesses , who offered changes .
The revelation was of significant interest to the committee because the 2017 testimony contained false information that multiple witnesses in the investigation could have known was false .
But as they probed who was involved in vetting Cohen ’ s testimony , evidence emerged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as privileged under a purported Joint Defense Agreement .
JDAs are meant to be used very narrowly , the report noted , and its privileges should only apply for coordinating a shared legal strategy , not for when various parties are just sharing information .
Frustratingly , witnesses ’ lawyers insisted to the committee that even questions about whether their clients were involved in the JDA were covered under the privilege it supposedly bestowed .
Several witnesses also seemed to be in the dark about whether their lawyers had them participating in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , cuts against court guidance for JDA use .
The committee decided not to dive deeper into whether this supposed JDA amounted to obstruction , because of the time and resources the likely litigation around the JDA would have cost .
But the committee did look into the matter enough to come to the belief that the JDA ’ s members included : Donald Trump , Donald Trump Jr. ; the Trump Organization , Jared Kushner , Ivanka Trump , Paul Manafort , the Trump Campaign , Keith Schiller , Hope Hicks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The report pointed to other moves by members of President Trump ’ s inner circle that may have been obstructive .
During their look at the misleading nature of Cohen ’ s 2017 testimony , Cohen told the lawmakers that he received a message from President Trump ’ s personal lawyer Jay Sekulow the day after he delivered it .
In Cohen ’ s account , Sekulow told him that Trump “ heard that you did great , and don ’ t worry , everything ’ s going to be fine .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Cohen also testified that after his initial interview , Sekulow mentioned ‘ pardons ’ or ‘ pre-pardons ’ for Cohen , ” the report said .
Cohen was one of five witnesses who participated in follow-up interviews , and of them , only Cohen and Donald Trump Jr. required subpoenas in order to show up for a second day of testimony “ Cohen appeared pursuant to the subpoena , ” the report said .
“ Trump Jr. did not initially appear in response to the subpoena , but later changed his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Committee was considering a contempt resolution .
”

The GOP-led Senate Intelligence Committee accused the White House of taking an approach to the committee’s Russia investigation that showed a “potential for abuse of executive privilege, particularly as it relates to impeding a Congressional inquiry.”
The committee, in its Russia report released Tuesday, described behavior by the White House and by President Trump’s and his allies’ personal lawyers that echoed the tactics employed during the more recent impeachment investigation into the President.
Notably, none of the Republicans who signed on to the report voted in favor of the House’s impeachment charge of congressional obstruction.
Yet, the frustration and the disdain expressed in the bipartisan report was striking, considering that it was coming from a legislative body that has been reluctant to challenge the President.
The committee faced a “multitude of novel and unprecedented potential” privilege claims from the White House Counsel, the report said. Lawmakers had to pour considerable effort into figuring out the scope of a supposed “Joint Defense Agreement” that apparently involved Trump’s personal lawyers, several White House aides and former officials on the campaign. And when the President’s own son tried to duck a subpoena the committee issued for his testimony, only the threat of a contempt measure seemed to convince him to cooperate.
A So-Called ‘Transition Privilege’
Midway through the committee’s investigation, the White House and its allies introduced a novel idea into their engagements with the committee: The report described it as a “claimed Transition Privilege” that allowed for documents and testimony related to the presidential transition to be withheld.
The committee’s report was steadfast that it believed this concept to be bogus and that executive privilege started only when a President actually took office. The panel noted that it had expected executive privilege to come up in its interactions with Obama administration witnesses, but, “in practice” those officials “freely shared their conversations” with President Obama — a topic that could have legitimately fit under an executive privilege claim.
“The Committee did not anticipate,” the arguments the Trump White House would be making about his ability to assert executive privilege over things that happened in the transition. This argument “surprised” the committee, as it was deployed “inconsistently,” and the White House used it to intervene in a way that “significantly hampered” the investigation.
In the early months of the investigation, the committee was not aware of these headwinds, particularly as certain White House officials who testified in 2017 did not bring up the potential for that privilege when asked about the transition.
Around March 2018, the committee began receiving responses to requests for documents and testimony from witnesses that claimed “potential assertions” of executive privilege during the transition. When the committee sought a legal justification of this concept, the White House could point only to a letter that White House Counsel Don McGahn wrote to House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes the month prior, which included a legal argument about the Presidential Transition Act that clearly did not impress the senators.
“This argument contorts the PTA and common understandings of executive privilege, and the Committee could identify no additional basis to support it,” the report said. “The argument was particularly suspect as applied to an apparent foreign policy operation run by Transition officials who can claim no Constitutional authority to be conducting American diplomacy. To date, the only court to address the existence of a Transition privilege has rejected it.”
By February 2019, the committee realized that documents it had sought from the transition were being withheld under this rationale and subjected to a White House review that normally took four additional months.
“As a result, the White House had a chance to review and control the information responsive to· Committee requests before the Committee did, even though the Committee was seeking information from private citizens who could not themselves assert the privilege, and who were free to disregard the White House’s directive,” the report said.
When interviewing witnesses, this claim also proved to be a hurdle, because witnesses would decline to answer transition-related questions before checking with the White House first.
For “strategic” reasons related to time constraints and other considerations, the committee decided not to challenge the White House’s approach in court. It worked instead through an accommodations process to get the information it was seeking.
But to highlight the “specious” nature of the White House’s approach to executive privilege, the report discussed at length one of the nearly 100 transition documents that had been withheld and subjected to this White House filter process.
As part of the accommodations process, the White House described the document — which had been sought from a transition staffer — to the committee in broad terms, which helped the lawmakers realize that they had already obtained it from another witness.
Incredibly, the document was a memo on Russia that had been prepared by a businessman who was not on the transition team or a part of the campaign. Furthermore, “a substantial part” of the memo had been adapted from another memo that originated from an “associate of a Kremlin insider,” according to the committee’s investigation.
In no way could such a document be covered under executive privilege, the committee argued, and once it told the White House it was aware of these general facts, the White House dropped the privilege claim.
A Mystery JDA
Another major roadblock the lawmakers ran into was the existence of a supposed Joint Defense Agreement among several of their witnesses. It arose after Michael Cohen in 2019 told them that his 2017 written testimony had been circulated among the lawyers of other witnesses, who offered changes. The revelation was of significant interest to the committee because the 2017 testimony contained false information that multiple witnesses in the investigation could have known was false.
But as they probed who was involved in vetting Cohen’s testimony, evidence emerged that potentially relevant communications were being withheld as privileged under a purported Joint Defense Agreement. JDAs are meant to be used very narrowly, the report noted, and its privileges should only apply for coordinating a shared legal strategy, not for when various parties are just sharing information.
Frustratingly, witnesses’ lawyers insisted to the committee that even questions about whether their clients were involved in the JDA were covered under the privilege it supposedly bestowed. Several witnesses also seemed to be in the dark about whether their lawyers had them participating in the JDA, which, the report noted, cuts against court guidance for JDA use.
The committee decided not to dive deeper into whether this supposed JDA amounted to obstruction, because of the time and resources the likely litigation around the JDA would have cost. But the committee did look into the matter enough to come to the belief that the JDA’s members included: Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr.; the Trump Organization, Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Paul Manafort, the Trump Campaign, Keith Schiller, Hope Hicks, Michael Flynn, and Felix Sater.
‘Pre-Pardons’ and Contempt Threats
The report pointed to other moves by members of President Trump’s inner circle that may have been obstructive.
During their look at the misleading nature of Cohen’s 2017 testimony, Cohen told the lawmakers that he received a message from President Trump’s personal lawyer Jay Sekulow the day after he delivered it.
In Cohen’s account, Sekulow told him that Trump “heard that you did great, and don’t worry, everything’s going to be fine. He loves ya,” the report said.
“Cohen also testified that after his initial interview, Sekulow mentioned ‘pardons’ or ‘pre-pardons’ for Cohen,” the report said.
Cohen was one of five witnesses who participated in follow-up interviews, and of them, only Cohen and Donald Trump Jr. required subpoenas in order to show up for a second day of testimony
“Cohen appeared pursuant to the subpoena,” the report said. “Trump Jr. did not initially appear in response to the subpoena, but later changed his position and appeared when it became clear that the Committee was considering a contempt resolution.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-08-19--How State Election Officials Are Scrambling To Respond To USPS’ Mail Delivery Warnings

When the United States Postal Service warned 46 states and the District of Columbia last month that their vote-by-mail deadlines risked disenfranchising voters , some election officials saw it as a call to action .
But , election experts told TPM , with just three months to go and many state legislatures out of session for the rest of the year , there ’ s not much election officials can actually do now except send a clear , urgent message to voters : Get your ballots early .
The mail slow-down that has been documented in recent weeks , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attacks on the Postal Service , have put voters on edge .
And despite Postmaster General Louis DeJoy ’ s statement Tuesday that he was “ suspending ” certain cost-cutting initiatives , Democrats and former USPS officials have warned that DeJoy failed to make commitments about election mail , such as promising to allow mail carriers to make extra trips to collect ballots .
“ As far as we can tell , this is more than just the appearance of a problem , ” former Deputy Postmaster General told reporters after reading through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is delayed mail across the system.
” Some election officials have sought the easy way out : In Louisiana , Secretary of State R. Kyle Ardoin ( R ) on Tuesday proposed dramatically limiting who can vote by mail to those who ’ ve tested positive for COVID-19 , in addition to overseas voters and servicemembers .
Gov .
John Bel Edwards ( D ) said that was a non-starter , rejecting the proposal and setting the stage for a potential court battle .
Notably — and more in line with election experts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ardoin also proposed pushing up the deadline to request a mail-in ballot to 10 days before Election Day , rather than the existing 4-day deadline , in order to ensure that ballots reach voters in time for them to be cast .
This has been an issue for years : In a 2016 report the Bipartisan Policy Center urged state legislators to “ review statutory deadlines for ballot requests and returns to see if they conform to the new USPS delivery standards.
” But four years later , states largely haven ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potential disenfranchisement .
“ Most states have a deadline well within the danger zone of the Postal Service delivery standard , ” said Michael Thorning , one of the report ’ s authors .
“ That ’ s a longstanding problem that we should expect to be a problem in the fall.
” In Pennsylvania , which just a few months ago joined the ranks of states that don ’ t require an excuse to vote by mail , election officials are trying to push deadlines on the other end of the timeline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permission to count ballots that arrive at election offices up to three days late as long as they were sent on time .
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures , most states require that mail-in ballots arrive on Election Day , but 19 have some provision for counting ballots arriving later than that as long as they are postmarked before or on the day itself .
And , like other states , Pennsylvania is seeking to use drop boxes and satellite locations for voters who fear their ballots won ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time — a plan that attracted a lawsuit from the Trump campaign .
Across the country , most states have tried to shore up their vote-by-mail procedures : In Rhode Island , the state agreed to a consent decree waiving mail-in voters ’ usual responsibility to sign their ballot in front of a notary or two witnesses — a move that recently received the Supreme Court ’ s blessing .
In Arizona , the secretary of state ’ s office bumped up the recommended deadline for mailing back ballots to seven days before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remain limited this close to Election Day .
For all the last minute bustle , experts told TPM , the most important thing state and local election officials can do now is provide clear communication to voters — and local postal officials .
Election authorities need to get in touch with postal officials to make plans that ensure crates of ballots aren ’ t missed in processing centers on election night , as crucial hours tick away .
They also need to avoid New York ’ s fate , by emphasizing that even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ postmarked , even though that ’ s not standard practice for other business mail .
Perhaps most crucially , though , voters need to hear — repeatedly — that they should request a mail-in ballot as early as possible .
And if all else fails and they still have their ballot in-hand with just days before Election Day , they should consider dropping it off in-person — either at an election office , drop box , or another location according to local guidelines .
“ There are two dates that , I would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Stroman , the former deputy postmaster general , told reporters Tuesday .
“ If you request your ballot no later than the 13th of October , and you return it by the 24th of October , your ballot ’ s going to get there.
” Communication is especially urgent in states with less vote-by-mail experience , Reed College professor Paul Gronke told TPM .
Gronke , director of Reed ’ s Early Voting Information Center , said less experienced states have historically had higher rates of rejected mail ballots .
That means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters , likely disproportionately impacting minority communities .
“ Younger people , folks from disadvantaged communities — the pattern will almost certainly be the case where those are the communities where you have higher rejection rates , ” he said .
And he offered a prediction to states that don ’ t proactively communicate election rules : “ You ’ re going to look like you ’ re racist .
You ’ re going to look like you are discriminating .
And you ’ re going to get sued .
”

When the United States Postal Service warned 46 states and the District of Columbia last month that their vote-by-mail deadlines risked disenfranchising voters, some election officials saw it as a call to action.
But, election experts told TPM, with just three months to go and many state legislatures out of session for the rest of the year, there’s not much election officials can actually do now except send a clear, urgent message to voters: Get your ballots early.
The mail slow-down that has been documented in recent weeks, and President Donald Trump’s near daily attacks on the Postal Service, have put voters on edge. And despite Postmaster General Louis DeJoy’s statement Tuesday that he was “suspending” certain cost-cutting initiatives, Democrats and former USPS officials have warned that DeJoy failed to make commitments about election mail, such as promising to allow mail carriers to make extra trips to collect ballots.
“As far as we can tell, this is more than just the appearance of a problem,” former Deputy Postmaster General told reporters after reading through DeJoy’s statement. “There is delayed mail across the system.”
Last-Minute Scrambling
Some election officials have sought the easy way out: In Louisiana, Secretary of State R. Kyle Ardoin (R) on Tuesday proposed dramatically limiting who can vote by mail to those who’ve tested positive for COVID-19, in addition to overseas voters and servicemembers. Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) said that was a non-starter, rejecting the proposal and setting the stage for a potential court battle.
Notably — and more in line with election experts’ concerns about this election cycle — Ardoin also proposed pushing up the deadline to request a mail-in ballot to 10 days before Election Day, rather than the existing 4-day deadline, in order to ensure that ballots reach voters in time for them to be cast.
This has been an issue for years: In a 2016 report the Bipartisan Policy Center urged state legislators to “review statutory deadlines for ballot requests and returns to see if they conform to the new USPS delivery standards.” But four years later, states largely haven’t changed their ballot request deadlines to minimize potential disenfranchisement.
“Most states have a deadline well within the danger zone of the Postal Service delivery standard,” said Michael Thorning, one of the report’s authors. “That’s a longstanding problem that we should expect to be a problem in the fall.”
In Pennsylvania, which just a few months ago joined the ranks of states that don’t require an excuse to vote by mail, election officials are trying to push deadlines on the other end of the timeline, asking the state Supreme Court for permission to count ballots that arrive at election offices up to three days late as long as they were sent on time.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, most states require that mail-in ballots arrive on Election Day, but 19 have some provision for counting ballots arriving later than that as long as they are postmarked before or on the day itself.
And, like other states, Pennsylvania is seeking to use drop boxes and satellite locations for voters who fear their ballots won’t make it through the postal system in time — a plan that attracted a lawsuit from the Trump campaign.
Across the country, most states have tried to shore up their vote-by-mail procedures: In Rhode Island, the state agreed to a consent decree waiving mail-in voters’ usual responsibility to sign their ballot in front of a notary or two witnesses — a move that recently received the Supreme Court’s blessing. In Arizona, the secretary of state’s office bumped up the recommended deadline for mailing back ballots to seven days before Election Day.
Back To Basics: Communication Is Key
But states’ options remain limited this close to Election Day. For all the last minute bustle, experts told TPM, the most important thing state and local election officials can do now is provide clear communication to voters — and local postal officials.
Election authorities need to get in touch with postal officials to make plans that ensure crates of ballots aren’t missed in processing centers on election night, as crucial hours tick away. They also need to avoid New York’s fate, by emphasizing that even ballots sent through business class mail are postmarked, even though that’s not standard practice for other business mail.
Perhaps most crucially, though, voters need to hear — repeatedly — that they should request a mail-in ballot as early as possible. And if all else fails and they still have their ballot in-hand with just days before Election Day, they should consider dropping it off in-person — either at an election office, drop box, or another location according to local guidelines.
“There are two dates that, I would say, need to be clear,” Stroman, the former deputy postmaster general, told reporters Tuesday. “If you request your ballot no later than the 13th of October, and you return it by the 24th of October, your ballot’s going to get there.”
We need to support our local post offices & election administrators so they can deliver ballots smoothly this year. If you are planning to vote absentee, be sure to request your ballot & return it early. Help us flatten the ballot request curve.https://t.co/hSVd0Hi1HN pic.twitter.com/rGTsMIca2q — Campaign Legal Center (@CampaignLegal) August 14, 2020
Communication is especially urgent in states with less vote-by-mail experience, Reed College professor Paul Gronke told TPM.
Gronke, director of Reed’s Early Voting Information Center, said less experienced states have historically had higher rates of rejected mail ballots. That means potentially disenfranchising thousands or millions of new voters, likely disproportionately impacting minority communities.
“Younger people, folks from disadvantaged communities — the pattern will almost certainly be the case where those are the communities where you have higher rejection rates,” he said.
And he offered a prediction to states that don’t proactively communicate election rules: “You’re going to look like you’re racist. You’re going to look like you are discriminating. And you’re going to get sued.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-08-19--Pelosi: DeJoy Has No Plan To Replace Sorting Machines Or For ‘Adequate Overtime’

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) said Wednesday after a call with Postmaster General Louis DeJoy that the postmaster has “ no intention ” to replace sorting machines and blue mailboxes that have already been removed .
She added that “ plans for adequate overtime , which is critical for the timely delivery of mail , are not in the works.
” “ All of these changes directly jeopardize the election and disproportionately threaten to disenfranchise voters in communities of color , ” she continued .
“ At the same time , we are highly concerned that the slowdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not being sufficiently addressed.
” DeJoy released a statement Tuesday , which Pelosi called “ misleading , ” promising to postpone the USPS overhaul until after the election .
He said that , for now , approval of overtime hours for postal workers will continue “ as needed , ” and that mail processing equipment will be untouched and centers left open .
When he started the job in June , he laid out plans to make extensive changes at the already beleaguered agency .
Those plans attracted attention and horror last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letters to 46 states and Washington D.C. warning them that it may not be able to turn mailed ballots around fast enough for them to be counted this November .
Pelosi recalled her members to Washington D.C. to vote on funding for the USPS , and DeJoy was called to testify in both the House and the Senate .
USPS spokesperson David Partenheimer confirmed to TPM Tuesday that DeJoy will still be attending those hearings before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Friday and the House Oversight Committee Monday .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote on Oversight Committee chair Carolyn Maloney ’ s ( D-NY ) bill that would provide $ 25 billion , the amount the Trump-appointed board of governors requested , for the USPS .
Senate Republicans are working on counter-legislation that would include $ 10 billion for the postal service as well as a continued unemployment benefit at $ 300 a week and some funds to support education and testing during the pandemic , according to the Associated Press .
The legislation would ring in at around $ 500 billion , if leadership can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which they ’ ve failed to do with other COVID-19 relief proposals .
So far , Democrats have rejected “ piecemeal ” packages like the Republicans ’ out of hand .
The House passed a $ 3.4 trillion relief bundle called the HEROES Act in May , and Democratic leadership has so far insisted on expansive and comprehensive legislation .
Both Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-NY ) have expressed their wariness that if they agree to pass a “ skinny ” bill with only a few nuggets of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want , the White House and congressional Republicans will pack up and leave the negotiating table , satisfied to have at least something tangible to show the American people they ’ ve helped with the nationwide suffering .

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said Wednesday after a call with Postmaster General Louis DeJoy that the postmaster has “no intention” to replace sorting machines and blue mailboxes that have already been removed.
She added that “plans for adequate overtime, which is critical for the timely delivery of mail, are not in the works.”
“All of these changes directly jeopardize the election and disproportionately threaten to disenfranchise voters in communities of color,” she continued. “At the same time, we are highly concerned that the slowdown of the delivery of medicines to veterans is not being sufficiently addressed.”
DeJoy released a statement Tuesday, which Pelosi called “misleading,” promising to postpone the USPS overhaul until after the election. He said that, for now, approval of overtime hours for postal workers will continue “as needed,” and that mail processing equipment will be untouched and centers left open.
When he started the job in June, he laid out plans to make extensive changes at the already beleaguered agency. Those plans attracted attention and horror last week, when the postal service sent letters to 46 states and Washington D.C. warning them that it may not be able to turn mailed ballots around fast enough for them to be counted this November.
Pelosi recalled her members to Washington D.C. to vote on funding for the USPS, and DeJoy was called to testify in both the House and the Senate. USPS spokesperson David Partenheimer confirmed to TPM Tuesday that DeJoy will still be attending those hearings before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Friday and the House Oversight Committee Monday.
The House is scheduled to meet Saturday to vote on Oversight Committee chair Carolyn Maloney’s (D-NY) bill that would provide $25 billion, the amount the Trump-appointed board of governors requested, for the USPS.
Senate Republicans are working on counter-legislation that would include $10 billion for the postal service as well as a continued unemployment benefit at $300 a week and some funds to support education and testing during the pandemic, according to the Associated Press. The legislation would ring in at around $500 billion, if leadership can get their members to coalesce behind it, which they’ve failed to do with other COVID-19 relief proposals.
So far, Democrats have rejected “piecemeal” packages like the Republicans’ out of hand. The House passed a $3.4 trillion relief bundle called the HEROES Act in May, and Democratic leadership has so far insisted on expansive and comprehensive legislation.
Both Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) have expressed their wariness that if they agree to pass a “skinny” bill with only a few nuggets of economic relief in it like the Republicans want, the White House and congressional Republicans will pack up and leave the negotiating table, satisfied to have at least something tangible to show the American people they’ve helped with the nationwide suffering.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-08-19--WH: Trump Calls For Goodyear Boycott Because ‘MAGA Is Unanimous With Blue Lives Matter’

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany on Wednesday defended President Trump ’ s call for a boycott against Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. by attempting to bolster Trump ’ s unwavering support for law enforcement officers .
In a Wednesday morning tweet , the President urged the public to boycott Goodyear tires over a “ BAN ON MAGA HATS.
” However , the Ohio-based company has not officially implemented a ban targeting MAGA hats , and stated that it ’ s asked its employees to “ refrain from workplace expressions involving political campaigning or forms of advocacy that fall outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues issues.
” Trump ’ s call for a Goodyear boycott comes after Topeka , Kansas TV station WIBW reported on an anonymous Goodyear employee ’ s screenshot that the employee claimed was part of the company ’ s diversity training .
The screenshot showed Black Lives Matter and Lesbian , Gay , Bisexual , Transgender Pride messages as “ acceptable ” under company policy .
In contrast , slogans and items such “ MAGA Attire ” and “ Blue Lives Matter ” fell under the “ unacceptable ” category .
Goodyear , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s tweet , acknowledged in a tweet that the company became the focus of a conversation that “ created some misconceptions about our policies and our company.
” In its statement , Goodyear denied that the screenshot was created or distributed by the company ’ s corporate offices nor was part of a diversity training class .
Goodyear also denied that it ’ s “ anti-police ” and that it has the “ utmost appreciation ” for police forces .
When pressed on Trump ’ s Goodyear boycott demand during a White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t comment on whether the President would continue to use tires made by the company , but urged it to “ come out and clarify their policy ” after a reporter pointed out that a ban on political speech is standard for most companies .
McEnany argued that the screenshot by the anonymous Goodyear employee , which showed MAGA hats being deemed unacceptable by the company , shows that “ what was clearly targeted was a certain ideology.
” Asked whether the President himself reached out to Goodyear prior to his tweet , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s previous assertion that he ’ s the President of “ law and order ” instead .
“ They came out and said equity issues .
As far as I ’ m concerned , Blue Lives Matter is an equity issue , ” McEnany said .
“ There have been police officers across this country that have been targeted because they wear the badge.
” After ranting about the Black Lives Matter movement for its call to defund the police , McEnany doubled down on how Blue Lives Matter is an “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to come out and acknowledge.
” McEnany added that the President called for the Goodyear boycott over MAGA , which she characterized as being “ pretty much unanimous with Blue Lives Matter these days.
” Later in the briefing , McEnany was pressed on whether his Goodyear boycott is the official policy of the federal government .
“ The President was talking to his supporters when he tweeted that in particular , ” McEnany said .
“ This President will never apologize for standing with law enforcement .
He won ’ t .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ”

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany on Wednesday defended President Trump’s call for a boycott against Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. by attempting to bolster Trump’s unwavering support for law enforcement officers.
In a Wednesday morning tweet, the President urged the public to boycott Goodyear tires over a “BAN ON MAGA HATS.” However, the Ohio-based company has not officially implemented a ban targeting MAGA hats, and stated that it’s asked its employees to “refrain from workplace expressions involving political campaigning or forms of advocacy that fall outside the scope of racial justice and equity issues issues.”
Don’t buy GOODYEAR TIRES – They announced a BAN ON MAGA HATS. Get better tires for far less! (This is what the Radical Left Democrats do. Two can play the same game, and we have to start playing it now!). — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 19, 2020
Trump’s call for a Goodyear boycott comes after Topeka, Kansas TV station WIBW reported on an anonymous Goodyear employee’s screenshot that the employee claimed was part of the company’s diversity training. The screenshot showed Black Lives Matter and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Pride messages as “acceptable” under company policy. In contrast, slogans and items such “MAGA Attire” and “Blue Lives Matter” fell under the “unacceptable” category.
Goodyear, whose stocks immediately plunged after Trump’s tweet, acknowledged in a tweet that the company became the focus of a conversation that “created some misconceptions about our policies and our company.” In its statement, Goodyear denied that the screenshot was created or distributed by the company’s corporate offices nor was part of a diversity training class. Goodyear also denied that it’s “anti-police” and that it has the “utmost appreciation” for police forces.
Yesterday, Goodyear became the focus of a conversation that created some misconceptions about our policies and our company. Goodyear has always wholeheartedly supported both equality and law enforcement and will continue to do so. pic.twitter.com/oO6jUg2rTR — Goodyear (@goodyear) August 19, 2020
When pressed on Trump’s Goodyear boycott demand during a White House briefing on Wednesday, McEnany wouldn’t comment on whether the President would continue to use tires made by the company, but urged it to “come out and clarify their policy” after a reporter pointed out that a ban on political speech is standard for most companies.
McEnany argued that the screenshot by the anonymous Goodyear employee, which showed MAGA hats being deemed unacceptable by the company, shows that “what was clearly targeted was a certain ideology.”
Asked whether the President himself reached out to Goodyear prior to his tweet, McEnany bypassed the question and bolstered Trump’s previous assertion that he’s the President of “law and order” instead.
“They came out and said equity issues. As far as I’m concerned, Blue Lives Matter is an equity issue,” McEnany said. “There have been police officers across this country that have been targeted because they wear the badge.”
After ranting about the Black Lives Matter movement for its call to defund the police, McEnany doubled down on how Blue Lives Matter is an “equity issue” that Goodyear “needs to come out and acknowledge.”
McEnany added that the President called for the Goodyear boycott over MAGA, which she characterized as being “pretty much unanimous with Blue Lives Matter these days.”
Later in the briefing, McEnany was pressed on whether his Goodyear boycott is the official policy of the federal government.
“The President was talking to his supporters when he tweeted that in particular,” McEnany said. “This President will never apologize for standing with law enforcement. He won’t. He think it’s unacceptable.”
Watch McEnany’s remarks below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-08-19--SCOTUS Tosses GOP A Bone, Won’t Hear Obamacare Case Until Week After Election

The Supreme Court will not hear a GOP-backed challenge to the Affordable Care Act until after the election , a move that will likely help Republicans narrowly swerve around a showdown over a lawsuit that figures prominently during a campaign season marred by the coronavirus pandemic .
The case is an extension of President Donald Trump ’ s 2016 campaign pledge to repeal and replace the Obama-era Affordable Care Act in a move that would strip roughly 20 million Americans of health insurance .
While congressional Republicans failed to strike-down the ACA in 2017 — largely due to the late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) thumbs-down vote — Texas and other Republican-led states later challenged the law ’ s constitutionality in court , an effort vigorously supported by the Trump administration .
In 2012 , Chief Justice John Roberts cast the determining vote to uphold the ACA , arguing that the individual mandate was valid at the time under Congress ’ taxing power .
In a tax code overhaul , Congress removed the individual mandate penalty for people who do not purchase health insurance in 2017 .
In December of last year , a federal appeals court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it deferred to the nation ’ s highest court to rule on calls that the entirety of the law should fall .
Republican challengers have argued that because the individual mandate was woven into other provisions , the entire law should fall , including protections for people with preexisting conditions .
In briefs about the lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court at the beginning of this year , the Justice Department and a separate group of attorneys general from Republican-led states , requested that the court not take on the case this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disgruntled voters during an election year where health concerns weigh heavily on the minds of many Americans , especially now that COVID-19 has killed more than 170,000 people across the country .
In July , a schedule released by the court indicated that the justices would not hear the ACA case in October after they return for their fall term .
The news at that time came as relief to many Republicans in projected close races , who feared the lawsuit could bear damaging consequences for the party .
The latest docket report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just one week after the election , ensures that — in the absence of a decision — the ACA can likely remain at a safe distance as Trump campaigns for reelection and GOP candidates race for congressional seats .

The Supreme Court will not hear a GOP-backed challenge to the Affordable Care Act until after the election, a move that will likely help Republicans narrowly swerve around a showdown over a lawsuit that figures prominently during a campaign season marred by the coronavirus pandemic.
The case is an extension of President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign pledge to repeal and replace the Obama-era Affordable Care Act in a move that would strip roughly 20 million Americans of health insurance.
While congressional Republicans failed to strike-down the ACA in 2017 — largely due to the late Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) thumbs-down vote — Texas and other Republican-led states later challenged the law’s constitutionality in court, an effort vigorously supported by the Trump administration.
In 2012, Chief Justice John Roberts cast the determining vote to uphold the ACA, arguing that the individual mandate was valid at the time under Congress’ taxing power. In a tax code overhaul, Congress removed the individual mandate penalty for people who do not purchase health insurance in 2017.
In December of last year, a federal appeals court held that the individual mandate was unconstitutional but it deferred to the nation’s highest court to rule on calls that the entirety of the law should fall. Republican challengers have argued that because the individual mandate was woven into other provisions, the entire law should fall, including protections for people with preexisting conditions.
In briefs about the lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court at the beginning of this year, the Justice Department and a separate group of attorneys general from Republican-led states, requested that the court not take on the case this year, likely to avoid fallout from disgruntled voters during an election year where health concerns weigh heavily on the minds of many Americans, especially now that COVID-19 has killed more than 170,000 people across the country.
In July, a schedule released by the court indicated that the justices would not hear the ACA case in October after they return for their fall term.
The news at that time came as relief to many Republicans in projected close races, who feared the lawsuit could bear damaging consequences for the party. The latest docket report announcing the SCOTUS hearing will take place just one week after the election, ensures that — in the absence of a decision — the ACA can likely remain at a safe distance as Trump campaigns for reelection and GOP candidates race for congressional seats.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-08-19--Here’s What The Post Office Needs To Survive A Pandemic Election

This story first appeared at ProPublica .
ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom .
Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox .
This fall ’ s elections are the latest chapter in the slow-motion collapse of the U.S .
Postal Service , one of America ’ s most venerated institutions .
As November approaches , members of Congress and state election officials have grown increasingly concerned that the USPS will fail at a critical moment : a closely contested vote that will involve a record number of people casting a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fueled by President Donald Trump ’ s unfounded allegation that voting by mail leads to massive fraud and by reports from Postal Service employees that key equipment was being removed and overtime was being slashed .
The newly appointed postmaster general , Louis DeJoy , responded to what he termed “ areas of concern ” by announcing that he would approve overtime “ as needed ” and delay the removal of mail sorting machines until after the election .
But the problems at the Postal Service go well beyond those issues and predate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ USPS warned state election officials that it might not be able to meet deadlines for delivering ballots for the November elections .
With DeJoy scheduled to testify before an emergency session of Congress on Friday , here ’ s a guide to help you understand the issues and what remedies lawmakers could provide .
What ’ s going on at the Postal Service under DeJoy ?
Is mail being slowed intentionally ?
There are at least three possible reasons for the unusual recent delays in mail delivery .
The first is both the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ More than 8,000 postal workers have tested positive for the novel coronavirus , according to USPS ’ official count .
The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration has addressed more than 200 complaints against the USPS alleging insufficient COVID-19 protections , and the toll on workers could be slowing down the overall mail operation .
The second is that staff cost-cutting plans were implemented by DeJoy .
One way that the USPS deals with variations in demand is by spending more on staffing , including overtime .
For example , during the holiday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which translates into increased overtime spending .
When the USPS reduces this spending , performance can suffer .
In July , the Postal Service told staff that in an effort to cut costs , it would no longer be making late or extra delivery trips from processing and distribution centers .
The USPS also began eliminating overtime hours put in by workers .
Because of the staff shortage caused by the pandemic , postal workers were using more overtime than usual , making the cuts especially severe .
The last possible reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a previously approved plan to remove hundreds of letter processing machines from its facilities .
The removals began around the time DeJoy took office , but the Postal Service adopted the plan before he arrived .
An internal USPS document showed a goal of eliminating about 20 % of the machines , though the number continued to change .
The USPS has seen a long-term decline in the volume of letters being sent , and the agency says that ’ s why it ’ s removing the machines .
When asked by ProPublica @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the notion that having fewer machines could slow the processing of election mail .
On Tuesday , DeJoy said that overtime “ has , and will continue to be , approved as needed , ” and that mail processing equipment will remain in place until after the election .
Isn ’ t the mail the same everywhere ?
Why would some states be better at delivering mail-in ballots ?
There are five states with universal voting by mail , and those states have had enough time to get it right .
In 1998 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ send ballots to all registered voters by mail .
Washington , Colorado , Hawaii and Utah came next , setting up similar systems .
Because they ’ ve been practicing for years , they have clear processes that are coordinated statewide along with significant security and voter education resources .
Voters in these states won ’ t have to do anything differently this year .
There are also several states where voting by mail is not universal but is extremely common .
More than half of voters in California , Arizona and Montana @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In Florida in 2018 , over 30 % voted by mail .
These states will also have an easier time scaling up their operations for November .
In states where voting by mail is uncommon or new , figuring out how to adopt a new form of casting a ballot will be a significant challenge .
These states generally require voters to choose one of a limited number of reasons preventing them from voting in person .
In these states , election administrators lack experience and , perhaps more importantly , the appropriate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mail .
These states will need extensive guidance from more experienced states , and they would most directly benefit from increased federal and state funding .
Trump has called the USPS a “ joke.
” Is he right ?
What , if anything , is wrong with the Postal Service ?
Depending on whom you ask , the Postal Service is either an iconic provider of an essential public service or an ossified , money-losing agency badly in need of free-market discipline .
What the Postal Service is not , however , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a “ universal service obligation ” to offer affordable mail to all Americans and has a congressionally mandated monopoly on the mail .
Many people , particularly those who live in hard-to-reach areas , depend on the Postal Service for delivery of vital medication , paychecks and letters .
At the same time , the USPS has been disrupted by new forms of communication as well as competition from companies like Amazon , which nonetheless rely on it for the last mile of many deliveries .
Package volume has been rising over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more people shopped online during the pandemic , it soared 49 % between April and June compared to the same period last year .
The bad news ?
First-class mail volume , traditionally the Postal Service ’ s most profitable category , has fallen every year since 2001 .
The long-term prospects for the USPS are indeed grim .
Thanks to a wave of plant closures and consolidation , mail delivery has also gotten steadily slower , and the Postal Service has not hit any of its first-class mail delivery goals in five @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even worse .
More than half of the nation ’ s 67 postal districts failed to meet any of their first-class mail delivery goals in the first quarter of 2020 , Wisconsin Watch reported , with some of the worst problems occurring in swing states .
Can Congress do anything to help fix the Postal Service before the election ?
The Postal Service is ordinarily a self-funding operation , but there are things that Congress can do in this unique situation .
Here are three options : • Get rid of a burdensome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Service of its obligation under a 2006 law to pre-fund decades ’ worth of worker benefits , returning it to a more standard “ pay as you go ” model .
The Postal Service has been warning for years that its business model is not sustainable in large part because of that requirement , a burden that has not been placed on other agencies .
Without the 2006 requirement , the Postal Service would likely have been profitable in some years over the last decade , according to the Trump administration ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the money it is already owed .
Congress has neglected to appropriate more than $ 1 billion that it owes the USPS for the discounted mailing service the agency provides to nonprofits , local newspapers and disabled Americans .
• Spend some new money .
The biggest thing Congress could do is simply cut a few very large checks .
As of Monday , House Democrats are finalizing a $ 25 billion bill to fund the Postal Service .
If states are struggling to run their elections in a pandemic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so many things , it comes down to money .
Election officials and voting experts have been warning , over and over , that states need more money to properly run elections during a pandemic .
This year , many states have had to build large voting-by-mail operations for the first time and safe , socially distanced in-person voting processes , effectively running two new types of elections at once .
This requires funding , and it has proved doubly difficult for cash-strapped states .
In March , Congress allocated $ 400 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the CARES Act .
But that wasn ’ t anywhere near enough .
The Brennan Center for Justice estimated states need more than $ 4 billion in spending to shore up their election capacity .
Last week , Trump said he opposes both additional election funding for states and additional money for the Postal Service .
Can states do anything to help the USPS deliver ballots on time ?
• States can set reasonable timelines .
For example , Minnesota allows voters to request an absentee ballot up to the day before the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Postal Service and election administrators to meet .
• They can work with the USPS .
States can make an effort to ensure that local post offices are aware of deadlines and have a specific plan for how to identify and process ballots separately from regular mail .
• They can educate the public .
States will need to standardize their processes and materials and invest in education campaigns to teach the public how and when to cast their ballots .
I ’ m worried .
What can I do to ensure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the mail ?
When should I mail it ?
• drop off your ballot in a designated drop box or at your local election office .
Acting early has another benefit : it flattens “ the ballot request curve ” and prevents your local election officials or post office from being flooded with last-minute demands .
The Postal Service ’ s official recommendation is to mail in your ballot at least seven days ahead of your state ’ s deadlines .
Depending on your state , however , this may not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use a drop box to vote .
Are drop boxes safe and fair ?
Yes .
Drop boxes have been used for years in elections and — when best practices are followed — they are secure alternatives to mailing your ballot or casting it in person .
There is no evidence that drop boxes benefit one party more than the other , but they have been shown to increase turnout at least a bit .
Given the pandemic and decreasing confidence in the USPS to deliver ballots on time , drop boxes are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Manufacturers of the boxes have reported increased demand .
The boxes are heavy — in the hundreds of pounds — and bolted to the ground much like ATMs .
Tampering with them is difficult , and there have been no reported successful cases .
Not very common at all .
It is accepted among political scientists who study the issue that vote-by-mail fraud is slightly more susceptible to fraud than in-person voting .
For example , in North Carolina the results of the 2018 congressional race were invalidated after officials discovered a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to collect and manipulate ballots .
Such violations are often caught because of the clear security measures states have set up around voting by mail , enabling people to track their ballots and requiring officials to verify signatures .
At the same time , voter fraud is exceedingly rare across the board .
Colorado , which conducts its election entirely by mail , referred only 0.0027 % of ballots for investigation in 2018 .

This story first appeared at ProPublica. ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
This fall’s elections are the latest chapter in the slow-motion collapse of the U.S. Postal Service, one of America’s most venerated institutions. As November approaches, members of Congress and state election officials have grown increasingly concerned that the USPS will fail at a critical moment: a closely contested vote that will involve a record number of people casting a ballot by mail.
That worry was fueled by President Donald Trump’s unfounded allegation that voting by mail leads to massive fraud and by reports from Postal Service employees that key equipment was being removed and overtime was being slashed. The newly appointed postmaster general, Louis DeJoy, responded to what he termed “areas of concern” by announcing that he would approve overtime “as needed” and delay the removal of mail sorting machines until after the election. But the problems at the Postal Service go well beyond those issues and predate DeJoy. Earlier this month, the USPS warned state election officials that it might not be able to meet deadlines for delivering ballots for the November elections.
With DeJoy scheduled to testify before an emergency session of Congress on Friday, here’s a guide to help you understand the issues and what remedies lawmakers could provide.
What’s going on at the Postal Service under DeJoy? Is mail being slowed intentionally?
There are at least three possible reasons for the unusual recent delays in mail delivery.
The first is both the most obvious and the most tragic: More than 8,000 postal workers have tested positive for the novel coronavirus, according to USPS’ official count. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration has addressed more than 200 complaints against the USPS alleging insufficient COVID-19 protections, and the toll on workers could be slowing down the overall mail operation.
The second is that staff cost-cutting plans were implemented by DeJoy. One way that the USPS deals with variations in demand is by spending more on staffing, including overtime. For example, during the holiday season there is greater demand for mail, which translates into increased overtime spending. When the USPS reduces this spending, performance can suffer.
In July, the Postal Service told staff that in an effort to cut costs, it would no longer be making late or extra delivery trips from processing and distribution centers. The USPS also began eliminating overtime hours put in by workers. Because of the staff shortage caused by the pandemic, postal workers were using more overtime than usual, making the cuts especially severe.
The last possible reason is that the USPS went ahead with a previously approved plan to remove hundreds of letter processing machines from its facilities. The removals began around the time DeJoy took office, but the Postal Service adopted the plan before he arrived. An internal USPS document showed a goal of eliminating about 20% of the machines, though the number continued to change.
The USPS has seen a long-term decline in the volume of letters being sent, and the agency says that’s why it’s removing the machines. When asked by ProPublica, the USPS declined to comment on the notion that having fewer machines could slow the processing of election mail.
On Tuesday, DeJoy said that overtime “has, and will continue to be, approved as needed,” and that mail processing equipment will remain in place until after the election.
Isn’t the mail the same everywhere? Why would some states be better at delivering mail-in ballots?
There are five states with universal voting by mail, and those states have had enough time to get it right.
In 1998, Oregon became the first state to send ballots to all registered voters by mail. Washington, Colorado, Hawaii and Utah came next, setting up similar systems. Because they’ve been practicing for years, they have clear processes that are coordinated statewide along with significant security and voter education resources. Voters in these states won’t have to do anything differently this year.
There are also several states where voting by mail is not universal but is extremely common. More than half of voters in California, Arizona and Montana cast ballots by mail in 2016. In Florida in 2018, over 30% voted by mail. These states will also have an easier time scaling up their operations for November.
In states where voting by mail is uncommon or new, figuring out how to adopt a new form of casting a ballot will be a significant challenge. These states generally require voters to choose one of a limited number of reasons preventing them from voting in person.
In these states, election administrators lack experience and, perhaps more importantly, the appropriate equipment to rapidly ramp up voting by mail. These states will need extensive guidance from more experienced states, and they would most directly benefit from increased federal and state funding.
Trump has called the USPS a “joke.” Is he right? What, if anything, is wrong with the Postal Service?
Depending on whom you ask, the Postal Service is either an iconic provider of an essential public service or an ossified, money-losing agency badly in need of free-market discipline. What the Postal Service is not, however, is a normal business.
The Postal Service has a “universal service obligation” to offer affordable mail to all Americans and has a congressionally mandated monopoly on the mail. Many people, particularly those who live in hard-to-reach areas, depend on the Postal Service for delivery of vital medication, paychecks and letters. At the same time, the USPS has been disrupted by new forms of communication as well as competition from companies like Amazon, which nonetheless rely on it for the last mile of many deliveries.
Package volume has been rising over the last few years, and as more people shopped online during the pandemic, it soared 49% between April and June compared to the same period last year. The bad news? First-class mail volume, traditionally the Postal Service’s most profitable category, has fallen every year since 2001.
The long-term prospects for the USPS are indeed grim. Thanks to a wave of plant closures and consolidation, mail delivery has also gotten steadily slower, and the Postal Service has not hit any of its first-class mail delivery goals in five years. The pandemic has made things even worse. More than half of the nation’s 67 postal districts failed to meet any of their first-class mail delivery goals in the first quarter of 2020, Wisconsin Watch reported, with some of the worst problems occurring in swing states.
Can Congress do anything to help fix the Postal Service before the election?
The Postal Service is ordinarily a self-funding operation, but there are things that Congress can do in this unique situation.
Here are three options:
Get rid of a burdensome law. Congress could relieve the Postal Service of its obligation under a 2006 law to pre-fund decades’ worth of worker benefits, returning it to a more standard “pay as you go” model. The Postal Service has been warning for years that its business model is not sustainable in large part because of that requirement, a burden that has not been placed on other agencies. Without the 2006 requirement, the Postal Service would likely have been profitable in some years over the last decade, according to the Trump administration’s own estimates.
Congress could relieve the Postal Service of its obligation under a 2006 law to pre-fund decades’ worth of worker benefits, returning it to a more standard “pay as you go” model. The Postal Service has been warning for years that its business model is not sustainable in large part because of that requirement, a burden that has not been placed on other agencies. Without the 2006 requirement, the Postal Service would likely have been profitable in some years over the last decade, according to the Trump administration’s own estimates. Pay the USPS some of the money it is already owed. Congress has neglected to appropriate more than $1 billion that it owes the USPS for the discounted mailing service the agency provides to nonprofits, local newspapers and disabled Americans.
Congress has neglected to appropriate more than $1 billion that it owes the USPS for the discounted mailing service the agency provides to nonprofits, local newspapers and disabled Americans. Spend some new money. The biggest thing Congress could do is simply cut a few very large checks. As of Monday, House Democrats are finalizing a $25 billion bill to fund the Postal Service.
If states are struggling to run their elections in a pandemic, can Congress help?
Again, like so many things, it comes down to money. Election officials and voting experts have been warning, over and over, that states need more money to properly run elections during a pandemic. This year, many states have had to build large voting-by-mail operations for the first time and safe, socially distanced in-person voting processes, effectively running two new types of elections at once. This requires funding, and it has proved doubly difficult for cash-strapped states.
In March, Congress allocated $400 million in election funding as a part of the CARES Act. But that wasn’t anywhere near enough. The Brennan Center for Justice estimated states need more than $4 billion in spending to shore up their election capacity.
Last week, Trump said he opposes both additional election funding for states and additional money for the Postal Service.
Can states do anything to help the USPS deliver ballots on time?
Yes.
States can set reasonable timelines. For example, Minnesota allows voters to request an absentee ballot up to the day before the election — an obviously unrealistic timeline for the Postal Service and election administrators to meet.
For example, Minnesota allows voters to request an absentee ballot up to the day before the election — an obviously unrealistic timeline for the Postal Service and election administrators to meet. They can work with the USPS. States can make an effort to ensure that local post offices are aware of deadlines and have a specific plan for how to identify and process ballots separately from regular mail.
States can make an effort to ensure that local post offices are aware of deadlines and have a specific plan for how to identify and process ballots separately from regular mail. They can educate the public. States will need to standardize their processes and materials and invest in education campaigns to teach the public how and when to cast their ballots.
I’m worried. What can I do to ensure my ballot doesn’t get lost in the mail? When should I mail it?
You should:
request your ballot early,
mail it back early or,
drop off your ballot in a designated drop box or at your local election office.
(Check your state and local rules first, of course.)
Acting early has another benefit: it flattens “the ballot request curve” and prevents your local election officials or post office from being flooded with last-minute demands.
The Postal Service’s official recommendation is to mail in your ballot at least seven days ahead of your state’s deadlines. Depending on your state, however, this may not be sufficient.
I’d rather just use a drop box to vote. Are drop boxes safe and fair?
Yes. Drop boxes have been used for years in elections and — when best practices are followed — they are secure alternatives to mailing your ballot or casting it in person.
There is no evidence that drop boxes benefit one party more than the other, but they have been shown to increase turnout at least a bit.
Given the pandemic and decreasing confidence in the USPS to deliver ballots on time, drop boxes are likely to be more popular this year. Manufacturers of the boxes have reported increased demand. The boxes are heavy — in the hundreds of pounds — and bolted to the ground much like ATMs. Tampering with them is difficult, and there have been no reported successful cases.
How common is vote-by-mail fraud?
Not very common at all. It is accepted among political scientists who study the issue that vote-by-mail fraud is slightly more susceptible to fraud than in-person voting. For example, in North Carolina the results of the 2018 congressional race were invalidated after officials discovered a Republican campaign consultant had orchestrated a scheme to collect and manipulate ballots. Such violations are often caught because of the clear security measures states have set up around voting by mail, enabling people to track their ballots and requiring officials to verify signatures.
At the same time, voter fraud is exceedingly rare across the board. Colorado, which conducts its election entirely by mail, referred only 0.0027% of ballots for investigation in 2018.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-08-19--HHS Sent Rapid Testing Machines To Nursing Homes Without Direction, Resulting In Mass Confusion

Last month , Dr. Michael Wasserman received a surprise at the nursing homes he operates .
It came in the form of a delivery from the Department of Health and Human Services : three rapid COVID-19 testing machines sent to nursing homes that Wasserman , president of the California Association for Long Term Care Medicine , directs .
Part of Wasserman ’ s surprise stemmed from the fact that he had no idea the machines were coming without instruction .
Neither , for that matter , did the state government , which had regulations on the books that barred the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homes .
As he sought answers , Wasserman encountered an HHS program to surge rapid , point-of-care COVID-19 testing machines to nearly every nursing home in the country .
Long awaited by nursing homes , the program relies on a technology called antigen testing that , in its current form , trades accuracy for a 15-minute return on results .
But the HHS program to distribute the machines has been met with mass confusion stemming from a lack of direction over what to do with the machines and how , or whether , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As a result , some nursing homes have been failing to report the results of tests to state health departments .
The tests ’ accuracy has also been reduced by operator error , clouding the true spread of COVID-19 .
“ I have to say , I ’ m not impressed that they basically sent us machines without clear direction on how to use them , and without clear direction to state and county health departments , ” Wasserman said .
Wasserman is not alone in his concern .
“ HHS needs to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to send out [ the testing machines ] with explicit responsibilities for reporting results to public health authorities and technical assistance so it actually happens , ” said Dr. Jeffrey Engel , a senior advisor on COVID-19 and executive at the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists .
“ We ’ ve been asking for federal guidance all along , these nursing homes have very limited capacity , and to expect them to ramp up and do this — something that they ’ ve never done before — is not realistic and could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TPM .
Engel , whose organization represents state epidemiologists around the country , told TPM that his group ’ s members were contending with nursing homes that were not reporting their test results .
When CSTE reached out to HHS for a list of what machines had gone to which nursing homes in a bid to determine where testing on the machines was occurring , Engel said , HHS rebuffed him .
This lack of clarity will likely “ impact disease control overall , ” said Dr. Cyrus Shahpar , a former commander @ @ @ @ @ @ @ director of the Epidemic Intelligence Unit at the public health organization Vital Strategies .
He said that if nursing homes were unaware of reporting requirements , it would make it harder for state and local public health departments to track the outbreak .
“ To do that , you need to know where the disease is , where it ’ s spreading , where the gaps are , ” Shahpar said .
“ We ’ ll be put in a position where we might not find out about these things until they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of pockets of disease.
” An HHS spokeswoman told TPM that the manufacturers would provide instructions and videos to train staff on the devices .
“ Training documentation will be made widely available for all nursing homes that are receiving supplies , ” the spokeswoman said .
The American Health Care Association , the national nursing home lobby , told TPM that it was advising its members to follow state and local public health guidelines to use the tests .
“ CMS and HHS recognized that providers will have many questions , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting this program started and will be providing more guidance in the coming weeks , ” a spokesperson said .
HHS announced the ambitious project last month with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services : the agencies would send rapid COVID-19 testing machines to every nursing home in the country .
The tests deliver on-the-spot results , but are prone to false positives if used correctly , and false negatives if there ’ s operator error or if the test is conducted too early in COVID-19 ’ s progression .
“ Where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in user error rather than the test being faulty , ” Joe Petrosino , chair of molecular virology at Baylor University , told TPM .
He added that sample collection for the approved antigen tests require swabs deep in the nasal cavity .
From the Trump administration ’ s standpoint , the machines could help test a population that has accounted for 40 percent of U.S. deaths in the pandemic .
It could also resolve a key issue : unacceptably long turnaround times on testing .
Nursing home staff in states with COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once per week , adding to the burden placed on large , commercial laboratories .
Antigen tests don ’ t rely on such laboratories , and provide results on the spot .
“ By putting point-of-care [ testing ] in nursing homes we not only improve turnaround and protect our vulnerable there , but we offload a lot of the demand on the major laboratories , ” HHS Assistant Secretary for Health Adm. Brett Giroir told reporters last month .
Many nursing home operators feel similarly .
Used correctly , the tradeoff between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ identify a potential COVID-19 outbreak .
“ It ’ s a choice between the sensitivity of the test and the timeliness of the results , ” Kevin Warren , CEO of the Texas Health Care Association , which represents nursing homes in the state , told TPM .
So , who is testing ?
HHS is distributing the only two antigen testing machines approved for use right now on the market .
The tests showed a roughly 80 percent sensitivity rating in controlled , pre-market tests .
But there ’ s a problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or if , many of the results are being reported .
HHS did not inform the nursing homes that received the machines of their obligation to report the results , and without federal guidance , it ’ s also not clear how states should account for the lower accuracy of antigen tests in the cases where the test results are reported .
In Iowa , a Van Buren county public health official told TPM that she elected to report her county-level antigen positive test results publicly on the county Facebook page even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the public , while a Florida test provider told TPM that his local public health department had initially refused to accept antigen results .
In Vermont , the state ’ s department of public health told TPM that it would soon issue “ a reminder about reporting results to the Health Department , ” while Warren , the Texas nursing home representative , described the lack of reporting as a “ challenge.
” “ You can ’ t fight what you can ’ t see , ” he said .
Dr. Wasserman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , told TPM that the lack of clear guidance was particularly difficult given that the the CARES Act mandates that all COVID-19 tests be reported to state authorities .
“ This is one of the challenges with nursing homes , they ’ re running around trying to report to god knows how many different authorities , ” Wasserman said .
“ It would really have helped if we had clear direction from the federal government , one that gave the state and local health departments an opportunity to follow that direction.
” It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the problem , in part because , according to Engel , HHS has refused to share information on which nursing homes have received the equipment so far .
Though HHS says that it intends for every nursing home in the country to have a rapid , point-of-care antigen test by the end of September , it ’ s not clear in what order the tests are being delivered .
In California , the confusion was also compounded because the antigen tests failed to meet California requirements — more stringent than those in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tests in nursing homes .
It ’ s not clear how many tests were delayed because of this , though the California Department of Health told TPM it ultimately allowed the machines to be used .
CMS records show that 265 separate nursing homes in California are set to receive the antigen machines .
Dr. Susan Butler-Wu , an associate professor of clinical pathology at USC and the director of a microbiology lab , described confusion over reporting antigen test results as part of a disorganized national strategy that has been an “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t care what state it ’ s in — it ’ s a virus , ” she said .
“ You have to have a standardized national approach , because we are one nation with open borders across our states.
” To Wasserman , the lack of direction and resulting confusion came down to a lack of federal leadership .
“ A pandemic that kills the number of nursing home residents that this pandemic has killed requires clear federal direction , ” he said .

Last month, Dr. Michael Wasserman received a surprise at the nursing homes he operates.
It came in the form of a delivery from the Department of Health and Human Services: three rapid COVID-19 testing machines sent to nursing homes that Wasserman, president of the California Association for Long Term Care Medicine, directs.
Part of Wasserman’s surprise stemmed from the fact that he had no idea the machines were coming without instruction. Neither, for that matter, did the state government, which had regulations on the books that barred the use of the machines in California nursing homes.
As he sought answers, Wasserman encountered an HHS program to surge rapid, point-of-care COVID-19 testing machines to nearly every nursing home in the country. Long awaited by nursing homes, the program relies on a technology called antigen testing that, in its current form, trades accuracy for a 15-minute return on results.
But the HHS program to distribute the machines has been met with mass confusion stemming from a lack of direction over what to do with the machines and how, or whether, to record and report the results. As a result, some nursing homes have been failing to report the results of tests to state health departments. The tests’ accuracy has also been reduced by operator error, clouding the true spread of COVID-19.
“I have to say, I’m not impressed that they basically sent us machines without clear direction on how to use them, and without clear direction to state and county health departments,” Wasserman said.
Wasserman is not alone in his concern.
“HHS needs to own that — they’ve got to send out [the testing machines] with explicit responsibilities for reporting results to public health authorities and technical assistance so it actually happens,” said Dr. Jeffrey Engel, a senior advisor on COVID-19 and executive at the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists.
“We’ve been asking for federal guidance all along, these nursing homes have very limited capacity, and to expect them to ramp up and do this — something that they’ve never done before — is not realistic and could be potentially harmful,” Engel told TPM.
Engel, whose organization represents state epidemiologists around the country, told TPM that his group’s members were contending with nursing homes that were not reporting their test results. When CSTE reached out to HHS for a list of what machines had gone to which nursing homes in a bid to determine where testing on the machines was occurring, Engel said, HHS rebuffed him.
This lack of clarity will likely “impact disease control overall,” said Dr. Cyrus Shahpar, a former commander in the U.S. Public Health Service and director of the Epidemic Intelligence Unit at the public health organization Vital Strategies.
He said that if nursing homes were unaware of reporting requirements, it would make it harder for state and local public health departments to track the outbreak.
“To do that, you need to know where the disease is, where it’s spreading, where the gaps are,” Shahpar said. “We’ll be put in a position where we might not find out about these things until they’re extensive, and have delayed recognition of pockets of disease.”
An HHS spokeswoman told TPM that the manufacturers would provide instructions and videos to train staff on the devices.
“Training documentation will be made widely available for all nursing homes that are receiving supplies,” the spokeswoman said.
The American Health Care Association, the national nursing home lobby, told TPM that it was advising its members to follow state and local public health guidelines to use the tests.
“CMS and HHS recognized that providers will have many questions, but they did not want to delay in getting this program started and will be providing more guidance in the coming weeks,” a spokesperson said.
Rapid tests, lower accuracy
HHS announced the ambitious project last month with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services: the agencies would send rapid COVID-19 testing machines to every nursing home in the country. The tests deliver on-the-spot results, but are prone to false positives if used correctly, and false negatives if there’s operator error or if the test is conducted too early in COVID-19’s progression.
“Where there’s discrepancies, often is in user error rather than the test being faulty,” Joe Petrosino, chair of molecular virology at Baylor University, told TPM. He added that sample collection for the approved antigen tests require swabs deep in the nasal cavity.
From the Trump administration’s standpoint, the machines could help test a population that has accounted for 40 percent of U.S. deaths in the pandemic. It could also resolve a key issue: unacceptably long turnaround times on testing. Nursing home staff in states with COVID-19 outbreaks must be tested for the disease once per week, adding to the burden placed on large, commercial laboratories. Antigen tests don’t rely on such laboratories, and provide results on the spot.
“By putting point-of-care [testing] in nursing homes we not only improve turnaround and protect our vulnerable there, but we offload a lot of the demand on the major laboratories,” HHS Assistant Secretary for Health Adm. Brett Giroir told reporters last month.
Many nursing home operators feel similarly. Used correctly, the tradeoff between accuracy and speed allows caregivers to quickly identify a potential COVID-19 outbreak.
“It’s a choice between the sensitivity of the test and the timeliness of the results,” Kevin Warren, CEO of the Texas Health Care Association, which represents nursing homes in the state, told TPM.
So, who is testing?
HHS is distributing the only two antigen testing machines approved for use right now on the market. The tests showed a roughly 80 percent sensitivity rating in controlled, pre-market tests.
But there’s a problem: it’s not clear how, or if, many of the results are being reported. HHS did not inform the nursing homes that received the machines of their obligation to report the results, and without federal guidance, it’s also not clear how states should account for the lower accuracy of antigen tests in the cases where the test results are reported.
In Iowa, a Van Buren county public health official told TPM that she elected to report her county-level antigen positive test results publicly on the county Facebook page even though her state did not release them to the public, while a Florida test provider told TPM that his local public health department had initially refused to accept antigen results.
In Vermont, the state’s department of public health told TPM that it would soon issue “a reminder about reporting results to the Health Department,” while Warren, the Texas nursing home representative, described the lack of reporting as a “challenge.”
“You can’t fight what you can’t see,” he said.
Dr. Wasserman, the Los Angeles nursing home director, told TPM that the lack of clear guidance was particularly difficult given that the the CARES Act mandates that all COVID-19 tests be reported to state authorities.
“This is one of the challenges with nursing homes, they’re running around trying to report to god knows how many different authorities,” Wasserman said. “It would really have helped if we had clear direction from the federal government, one that gave the state and local health departments an opportunity to follow that direction.”
It’s impossible to quantify the scale of the problem, in part because, according to Engel, HHS has refused to share information on which nursing homes have received the equipment so far. Though HHS says that it intends for every nursing home in the country to have a rapid, point-of-care antigen test by the end of September, it’s not clear in what order the tests are being delivered.
In California, the confusion was also compounded because the antigen tests failed to meet California requirements — more stringent than those in other states — on the sensitivity of tests in nursing homes. It’s not clear how many tests were delayed because of this, though the California Department of Health told TPM it ultimately allowed the machines to be used. CMS records show that 265 separate nursing homes in California are set to receive the antigen machines.
Dr. Susan Butler-Wu, an associate professor of clinical pathology at USC and the director of a microbiology lab, described confusion over reporting antigen test results as part of a disorganized national strategy that has been an “unmitigated disaster.”
“The virus doesn’t care what state it’s in — it’s a virus,” she said. “You have to have a standardized national approach, because we are one nation with open borders across our states.”
To Wasserman, the lack of direction and resulting confusion came down to a lack of federal leadership.
“A pandemic that kills the number of nursing home residents that this pandemic has killed requires clear federal direction,” he said.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-08-19--‘Ridiculous’: Jill Biden Shoots Down Attacks On Husband’s Cognitive Abilities

Jill Biden said Wednesday that the Trump campaign ’ s attacks on her husband , Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden ’ s mental faculties were “ ridiculous.
” “ He doesn ’ t stop from 9 in the morning til 11 at night , so that ’ s ridiculous , ” Jill Biden told NBC ’ s Savannah Guthrie when asked if the claims had merit .
Jill Biden said that any attack on her husband ’ s sharpness is unfounded .
She told Guthrie that the Democratic nominee is constantly on the phone with governors and conducting fundraisers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ launched a digital ad that suggests the Democratic nominee has suffered cognitive decline over the past four to five years .
The ad shows clips of the former Vice President from 2015 and 2016 speaking clearly and cuts it with footage of Biden appearing to stumble over his words during the 2020 presidential campaign .
“ Joe ’ s not all there , ” Trump told Fox News in June .
“ Everybody knows it .
And it ’ s sad when you look at it and you see it.
” The remarks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over his words in interviews and press conferences — were surprising to those who have long raised questions about the President ’ s own mental ability .
As he explored a strategy to undermine the mental acuity of his Democratic opponent , Trump began talking up a cognitive test he said he had taken , telling Fox News host Sean Hannity in a July phone interview that he “ aced ” it and later casting doubt that Biden could answer all of the questions .

Jill Biden said Wednesday that the Trump campaign’s attacks on her husband, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s mental faculties were “ridiculous.”
“He doesn’t stop from 9 in the morning til 11 at night, so that’s ridiculous,” Jill Biden told NBC’s Savannah Guthrie when asked if the claims had merit.
Jill Biden said that any attack on her husband’s sharpness is unfounded. She told Guthrie that the Democratic nominee is constantly on the phone with governors and conducting fundraisers and briefings.
The Trump campaign on Tuesday launched a digital ad that suggests the Democratic nominee has suffered cognitive decline over the past four to five years. The ad shows clips of the former Vice President from 2015 and 2016 speaking clearly and cuts it with footage of Biden appearing to stumble over his words during the 2020 presidential campaign.
“Joe’s not all there,” Trump told Fox News in June. “Everybody knows it. And it’s sad when you look at it and you see it.”
The remarks coming from Trump — who has tripped over his words in interviews and press conferences — were surprising to those who have long raised questions about the President’s own mental ability.
As he explored a strategy to undermine the mental acuity of his Democratic opponent, Trump began talking up a cognitive test he said he had taken, telling Fox News host Sean Hannity in a July phone interview that he “aced” it and later casting doubt that Biden could answer all of the questions.