talkingpointsmemo--2020-10-12--Democrats Coalesce Behind Central Argument At Barrett Hearing: The ACA Is In Peril

Flanked by blown-up pictures of people whose health would be in dire straits without the Affordable Care Act , Democratic senators stayed on message at Monday ’ s hearing for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett .
Every senator followed a similar formula : reminding viewers why health care is crucial , especially amid a pandemic , explaining why the ACA would be at risk with a Justice Barrett and giving examples of sympathetic constituents with everything to lose from the law ’ s demise .
Some members also tied in the rushed confirmation — their “ this process is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ACA case currently before the Supreme Court .
“ There are two dates on the calendar which explain the timetable : November 3rd and November 10th , ” Sen. Dick Durbin ( D-IL ) said of the rapid process , alluding to the election and oral arguments in the case challenging the ACA before the Supreme Court .
“ On September 27th , President Trump tweeted that he wants to see the Affordable Care Act ‘ terminated ’ in the Supreme Court , ” Durbin added .
“ Let ’ s be honest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suffered an unuttered thought .
He gives us 25 tweets a day tell us what ’ s going through that fertile mind .
We know what he thinks because he tells us — and he made it clear that he wants the Supreme Court and this nominee to join him in eliminating the Affordable Care Act.
” Trump ’ s candor in his opposition to the ACA got many citations from the Democratic members , as did Republicans ’ repeated failure to defang or dismantle the law legislatively .
“ My Republican colleagues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over and over and over to repeal the Affordable Care Act since it was passed a decade ago , ” said Sen. Chris Coons ( D-DE ) .
“ Thankfully , for the people of our nation and my state , they too have been unsuccessful .
And yet today , to make good on this promise , to achieve what they couldn ’ t accomplish through the democratic process , they ’ re looking to the courts , in fact , to the Court — they ’ re looking to this nominee.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s writing on the subject — academic writings and judicial opinions that served as an “ audition , ” in Sen. Richard Blumenthal ’ s ( D-CT ) words , to satisfy Trump ’ s anti-ACA litmus test .
Some of the most effective senators added a personal spin to their presentations .
Sen. Mazie Hirono ( D-HI ) talked about the stark contrast between how her Republican colleagues treated her upon finding out about her kidney cancer diagnosis in 2017 , and their callousness at the prospect of millions of Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( D-MN ) cited her husband and elderly father , both of whom were infected with coronavirus .
Sen. Cory Booker ( D-NJ ) referenced the Rose Garden ceremony-turned-super spreader event , saying that he ’ s “ really glad ” his colleagues had access to the health care they needed after testing positive .
“ The problem is , ” he went on , “ the people who will come through here today to wipe down the desks and empty the garbage , that will vacuum the floor like people all over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ factories , teaching children in schools — they don ’ t have a direct line to the nation ’ s top health experts .
They can not show up to work sick.
” Democratic lawmakers and the Biden-Harris campaign selected the threat to the ACA as their primary counterpunch soon after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , who twice voted to uphold the law , last month .
It ’ s a neat way for them to tie in the administration ’ s bungled handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complaints about Republicans ’ bum-rush confirmation .
Republicans , for their part , tried during the hearing to paint the Democratic opposition as anti-woman , anti-Constitution , and particularly , anti-Catholic .
But Democrats stayed on message .
“ Her faith should not be considered , ” Biden said when asked the question after getting off of his campaign plane while the hearing was going on , adding that he had the same stance now as he had when asked about the Mormon faith of then-Utah Gov .
Mitt Romney in 2012 : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be questioned.
” And with that , Biden pivoted : “ We ’ re already in the midst of a real fight here .
Everyone knows that in 28 days , 20 million Americans may lose their health care .
This nominee said she wants to get rid of the Affordable Care Act .
The President wants to get rid of the Affordable Care Act .
Let ’ s keep our eye on the ball .
”

Flanked by blown-up pictures of people whose health would be in dire straits without the Affordable Care Act, Democratic senators stayed on message at Monday’s hearing for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.
Every senator followed a similar formula: reminding viewers why health care is crucial, especially amid a pandemic, explaining why the ACA would be at risk with a Justice Barrett and giving examples of sympathetic constituents with everything to lose from the law’s demise.
Some members also tied in the rushed confirmation — their “this process is not normal” argument — to the ACA case currently before the Supreme Court.
“There are two dates on the calendar which explain the timetable: November 3rd and November 10th,” Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) said of the rapid process, alluding to the election and oral arguments in the case challenging the ACA before the Supreme Court.
“On September 27th, President Trump tweeted that he wants to see the Affordable Care Act ‘terminated’ in the Supreme Court,” Durbin added. “Let’s be honest about this: This President has never suffered an unuttered thought. He gives us 25 tweets a day tell us what’s going through that fertile mind. We know what he thinks because he tells us — and he made it clear that he wants the Supreme Court and this nominee to join him in eliminating the Affordable Care Act.”
Trump’s candor in his opposition to the ACA got many citations from the Democratic members, as did Republicans’ repeated failure to defang or dismantle the law legislatively.
“My Republican colleagues here and in the House have voted over and over and over to repeal the Affordable Care Act since it was passed a decade ago,” said Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE). “Thankfully, for the people of our nation and my state, they too have been unsuccessful. And yet today, to make good on this promise, to achieve what they couldn’t accomplish through the democratic process, they’re looking to the courts, in fact, to the Court — they’re looking to this nominee.”
Most of the senators referenced Barrett’s writing on the subject — academic writings and judicial opinions that served as an “audition,” in Sen. Richard Blumenthal’s (D-CT) words, to satisfy Trump’s anti-ACA litmus test.
Some of the most effective senators added a personal spin to their presentations. Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) talked about the stark contrast between how her Republican colleagues treated her upon finding out about her kidney cancer diagnosis in 2017, and their callousness at the prospect of millions of Americans losing their coverage.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) cited her husband and elderly father, both of whom were infected with coronavirus.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) referenced the Rose Garden ceremony-turned-super spreader event, saying that he’s “really glad” his colleagues had access to the health care they needed after testing positive.
“The problem is,” he went on, “the people who will come through here today to wipe down the desks and empty the garbage, that will vacuum the floor like people all over our country who are working today in factories, teaching children in schools — they don’t have a direct line to the nation’s top health experts. They cannot show up to work sick.”
Democratic lawmakers and the Biden-Harris campaign selected the threat to the ACA as their primary counterpunch soon after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who twice voted to uphold the law, last month. It’s a neat way for them to tie in the administration’s bungled handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and may resonate with more voters than would procedural complaints about Republicans’ bum-rush confirmation.
Republicans, for their part, tried during the hearing to paint the Democratic opposition as anti-woman, anti-Constitution, and particularly, anti-Catholic. But Democrats stayed on message.
“Her faith should not be considered,” Biden said when asked the question after getting off of his campaign plane while the hearing was going on, adding that he had the same stance now as he had when asked about the Mormon faith of then-Utah Gov. Mitt Romney in 2012: “No one’s faith should be questioned.”
And with that, Biden pivoted: “We’re already in the midst of a real fight here. Everyone knows that in 28 days, 20 million Americans may lose their health care. This nominee said she wants to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. The President wants to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. Let’s keep our eye on the ball.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-10-12--As They Rush Through Another SCOTUS Nom, GOPers Play Up ‘Court Packing’ Hysteria

As they rushed to pack their own nominee onto the Supreme Court with just days to go before Election Day , Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday just couldn ’ t stop talking about some Democrats ’ stated openness to adding more justices to the court .
Four years after Senate Republicans refused to even consider President Barack Obama ’ s nominee for the court for the better part of a year ( in addition to blocking dozens of lower court nominees ) , several Republicans used the first day of hearings on Judge Amy Coney Barrett ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couch .
“ Lately the left is threatening to pack the Supreme Court in retaliation for this confirmation process , ” the committee ’ s former chairman , Sen. Chuck Grassley ( R-IA ) , said during his opening remarks , referring to the notion of expanding the court as a “ blatantly partisan policy grab.
” Following his own central role in blocking Merrick Garland ’ s nomination in 2016 , Grassley said in 2018 that he would do the same in the future if President Donald Trump nominated someone in 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no mention of those remarks , saying instead that “ Republicans are following the Constitution and the precedent.
” Sen. Ben Sasse ( R-NE ) , who similarly refused to even meet with Garland and later dodged questions on why he didn ’ t support confirmation hearings for the judge , said Monday that adding justices to the court “ is a bad idea that politicizes the judiciary and reduces public trust.
” A day prior , Sasse described expanding the court as “ the suicide bombing of two branches of government.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president Joe Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris , have avoided answering in recent weeks whether they support adding justices , or else making other changes to the court .
Harris , who ’ s on the Judiciary Committee , didn ’ t mention it on Monday .
But that didn ’ t stop several Republicans on the committee from assuming Democrats ’ position .
Sen. John Cornyn ( R-TX ) asserted of Democrats , “ they ’ ve said if this confirmation proceeds , they intend to pack the court with more justices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a genuine second legislative body.
” And Sen. Mike Crapo ( R-ID ) , who in 2016 said Garland ’ s views on the Second Amendment were “ enough , in and of itself , for me ” to ignore the judge ’ s Supreme Court nomination , said of Barrett ’ s fast-tracked nomination process , “ any claim that this process is unusual or that it violates the clear precedent of the Senate is simply false.
” He pivoted quickly to the Democrats .
“ My colleagues on the other side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , distinguishing between what he and the rest of the Republican Senate majority did in 2016 and Democrats “ threatening to pass a law and change the court .
”

As they rushed to pack their own nominee onto the Supreme Court with just days to go before Election Day, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday just couldn’t stop talking about some Democrats’ stated openness to adding more justices to the court.
Four years after Senate Republicans refused to even consider President Barack Obama’s nominee for the court for the better part of a year (in addition to blocking dozens of lower court nominees), several Republicans used the first day of hearings on Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to pull out the fainting couch.
“Lately the left is threatening to pack the Supreme Court in retaliation for this confirmation process,” the committee’s former chairman, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), said during his opening remarks, referring to the notion of expanding the court as a “blatantly partisan policy grab.”
Following his own central role in blocking Merrick Garland’s nomination in 2016, Grassley said in 2018 that he would do the same in the future if President Donald Trump nominated someone in 2020.
But on Monday, Grassley made no mention of those remarks, saying instead that “Republicans are following the Constitution and the precedent.”
Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE), who similarly refused to even meet with Garland and later dodged questions on why he didn’t support confirmation hearings for the judge, said Monday that adding justices to the court “is a bad idea that politicizes the judiciary and reduces public trust.”
A day prior, Sasse described expanding the court as “the suicide bombing of two branches of government.”
The Democratic presidential ticket, former vice president Joe Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris, have avoided answering in recent weeks whether they support adding justices, or else making other changes to the court. Harris, who’s on the Judiciary Committee, didn’t mention it on Monday.
But that didn’t stop several Republicans on the committee from assuming Democrats’ position.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) asserted of Democrats, “they’ve said if this confirmation proceeds, they intend to pack the court with more justices who will turn the Supreme Court into a genuine second legislative body.”
And Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), who in 2016 said Garland’s views on the Second Amendment were “enough, in and of itself, for me” to ignore the judge’s Supreme Court nomination, said of Barrett’s fast-tracked nomination process, “any claim that this process is unusual or that it violates the clear precedent of the Senate is simply false.”
He pivoted quickly to the Democrats.
“My colleagues on the other side are actually proposing court-packing,” he said, distinguishing between what he and the rest of the Republican Senate majority did in 2016 and Democrats “threatening to pass a law and change the court.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-10-12--WH Chief Meadows Throws Tantrum, Walks Away After Reporter Asks Him To Wear A Mask

White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows on Monday walked away from reporters who objected to him taking off his @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I ’ m not going to talk through a mask , ” the @ @ @ @ @ off in a huff .
Multiple reporters credited CNN ’ s Kristin Wilson for objecting @ @ @ @ @ off .
Wilson confirmed that Meadows refused to speak to her with a mask on @ @ @ @ @ close proximity to several White House officials , including President Donald Trump , who ’ @ @ @ @ @ in recent weeks .
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported recently that Meadows hosted a “ lavish @ @ @ @ @ in late May , in violation of local COVID-19 public health restrictions .

White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows on Monday walked away from reporters who objected to him taking off his mask before speaking to them.
“I’m not going to talk through a mask,” the Trump deputy said before walking off in a huff.
WH Chief of Staff Mark Meadows refuses to talk to reporters without his mask off. pic.twitter.com/LlACGLd1ou — The Recount (@therecount) October 12, 2020
Multiple reporters credited CNN’s Kristin Wilson for objecting to Meadows taking his mask off. Wilson confirmed that Meadows refused to speak to her with a mask on.
Meadows has been in close proximity to several White House officials, including President Donald Trump, who’ve tested positive for COVID-19 in recent weeks.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported recently that Meadows hosted a “lavish” wedding for his daughter in late May, in violation of local COVID-19 public health restrictions.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-10-12--In Tweet Spree, Trump Says States Have Gone To Hell, Tells GOP To Hurry Up SCOTUS Hearing

In a packed morning of presidential tweeting Monday , Donald Trump boosted a QAnon believer , said that multiple states were going “ to hell , ” and urged congressional Republicans to hurry up and finish the confirmation process of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett just hours after it started .
Between 7:30 a.m. and noon , the President had tweeted and retweeted 71 times ; the spree followed several days of fast-paced posts from POTUS .
When Trump boosted an account called @ KittyList ’ s footage of protesters in Portland — instructing the FBI to “ get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hardly the first time he ’ d elevated a follower of the QAnon conspiracy theory .
( The theory holds that a cabal of satanic pedophiles secretly controls the world . )
@ KittyLists , as Media Matters ’ Alex Kaplan pointed out , has promoted some far-out stuff characteristic of the theory , such as the idea that John Bolton had been replaced by a body double .
Then , Trump flagged an increase in COVID-19 cases in Europe but baselessly said the virus will “ run its course.
” A little @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the largest states in the union had gone , or were going , to “ hell ” during his tenure .
Trump did tweet a bit about Amy Coney Barrett , his Supreme Court nominee who appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee for the first time on Monday morning .
But midway through the proceedings , he let some frustration out , urging Republicans to cut Democrats off and get the whole thing over with .
Much of the President ’ s tweets Monday actually concerned long-shot congressional candidates running against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Over dozens of retweets , Trump promoted the campaigns of the Republicans running against Reps. Maxine Waters ( D-CA ) , Adam Schiff ( D-CA ) , Karen Bass ( D-CA ) and Kweisi Mfume ( D-MD ) .
Trump was still going at it at press time , claiming that Republicans supported a health care plan to protect people with pre-existing conditions — even though he has supported a Republican lawsuit against Obamacare and has not put forward his own plan with such legal protections at any point during his presidency .

In a packed morning of presidential tweeting Monday, Donald Trump boosted a QAnon believer, said that multiple states were going “to hell,” and urged congressional Republicans to hurry up and finish the confirmation process of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett just hours after it started.
Between 7:30 a.m. and noon, the President had tweeted and retweeted 71 times; the spree followed several days of fast-paced posts from POTUS.
When Trump boosted an account called @KittyList’s footage of protesters in Portland — instructing the FBI to “get them now!” — it was hardly the first time he’d elevated a follower of the QAnon conspiracy theory. (The theory holds that a cabal of satanic pedophiles secretly controls the world.)
These are Biden fools. ANTIFA RADICALS. Get them FBI, and get them now! https://t.co/RI9fH6sC1g — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 12, 2020
@KittyLists, as Media Matters’ Alex Kaplan pointed out, has promoted some far-out stuff characteristic of the theory, such as the idea that John Bolton had been replaced by a body double.
Trump this morning amplified a QAnon account 4 times. pic.twitter.com/eTLcLiFVof — Alex Kaplan (@AlKapDC) October 12, 2020
Then, Trump flagged an increase in COVID-19 cases in Europe but baselessly said the virus will “run its course.”
Big spike in the China Plague in Europe and other places that the Fake News used to hold up as examples of places that are doing well, in order to make the U.S look bad. Be strong and vigilant, it will run its course. Vaccines and cures are coming fast! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 12, 2020
A little while later came the tweets proclaiming that some of the largest states in the union had gone, or were going, to “hell” during his tenure.
California is going to hell. Vote Trump! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 12, 2020
New York has gone to hell. Vote Trump! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 12, 2020
Illinois has no place to go. Sad, isn’t it? Vote Trump! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 12, 2020
Trump did tweet a bit about Amy Coney Barrett, his Supreme Court nominee who appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee for the first time on Monday morning. But midway through the proceedings, he let some frustration out, urging Republicans to cut Democrats off and get the whole thing over with.
The Republicans are giving the Democrats a great deal of time, which is not mandated, to make their self serving statements relative to our great new future Supreme Court Justice. Personally, I would pull back, approve, and go for STIMULUS for the people!!! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 12, 2020
Much of the President’s tweets Monday actually concerned long-shot congressional candidates running against his favorite Democratic bogeymen and -women.
Over dozens of retweets, Trump promoted the campaigns of the Republicans running against Reps. Maxine Waters (D-CA), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Karen Bass (D-CA) and Kweisi Mfume (D-MD).
Trump was still going at it at press time, claiming that Republicans supported a health care plan to protect people with pre-existing conditions — even though he has supported a Republican lawsuit against Obamacare and has not put forward his own plan with such legal protections at any point during his presidency.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-10-12--Republicans Quote RBG To Justify Ramming Through Barrett’s Confirmation

In a move showing serious bad faith , Senate Republicans Monday used quotes from the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to justify their breakneck confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett on the eve of an election .
Conveniently , they seemed to overlook Ginsburg ’ s dying wish : that whoever wins the election should get to choose her replacement .
Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) first quoted the late justice in his opening statement .
“ The bottom line is that Justice Ginsburg , when asked about this several years ago , said that a President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he said .
“ There ’ s nothing unconstitutional about this process.
” Then , she was speaking about Republicans ’ refusal to allow President Barack Obama ’ s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland to have a hearing .
At the time , Republicans argued that the Court opening came too close to the election —269 days out — and that the next President should get to choose .
Now of course , with a seat coming open only 46 days prior to the election , that problem has evaporated for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Graham .
Senator Chuck Grassley ( R-IA ) used a similar tactic , though with the additionally cynical layer of using a quote from Ginsburg ’ s eulogy for her good friend , the late Justice Antonin Scalia .
“ On March 1 , 2020 , Justice Ginsburg delivered a eulogy for her friend Justice Scalia .
Justice Ginsburg said , ‘ We were different , yes , in our interpretation of written text .
Yet one in our reverence for the courts , and its place in the U.S. System of governance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Senate is now tasked with carrying out perhaps its most solemn duty under the Constitution , ” he continued .
“ As we go through this process , we should heed Justice Ginsburg ’ s words with a shared reverence for the Court and its place in our Constitutional system.
” Sen. John Cornyn ( R-TX ) used Ginsburg ’ s words to make a different point , as he brought up the concept of “ court packing , ” or adding seats to the Supreme Court .
The idea has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the injustice of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) stealing Garland ’ s seat back in 2016 .
“ Well , they ’ ve said that if this confirmation proceeds , they intend to pack the Court with more justices who will turn the Supreme Court into a genuine second legislative body , ” he said .
“ We heard what Justice Ginsburg had to say about that — that would be a terrible mistake.
” Cornyn ’ s is the most straightforward use of her words .
Indeed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adding seats to the bench during a July interview with NPR , and pooh-poohed the idea .
“ Nine seems to be a good number .
It ’ s been that way for a long time , ” she said .
“ I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court.
” Ultimately though , Republicans ’ gambit to act like Ginsburg signed off on their full-court press to get Barrett on the court is a direct contradiction to the late justice ’ s wishes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ became weaker , she dictated a note to her granddaughter : “ My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed .
”

In a move showing serious bad faith, Senate Republicans Monday used quotes from the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to justify their breakneck confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett on the eve of an election.
Conveniently, they seemed to overlook Ginsburg’s dying wish: that whoever wins the election should get to choose her replacement.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) first quoted the late justice in his opening statement.
“The bottom line is that Justice Ginsburg, when asked about this several years ago, said that a President serves for four years, not three,” he said. “There’s nothing unconstitutional about this process.”
Then, she was speaking about Republicans’ refusal to allow President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland to have a hearing. At the time, Republicans argued that the Court opening came too close to the election —269 days out — and that the next President should get to choose. Now of course, with a seat coming open only 46 days prior to the election, that problem has evaporated for many of the same lawmakers, including Graham.
Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) used a similar tactic, though with the additionally cynical layer of using a quote from Ginsburg’s eulogy for her good friend, the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
“On March 1, 2020, Justice Ginsburg delivered a eulogy for her friend Justice Scalia. Justice Ginsburg said, ‘We were different, yes, in our interpretation of written text. Yet one in our reverence for the courts, and its place in the U.S. System of governance,’” he quoted.
“The Senate is now tasked with carrying out perhaps its most solemn duty under the Constitution,” he continued. “As we go through this process, we should heed Justice Ginsburg’s words with a shared reverence for the Court and its place in our Constitutional system.”
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) used Ginsburg’s words to make a different point, as he brought up the concept of “court packing,” or adding seats to the Supreme Court. The idea has been a popular one with liberals still smarting over the injustice of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stealing Garland’s seat back in 2016.
“Well, they’ve said that if this confirmation proceeds, they intend to pack the Court with more justices who will turn the Supreme Court into a genuine second legislative body,” he said. “We heard what Justice Ginsburg had to say about that — that would be a terrible mistake.”
Cornyn’s is the most straightforward use of her words. Indeed, Ginsburg was asked about the idea of adding seats to the bench during a July interview with NPR, and pooh-poohed the idea.
“Nine seems to be a good number. It’s been that way for a long time,” she said. “I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court.”
Ultimately though, Republicans’ gambit to act like Ginsburg signed off on their full-court press to get Barrett on the court is a direct contradiction to the late justice’s wishes.
Days before her death, as she became weaker, she dictated a note to her granddaughter:
“My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-10-12--CA GOP’s Unsanctioned Ballot Drop Boxes May Violate Law, Secretary Of State Says

The California Republican Party has advertised unsanctioned ballot drop boxes , prompting a warning from the state ’ s top election official that such boxes violate the law .
The drop boxes , some of which claim to be “ official , ” weren ’ t actually installed by the state .
Rather , they ’ re the product of the state ’ s Republican Party , according to several reports .
In a since-removed list of “ Ballot Collection Box Locations ” on its website , the Fresno County Republican Party listed the location of several such unsanctioned drop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a gas station and the county party ’ s headquarters .
It ’ s perhaps a bit ironic that the GOP , currently trying to restrict drop box use in multiple states , has created its own boxes in California .
The state party has defended the installations , comparing them to volunteers that collect ballots face-to-face to be submitted later — a practice sometimes disparagingly called “ ballot harvesting.
” A spokesperson for the state party , Hector Barajas , acknowledged to the Associated Press that the party owns the boxes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballot harvesting when someone else does it , ” Barajas said .
But the use of unsanctioned drop boxes doesn ’ t actually involve voters handing their ballots over to another person for them to submit to elections officials , California Secretary of State Alex Padilla ( D ) pointed out in a memo dated Sunday .
“ [ T ] he use of unauthorized , non-official vote-by-mail ballot drop boxes does not comply with state law governing ballot collection activities , ” he wrote , noting that official drop boxes are required @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and are listed on state websites .
“ The use of non-official vote-by-mail ballot drop boxes would be misleading to the public and could result in confusion and a perceived lack of transparency on behalf of county elections officials , ” Padilla added .
The Washington Post reported on the drop boxes Monday morning , and the Orange County Register and KCAL reported on them prior to the Post .
“ Operating unofficial ballot drop boxes — especially those misrepresented as official drop boxes — is not just misleading to voters , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Padilla said in a statement to the Post .
“ My office is coordinating with local officials to address the multiple reports of unauthorized ballot drop boxes .
Californians should only use official ballot drop boxes that have been deployed and secured by their county elections office.
” “ It would be like me installing a mailbox out on the corner – the post office is the one that installs mailboxes , ” Orange County Registrar of Voters Neal Kelley told the Register of the drop boxes .
Padilla ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ setting up unofficial drop boxes .
In his memo , he cited a section in the state ’ s election code , 18575 , that sets out potential felony charges for anyone who , “ Not being an election officer , performs or discharges any of the duties of an election officer in regard to the handling , counting , or canvassing of any ballots.
” This post has been updated .

The California Republican Party has advertised unsanctioned ballot drop boxes, prompting a warning from the state’s top election official that such boxes violate the law.
The drop boxes, some of which claim to be “official,” weren’t actually installed by the state.
Rather, they’re the product of the state’s Republican Party, according to several reports. In a since-removed list of “Ballot Collection Box Locations” on its website, the Fresno County Republican Party listed the location of several such unsanctioned drop boxes, including several gun shops, a gas station and the county party’s headquarters.
It’s perhaps a bit ironic that the GOP, currently trying to restrict drop box use in multiple states, has created its own boxes in California.
The state party has defended the installations, comparing them to volunteers that collect ballots face-to-face to be submitted later — a practice sometimes disparagingly called “ballot harvesting.”
If a congregation/business or other group provides the option to its parishioners/associates/ or colleagues to drop off their ballot in a safe location, with people they trust, rather than handing it over to a stranger who knocks on their door – what is wrong with that? — CAGOP (@CAGOP) October 11, 2020
A spokesperson for the state party, Hector Barajas, acknowledged to the Associated Press that the party owns the boxes.
“Democrats only seem to object to ballot harvesting when someone else does it,” Barajas said.
But the use of unsanctioned drop boxes doesn’t actually involve voters handing their ballots over to another person for them to submit to elections officials, California Secretary of State Alex Padilla (D) pointed out in a memo dated Sunday.
“[T]he use of unauthorized, non-official vote-by-mail ballot drop boxes does not comply with state law governing ballot collection activities,” he wrote, noting that official drop boxes are required to meet a number of security requirements and are listed on state websites.
“The use of non-official vote-by-mail ballot drop boxes would be misleading to the public and could result in confusion and a perceived lack of transparency on behalf of county elections officials,” Padilla added.
The Washington Post reported on the drop boxes Monday morning, and the Orange County Register and KCAL reported on them prior to the Post.
“Operating unofficial ballot drop boxes — especially those misrepresented as official drop boxes — is not just misleading to voters, it’s a violation of state law,” Padilla said in a statement to the Post. “My office is coordinating with local officials to address the multiple reports of unauthorized ballot drop boxes. Californians should only use official ballot drop boxes that have been deployed and secured by their county elections office.”
“It would be like me installing a mailbox out on the corner – the post office is the one that installs mailboxes,” Orange County Registrar of Voters Neal Kelley told the Register of the drop boxes.
Padilla’s memo also noted possible criminal penalties for setting up unofficial drop boxes.
In his memo, he cited a section in the state’s election code, 18575, that sets out potential felony charges for anyone who, “Not being an election officer, performs or discharges any of the duties of an election officer in regard to the handling, counting, or canvassing of any ballots.”
This post has been updated.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-10-12--Watch Live: Senate Republicans Begin Rush Confirmation Of Amy Coney Barrett

WASHINGTON , DC – OCTOBER 12 : Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett arrives for her confirmation hearing on Capitol @ @ @ @ @ 2020 in Washington , DC .
Barrett was nominated by President Donald Trump to fi @ @ @ @ @ OCTOBER 12 : Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett arrives for her confirmation hearing on @ @ @ @ @ , 2020 in Washington , DC .
Barrett was nominated by President Donald Trump to @ @ @ @ @ Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who passed away in September .
( Photo by Greg Nash @ @ @ @

WASHINGTON, DC – OCTOBER 12: Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett arrives for her confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on October 12, 2020 in Washington, DC. Barrett was nominated by President Donald Trump to fi...
WASHINGTON, DC – OCTOBER 12: Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett arrives for her confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on October 12, 2020 in Washington, DC. Barrett was nominated by President Donald Trump to fill the vacancy left by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who passed away in September. (Photo by Greg Nash - Pool/Getty Images)
MORE
LESS


talkingpointsmemo--2020-10-12--Lindsey Graham’s Last Stand? Senator Leads Barrett Court Hearings

WASHINGTON ( AP ) — Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina is wielding the gavel in the performance of his political life .
Once a biting critic of President Donald Trump , the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman on Monday opens confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett in a bid to seal a 6-to-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court .
Hanging in the balance could be the future of government health care during a coronavirus pandemic that ’ s claimed more than 214,000 American lives .
And Graham ’ s own career appears in jeopardy like never before .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Trump himself , the hearings three weeks before Election Day could be a last stand .
The proceedings are a display for voters of what it means to control the presidency and the Senate .
But they ’ re also a real-time test of whether that ’ s enough to counter a jaw-dropping $ 57 million fundraising haul by Graham ’ s Democratic opponent in the South Carolina race , Jaime Harrison .
“ Senator , how good is your word ?
” Harrison , 44 , asked at a recent debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by his whipsaw shifts , particularly where Trump is concerned .
He ’ s been both friend and foe of the belligerent president .
Now , they play golf .
He once vowed to oppose any Supreme Court confirmation hearings in presidential election years .
This week , he is chairing Barrett ’ s , and predicting she ’ ll be confirmed to the high court this month to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
If so , Barrett , 48 , would be one of the nine justices to hear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people .
One is a Trump administration-backed challenge to the Affordable Care Act that ’ s expected to come up a week after the election .
Other charged topics that could be headed for the high court include abortion , immigration and gay marriage .
With early voting underway in South Carolina and many other states , Graham , 65 , mounts the dais confronted with his opponent ’ s withering fundraising , his own statements as one of the Senate ’ s most visible members , and Trump ’ s weak standing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stretch of the campaign .
“ What he ’ s finding out is in the last four years it ’ s come back to bite him , ” said Danielle Vinson , professor of politics and international affairs at Furman University .
“ There are lots of people who were familiar with him .
He was willing to take on the party .
When he changed to support Trump and embrace Trump , I really think it set some people off.
” Harrison ’ s money doesn ’ t guarantee he ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ period of 2018 , Texas Democrat Beto O ’ Rourke ’ s $ 38 million topped the amount raised by Republican Sen. Ted Cruz , who won their Senate race .
And being a Republican in traditionally conservative South Carolina carries a great deal of weight .
The state has not elected a Democrat to the Senate since 1998 .
But the days leading up to the Barrett hearings were particularly challenging for Graham .
On Friday , during a debate forum with Harrison — who is Black — Graham denied there was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If you ’ re a young African American , an immigrant , you can go anywhere in this state .
You just need to be conservative , not liberal , ” Graham said .
Then on Sunday , Harrison ’ s campaign rocked the political world with its fundraising haul , propelled by contributions from around the country .
The third-quarter amount brings Harrison ’ s overall fundraising for the campaign to $ 86 million .
Attributing the success to grassroots support , Harrison ’ s campaign said the $ 57 million came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from 994,000 donors .
The average contribution was $ 37 .
Graham , acutely aware that the president won his states by double digits , tried to brush it off .
“ There ’ s not enough money in the world to convince South Carolinians to vote for the radical liberal agenda , ” Graham said .
But weeks earlier , he ’ d complained on Fox News that he was “ getting killed financially ” by Harrison .
What Graham stands for , and who he stands with , has been an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the gavel at Barrett ’ s hearing Monday , Graham will have broken his own vow to oppose Supreme Court confirmations in presidential election years .
He ’ s called Trump a “ race-baiting xenophobic religious bigot ” who “ doesn ’ t have a clue about anything ” relating to foreign policy and “ doesn ’ t represent my party.
” He and the late Sen. John McCain of Arizona , who was deeply loathed by Trump , were best friends and often delighted in mocking the president .
Yet Graham , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2016 by 14 percentage points , has since become the president ’ s golf-playing buddy and political ally .
It was Graham ’ s fiery 2018 defense of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh that helped forge his relationship with Trump , as well as renew support with some who hadn ’ t seen Graham as conservative enough to represent South Carolina .
Graham has called Kavanaugh ’ s confirmation the “ defining moment ” of the Trump presidency .
At a White House event celebrating judicial appointments last year , Trump and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ferocious fight for the 2016 presidential nomination .
Graham was one of more than a dozen Republicans who ran against the New York real-estate mogul .
Back then , Trump had called Graham a “ lightweight ” and a “ liberal , ” and famously made public the senator ’ s cell phone number .
“ After I got beaten like a dog , which he likes hearing , ” Graham said of Trump , “ he called me over to the White House and said , ‘ I ’ d like you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ‘ I ’ d love to help you be a great president , because you ’ re now my president . '
”

WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina is wielding the gavel in the performance of his political life.
Once a biting critic of President Donald Trump, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman on Monday opens confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett in a bid to seal a 6-to-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Hanging in the balance could be the future of government health care during a coronavirus pandemic that’s claimed more than 214,000 American lives. And Graham’s own career appears in jeopardy like never before.
For Graham, the Republican Senate majority and Trump himself, the hearings three weeks before Election Day could be a last stand. The proceedings are a display for voters of what it means to control the presidency and the Senate. But they’re also a real-time test of whether that’s enough to counter a jaw-dropping $57 million fundraising haul by Graham’s Democratic opponent in the South Carolina race, Jaime Harrison.
“Senator, how good is your word?” Harrison, 44, asked at a recent debate.
Graham’s answer is complicated by his whipsaw shifts, particularly where Trump is concerned. He’s been both friend and foe of the belligerent president. Now, they play golf. He once vowed to oppose any Supreme Court confirmation hearings in presidential election years. This week, he is chairing Barrett’s, and predicting she’ll be confirmed to the high court this month to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
If so, Barrett, 48, would be one of the nine justices to hear arguments on issues that affect millions of people. One is a Trump administration-backed challenge to the Affordable Care Act that’s expected to come up a week after the election. Other charged topics that could be headed for the high court include abortion, immigration and gay marriage.
With early voting underway in South Carolina and many other states, Graham, 65, mounts the dais confronted with his opponent’s withering fundraising, his own statements as one of the Senate’s most visible members, and Trump’s weak standing against Democrat Joe Biden in the final stretch of the campaign.
“What he’s finding out is in the last four years it’s come back to bite him,” said Danielle Vinson, professor of politics and international affairs at Furman University. “There are lots of people who were familiar with him. He was willing to take on the party. When he changed to support Trump and embrace Trump, I really think it set some people off.”
Harrison’s money doesn’t guarantee he’ll defeat Graham. In the final fundraising period of 2018, Texas Democrat Beto O’Rourke’s $38 million topped the amount raised by Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, who won their Senate race.
And being a Republican in traditionally conservative South Carolina carries a great deal of weight. The state has not elected a Democrat to the Senate since 1998.
But the days leading up to the Barrett hearings were particularly challenging for Graham. On Friday, during a debate forum with Harrison — who is Black — Graham denied there was systemic racism in South Carolina.
“If you’re a young African American, an immigrant, you can go anywhere in this state. You just need to be conservative, not liberal,” Graham said.
Then on Sunday, Harrison’s campaign rocked the political world with its fundraising haul, propelled by contributions from around the country.
The third-quarter amount brings Harrison’s overall fundraising for the campaign to $86 million. Attributing the success to grassroots support, Harrison’s campaign said the $57 million came in the form of 1.5 million donations from 994,000 donors. The average contribution was $37.
Graham, acutely aware that the president won his states by double digits, tried to brush it off.
“There’s not enough money in the world to convince South Carolinians to vote for the radical liberal agenda,” Graham said. But weeks earlier, he’d complained on Fox News that he was “getting killed financially” by Harrison.
What Graham stands for, and who he stands with, has been an issue. From the moment he drops the gavel at Barrett’s hearing Monday, Graham will have broken his own vow to oppose Supreme Court confirmations in presidential election years. He’s called Trump a “race-baiting xenophobic religious bigot” who “doesn’t have a clue about anything” relating to foreign policy and “doesn’t represent my party.”
He and the late Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who was deeply loathed by Trump, were best friends and often delighted in mocking the president.
Yet Graham, acutely aware that Trump won his state in 2016 by 14 percentage points, has since become the president’s golf-playing buddy and political ally.
It was Graham’s fiery 2018 defense of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh that helped forge his relationship with Trump, as well as renew support with some who hadn’t seen Graham as conservative enough to represent South Carolina.
Graham has called Kavanaugh’s confirmation the “defining moment” of the Trump presidency. At a White House event celebrating judicial appointments last year, Trump and Graham marveled at their friendship after the ferocious fight for the 2016 presidential nomination. Graham was one of more than a dozen Republicans who ran against the New York real-estate mogul.
Back then, Trump had called Graham a “lightweight” and a “liberal,” and famously made public the senator’s cell phone number.
“After I got beaten like a dog, which he likes hearing,” Graham said of Trump, “he called me over to the White House and said, ‘I’d like you to help me.’ And I said, ‘I’d love to help you be a great president, because you’re now my president.'”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-10-13--Biden Says Amid Hurried Barrett Hearing: ‘Court Packing Is Going On Now’

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden , who for weeks has avoided saying whether he supports expanding the Supreme Court , said Monday that he is “ not a fan ” of expanding the number of seats on the Supreme Court .
“ I ’ m not a fan of court-packing .
But I don ’ t want to get off on that whole issue , ” Biden said in an interview with WKRC TV in Cincinnati .
“ I want to keep focused.
” Biden suggested that President Trump “ would love nothing better than to fight about whether or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court or not pack the court.
” But criticized his opponent for pushing to confirm conservative Judge Amy Coney Barrett so close to the election which is now just weeks away .
The comments come as Republicans continue to press Biden to assume a position publicly on the issue of adding seats to the court — a proposal put forward by some Democrats who have suggested it might be their best chance to secure a left-leaning court if the conservative Trump pick is confirmed .
The Democratic nominee has openly challenged a Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , sharing the view of Democratic colleagues who have said that whoever wins the presidential race in November should select a nominee for the high court .
Biden has been less clear about whether or not he supports expanding the court .
“ He ’ s refusing to answer about whether he ’ s going to pack the Supreme Court , upending 150 years of our judicial standards , ” Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel told CBS ’ Face The Nation on Sunday .
Per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggested expanding the court was “ a bad idea ” in August 2019 during an Iowa trip , saying , “ it will come back to bite us .
It should not be a political football.
” His remarks on Monday while not declarative , appeared to show skepticism if not opposition to expanding the number of Supreme Court justices as president .
The Democratic nominee pointed the finger back at Republicans for their rush to fill the court .
“ Court packing is going on now , ” Biden said on Monday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election has already begun and millions of votes already cast , has it ever been that a Supreme Court nominee was put forward .
”

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, who for weeks has avoided saying whether he supports expanding the Supreme Court, said Monday that he is “not a fan” of expanding the number of seats on the Supreme Court.
“I’m not a fan of court-packing. But I don’t want to get off on that whole issue,” Biden said in an interview with WKRC TV in Cincinnati. “I want to keep focused.”
Biden suggested that President Trump “would love nothing better than to fight about whether or not I would in fact pack the court or not pack the court.” But criticized his opponent for pushing to confirm conservative Judge Amy Coney Barrett so close to the election which is now just weeks away.
The comments come as Republicans continue to press Biden to assume a position publicly on the issue of adding seats to the court — a proposal put forward by some Democrats who have suggested it might be their best chance to secure a left-leaning court if the conservative Trump pick is confirmed.
The Democratic nominee has openly challenged a Republican push to fill the seat left vacant by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, sharing the view of Democratic colleagues who have said that whoever wins the presidential race in November should select a nominee for the high court.
Biden has been less clear about whether or not he supports expanding the court.
“He’s refusing to answer about whether he’s going to pack the Supreme Court, upending 150 years of our judicial standards,” Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel told CBS’ Face The Nation on Sunday.
Per the Washington Post, Biden had previously suggested expanding the court was “a bad idea” in August 2019 during an Iowa trip, saying, “it will come back to bite us. It should not be a political football.”
His remarks on Monday while not declarative, appeared to show skepticism if not opposition to expanding the number of Supreme Court justices as president.
The Democratic nominee pointed the finger back at Republicans for their rush to fill the court.
“Court packing is going on now,” Biden said on Monday. “Never before, when an election has already begun and millions of votes already cast, has it ever been that a Supreme Court nominee was put forward.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-10-13--Scientists Confirm COVID Reinfection Case As Trump Baselessly Claims To Be Immune

President Donald Trump keeps claiming without evidence that he is now immune to COVID-19 after having been diagnosed with it less than two weeks ago , but scientists confirmed on Monday that there has been at least one case of reinfection in the U.S .
According to a new study published the Lancet on Monday , a 25-year-old man in Nevada tested positive for COVID-19 on April 18 , recovered , then tested positive again on June 5 .
“ Thus , previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2 might not guarantee total immunity in all cases , ” the scientists wrote .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with COVID-19 or not , should take identical precautions to avoid infection with SARS-CoV-2.
” Additionally , the researchers noted that the second case was “ symptomatically more severe ” than the first .
On the same day the study was published , Trump once again parroted his claim that he was no longer susceptible to the virus during a campaign rally in Florida .
“ I went through it , now they say I ’ m immune , ” the President said .
“ I feel so powerful , I ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll walk in there , I ’ ll kiss everyone in that audience .
I ’ ll kiss the guys and the beautiful women.
” His comment followed a tweet on Sunday in which he claimed that receiving a negative test result “ means I can ’ t get it ( immune ) , and can ’ t give it , ” a tweet Twitter flagged as a violation of its rules on “ spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19 .
”

President Donald Trump keeps claiming without evidence that he is now immune to COVID-19 after having been diagnosed with it less than two weeks ago, but scientists confirmed on Monday that there has been at least one case of reinfection in the U.S.
According to a new study published the Lancet on Monday, a 25-year-old man in Nevada tested positive for COVID-19 on April 18, recovered, then tested positive again on June 5.
“Thus, previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2 might not guarantee total immunity in all cases,” the scientists wrote. “All individuals, whether previously diagnosed with COVID-19 or not, should take identical precautions to avoid infection with SARS-CoV-2.”
Additionally, the researchers noted that the second case was “symptomatically more severe” than the first.
On the same day the study was published, Trump once again parroted his claim that he was no longer susceptible to the virus during a campaign rally in Florida.
“I went through it, now they say I’m immune,” the President said. “I feel so powerful, I’ll watch into that audience, I’ll walk in there, I’ll kiss everyone in that audience. I’ll kiss the guys and the beautiful women.”
His comment followed a tweet on Sunday in which he claimed that receiving a negative test result “means I can’t get it (immune), and can’t give it,” a tweet Twitter flagged as a violation of its rules on “spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-10-13--Pelosi Blasts CNN’s Blitzer For Being A GOP ‘Apologist’ When Grilled On COVID Talks

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) increasingly lost her patience during a tense interview with CNN ’ s Wolf Blitzer on Tuesday as he grilled her on stalled COVID-19 relief talks , following President Trump ’ s abrupt move to call off negotiations last week .
In “ Dear Colleague ” letters released over the weekend , the House speaker expressed her dissatisfaction over the Trump administration ’ s latest $ 1.8 trillion proposal for a COVID-19 relief package , and continued pushing provisions from Democrats ’ $ 2.2 trillion bill the House passed earlier this month .
On @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in another “ Dear Colleague ” letter as she dismissed the Trump administration ’ s latest COVID-19 relief proposal , following Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin ’ s return to the negotiating table , as “ one step forward , two steps back ” that could possibly “ make matters worse.
” Later Tuesday , a tense exchange ensued when Blitzer pressed Pelosi for not taking up the White House ’ s latest COVID-19 relief proposal amid Americans experiencing unemployment as the country tops over 215,000 fatalities from the infectious disease .
“ Many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first time in their lives , ” Blitzer told Pelosi .
“ Can you look them in the eye , Madam Speaker , and explain why you don ’ t want to accept the president ’ s latest stimulus offer ?
” Pelosi told Blitzer that he should ask Republicans on “ why they don ’ t really want to meet the needs of the American people ” while arguing that the party should accept Democrats ’ proposals to address the coronavirus crisis .
Blitzer cut in , reiterating to Pelosi that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now ” before pointing to Rep. Ro Khanna ’ s ( D-CA ) tweet demanding that the House speaker accept the Trump administration ’ s $ 1.8 trillion proposal .
Pelosi hit back by accusing Blitzer of being an “ apologist ” for Republicans .
“ What I say to you is I don ’ t know if you ’ re always an apologist — and many of your colleagues — for the Republican position , ” Pelosi told Blitzer .
“ Ro Khanna , that ’ s nice .
That isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do.
” Pelosi agreed that “ people need help now ” but argued that “ it ’ s no use giving them a false thing just because the President wants to put a check with his name on it in the mail.
” After Blitzer doubled down on his assertion that millions of Americans need help through a COVID-19 relief package , he asked the House speaker why she can ’ t work out a deal with the President and not “ let the perfect , as they say here in Washington , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pelosi insisted that she “ will not let the wrong be the enemy of the right.
” The exchange between Pelosi and Blitzer grew more tense as the CNN anchor continued pressing the House speaker on the urgency of reaching an agreement on COVID-19 relief , which eventually led to Pelosi accuse Blitzer again of being a GOP apologist .
Pelosi went on shoot back at Blitzer when he asked her about why she can ’ t speak directly with Trump to reach a deal .
“ What makes me amused , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how you all think that you know more about the suffering of the American people than those of us who are elected by them to represent them at that table , ” Pelosi told Blitzer .
Pelosi continued scolding Blitzer as she defended her unwillingness to accept the White House ’ s proposals .
“ With all due respect , and we ’ ve known each other a long time , you really don ’ t know what you ’ re talking about , ” Pelosi said .
“ Do a service to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respect for the people who have worked on these issues , written the bill to begin with.
” Pelosi and Blitzer continued going in circles as they kept clashing during the 13-minute long interview .
As the interview wrapped up , the House speaker sarcastically told Blitzer : “ Thank you for your sensitivity to our constituents ’ needs.
” Blitzer replied that he is “ sensitive to them , because I see them on the street begging for food , begging for money.
” Pelosi then squeezed in one more sarcastic remark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Have you fed them ?
We feed them !
We feed them , ” Pelosi said .

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) increasingly lost her patience during a tense interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Tuesday as he grilled her on stalled COVID-19 relief talks, following President Trump’s abrupt move to call off negotiations last week.
In “Dear Colleague” letters released over the weekend, the House speaker expressed her dissatisfaction over the Trump administration’s latest $1.8 trillion proposal for a COVID-19 relief package, and continued pushing provisions from Democrats’ $2.2 trillion bill the House passed earlier this month.
On Tuesday morning, Pelosi maintained her criticism in another “Dear Colleague” letter as she dismissed the Trump administration’s latest COVID-19 relief proposal, following Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin’s return to the negotiating table, as “one step forward, two steps back” that could possibly “make matters worse.”
Later Tuesday, a tense exchange ensued when Blitzer pressed Pelosi for not taking up the White House’s latest COVID-19 relief proposal amid Americans experiencing unemployment as the country tops over 215,000 fatalities from the infectious disease.
“Many Americans are waiting in food lines for the first time in their lives,” Blitzer told Pelosi. “Can you look them in the eye, Madam Speaker, and explain why you don’t want to accept the president’s latest stimulus offer?”
Pelosi told Blitzer that he should ask Republicans on “why they don’t really want to meet the needs of the American people” while arguing that the party should accept Democrats’ proposals to address the coronavirus crisis.
Blitzer cut in, reiterating to Pelosi that Americans “really need the money right now” before pointing to Rep. Ro Khanna’s (D-CA) tweet demanding that the House speaker accept the Trump administration’s $1.8 trillion proposal.
Pelosi hit back by accusing Blitzer of being an “apologist” for Republicans.
“What I say to you is I don’t know if you’re always an apologist — and many of your colleagues — for the Republican position,” Pelosi told Blitzer. “Ro Khanna, that’s nice. That isn’t what we’re going to do.”
Pelosi agreed that “people need help now” but argued that “it’s no use giving them a false thing just because the President wants to put a check with his name on it in the mail.”
After Blitzer doubled down on his assertion that millions of Americans need help through a COVID-19 relief package, he asked the House speaker why she can’t work out a deal with the President and not “let the perfect, as they say here in Washington, be the enemy of the good.”
Pelosi insisted that she “will not let the wrong be the enemy of the right.”
The exchange between Pelosi and Blitzer grew more tense as the CNN anchor continued pressing the House speaker on the urgency of reaching an agreement on COVID-19 relief, which eventually led to Pelosi accuse Blitzer again of being a GOP apologist.
Pelosi went on shoot back at Blitzer when he asked her about why she can’t speak directly with Trump to reach a deal.
“What makes me amused, if it weren’t so sad is how you all think that you know more about the suffering of the American people than those of us who are elected by them to represent them at that table,” Pelosi told Blitzer.
Pelosi continued scolding Blitzer as she defended her unwillingness to accept the White House’s proposals.
“With all due respect, and we’ve known each other a long time, you really don’t know what you’re talking about,” Pelosi said. “Do a service to the issue and have some level of respect for the people who have worked on these issues, written the bill to begin with.”
Pelosi and Blitzer continued going in circles as they kept clashing during the 13-minute long interview.
As the interview wrapped up, the House speaker sarcastically told Blitzer: “Thank you for your sensitivity to our constituents’ needs.”
Blitzer replied that he is “sensitive to them, because I see them on the street begging for food, begging for money.”
Pelosi then squeezed in one more sarcastic remark before Blitzer ended their fiery exchange.
“Have you fed them? We feed them! We feed them,” Pelosi said.
Watch the exchange below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-10-13--DOJ Sues To Enforce Trump White House NDA Against Former Melania Friend

The Justice Department sued to enforce a Trump White House non-disclosure agreement against a former friend of Melania Trump ’ s , pitting the U.S. government against a Manhattan socialite involved in a very public breakup with the First Lady .
The feds alleged in the lawsuit that Stephanie Winston Wolkoff , a former unpaid “ adviser ” of the First Lady and a key planner in the 2017 inauguration , broke an NDA that she signed while volunteering at the White House .
That agreement , the government argued , “ included no termination date , ” suggesting that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time-limited her ability to speak out was not .
Wolkoff recently published a tell-all account of her friendship with Melania , titled Melania & Me .
Wolkoff , the former chief planner of the Met Gala , said in the book that millions of dollars contributed to Trump ’ s inaugural may be unaccounted for , and also dished on the icy relationship between the First Lady and First Daughter , Ivanka .
The Justice Department claimed that Wolkoff broke her NDA by writing about “ personnel decisions in the Office of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lady ’ s ‘ Be Best ’ initiative , and engagement in conversations with the President of the United States.
” “ Ms .
Wolkoff ’ s service facilitated her access to significant confidential information related to the First Lady ’ s official duties as well as to the more private aspects of her role in the First Family , along with indirect access to deliberative information , to which the First Lady was privy , related to the President ’ s official duties on behalf of the country , ” the lawsuit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lorin Reisner , did not immediately return TPM ’ s request for comment .
The lawsuit marks a virtually unprecedented move by the Justice Department to enforce a bizarre contract on an unpaid volunteer who wrote a book disclosing “ core matters on which the President is entitled to receive confidential advice ” like “ the importation of big game trophies ” and discussions around Melania ’ s “ Be Best ” program , an initiative to combat cyberbullying .
The Justice Department sued to stop former National Security Adviser John Bolton from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House in June , in a move that was seen as political retribution .
The book was published anyway , and that lawsuit remains ongoing .
Separately , the Justice Department has sued to recoup profits gained from books where classified material was published .
The DOJ recently won a lawsuit against Edward Snowden , seizing profits from his memoir Permanent Record .
But nowhere does the Justice Department allege that Wolkoff published classified information .
Rather , federal lawyers chide Wolkoff , saying that “ few individuals are permitted such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s position ( a former director of special events at Vogue and producer of Met Galas ) , the ability to see firsthand the protocols and operations of the White House was a tremendous personal and professional opportunity of great value.
” The government also alleged that Wolkoff breached her agreement by speculating that had Melania Trump “ been present at the White House during a particular period in time leading up the issuance of the ban , the President might not have signed Executive Order 13,769 , ” banning citizens of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As in the Snowden case , the Justice Department is asking a federal judge to direct all proceeds from Wolkoff ’ s book to the federal government .

The Justice Department sued to enforce a Trump White House non-disclosure agreement against a former friend of Melania Trump’s, pitting the U.S. government against a Manhattan socialite involved in a very public breakup with the First Lady.
The feds alleged in the lawsuit that Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, a former unpaid “adviser” of the First Lady and a key planner in the 2017 inauguration, broke an NDA that she signed while volunteering at the White House.
That agreement, the government argued, “included no termination date,” suggesting that while Wolkoff’s volunteer duties were time-limited her ability to speak out was not.
Wolkoff recently published a tell-all account of her friendship with Melania, titled Melania & Me.
Wolkoff, the former chief planner of the Met Gala, said in the book that millions of dollars contributed to Trump’s inaugural may be unaccounted for, and also dished on the icy relationship between the First Lady and First Daughter, Ivanka.
The Justice Department claimed that Wolkoff broke her NDA by writing about “personnel decisions in the Office of the First Lady, work on the First Lady’s ‘Be Best’ initiative, and engagement in conversations with the President of the United States.”
“Ms. Wolkoff’s service facilitated her access to significant confidential information related to the First Lady’s official duties as well as to the more private aspects of her role in the First Family, along with indirect access to deliberative information, to which the First Lady was privy, related to the President’s official duties on behalf of the country,” the lawsuit reads.
An attorney for Wolkoff, Lorin Reisner, did not immediately return TPM’s request for comment.
The lawsuit marks a virtually unprecedented move by the Justice Department to enforce a bizarre contract on an unpaid volunteer who wrote a book disclosing “core matters on which the President is entitled to receive confidential advice” like “the importation of big game trophies” and discussions around Melania’s “Be Best” program, an initiative to combat cyberbullying.
The Justice Department sued to stop former National Security Adviser John Bolton from publishing a memoir of his time in the White House in June, in a move that was seen as political retribution. The book was published anyway, and that lawsuit remains ongoing.
Separately, the Justice Department has sued to recoup profits gained from books where classified material was published. The DOJ recently won a lawsuit against Edward Snowden, seizing profits from his memoir Permanent Record.
But nowhere does the Justice Department allege that Wolkoff published classified information. Rather, federal lawyers chide Wolkoff, saying that “few individuals are permitted such access and for someone in Ms. Wolkoff’s position (a former director of special events at Vogue and producer of Met Galas), the ability to see firsthand the protocols and operations of the White House was a tremendous personal and professional opportunity of great value.”
The government also alleged that Wolkoff breached her agreement by speculating that had Melania Trump “been present at the White House during a particular period in time leading up the issuance of the ban, the President might not have signed Executive Order 13,769,” banning citizens of certain muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S.
As in the Snowden case, the Justice Department is asking a federal judge to direct all proceeds from Wolkoff’s book to the federal government.
Read the lawsuit here:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-10-13--Pentagon Leaders Reject Trump Call For Poll Watchers: ‘We Don’t Police Streets’

Pentagon leaders on Tuesday said that they have not received any requests to deploy active-duty or National Guard troops to handle potential civil unrest during the November presidential election , despite President Trump ’ s call for his supporters to act poll watchers .
During the first debate against Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden last month , Trump called on supporters to “ go into the polls and watch very carefully , ” which sparked fears of voter intimidation and violence at polling places .
Trump also prompted fears of election-related violence last month after he refused to commit to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loses the election to Biden .
On Tuesday , Gen. James McConville , chief of staff of the Army , denied receiving guidance regarding training for soldiers related to potential deployments if election protests become violent , according to the Associated Press .
Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy , who heads up the D.C. National Guard , similarly remarked that federal agencies have not asked for military troops in anticipation of potential election-related unrest and that the Guard ’ s focus would be limited to protecting federal property and supporting law enforcement .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , according to Defense One .
“ We don ’ t police American streets.
” According to the AP , former senior Pentagon official Rep. Elissa Slotkin ( D-MI ) said in separate remarks to reporters that she doesn ’ t expect “ wide-scale violence ” on or after Election Day , but added that she “ wouldn ’ t be surprised if we saw limited skirmishes.
” Slotkin pointed that reason as rationale for why she and Rep. Mikie Sherrill ( D-NJ ) , a fellow member of the House Armed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the extent the military would have in the election process .
McConville and McCarthy ’ s remarks come just days after Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley told NPR that there is “ zero ” role for the military if results in the presidential election are contested .
The D.C. National Guard came under fire in June following Trump ’ s surprise church photo-op , which happened after aggressive tactics were used to quell protests in front of the White House in the wake of George Floyd ’ s death .

Pentagon leaders on Tuesday said that they have not received any requests to deploy active-duty or National Guard troops to handle potential civil unrest during the November presidential election, despite President Trump’s call for his supporters to act poll watchers.
During the first debate against Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden last month, Trump called on supporters to “go into the polls and watch very carefully,” which sparked fears of voter intimidation and violence at polling places.
Trump also prompted fears of election-related violence last month after he refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses the election to Biden.
On Tuesday, Gen. James McConville, chief of staff of the Army, denied receiving guidance regarding training for soldiers related to potential deployments if election protests become violent, according to the Associated Press.
Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, who heads up the D.C. National Guard, similarly remarked that federal agencies have not asked for military troops in anticipation of potential election-related unrest and that the Guard’s focus would be limited to protecting federal property and supporting law enforcement.
“We support law enforcement,” McCarthy said, according to Defense One. “We don’t police American streets.”
According to the AP, former senior Pentagon official Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) said in separate remarks to reporters that she doesn’t expect “wide-scale violence” on or after Election Day, but added that she “wouldn’t be surprised if we saw limited skirmishes.” Slotkin pointed that reason as rationale for why she and Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ), a fellow member of the House Armed Services Committee, asked defense leaders on the extent the military would have in the election process.
McConville and McCarthy’s remarks come just days after Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley told NPR that there is “zero” role for the military if results in the presidential election are contested.
The D.C. National Guard came under fire in June following Trump’s surprise church photo-op, which happened after aggressive tactics were used to quell protests in front of the White House in the wake of George Floyd’s death.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-10-13--Supreme Court Lets Trump Truncate Census Count

The Supreme Court will let President Trump truncate the decennial census , putting on hold Monday a federal judge ’ s order that the count continue through the end of the month .
Justice Sonia Sotomayor is the only justice who noted her dissent , issuing with it a six-page dissenting opinion .
The legal fight over how and when the Trump administration winds down the pandemic census , has been one of several lawsuits filed challenging the way the White House appears to have hijacked the survey .
The challengers in this case have argued that by ending the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earlier than what was planned , the administration put the accuracy of the count ’ s data collection at risk .
Census Bureau experts warned Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross of the threat to census accuracy posed by expediting the final stages of the count .
Sotomayor in her dissent said that letting the administration implement the truncated counting timeline will cause “ irreparable , ” “ avoidable and intolerable ” harms that will be felt “ for at least the next 10 years.
” In the case , the Trump administration is arguing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s counting plans was necessary because the bureau faces a statutory deadline of Dec. 31 to produce the data used to decide how many House seats each state gets , in a process known as apportionment .
The court ’ s majority did not opine on why it was allowing the count to end now .
However , Sotomayor expressed her skepticism of the majority ’ s decision , arguing that “ meeting the deadline at the expense of the accuracy of the census is not a cost worth paying ” Back in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hold , the administration asked that Congress postpone that deadline by four months to make up for the delays the pandemic was causing to the count .
Administration support for that postponement disappeared sometime this summer , around the time that President Trump unveiled a new policy to removed undocumented immigrants from the apportionment count .
Many census observers , as well as officials within the bureau , believe that the White House ’ s reversal on giving the count more time was related to the apportionment policy , which is also being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the link by noting in her dissent that when Trump announced the policy , the “ administration simultaneously stopped pushing Congress to extend the reporting deadline by 120 days .
Had the four-month extension been granted by Congress , apportionment would not happen until early April , meaning that a Biden administration — if Trump loses the election — could reverse the policy on undocumented immigrants .
The administration ’ s gambit was thrown in jeopardy by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh ’ s order last month that the count ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which was the plan under the timeline released in April that had been adapted to the pandemic .
Under the truncated plan developed in late July , it would end on Sept. 30 ?
instead .
Initially , the administration tried to end data collection on Oct. 5 after the bureau advised Ross that that would be the drop-dead date for the administration to still meet the Dec. 31 apportionment deadline .
But Koh said that was also in violation of her order and even discussed holding the administration in contempt , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The dispute was kicked to the Supreme Court after an appeals court let stand Koh ’ s order reinstating the Oct. 31 completion date for the counting operations .
Sotomayor knocked the administration for frequently changing its tune on when the Dec. 31 apportionment deadline would become impossible to meet .
She said the government ’ s shifting claims showed that the harms it would suffer under Koh ’ s order were “ at best uncertain , and , more likely , nonexistent.
” “ This is especially true given that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extension of the December 31 statutory deadline , and Congress had made significant progress toward granting it , ” Sotomayor said .
“ The Bureau ’ s abrupt shift in focus from achieving an accurate count to meeting its deadline at all costs belies its newfound concern for issuing its report by December 31.
” Her dissent included a shot at her colleagues on the bench : “ This Court normally does not grant extraordinary relief on such a painfully disproportionate balance of harms .

The Supreme Court will let President Trump truncate the decennial census, putting on hold Monday a federal judge’s order that the count continue through the end of the month.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor is the only justice who noted her dissent, issuing with it a six-page dissenting opinion.
The legal fight over how and when the Trump administration winds down the pandemic census, has been one of several lawsuits filed challenging the way the White House appears to have hijacked the survey.
The challengers in this case have argued that by ending the survey’s data collections a month earlier than what was planned, the administration put the accuracy of the count’s data collection at risk. Census Bureau experts warned Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross of the threat to census accuracy posed by expediting the final stages of the count.
Sotomayor in her dissent said that letting the administration implement the truncated counting timeline will cause “irreparable,” “avoidable and intolerable” harms that will be felt “for at least the next 10 years.”
In the case, the Trump administration is arguing that speeding up the Census Bureau’s counting plans was necessary because the bureau faces a statutory deadline of Dec. 31 to produce the data used to decide how many House seats each state gets, in a process known as apportionment.
The court’s majority did not opine on why it was allowing the count to end now. However, Sotomayor expressed her skepticism of the majority’s decision, arguing that “meeting the deadline at the expense of the accuracy of the census is not a cost worth paying”
Back in April, as the COVID-19 outbreak took hold, the administration asked that Congress postpone that deadline by four months to make up for the delays the pandemic was causing to the count. Administration support for that postponement disappeared sometime this summer, around the time that President Trump unveiled a new policy to removed undocumented immigrants from the apportionment count.
Many census observers, as well as officials within the bureau, believe that the White House’s reversal on giving the count more time was related to the apportionment policy, which is also being challenged in court.
Sotomayor herself hinted at the link by noting in her dissent that when Trump announced the policy, the “administration simultaneously stopped pushing Congress to extend the reporting deadline by 120 days.
Had the four-month extension been granted by Congress, apportionment would not happen until early April, meaning that a Biden administration — if Trump loses the election — could reverse the policy on undocumented immigrants. The administration’s gambit was thrown in jeopardy by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh’s order last month that the count’s data collection phase continue until Oct. 31, which was the plan under the timeline released in April that had been adapted to the pandemic. Under the truncated plan developed in late July, it would end on Sept. 30? instead.
Initially, the administration tried to end data collection on Oct. 5 after the bureau advised Ross that that would be the drop-dead date for the administration to still meet the Dec. 31 apportionment deadline. But Koh said that was also in violation of her order and even discussed holding the administration in contempt, though she backed down from those plans.
The dispute was kicked to the Supreme Court after an appeals court let stand Koh’s order reinstating the Oct. 31 completion date for the counting operations.
Sotomayor knocked the administration for frequently changing its tune on when the Dec. 31 apportionment deadline would become impossible to meet.
She said the government’s shifting claims showed that the harms it would suffer under Koh’s order were “at best uncertain, and, more likely, nonexistent.”
“This is especially true given that, until recently, the Bureau sought an extension of the December 31 statutory deadline, and Congress had made significant progress toward granting it,” Sotomayor said. “The Bureau’s abrupt shift in focus from achieving an accurate count to meeting its deadline at all costs belies its newfound concern for issuing its report by December 31.”
Her dissent included a shot at her colleagues on the bench: “This Court normally does not grant extraordinary relief on such a painfully disproportionate balance of harms.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-10-13--South Dakota AG Told 911 He Had ‘No Idea’ What He’d Hit In Fatal Car Crash

The South Dakota Department of Public Safety ( DPS ) on Tuesday released audio of the 911 call South Dakota Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg had made on the night of September 12 after he fatally struck a pedestrian named Joe Boever with his car .
According to the recording , Ravnsborg first introduced himself as the attorney general before informing the dispatcher , “ I hit something.
” “ It was in the middle of the road , ” he said .
“ I am not , but my car sure as hell is , ” the attorney general responded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying also that the “ something ” he ’ d collided with “ sure hit me ” and “ smashed my windshield.
” “ Do you think it was a deer or something ?
” the dispatcher asked .
“ I have no idea , ” Ravnsborg replied .
“ It could be .
I mean , it was right in the roadway.
” The dispatcher then told the attorney general that she would send the sheriff his way .
Last month , the DPS released a statement saying that Ravnsborg had “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Office that he had been involved in a car-deer crash ” on the night of the incident as he was driving home from a GOP fundraiser .
Ravnsborg claimed in a statement of his own , released several days after the incident , that when Hyde County Sheriff Mike Volek arrived at the scene , neither he nor Volek found any indication a person had been struck .
“ At no time did either of us suspect that I had been involved in an accident with a person , ” the attorney general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not realize he had hit a pedestrian until the morning after the crash , when he allegedly returned to the scene with his chief of staff and found the body for the first time .
The DPS published the 911 call on Tuesday afternoon , shortly after South Dakota Gov .
Kristi Noem ( R ) and Department of Public Safety Secretary Craig Price held a press conference regarding the investigation into the incident .
Price told reporters that Ravnsborg ’ s blood alcohol content was zero , according to toxicology reports , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approximately 1:30 PM on the day after the collision .
The investigation is “ still ongoing , ” Price said .
When asked if Ravnsborg planned to step down , Noem stated that the decision to do so would be the attorney general ’ s “ prerogative .
”

The South Dakota Department of Public Safety (DPS) on Tuesday released audio of the 911 call South Dakota Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg had made on the night of September 12 after he fatally struck a pedestrian named Joe Boever with his car.
According to the recording, Ravnsborg first introduced himself as the attorney general before informing the dispatcher, “I hit something.”
“It was in the middle of the road,” he said.
“I am not, but my car sure as hell is,” the attorney general responded when asked if he was injured, saying also that the “something” he’d collided with “sure hit me” and “smashed my windshield.”
“Do you think it was a deer or something?” the dispatcher asked.
“I have no idea,” Ravnsborg replied. “It could be. I mean, it was right in the roadway.”
The dispatcher then told the attorney general that she would send the sheriff his way.
Last month, the DPS released a statement saying that Ravnsborg had “told the Hyde County Sheriff’s Office that he had been involved in a car-deer crash” on the night of the incident as he was driving home from a GOP fundraiser.
Ravnsborg claimed in a statement of his own, released several days after the incident, that when Hyde County Sheriff Mike Volek arrived at the scene, neither he nor Volek found any indication a person had been struck.
“At no time did either of us suspect that I had been involved in an accident with a person,” the attorney general said.
Ravnsborg claimed that he did not realize he had hit a pedestrian until the morning after the crash, when he allegedly returned to the scene with his chief of staff and found the body for the first time.
The DPS published the 911 call on Tuesday afternoon, shortly after South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R) and Department of Public Safety Secretary Craig Price held a press conference regarding the investigation into the incident.
Price told reporters that Ravnsborg’s blood alcohol content was zero, according to toxicology reports, although the tests were not taken until approximately 1:30 PM on the day after the collision.
The investigation is “still ongoing,” Price said.
When asked if Ravnsborg planned to step down, Noem stated that the decision to do so would be the attorney general’s “prerogative.”