talkingpointsmemo--2020-06-10--This Treasury Official Is Running the Bailout. It’s Been Great for His Family.

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 .
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have become the public faces of the $ 3 trillion federal coronavirus bailout .
Behind the scenes , however , the Treasury ’ s responsibilities have fallen largely to the 42-year-old deputy secretary , Justin Muzinich .
A major beneficiary of that bailout so far : Muzinich & Co. , the asset manager founded by his father where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration .
He reported owning a stake worth at least $ 60 million when he entered government in 2017 .
Today , Muzinich retains financial ties to the firm through an opaque transaction in which he transferred his shares in the privately held company to his father .
Ethics experts say the arrangement is troubling because his father received the shares for no money up front , and it appears possible that Muzinich can simply get his stake back after leaving government .
When lockdowns crippled the economy in March , the Treasury @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to buy up corporate debt to avert a freeze in lending at the exact moment businesses needed to borrow to keep running .
That effort has succeeded , at least temporarily , with credit continuing to flow to companies over the last several weeks .
This policy also allowed those who were heavily invested in corporate loans to recoup huge losses .
Muzinich & Co. has long specialized in precisely this market , managing approximately $ 38 billion of clients ’ money , including in riskier instruments known as junk , or high-yield @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Treasury ’ s actions in late March , the bond market has roared back .
Muzinich & Co. has reversed billions in losses , according to a review of its holdings , with 28 of the 29 funds tracked by the investor research service Morningstar Direct rising in that period .
The firm doesn ’ t publicly detail all of its holdings , so a precise figure can ’ t be calculated .
The Treasury is understaffed , and Muzinich was overseeing two-thirds of the department before the crisis hit .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration ’ s point man on its only major legislative achievement , the landmark $ 1.9 trillion tax cut that mainly benefited the wealthy and corporations .
As the markets panicked about the economic impact of the coronavirus , Muzinich ’ s responsibilities expanded .
The Treasury worked with the Fed on the emergency lending programs , and the agency has ultimate power to sign off .
Muzinich was personally involved in crafting the programs , including the effort to bail out the junk bond market , The Wall Street Journal reported in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ daily by phone , email or text , the paper said .
That effort has manyskeptics .
The Fed has never bought corporate debt in its more than 100 years of existence , much less that of the indebted and fragile companies that raise money through the sale of junk bonds .
Private equity firms , hedge funds and specialty investment firms like Muzinich & Co. dominate the market for junk-rated debt .
In effect , the Fed has swooped in to protect the most sophisticated investors from losses on some of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ongoing ties to the family firm present a thicket of potential conflicts of interest , ethics lawyers said .
Instead of immediately divesting his stake in the firm when he joined the Trump administration in early 2017 , Muzinich retained it until the end of that year .
But even then , he did not sell his stake and use the proceeds to buy broad-based securities such as index funds , as is common practice .
Instead , he transferred his piece of the company to his father , who owns Muzinich & @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what amounts to an IOU — a written agreement in which his father agreed to pay him for the shares , with interest , but with no principal due for nine years .
“ This is something akin to a fake divestiture , ” said Kathleen Clark , a law professor and ethics specialist at Washington University in St. Louis .
“ It sure looks like he is simply parking this asset with a relative , and he will likely get it back after he leaves the government.
” A Treasury spokeswoman declined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take back the stake in the family firm once his public service ends .
Muzinich “ takes his ethics obligations very seriously ” and “ any suggestion to the contrary is completely baseless , ” she said .
She added the arrangement with his family firm was approved by the Office of Government Ethics and agency ethics lawyers , who recently reexamined the setup given Muzinich ’ s role in the economic crisis response .
They concluded that there is no currently envisaged scenario in which Muzinich would make decisions as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s ability to repay the money he owes under the IOU .
“ Treasury ’ s career Designated Agency Ethics Official has determined that there is no such conflict of interest , as there are no current or reasonably anticipated matters in which Deputy Secretary Muzinich would participate that would affect the note obligor ’ s ability or willingness to satisfy its financial obligations under the note , ” she said in a statement .
( The note obligor is Muzinich ’ s father . )
Muzinich & Co. did not respond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s relationship with the family firm also creates potential conflicts related to Muzinich & Co. ’ s clients .
The firm makes money by charging investment management fees to several dozen wealthy individuals , insurance companies , pension funds , as well as what filings describe as a “ quasi foreign government corporation.
” The client list is not public and it ’ s unclear whether Muzinich would know about clients that came on board since he left .
But any large investor has much to gain , or lose , from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bailout policies .
“ The clients of this firm , I imagine , must be thrilled that Muzinich has this vitally important , powerful position with a huge amount of discretion and authority , ” Clark said .
The Treasury spokeswoman declined to answer a question about the firm ’ s clients .
Even as Justin Muzinich has presided over bailout policies criticized by some observers , Muzinich & Co. executives have praised the government ’ s actions in recent briefings for investors .
One described the interventions “ as providing somewhat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ market.
” Another Muzinich executive , David Bowen , who manages one of the firm ’ s high-yield bond portfolios , said during a May 20 webinar , “ The Fed has been about as supportive , helpful , accommodative — whatever word you want to use — as anyone could imagine.
” When Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin hired Justin Muzinich as counselor in early 2017 , in many ways he was selecting a younger version of himself .
Like Mnuchin , Muzinich grew up in New York City , the son of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his boss , Muzinich spent years collecting a series of elite credentials : He attended Groton and holds degrees from Harvard College , the London School of Economics , Yale Law School and Harvard Business School .
He worked at Morgan Stanley and spent a few months at a hedge fund associated with billionaire Steven A. Cohen , followed by a few years at EMS Capital , which invests the money of the wealthy Safra family .
Colleagues praise Muzinich as hardworking and serious , and Democrats have expressed relief that he isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump appointees .
Powell , the Fed chair , called Muzinich “ creative and extremely capable ” in a statement to The Wall Street Journal in April .
In 2010 , he joined the family firm and became its president .
His father , George , founded the company in 1988 , specializing in handling portfolios of American high-yield bonds for European pension funds .
The company expanded to offer funds to other institutional investors and wealthy individuals , but it stuck to its focus on corporate credit — particularly the riskier type @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in New York and London , the firm has eight offices across Europe and one in Singapore .
“ Talking about credit all the time might sound boring , I ’ m sure it does , ” Justin Muzinich said in a 2014 interview , “ but that is what makes you good.
” As he rose in the family business , Muzinich also launched himself into GOP policy circles , advising the presidential campaigns of Mitt Romney in 2012 and Jeb Bush in 2016 .
He owns a $ 20 million ultramodern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 4.5 million Park Avenue apartment and commutes from New York City to work in Washington .
When Muzinich entered the Trump administration , he reported owning stock and stock options in the family firm collectively worth at least $ 60 million .
The true value could be much higher , but disclosure rules don ’ t require officials to give a specific figure for any asset worth more than $ 50 million .
The Treasury ’ s ethics officers are frequently called on to rule on complex questions , given that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Wall Street who have large , complicated financial holdings — from ex-Goldman Sachs Chairman Hank Paulson to banker and Hollywood financier Mnuchin .
Stakes in individual companies can create conflicts of interest .
So incoming Treasury officials typically sell those stocks and invest in broad-based options like mutual funds .
Ownership in private investment funds can be particularly thorny because ethics rules treat each of the fund ’ s investments in specific companies as sources of potential conflicts .
Sarah Bloom Raskin , who preceded Muzinich as deputy secretary in the Obama @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of index and mutual funds that either track the whole stock market or a large basket of companies .
But government ethics officials did not require Muzinich to sell his stake in the family firm through his first year in office as counselor to Mnuchin .
According to ethics filings , Muzinich said that he did not divest it until December 2017 , the month the tax law was signed .
( Several months later , in April 2018 , Trump nominated him to be deputy secretary . )
Muzinich did not receive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the family firm .
Instead , his more recent financial disclosures show that the stake , held in a family trust , was replaced with an opaque asset described as a “ receivable from family , ” valued at over $ 50 million .
Muzinich ’ s disclosure filings don ’ t reveal much about this asset at all .
They don ’ t say who the family member is or explain the arrangement .
They don ’ t say how the terms were negotiated , or even if the valuation of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party .
It turns out that Muzinich transferred his stake to his father .
But his father didn ’ t have to pay him right away .
According to a Senate Finance Committee memo obtained by ProPublica , Justin received two promissory notes from his father in return for the shares .
The notes pay Justin between $ 1 million and $ 5 million in interest over a year , at a rate of 2.11 % .
Moreover , his father does not have to pay any principal on the loan for nine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nor the Senate memo say how long the agreement is supposed to last .
Neither addresses the possibility of his getting the shares back after he leaves the government .
The Treasury says the transaction is “ not reversible ” but did not elaborate .
In other words , Justin still has an ongoing long-term stake in the financial well-being of Muzinich & Co. , since his father now owes him more than $ 50 million .
If the company were to plummet in value or even go under , it could cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fed take can either enhance the chances he gets his money back or lower them .
The Treasury defended the IOU transaction as an appropriate remedy for any conflicts of interest .
The agency provided a statement from Elizabeth Horton , an ethics attorney who left the agency in 2019 and who worked with Muzinich on the divestiture from his family business .
Horton said that when Muzinich first joined the agency , “ the Treasury ethics office correctly advised him that he did not need to divest his holdings in his family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his work on tax reform legislation.
” She said that when his duties changed , “ I advised Mr. Muzinich that an exchange for a fixed value note was an appropriate way to divest.
” Horton said that advice was “ consistent with practice in previous administrations ” — though the Treasury declined to cite similar cases .
“ Muzinich worked very closely with the ethics office and was extremely attentive to his ethics obligations , ” Horton said .
ProPublica reached out to four ethics officials , including two former Treasury ethics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ divestment transaction .
Three of the four disagreed that it resolved Muzinich ’ s conflicts , while one said that turning it into an asset with a value that doesn ’ t fluctuate with future developments should shield him from any allegations of impropriety .
The deal does not look like an arms-length transaction , said Virginia Canter , who served as a career ethics attorney at Treasury during the George W. Bush administration and is now at the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington .
“ The terms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bona fide transaction , ” she said .
“ Once he leaves office , nothing in the arrangement appears to preclude Muzinich from forgiving the debt owed to him by his father so they can amicably agree on returning to Muzinich the interest in the Muzinich family business.
” As ranking member of the Finance Committee , Sen. Ron Wyden opposed Muzinich ’ s nomination as deputy secretary because of his role in crafting the tax bill .
Although he would have preferred a cash sale of the Muzinich & Co. stock , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ July 2018 Muzinich had agreed to “ strengthen his recusal commitments to include matters where his family ’ s company is a party.
” That satisfied Wyden at the time , but it is a very narrow restriction .
A vast range of issues before the Treasury could affect Muzinich & Co. regardless of whether the firm was directly a party to any of them .
How Justin Muzinich treated the transaction for tax purposes could reveal whether it was a true and final sale or not .
Ordinarily , a sale of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company would trigger a capital gains tax bill .
In Muzinich ’ s case , that could run into the tens of millions of dollars , even though his father paid him no cash upfront .
But there is an exception if the asset in question is merely transferred with a commitment to have it returned , said Steve Rosenthal , a tax law expert at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center .
“ If you are merely parking or pledging securities , and you are going to get them back , that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he said .
It is not clear how he reported the transaction to the IRS , and whether he was left with a huge tax bill .
The Treasury declined to comment on the tax issues .
Through his first year in the administration , even as Muzinich continued to own his stake in the family firm , he met with a wide range of business executives to hash out major tax provisions that would affect them , according to his 2017 calendars that ProPublica obtained after suing the Treasury last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Others were obtained by the watchdog group American Oversight .
The Treasury redacted large sections of the calendars , saying that they required consultation with the White House before they could be released .
One of the most important principles in the federal government ethics rules covers whether an official is dealing with a “ particular matter ” that would affect a discrete group of people with specific interests or a “ general matter ” that affects a larger and more diverse group .
The Treasury spokeswoman said the tax reform bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diverse group , so ethics rules did not prevent Muzinich from working on it .
He was allowed to keep his equity in the company while working on the tax bill because his “ duties did not include particular matters that required divestiture of certain assets.
” But many industries had specific interests in the tax bill that they lobbied on — industries that may include clients of Muzinich & Co. Insurance companies , for example , featured prominently .
Muzinich met with trade groups representing insurers as well as Liberty Mutual , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Blue Shield .
In the final tax bill , property and casualty insurers fared particularly well by dodging new limitations on deductions that applied to other companies .
Insurance companies invest their premiums in order to increase their profits .
In its regulatory filings , Muzinich & Co. reports that 17 of its 89 clients are insurance companies , which have given the firm more than $ 1.4 billion to invest .
Muzinich & Co. did not provide a list of its clients .
Some of the companies Muzinich & Co. has stakes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on their own behalf .
For example , Muzinich & Co. helps its clients invest in business development companies , a type of investment fund that enjoys lower taxes in exchange for providing capital to medium-sized companies .
The firm itself owns stock in BDCs , many of them run by private equity companies such as Ares Capital Corporation , which has paid millions of dollars to lobby for looser rules governing the BDC industry .
Even beyond any overlap with the family firm ’ s interests , Muzinich ’ s calendars , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ September of 2017 , reflect the administration ’ s priorities in negotiating the tax deal .
Muzinich spent long days in meetings with private equity titans , energy company CEOs and heavy-hitting interest groups like the Business Roundtable and the anti-tax group Americans for Prosperity .
His calendar shows no meetings with labor unions or progressive groups .
Muzinich did meet often with the Treasury ’ s in-house tax experts but frequently didn ’ t follow their recommendations .
Richard Prisinzano , who served in the agency ’ s tax analysis office until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mnuchin and Muzinich that drastically lowering corporate tax rates would likely prompt businesses to transform into C corporations , which often pay lower rates under the new law .
He argued that such a change would further reduce tax revenues .
Muzinich disagreed , Prisinzano said , protesting that businesses wouldn ’ t change their corporate form just to lower their taxes .
“ He really pushed back , ” Prisinzano recalled .
“ He said to me , ‘ The secretary is a numbers person , and the numbers don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ I ’ m a numbers person , and they make perfect sense to me , ’ ” Prisinzano said he responded .
“ That was not an answer that they liked.
” In the following two years , many large businesses did indeed convert into C corporations , including private equity giants Ares , Blackstone and KKR .
The government hasn ’ t produced an estimate of how big a hit taxpayers took from these conversions .
During his confirmation hearing as deputy secretary in July 2018 , Democratic senators pressed Muzinich @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House that the tax bill would “ pay for itself , ” despite the dire projections of independent forecasters such as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office .
“ Yes , ” Muzinich responded .
It has not come close , as corporate tax collections plunged and left the national debt at historic levels on the eve of the pandemic .
As the economic response to the novel coronavirus consumed Washington in March , Mnuchin turned again to Muzinich to negotiate with Congress over the shape of a bailout intended to sustain companies as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis .
Ultimately , Trump administration officials and lawmakers settled on a package worth more than $ 2 trillion , divided into aid regimens for different sectors of the economy .
While setting general parameters , the Coronavirus Aid , Relief and Economic Security Act gives the Treasury wide latitude over how the money is to be distributed .
It calls for $ 50 billion in grants and loans for the airline industry , for example , with few rules on who should get what .
( In another potential intersection with Muzinich @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Co. started a new business line to loan money to airlines to buy planes in February . )
Perhaps the greatest power the Treasury now has is the authority to sign off on Fed loan programs funded with CARES Act money .
The Fed has said it will leverage that money to lend up to several trillion dollars .
Among their biggest decisions : Which firms to include in the $ 600 billion Main Street Lending Program , which will lend directly to mid-sized businesses , and how to structure two programs that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in corporate bonds .
The Main Street program , which has yet to launch , changed substantially after it was first announced to sweep in bigger companies and those with heavier debt loads .
Offering a glimpse into how the Treasury directly shaped the Fed programs , Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette told Bloomberg the change was made in part to make sure beleaguered oil companies had access to the program ’ s favorable terms .
Muzinich & Co. ’ s U.S.-based funds include dozens of energy companies .
Mnuchin also deputized Muzinich to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ round of funding for the Paycheck Protection Program , which offers forgivable loans to small businesses .
The government hasn ’ t said who got money through the program , but Muzinich & Co. ’ s portfolio includes many companies that are small enough to be eligible .
The Fed ’ s bond purchasing programs will go even further to help companies with poorly rated credit .
On March 23 , the Fed and the Treasury announced a sweeping stimulus program that would involve buying hundreds of billions of dollars of investment-grade bonds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ large companies like Boeing or PepsiCo to raise money for new investments , to fund day-to-day operations or to pay back older loans .
Companies that are strong and profitable are expected to be able to pay back the borrowed money .
Their bonds are deemed “ investment grade ” and come with lower interest rates .
The news of the Fed program on its own heralded a dramatic recovery in the bond market , which in three weeks recovered nearly all of the 13.6 % it had lost since the plunge began @ @ @ @ @ @ @ index .
Then , on April 9 , the Fed announced , with the Treasury ’ s approval , that it would expand its efforts to buy some junk bonds .
These carry higher interest rates because the borrowing companies are viewed as riskier and may already be heavily in debt .
One index tracking that market segment surged nearly 8 % on the news , the most in a decade .
This risker category of bonds has expanded dramatically in recent years as companies took on higher debt burdens to do things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
These are the bonds in which Muzinich & Co. has long specialized .
At the end of 2019 , Muzinich & Co. reported it had $ 2.8 billion of assets under management in its U.S. high-yield bond strategy .
A Muzinich fund that focuses specifically on those bonds took significant losses in March , as companies like oilfield services provider Targa Resources and Caesars Entertainment saw the price of their bonds fall 30 % and 35 % respectively .
The government ’ s announcement buoyed Muzinich & Co. ’ s high-yield holdings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The portfolio manager for the firm ’ s U.S. high-yield offering also praised CARES Act ’ s tax provisions that would “ help high yield companies.
” In a separate development in May , the Fed expanded another Treasury-backed lending program in a way that could help Muzinich & Co. ’ s portfolio .
The central bank said May 12 it would support “ syndicated loans , ” another form of corporate debt often in which riskier firms borrow money from multiple lenders .
Muzinich & Co. had more than $ 3 billion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ European syndicated loans at the end of last year .
The good news for Muzinich & Co. keeps coming .
As the firm ’ s head of investment strategy , Erick Muller , told investors in a May 13 webcast about the junk bond market : “ The recovery is pretty spectacular.
” Do you have access to information about the economic crisis response by the Treasury or Fed that should be public ?
Reach Justin Elliott at justin @ propublica.org or via Signal at 774-826-6240 and Lydia DePillis at lydia.depillis @ propublica.org @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s how to send tips and documents to ProPublica securely .
Did Your Company Get Bailout Money ?
Are the Employees Benefiting From It ?
ProPublica is reporting on the government ’ s various programs to support businesses amidst the epidemic .
We want to know what these programs mean for your workplace .
Please help us report .

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.
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have become the public faces of the $3 trillion federal coronavirus bailout. Behind the scenes, however, the Treasury’s responsibilities have fallen largely to the 42-year-old deputy secretary, Justin Muzinich.
A major beneficiary of that bailout so far: Muzinich & Co., the asset manager founded by his father where Justin served as president before joining the administration. He reported owning a stake worth at least $60 million when he entered government in 2017.
Today, Muzinich retains financial ties to the firm through an opaque transaction in which he transferred his shares in the privately held company to his father. Ethics experts say the arrangement is troubling because his father received the shares for no money up front, and it appears possible that Muzinich can simply get his stake back after leaving government.
When lockdowns crippled the economy in March, the Treasury and the Fed launched an unprecedented effort to buy up corporate debt to avert a freeze in lending at the exact moment businesses needed to borrow to keep running. That effort has succeeded, at least temporarily, with credit continuing to flow to companies over the last several weeks. This policy also allowed those who were heavily invested in corporate loans to recoup huge losses.
Muzinich & Co. has long specialized in precisely this market, managing approximately $38 billion of clients’ money, including in riskier instruments known as junk, or high-yield, bonds. Since the Fed and the Treasury’s actions in late March, the bond market has roared back. Muzinich & Co. has reversed billions in losses, according to a review of its holdings, with 28 of the 29 funds tracked by the investor research service Morningstar Direct rising in that period. The firm doesn’t publicly detail all of its holdings, so a precise figure can’t be calculated.
The Treasury is understaffed, and Muzinich was overseeing two-thirds of the department before the crisis hit. He spent his first year as the Trump administration’s point man on its only major legislative achievement, the landmark $1.9 trillion tax cut that mainly benefited the wealthy and corporations.
As the markets panicked about the economic impact of the coronavirus, Muzinich’s responsibilities expanded. The Treasury worked with the Fed on the emergency lending programs, and the agency has ultimate power to sign off. Muzinich was personally involved in crafting the programs, including the effort to bail out the junk bond market, The Wall Street Journal reported in April. He communicates with Fed officials daily by phone, email or text, the paper said.
That effort has manyskeptics. The Fed has never bought corporate debt in its more than 100 years of existence, much less that of the indebted and fragile companies that raise money through the sale of junk bonds. Private equity firms, hedge funds and specialty investment firms like Muzinich & Co. dominate the market for junk-rated debt. In effect, the Fed has swooped in to protect the most sophisticated investors from losses on some of their riskiest bets.
Justin Muzinich’s ongoing ties to the family firm present a thicket of potential conflicts of interest, ethics lawyers said. Instead of immediately divesting his stake in the firm when he joined the Trump administration in early 2017, Muzinich retained it until the end of that year. But even then, he did not sell his stake and use the proceeds to buy broad-based securities such as index funds, as is common practice. Instead, he transferred his piece of the company to his father, who owns Muzinich & Co. In exchange, he received what amounts to an IOU — a written agreement in which his father agreed to pay him for the shares, with interest, but with no principal due for nine years.
“This is something akin to a fake divestiture,” said Kathleen Clark, a law professor and ethics specialist at Washington University in St. Louis. “It sure looks like he is simply parking this asset with a relative, and he will likely get it back after he leaves the government.”
A Treasury spokeswoman declined to say whether Muzinich has pledged not to take back the stake in the family firm once his public service ends. Muzinich “takes his ethics obligations very seriously” and “any suggestion to the contrary is completely baseless,” she said.
She added the arrangement with his family firm was approved by the Office of Government Ethics and agency ethics lawyers, who recently reexamined the setup given Muzinich’s role in the economic crisis response. They concluded that there is no currently envisaged scenario in which Muzinich would make decisions as a government official that would affect his father’s ability to repay the money he owes under the IOU.
“Treasury’s career Designated Agency Ethics Official has determined that there is no such conflict of interest, as there are no current or reasonably anticipated matters in which Deputy Secretary Muzinich would participate that would affect the note obligor’s ability or willingness to satisfy its financial obligations under the note,” she said in a statement. (The note obligor is Muzinich’s father.)
Muzinich & Co. did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Muzinich’s relationship with the family firm also creates potential conflicts related to Muzinich & Co.’s clients. The firm makes money by charging investment management fees to several dozen wealthy individuals, insurance companies, pension funds, as well as what filings describe as a “quasi foreign government corporation.” The client list is not public and it’s unclear whether Muzinich would know about clients that came on board since he left. But any large investor has much to gain, or lose, from decisions being made by the Treasury about the bailout policies.
“The clients of this firm, I imagine, must be thrilled that Muzinich has this vitally important, powerful position with a huge amount of discretion and authority,” Clark said.
The Treasury spokeswoman declined to answer a question about the firm’s clients.
Even as Justin Muzinich has presided over bailout policies criticized by some observers, Muzinich & Co. executives have praised the government’s actions in recent briefings for investors. One described the interventions “as providing somewhat of a floor underneath the high yield market.”
Another Muzinich executive, David Bowen, who manages one of the firm’s high-yield bond portfolios, said during a May 20 webinar, “The Fed has been about as supportive, helpful, accommodative — whatever word you want to use — as anyone could imagine.”
Untangling the Financial Relationship
When Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin hired Justin Muzinich as counselor in early 2017, in many ways he was selecting a younger version of himself.
Like Mnuchin, Muzinich grew up in New York City, the son of a wealthy finance executive. Also like his boss, Muzinich spent years collecting a series of elite credentials: He attended Groton and holds degrees from Harvard College, the London School of Economics, Yale Law School and Harvard Business School. He worked at Morgan Stanley and spent a few months at a hedge fund associated with billionaire Steven A. Cohen, followed by a few years at EMS Capital, which invests the money of the wealthy Safra family.
Colleagues praise Muzinich as hardworking and serious, and Democrats have expressed relief that he isn’t as inflammatory as many other Trump appointees. Powell, the Fed chair, called Muzinich “creative and extremely capable” in a statement to The Wall Street Journal in April.
In 2010, he joined the family firm and became its president. His father, George, founded the company in 1988, specializing in handling portfolios of American high-yield bonds for European pension funds. The company expanded to offer funds to other institutional investors and wealthy individuals, but it stuck to its focus on corporate credit — particularly the riskier type that pays higher interest rates. Headquartered in New York and London, the firm has eight offices across Europe and one in Singapore.
“Talking about credit all the time might sound boring, I’m sure it does,” Justin Muzinich said in a 2014 interview, “but that is what makes you good.”
As he rose in the family business, Muzinich also launched himself into GOP policy circles, advising the presidential campaigns of Mitt Romney in 2012 and Jeb Bush in 2016. He owns a $20 million ultramodern beachfront house in the Hamptons and a $4.5 million Park Avenue apartment and commutes from New York City to work in Washington.
When Muzinich entered the Trump administration, he reported owning stock and stock options in the family firm collectively worth at least $60 million. The true value could be much higher, but disclosure rules don’t require officials to give a specific figure for any asset worth more than $50 million.
The Treasury’s ethics officers are frequently called on to rule on complex questions, given that the department tends to attract people from careers on Wall Street who have large, complicated financial holdings — from ex-Goldman Sachs Chairman Hank Paulson to banker and Hollywood financier Mnuchin.
Stakes in individual companies can create conflicts of interest. So incoming Treasury officials typically sell those stocks and invest in broad-based options like mutual funds. Ownership in private investment funds can be particularly thorny because ethics rules treat each of the fund’s investments in specific companies as sources of potential conflicts. Sarah Bloom Raskin, who preceded Muzinich as deputy secretary in the Obama administration, reported holding only a collection of index and mutual funds that either track the whole stock market or a large basket of companies.
But government ethics officials did not require Muzinich to sell his stake in the family firm through his first year in office as counselor to Mnuchin.
According to ethics filings, Muzinich said that he did not divest it until December 2017, the month the tax law was signed. (Several months later, in April 2018, Trump nominated him to be deputy secretary.)
Muzinich did not receive cash for most of his stake in the family firm. Instead, his more recent financial disclosures show that the stake, held in a family trust, was replaced with an opaque asset described as a “receivable from family,” valued at over $50 million.
Muzinich’s disclosure filings don’t reveal much about this asset at all. They don’t say who the family member is or explain the arrangement. They don’t say how the terms were negotiated, or even if the valuation of the deal was vetted by an independent third party.
It turns out that Muzinich transferred his stake to his father. But his father didn’t have to pay him right away. According to a Senate Finance Committee memo obtained by ProPublica, Justin received two promissory notes from his father in return for the shares. The notes pay Justin between $1 million and $5 million in interest over a year, at a rate of 2.11%. Moreover, his father does not have to pay any principal on the loan for nine years.
Neither the financial disclosure forms nor the Senate memo say how long the agreement is supposed to last. Neither addresses the possibility of his getting the shares back after he leaves the government. The Treasury says the transaction is “not reversible” but did not elaborate.
In other words, Justin still has an ongoing long-term stake in the financial well-being of Muzinich & Co., since his father now owes him more than $50 million. If the company were to plummet in value or even go under, it could cost Justin. Actions the Treasury and the Fed take can either enhance the chances he gets his money back or lower them.
The Treasury defended the IOU transaction as an appropriate remedy for any conflicts of interest. The agency provided a statement from Elizabeth Horton, an ethics attorney who left the agency in 2019 and who worked with Muzinich on the divestiture from his family business. Horton said that when Muzinich first joined the agency, “the Treasury ethics office correctly advised him that he did not need to divest his holdings in his family business because of the generalized nature of his work on tax reform legislation.” She said that when his duties changed, “I advised Mr. Muzinich that an exchange for a fixed value note was an appropriate way to divest.”
Horton said that advice was “consistent with practice in previous administrations” — though the Treasury declined to cite similar cases. “Muzinich worked very closely with the ethics office and was extremely attentive to his ethics obligations,” Horton said.
ProPublica reached out to four ethics officials, including two former Treasury ethics lawyers. None could recall a similar divestment transaction. Three of the four disagreed that it resolved Muzinich’s conflicts, while one said that turning it into an asset with a value that doesn’t fluctuate with future developments should shield him from any allegations of impropriety.
The deal does not look like an arms-length transaction, said Virginia Canter, who served as a career ethics attorney at Treasury during the George W. Bush administration and is now at the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
“The terms of the loan suggest something less than a bona fide transaction,” she said. “Once he leaves office, nothing in the arrangement appears to preclude Muzinich from forgiving the debt owed to him by his father so they can amicably agree on returning to Muzinich the interest in the Muzinich family business.”
As ranking member of the Finance Committee, Sen. Ron Wyden opposed Muzinich’s nomination as deputy secretary because of his role in crafting the tax bill. Although he would have preferred a cash sale of the Muzinich & Co. stock, Wyden said in a statement that in July 2018 Muzinich had agreed to “strengthen his recusal commitments to include matters where his family’s company is a party.”
That satisfied Wyden at the time, but it is a very narrow restriction. A vast range of issues before the Treasury could affect Muzinich & Co. regardless of whether the firm was directly a party to any of them.
How Justin Muzinich treated the transaction for tax purposes could reveal whether it was a true and final sale or not.
Ordinarily, a sale of an asset such as equity in a company would trigger a capital gains tax bill. In Muzinich’s case, that could run into the tens of millions of dollars, even though his father paid him no cash upfront. But there is an exception if the asset in question is merely transferred with a commitment to have it returned, said Steve Rosenthal, a tax law expert at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.
“If you are merely parking or pledging securities, and you are going to get them back, that’s not viewed as a taxable transaction,” he said.
It is not clear how he reported the transaction to the IRS, and whether he was left with a huge tax bill. The Treasury declined to comment on the tax issues.
Tax Reform — for Friends and Family
Through his first year in the administration, even as Muzinich continued to own his stake in the family firm, he met with a wide range of business executives to hash out major tax provisions that would affect them, according to his 2017 calendars that ProPublica obtained after suing the Treasury last year under the Freedom of Information Act. Others were obtained by the watchdog group American Oversight. The Treasury redacted large sections of the calendars, saying that they required consultation with the White House before they could be released.
One of the most important principles in the federal government ethics rules covers whether an official is dealing with a “particular matter” that would affect a discrete group of people with specific interests or a “general matter” that affects a larger and more diverse group.
The Treasury spokeswoman said the tax reform bill was to affect a very large and diverse group, so ethics rules did not prevent Muzinich from working on it. He was allowed to keep his equity in the company while working on the tax bill because his “duties did not include particular matters that required divestiture of certain assets.”
But many industries had specific interests in the tax bill that they lobbied on — industries that may include clients of Muzinich & Co. Insurance companies, for example, featured prominently. Muzinich met with trade groups representing insurers as well as Liberty Mutual, The Hartford, Zurich and Blue Cross Blue Shield. In the final tax bill, property and casualty insurers fared particularly well by dodging new limitations on deductions that applied to other companies.
Insurance companies invest their premiums in order to increase their profits. In its regulatory filings, Muzinich & Co. reports that 17 of its 89 clients are insurance companies, which have given the firm more than $1.4 billion to invest. Muzinich & Co. did not provide a list of its clients.
Some of the companies Muzinich & Co. has stakes in also have been lobbying the Treasury on their own behalf. For example, Muzinich & Co. helps its clients invest in business development companies, a type of investment fund that enjoys lower taxes in exchange for providing capital to medium-sized companies. The firm itself owns stock in BDCs, many of them run by private equity companies such as Ares Capital Corporation, which has paid millions of dollars to lobby for looser rules governing the BDC industry.
Even beyond any overlap with the family firm’s interests, Muzinich’s calendars, which cover the period from February to September of 2017, reflect the administration’s priorities in negotiating the tax deal. Muzinich spent long days in meetings with private equity titans, energy company CEOs and heavy-hitting interest groups like the Business Roundtable and the anti-tax group Americans for Prosperity. His calendar shows no meetings with labor unions or progressive groups.
Muzinich did meet often with the Treasury’s in-house tax experts but frequently didn’t follow their recommendations. Richard Prisinzano, who served in the agency’s tax analysis office until August 2017, recalled trying to tell Mnuchin and Muzinich that drastically lowering corporate tax rates would likely prompt businesses to transform into C corporations, which often pay lower rates under the new law.
He argued that such a change would further reduce tax revenues. Muzinich disagreed, Prisinzano said, protesting that businesses wouldn’t change their corporate form just to lower their taxes. “He really pushed back,” Prisinzano recalled. “He said to me, ‘The secretary is a numbers person, and the numbers don’t make sense to him.’”
“‘I’m a numbers person, and they make perfect sense to me,’” Prisinzano said he responded. “That was not an answer that they liked.”
In the following two years, many large businesses did indeed convert into C corporations, including private equity giants Ares, Blackstone and KKR. The government hasn’t produced an estimate of how big a hit taxpayers took from these conversions.
During his confirmation hearing as deputy secretary in July 2018, Democratic senators pressed Muzinich on whether he agreed with the White House that the tax bill would “pay for itself,” despite the dire projections of independent forecasters such as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. “Yes,” Muzinich responded.
It has not come close, as corporate tax collections plunged and left the national debt at historic levels on the eve of the pandemic.
Muzinich Takes on the COVID-19 Crisis
As the economic response to the novel coronavirus consumed Washington in March, Mnuchin turned again to Muzinich to negotiate with Congress over the shape of a bailout intended to sustain companies as they weathered the worst part of the crisis.
Ultimately, Trump administration officials and lawmakers settled on a package worth more than $2 trillion, divided into aid regimens for different sectors of the economy. While setting general parameters, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act gives the Treasury wide latitude over how the money is to be distributed. It calls for $50 billion in grants and loans for the airline industry, for example, with few rules on who should get what. (In another potential intersection with Muzinich’s Treasury work, Muzinich & Co. started a new business line to loan money to airlines to buy planes in February.)
Perhaps the greatest power the Treasury now has is the authority to sign off on Fed loan programs funded with CARES Act money. The Fed has said it will leverage that money to lend up to several trillion dollars.
Among their biggest decisions: Which firms to include in the $600 billion Main Street Lending Program, which will lend directly to mid-sized businesses, and how to structure two programs that will purchase up to $750 billion in corporate bonds.
The Main Street program, which has yet to launch, changed substantially after it was first announced to sweep in bigger companies and those with heavier debt loads. Offering a glimpse into how the Treasury directly shaped the Fed programs, Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette told Bloomberg the change was made in part to make sure beleaguered oil companies had access to the program’s favorable terms. Muzinich & Co.’s U.S.-based funds include dozens of energy companies.
Mnuchin also deputized Muzinich to fix problems that arose during the first round of funding for the Paycheck Protection Program, which offers forgivable loans to small businesses. The government hasn’t said who got money through the program, but Muzinich & Co.’s portfolio includes many companies that are small enough to be eligible.
The Fed’s bond purchasing programs will go even further to help companies with poorly rated credit.
On March 23, the Fed and the Treasury announced a sweeping stimulus program that would involve buying hundreds of billions of dollars of investment-grade bonds. Selling bonds is a way for large companies like Boeing or PepsiCo to raise money for new investments, to fund day-to-day operations or to pay back older loans. Companies that are strong and profitable are expected to be able to pay back the borrowed money. Their bonds are deemed “investment grade” and come with lower interest rates. The news of the Fed program on its own heralded a dramatic recovery in the bond market, which in three weeks recovered nearly all of the 13.6% it had lost since the plunge began on March 6, according to one index.
Then, on April 9, the Fed announced, with the Treasury’s approval, that it would expand its efforts to buy some junk bonds. These carry higher interest rates because the borrowing companies are viewed as riskier and may already be heavily in debt. One index tracking that market segment surged nearly 8% on the news, the most in a decade. This risker category of bonds has expanded dramatically in recent years as companies took on higher debt burdens to do things like acquire competitors and buy back stock. These are the bonds in which Muzinich & Co. has long specialized.
At the end of 2019, Muzinich & Co. reported it had $2.8 billion of assets under management in its U.S. high-yield bond strategy. A Muzinich fund that focuses specifically on those bonds took significant losses in March, as companies like oilfield services provider Targa Resources and Caesars Entertainment saw the price of their bonds fall 30% and 35% respectively.
The government’s announcement buoyed Muzinich & Co.’s high-yield holdings along with everyone else’s. The portfolio manager for the firm’s U.S. high-yield offering also praised CARES Act’s tax provisions that would “help high yield companies.”
In a separate development in May, the Fed expanded another Treasury-backed lending program in a way that could help Muzinich & Co.’s portfolio. The central bank said May 12 it would support “syndicated loans,” another form of corporate debt often in which riskier firms borrow money from multiple lenders. Muzinich & Co. had more than $3 billion in assets under management in U.S. and European syndicated loans at the end of last year.
The good news for Muzinich & Co. keeps coming. As the firm’s head of investment strategy, Erick Muller, told investors in a May 13 webcast about the junk bond market: “The recovery is pretty spectacular.”
Doris Burke and Hannah Fresques contributed reporting.
Do you have access to information about the economic crisis response by the Treasury or Fed that should be public? Reach Justin Elliott at [email protected] or via Signal at 774-826-6240 and Lydia DePillis at [email protected] or via Signal at 202-913-3717. Here’s how to send tips and documents to ProPublica securely.
Did Your Company Get Bailout Money? Are the Employees Benefiting From It?
ProPublica is reporting on the government’s various programs to support businesses amidst the epidemic. We want to know what these programs mean for your workplace. Please help us report.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-06-10--Biden Proposes Additional $300M In Funding For Community Policing

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden proposed an additional $ 300 million be allotted to community policing across the nation in an opinion essay that appeared in USA Today on Wednesday .
“ I ’ ve long been a firm believer in the power of community policing , ” Biden said .
“ That ’ s why I ’ m proposing an additional $ 300 million to reinvigorate community policing in our country.
” Biden ’ s comments come after Republicans accused the former vice president of supporting what some see as a radical agenda to “ defund the police.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backed by Biden , was advocated by some protesters who have chanted the phrase during anti-racism and racial justice demonstrations in recent weeks .
Savvy Republican members of Congress have also linked the phrase to their Democratic counterparts , further advancing a narrative of an off-key Democratic cohort who seek to dismantle a system intended to keep Americans safe .
Biden wrote that he condemns “ turning to violence as the first resort ” and has repeatedly said that he does not support an initiative to remove funding from police departments .
Instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed to advance “ meaningful reform , ” and “ conditioning other federal dollars ” to ensure those reforms are implemented .
The presidential candidate , who is now saddled with the challenge of courting more moderate voters , offered potential uses for additional police funding such as purchasing body cameras , recruiting a more diverse police force and adopting a national standard for the use of force .

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden proposed an additional $300 million be allotted to community policing across the nation in an opinion essay that appeared in USA Today on Wednesday.
“I’ve long been a firm believer in the power of community policing,” Biden said. “That’s why I’m proposing an additional $300 million to reinvigorate community policing in our country.”
Biden’s comments come after Republicans accused the former vice president of supporting what some see as a radical agenda to “defund the police.” The cause, which has not been backed by Biden, was advocated by some protesters who have chanted the phrase during anti-racism and racial justice demonstrations in recent weeks. Savvy Republican members of Congress have also linked the phrase to their Democratic counterparts, further advancing a narrative of an off-key Democratic cohort who seek to dismantle a system intended to keep Americans safe.
Biden wrote that he condemns “turning to violence as the first resort” and has repeatedly said that he does not support an initiative to remove funding from police departments. Instead he suggests giving those departments the resources needed to advance “meaningful reform,” and “conditioning other federal dollars” to ensure those reforms are implemented.
The presidential candidate, who is now saddled with the challenge of courting more moderate voters, offered potential uses for additional police funding such as purchasing body cameras, recruiting a more diverse police force and adopting a national standard for the use of force.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-06-10--These Factors Will Determine What The Next COVID Outbreak Will Look Like

With the pandemic continuing to rage across the U.S. and around the world , the country ’ s hardest-hit areas are starting to open up .
And while few can say how or where the next outbreak will occur , many epidemiologists remain grim .
At a news conference on Tuesday , Dr. Anthony Fauci described the disease as his “ worst nightmare.
” “ Oh my goodness , ” he said .
“ Where is it going to end ?
We ’ re still at the beginning of really understanding.
” With much about the disease still unknown , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could range from benign to catastrophic .
While some broad contours of how the disease behaves have become clear , nobody knows for sure what will happen .
Here are five factors that epidemiologists TPM spoke with are watching for to get a sense of what the next months have in store .
The biggest — and most obvious — factor will be the presence and size of spikes in infection rates in communities that have reopened .
Epidemiologists and public health officials look to hospitalization rates , with the idea being that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus to incubate , spread , and infect people seriously enough to require a hospital stay .
The country has gotten an early look at what this might mean with new data suggesting that COVID-19 hospitalizations have risen sharply in the two weeks following Memorial Day .
Dr. Susan Hassig , a Tulane epidemiologist , told TPM that states like Arizona and Florida have been seeing “ a continual upward direction in terms of cases.
” “ We ’ re two weeks after Memorial Day , and we were very worried about what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , particularly in the New Orleans metro area , because traditionally people go relax , party , and have crawfish boils , ” she said , adding that in Louisiana ’ s , so far , the numbers do not seem as concerning .
“ We saw evidence that people engaged in those activities — we ’ ve seen a little bit of an increase , but nothing that would be dramatic , ” she addd .
Going forward , the question will not only be whether similar spikes continue to occur around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are .
Observing an uptick in cases is only the first step towards addressing an outbreak .
What ’ s important , Hassig said , is being able to determine how it began .
That can become a telling indicator of how many people may have initially been exposed , and add to our understand of how the disease spreads .
The protests have sparked questions about whether they will serve as vectors for future outbreaks .
NBC news reported on Tuesday that an unspecified number members of Washington , D.C. ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus .
“ It ’ s going to be a complicated analysis to really discern the various factors at play here , because in many locations you have both things occurring at the same time : protests and also reopening , ” Josh Michaud , Associate Director for Global Health at the Kaiser Family Foundation told TPM .
He added that tracking the illness by who comes down with it could help give clues about how an outbreak began .
“ If you see an increase in cases among prisoners , nursing homes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s unlikely that those populations participated , ” Michaud said .
“ But it ’ s going to be difficult to get really good data on this , and it may be that there ’ s so much intermingling of these two factors that it may be nearly impossible to determine.
” How quickly can we contact trace ?
The time it takes to track the origin of an outbreak is a major factor in determining how bad an outbreak may be .
Contact tracers will need to track the contacts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ index case : the first person to contract the disease in a given outbreak .
“ The longer it takes for you to get to that index case and the folks they ’ ve exposed , and then reach out to those people and get them into quarantine , the more time there is for that transmission to go on and to infect additional people , ” Dr. Lamar Hasbrouck , a former CDC epidemiologist and former Director of the Illinois Department of Health , told TPM .
“ Its a matter of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will you let it run out of control like a wildfire.
” New York City is in the process of hiring 2,500 contact tracers in an effort to pin down the history and social interactions of people recently infected .
The longer it takes for contact tracers to do that , the more likely it is that people who may have been infected will spread the disease to others .
“ The concern is that we ’ re potentially launching an unknown number of infection chains that will progress through whatever connections and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their social lives , ” Hassig said , adding that “ it might be a couple of cycles of infection ” before the contacts of infected people are fully traced .
With the country reopening , increased infection rates only tell half of the story .
The other half has to do with capacity in terms of hospital beds and ICU rooms .
In Arizona , for example , cases have been increasing steadily , to the point where the state ’ s health-care system is beginning to sound the alarm .
Last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a hospital chain with a large presence in Arizona , said that the system ’ s ICU beds were nearing capacity .
Hasbrouck pointed out that increased testing in recent weeks has yielded more cases that were already out there , but few localized instances where hospitals have been overwhelmed .
“ We know 80–90 percent of folks that have the disease never make into the ICU because their symptoms are mild enough to mange , ” Hasbrouck said , adding that looking at the case count combined with local ICU bed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way of seeing the stress that the disease is placing on the system .
The words we use The biggest factor , epidemiologists said , is national messaging , and the extent to which it is in line with data .
With incorrect messaging and incomplete data , even the best-intentioned public health responses are likely to founder .
“ What concerns me is probably the deemphasis on the precautions that need to continue even though we ’ re reopening , ” Hasbrouck said .
“ We don ’ t want the public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opening up , everything is okay.
” “ It ’ s horrible .
It ’ s lethal , ” said Gary Slutkin , a former WHO epidemiologist .
“ If you start to believe that things are fine and not really a problem here , you ’ re less likely to be wearing a mask and social distancing , so it ’ s catastrophic for the right public health practice.
” To Slutkin , the country ’ s plan for handling the pandemic has been ill-conceived on a fundamental level for months .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Slutkin argued , adding that the government had made several mistakes in its messaging .
“ When you ’ re really working an epidemic correctly , the goal is stopping its spread and having very few cases.
” The first was setting “ flattening the curve ” as a final goal , while it really marks a midpoint in the handling of a pandemic .
“ Celebrating bending the curve is celebrating where you are at halftime — you have not finished , ” Slutkin said .
“ You have gotten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and if you just stay there , you may stay with that number of deaths and don ’ t drop , so you continue to have infections spread , disease , and death .

With the pandemic continuing to rage across the U.S. and around the world, the country’s hardest-hit areas are starting to open up.
And while few can say how or where the next outbreak will occur, many epidemiologists remain grim. At a news conference on Tuesday, Dr. Anthony Fauci described the disease as his “worst nightmare.”
“Oh my goodness,” he said. “Where is it going to end? We’re still at the beginning of really understanding.”
With much about the disease still unknown, the outcome of the next few months could range from benign to catastrophic. While some broad contours of how the disease behaves have become clear, nobody knows for sure what will happen.
Here are five factors that epidemiologists TPM spoke with are watching for to get a sense of what the next months have in store.
Post-opening spikes
The biggest — and most obvious — factor will be the presence and size of spikes in infection rates in communities that have reopened. Epidemiologists and public health officials look to hospitalization rates, with the idea being that it takes roughly two weeks for the virus to incubate, spread, and infect people seriously enough to require a hospital stay.
The country has gotten an early look at what this might mean with new data suggesting that COVID-19 hospitalizations have risen sharply in the two weeks following Memorial Day.
Dr. Susan Hassig, a Tulane epidemiologist, told TPM that states like Arizona and Florida have been seeing “a continual upward direction in terms of cases.”
“We’re two weeks after Memorial Day, and we were very worried about what impact it would have on case occurrence, particularly in the New Orleans metro area, because traditionally people go relax, party, and have crawfish boils,” she said, adding that in Louisiana’s, so far, the numbers do not seem as concerning.
“We saw evidence that people engaged in those activities — we’ve seen a little bit of an increase, but nothing that would be dramatic,” she addd.
Going forward, the question will not only be whether similar spikes continue to occur around the country, but how severe they are.
Discerning where the contagion began
Observing an uptick in cases is only the first step towards addressing an outbreak.
What’s important, Hassig said, is being able to determine how it began. That can become a telling indicator of how many people may have initially been exposed, and add to our understand of how the disease spreads.
The protests have sparked questions about whether they will serve as vectors for future outbreaks. NBC news reported on Tuesday that an unspecified number members of Washington, D.C.’s National Guard had tested positive for the virus.
“It’s going to be a complicated analysis to really discern the various factors at play here, because in many locations you have both things occurring at the same time: protests and also reopening,” Josh Michaud, Associate Director for Global Health at the Kaiser Family Foundation told TPM.
He added that tracking the illness by who comes down with it could help give clues about how an outbreak began.
“If you see an increase in cases among prisoners, nursing homes, two weeks after protests, it’s unlikely that those populations participated,” Michaud said. “But it’s going to be difficult to get really good data on this, and it may be that there’s so much intermingling of these two factors that it may be nearly impossible to determine.”
How quickly can we contact trace?
The time it takes to track the origin of an outbreak is a major factor in determining how bad an outbreak may be.
Contact tracers will need to track the contacts of infected people until they can reach the index case: the first person to contract the disease in a given outbreak.
“The longer it takes for you to get to that index case and the folks they’ve exposed, and then reach out to those people and get them into quarantine, the more time there is for that transmission to go on and to infect additional people,” Dr. Lamar Hasbrouck, a former CDC epidemiologist and former Director of the Illinois Department of Health, told TPM. “Its a matter of, can you quell the transmission or will you let it run out of control like a wildfire.”
New York City is in the process of hiring 2,500 contact tracers in an effort to pin down the history and social interactions of people recently infected.
The longer it takes for contact tracers to do that, the more likely it is that people who may have been infected will spread the disease to others.
“The concern is that we’re potentially launching an unknown number of infection chains that will progress through whatever connections and networks those individuals have in work and their social lives,” Hassig said, adding that “it might be a couple of cycles of infection” before the contacts of infected people are fully traced.
Capacity
With the country reopening, increased infection rates only tell half of the story.
The other half has to do with capacity in terms of hospital beds and ICU rooms.
In Arizona, for example, cases have been increasing steadily, to the point where the state’s health-care system is beginning to sound the alarm.
Last week, the CEO of Banner Health, a hospital chain with a large presence in Arizona, said that the system’s ICU beds were nearing capacity.
Hasbrouck pointed out that increased testing in recent weeks has yielded more cases that were already out there, but few localized instances where hospitals have been overwhelmed.
“We know 80–90 percent of folks that have the disease never make into the ICU because their symptoms are mild enough to mange,” Hasbrouck said, adding that looking at the case count combined with local ICU bed and ventilator usage provides a more accurate way of seeing the stress that the disease is placing on the system.
The words we use
The biggest factor, epidemiologists said, is national messaging, and the extent to which it is in line with data.
With incorrect messaging and incomplete data, even the best-intentioned public health responses are likely to founder.
“What concerns me is probably the deemphasis on the precautions that need to continue even though we’re reopening,” Hasbrouck said. “We don’t want the public to think that because we’re opening up, everything is okay.”
“It’s horrible. It’s lethal,” said Gary Slutkin, a former WHO epidemiologist. “If you start to believe that things are fine and not really a problem here, you’re less likely to be wearing a mask and social distancing, so it’s catastrophic for the right public health practice.”
To Slutkin, the country’s plan for handling the pandemic has been ill-conceived on a fundamental level for months.
“Opening up is the wrong goal,” Slutkin argued, adding that the government had made several mistakes in its messaging. “When you’re really working an epidemic correctly, the goal is stopping its spread and having very few cases.”
The first was setting “flattening the curve” as a final goal, while it really marks a midpoint in the handling of a pandemic.
“Celebrating bending the curve is celebrating where you are at halftime — you have not finished,” Slutkin said. “You have gotten to a halfway point at best, and if you just stay there, you may stay with that number of deaths and don’t drop, so you continue to have infections spread, disease, and death.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-06-10--NASCAR Bans Confederate Flags At Its Events And Properties

NASCAR has banned the Confederate flag from its races and properties .
NASCAR says Wednesday the Confederate flag “ runs @ @ @ @ @ providing a welcoming and inclusive environment for all fans , our competitors and our industry.
@ @ @ @ @ ’ s lone black driver , called this week for the banishment of the Confederate @ @ @ @ @ “ no place ” for them in the sport .
Wallace asked the stock car @ @ @ @ @ the South to formally distance itself from what for millions is a symbol of slavery @ @ @ @ @ Brian France in 2015 tried to ban the flying of Confederate flags at race tracks @ @ @ @ @ to enforce and one that angered NASCAR ’ s core Southern-based fan base .
The @ @ @ @ @ night ’ s race at Martinsville Speedway .
Wallace was set to drive a Chevrolet @ @ @ @ @ scheme .

NASCAR has banned the Confederate flag from its races and properties.
NASCAR says Wednesday the Confederate flag “runs contrary to our commitment to providing a welcoming and inclusive environment for all fans, our competitors and our industry.”
Bubba Wallace, NASCAR’s lone black driver, called this week for the banishment of the Confederate flag and said there was “no place” for them in the sport. Wallace asked the stock car series with deep ties to the South to formally distance itself from what for millions is a symbol of slavery and racism.
At long last, NASCAR obliged.
Former chairman Brian France in 2015 tried to ban the flying of Confederate flags at race tracks, a proposal too broad to enforce and one that angered NASCAR’s core Southern-based fan base.
The move was announced before Wednesday night’s race at Martinsville Speedway. Wallace was set to drive a Chevrolet with a #BlackLivesMatter paint scheme.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-06-10--Trump Demands CNN Apologize For Poll, Taking ‘Unskewing’ Theory To The Extreme

President Donald Trump was so displeased with a recent CNN poll showing presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden beating him by nearly 15 points that he is now demanding that they retract it and apologize .
The letter sent to CNN President Jeff Zucker said that the poll was “ designed to mislead American voters through a biased questionnaire and skewed sampling , ” per CNN .
It was signed by Trump campaign senior legal adviser Jenna Ellis and chief operating officer Michael Glassner .
“ It ’ s a stunt and a phony poll to cause voter suppression , stifle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and present a false view generally of the actual support across America for the President , ” it continued , asking for an apology and correction to clear up the poll ’ s “ misleading conclusions.
” “ To my knowledge , this is the first time in its 40 year history that CNN had been threatened with legal action because an American politician or campaign did not like CNN ’ s polling results , ” he wrote .
“ To the extent that we have received legal threats from political leaders in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from countries like Venezuela or other regimes where there is little or no respect for a free and independent media.
” He also bashed Trump ’ s new campaign pollster , John McLaughlin , citing his wildly wrong polling on former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor ’ s primary and C/D rating from FiveThirtyEight .
“ Your letter is factually and legally baseless , ” Vigilante concludes .
“ It is yet another bad faith attempt by the campaign to threaten litigation to muzzle speech it does not want voters to read or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rejected in their entirety.
” Much of the Trump campaign letter reportedly corresponded to a memo written by McLaughlin that hangs on the bogus theory of unskewing polls .
The idea , recycled by Republicans in every election cycle since at least 2012 , is that Republicans are being under-sampled in the polls , artificially inflating the results in favor of the Democratic candidate .
The movement ’ s founding father , Dean Chambers , trumpeted the theory during the 2012 campaign , when former President Barack Obama was consistently leading Mitt Romney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weighted by party identification — disregarding arguments that it ’ s a fungible metric , and that many voters change their identification from one election to the next — so he “ unskewed ” some national polls .
And all of a sudden , Romney started winning .
Chambers actually admitted that his methodology was wrong after Obama easily won reelection .
Still , it ’ s been resurrected periodically since .
McLaughlin is now claiming that the upset in 2016 was based on “ skewed ” polls ( it wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around are being manipulated to dampen voter enthusiasm for the President .
He even took umbrage at the fact that the poll was put into the field “ before the great economic news ” of a downtick in the joblessness rate on Friday .
Besides the fact that it isn ’ t pollsters ’ job to time their polls according to positive news for the President , the CNN poll was actually still in the field during the day Friday .
CNN is standing by its poll , which shows Trump lagging behind @ @ @ @ @ @ @

President Donald Trump was so displeased with a recent CNN poll showing presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden beating him by nearly 15 points that he is now demanding that they retract it and apologize.
The letter sent to CNN President Jeff Zucker said that the poll was “designed to mislead American voters through a biased questionnaire and skewed sampling,” per CNN. It was signed by Trump campaign senior legal adviser Jenna Ellis and chief operating officer Michael Glassner.
“It’s a stunt and a phony poll to cause voter suppression, stifle momentum and enthusiasm for the President, and present a false view generally of the actual support across America for the President,” it continued, asking for an apology and correction to clear up the poll’s “misleading conclusions.”
CNN’s general counsel David Vigilante was scathing in response.
“To my knowledge, this is the first time in its 40 year history that CNN had been threatened with legal action because an American politician or campaign did not like CNN’s polling results,” he wrote. “To the extent that we have received legal threats from political leaders in the past, they have typically come from countries like Venezuela or other regimes where there is little or no respect for a free and independent media.”
He also bashed Trump’s new campaign pollster, John McLaughlin, citing his wildly wrong polling on former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s primary and C/D rating from FiveThirtyEight.
“Your letter is factually and legally baseless,” Vigilante concludes. “It is yet another bad faith attempt by the campaign to threaten litigation to muzzle speech it does not want voters to read or hear. Your allegations and demands are rejected in their entirety.”
Much of the Trump campaign letter reportedly corresponded to a memo written by McLaughlin that hangs on the bogus theory of unskewing polls.
The idea, recycled by Republicans in every election cycle since at least 2012, is that Republicans are being under-sampled in the polls, artificially inflating the results in favor of the Democratic candidate.
The movement’s founding father, Dean Chambers, trumpeted the theory during the 2012 campaign, when former President Barack Obama was consistently leading Mitt Romney. Chambers decided that polls should be weighted by party identification — disregarding arguments that it’s a fungible metric, and that many voters change their identification from one election to the next — so he “unskewed” some national polls. And all of a sudden, Romney started winning.
Chambers actually admitted that his methodology was wrong after Obama easily won reelection. Still, it’s been resurrected periodically since.
McLaughlin is now claiming that the upset in 2016 was based on “skewed” polls (it wasn’t) and that the polls this time around are being manipulated to dampen voter enthusiasm for the President. He even took umbrage at the fact that the poll was put into the field “before the great economic news” of a downtick in the joblessness rate on Friday. Besides the fact that it isn’t pollsters’ job to time their polls according to positive news for the President, the CNN poll was actually still in the field during the day Friday.
CNN is standing by its poll, which shows Trump lagging behind Biden at 41 percent to 55.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-06-10--Trump Will ‘Not Even Consider’ Changing Bases Named After Confederate Generals

Two days after the Army opened the door to potentially changing the names of installations named after Confederate generals , President Donald Trump slammed it shut — citing the “ Great American Heritage ” of the bases that honor the rebel cause .
The bases , he said on Twitter , were “ Monumental and very Powerful ” and contained a “ history of Winning , Victory , and Freedom.
” The President was referring to the 10 Army bases that were named after Confederate generals in the early 20th century , beginning after America declared war on Germany and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and house troops stateside .
An Army spokesperson told Politico Monday that Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy were “ open to a bipartisan discussion on the topic ” of renaming bases .
The police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis , and the subsequent nationwide protests against police brutality , appear to have influenced the announcement : Events of the past two weeks “ made us start looking more at ourselves and the things that we do and how that is communicated to the force as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Col. Sunset Belinsky , said in a statement .
The Army added that each of its installations was “ named for a soldier who holds a significant place in our military history ” and that “ the historic names represent individuals , not causes or ideologies.
” The possibility of changing the bases named after Confederate generals is a reversal from just four months ago , when an Army spokesperson told Task & Purpose that there were “ no plans to rename any street or installation , including those named for Confederate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brutality in the wake of Floyd ’ s death have shifted the debate around the symbolism of the Confederacy and the white supremacist ideas it represented : Nationwide , monuments to the rebel side have been toppled by protesters and removed by colleges and public officials .
This week , the Navy followed the Marine Corps ’ lead in announcing a ban on public displays of the Confederate flag .
Last week , Alabama ’ s attorney general sued the city of Birmingham for violating the 2017 “ Alabama Monuments Preservation Act ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — after Mayor Randall Woodfin ordered the removal of a confederate statue from a park .
Another lawsuit currently prevents Virginia Gov .
Ralph Northam ( D ) from removing a statue of Robert E. Lee on Richmond ’ s well-known “ Monument Avenue.
” Trump is likely not alone in his defense of the Confederate-named Army installations , according to new polling from Politico and Morning Consult .
Asked a related question — what should be done with statues of Confederate leaders — the survey showed that while opinions had shifted in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still believed the statues should remain standing .

Two days after the Army opened the door to potentially changing the names of installations named after Confederate generals, President Donald Trump slammed it shut — citing the “Great American Heritage” of the bases that honor the rebel cause.
The bases, he said on Twitter, were “Monumental and very Powerful” and contained a “history of Winning, Victory, and Freedom.”
It has been suggested that we should rename as many as 10 of our Legendary Military Bases, such as Fort Bragg in North Carolina, Fort Hood in Texas, Fort Benning in Georgia, etc. These Monumental and very Powerful Bases have become part of a Great American Heritage, and a… — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 10, 2020
…Our history as the Greatest Nation in the World will not be tampered with. Respect our Military! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 10, 2020
The President was referring to the 10 Army bases that were named after Confederate generals in the early 20th century, beginning after America declared war on Germany and the military needed more capacity to train and house troops stateside.
An Army spokesperson told Politico Monday that Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy were “open to a bipartisan discussion on the topic” of renaming bases.
The police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, and the subsequent nationwide protests against police brutality, appear to have influenced the announcement: Events of the past two weeks “made us start looking more at ourselves and the things that we do and how that is communicated to the force as well as the American public,” the spokesperson, Col. Sunset Belinsky, said in a statement.
The Army added that each of its installations was “named for a soldier who holds a significant place in our military history” and that “the historic names represent individuals, not causes or ideologies.”
The possibility of changing the bases named after Confederate generals is a reversal from just four months ago, when an Army spokesperson told Task & Purpose that there were “no plans to rename any street or installation, including those named for Confederate generals.”
Protests against racism and police brutality in the wake of Floyd’s death have shifted the debate around the symbolism of the Confederacy and the white supremacist ideas it represented: Nationwide, monuments to the rebel side have been toppled by protesters and removed by colleges and public officials. This week, the Navy followed the Marine Corps’ lead in announcing a ban on public displays of the Confederate flag.
Last week, Alabama’s attorney general sued the city of Birmingham for violating the 2017 “Alabama Monuments Preservation Act” — the second time in four years — after Mayor Randall Woodfin ordered the removal of a confederate statue from a park. Another lawsuit currently prevents Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) from removing a statue of Robert E. Lee on Richmond’s well-known “Monument Avenue.”
Trump is likely not alone in his defense of the Confederate-named Army installations, according to new polling from Politico and Morning Consult. Asked a related question — what should be done with statues of Confederate leaders — the survey showed that while opinions had shifted in recent years, a plurality of respondents still believed the statues should remain standing.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-06-10--CBS: Floyd And Chauvin Argued While Working Together At Club, Says Ex-Coworker

George Floyd and then-Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin — who has been charged with second-degree murder in Floyd ’ s death for kneeling on his neck during an arrest — clashed with each other when they worked security together at a nightclub , according to their former coworker .
David Pinney , who worked at the El Nuevo Rodeo nightclub with Floyd and Chauvin , told CBS News reporter Jeff Pegues in a pre-taped interview on Wednesday that the two men had “ bumped heads ” at work before the incident .
“ It has a lot to do with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with some of the patrons , which was an issue , ” Pinney said .
CBS ’ Pegues also reported that the coworker had described Chauvin as “ aggressive toward minority customers.
” Chauvin would reportedly lash out at Floyd over payment too , according to Pinney .
The club employee stated that Floyd was the one who handed the paychecks to Chauvin , who blamed Floyd for supposedly being underpaid .
Pinney said he had “ no doubt ” Chauvin knew he was kneeling on the neck of one of his coworkers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who George was , ” Pinney said .
Maya Santamaria , the owner of the club , also told CBS she believed Chauvin was “ afraid and intimidated ” by black people .

George Floyd and then-Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin — who has been charged with second-degree murder in Floyd’s death for kneeling on his neck during an arrest — clashed with each other when they worked security together at a nightclub, according to their former coworker.
David Pinney, who worked at the El Nuevo Rodeo nightclub with Floyd and Chauvin, told CBS News reporter Jeff Pegues in a pre-taped interview on Wednesday that the two men had “bumped heads” at work before the incident.
“It has a lot to do with Derek being extremely aggressive within the club with some of the patrons, which was an issue,” Pinney said. CBS’ Pegues also reported that the coworker had described Chauvin as “aggressive toward minority customers.”
Chauvin would reportedly lash out at Floyd over payment too, according to Pinney.
The club employee stated that Floyd was the one who handed the paychecks to Chauvin, who blamed Floyd for supposedly being underpaid.
Pinney said he had “no doubt” Chauvin knew he was kneeling on the neck of one of his coworkers that day.
“He knew exactly who George was,” Pinney said.
Maya Santamaria, the owner of the club, also told CBS she believed Chauvin was “afraid and intimidated” by black people.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-06-10--Ex-Judge Tears Into Flynn’s ‘Self-serving Gamesmanship’

Amid his blistering criticism of the Justice Department ’ s recent conduct in the Michael Flynn case , an ex-judge appointed by the court also tore into Flynn ’ s tactics in the proceedings .
John Gleeson , who was appointed by U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan as a friend of the court , said Flynn had engaged in “ self-serving gamesmanship ” that challenged the “ integrity of the judicial system.
” Flynn , President Trump ’ s former National Security Advisor , pleaded guilty in December 2017 to lying to the FBI , and twice affirmed that guilty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked to withdraw that plea , while the Justice Department last month reversed its position in the case and asked for its dismissal .
While tasking Gleeson with opposing the DOJ dismissal request , Sullivan also asked for briefing on whether the court should move forward with contempt proceedings on the allegation that Flynn committed perjury .
Gleeson argued that Flynn did commit perjury and does deserve punishment .
But instead of holding him in contempt , Gleeson recommended to Sullivan that he wrap that punishment into the ultimate sentence he hands down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gleeson ripped Flynn for the reason he is now giving for why he should be allowed to withdraw his plea .
“ As Flynn admits , he elected to plead guilty before the Court and then reaffirmed his guilt in a separate court proceeding—testifying under oath in court not once , but twice that he had lied to the FBI , and that his plea was voluntary and not the product of threats of any kind—when he felt it was in his interest to do so because he expected he ‘ would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ It was only after he was taken ‘ completely by surprise ’ by the Court ’ s warning that he might face more serious consequences that Flynn.
” Gleeson called Flynn ’ s approach a “ brazen gamesmanship challenging the integrity of the judicial system.
” “ A defendant can not be permitted to abuse this solemn and careful process by opportunistically entering a plea , gauging the reaction of the court , and then , if dissatisfied with that reaction , falsely claiming that the initial plea was a lie—all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proceedings or escape a conviction , ” Gleeson argued .
He said the conduct “ derailed ” the proceedings and “ obstructed the Court in the performance of its duty.
” “ Such self-serving gamesmanship obstructs the administration of justice by vitiating the plea process and wasting courts ’ and prosecutors ’ time and resources , ” Gleeson said .
“ The Court has its own compelling interest , independent of the Executive branch , in ensuring that parties do not abuse and manipulate its essential functions.
” Gleeson tweaked Flynn for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his posture in the case .
“ While he describes himself now as a helpless ‘ fish-out-of water , ’ as a former National Security Advisor and three-star general advised by experienced and sophisticated counsel , he ranks among the savviest of criminal defendants to come before any court , ” Gleeson said .
He noted that Sullivan gave Flynn a second opportunity to affirm his plea , after Flynn had previously entered it in court in front of a different federal judge .
At the time , Sullivan also asked Flynn to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the advice of a separate counsel before recommitting to his guilty pleas .
( Six months after that proceeding , Flynn fired his attorneys — who he is now accusing of having a conflict of interest — and hired a legal team that took the more hostile approach to the case . )
Gleeson argued that the “ the law does not permit a defendant to disavow his guilty plea as a lie merely because he now fears he misjudged his possible sentence .
”

Amid his blistering criticism of the Justice Department’s recent conduct in the Michael Flynn case, an ex-judge appointed by the court also tore into Flynn’s tactics in the proceedings.
John Gleeson, who was appointed by U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan as a friend of the court, said Flynn had engaged in “self-serving gamesmanship” that challenged the “integrity of the judicial system.”
Flynn, President Trump’s former National Security Advisor, pleaded guilty in December 2017 to lying to the FBI, and twice affirmed that guilty plea in court. He has now asked to withdraw that plea, while the Justice Department last month reversed its position in the case and asked for its dismissal.
While tasking Gleeson with opposing the DOJ dismissal request, Sullivan also asked for briefing on whether the court should move forward with contempt proceedings on the allegation that Flynn committed perjury.
Gleeson argued that Flynn did commit perjury and does deserve punishment. But instead of holding him in contempt, Gleeson recommended to Sullivan that he wrap that punishment into the ultimate sentence he hands down for Flynn’s false statements.
Gleeson ripped Flynn for the reason he is now giving for why he should be allowed to withdraw his plea.
“As Flynn admits, he elected to plead guilty before the Court and then reaffirmed his guilt in a separate court proceeding—testifying under oath in court not once, but twice that he had lied to the FBI, and that his plea was voluntary and not the product of threats of any kind—when he felt it was in his interest to do so because he expected he ‘would be sentenced to probation,” Gleeson recounted. “It was only after he was taken ‘completely by surprise’ by the Court’s warning that he might face more serious consequences that Flynn.”
Gleeson called Flynn’s approach a “brazen gamesmanship challenging the integrity of the judicial system.”
“A defendant cannot be permitted to abuse this solemn and careful process by opportunistically entering a plea, gauging the reaction of the court, and then, if dissatisfied with that reaction, falsely claiming that the initial plea was a lie—all in an attempt to require further court proceedings or escape a conviction,” Gleeson argued.
He said the conduct “derailed” the proceedings and “obstructed the Court in the performance of its duty.”
“Such self-serving gamesmanship obstructs the administration of justice by vitiating the plea process and wasting courts’ and prosecutors’ time and resources,” Gleeson said. “The Court has its own compelling interest, independent of the Executive branch, in ensuring that parties do not abuse and manipulate its essential functions.”
Gleeson tweaked Flynn for the excuses Flynn is now giving for reversing his posture in the case.
“While he describes himself now as a helpless ‘fish-out-of water,’ as a former National Security Advisor and three-star general advised by experienced and sophisticated counsel, he ranks among the savviest of criminal defendants to come before any court,” Gleeson said.
He noted that Sullivan gave Flynn a second opportunity to affirm his plea, after Flynn had previously entered it in court in front of a different federal judge. At the time, Sullivan also asked Flynn to affirm he did not want to seek the advice of a separate counsel before recommitting to his guilty pleas. (Six months after that proceeding, Flynn fired his attorneys — who he is now accusing of having a conflict of interest — and hired a legal team that took the more hostile approach to the case.)
Gleeson argued that the “the law does not permit a defendant to disavow his guilty plea as a lie merely because he now fears he misjudged his possible sentence.”
Read the filing below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-06-10--Minneapolis Police Chief Withdraws Dept From Union Contract Negotiations

Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo announced on Wednesday the immediate withdrawal of his force from contract negotiations with the police union .
The chief said at a press conference on Wednesday that his department ’ s contract with the Police Officers Federation demanded restructuring to provide the transparency and “ flexibility needed for true reform.
” A review of the contract would look at issues such as critical incident protocols , use of force and disciplinary protocols , including for grievances and arbitration , he said .
“ This is not about officers ’ wages , bonuses or salaries , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision follows the proposal of a package of police reforms put forth by congressional Democrats on Monday and the emotional testimony of George Floyd ’ s brother regarding the police killing of his brother by Minneapolis police to the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday .
In his view , the ties to a union that allows an officer to be back on the force and patrolling the streets impeded the ability of police chiefs to terminate officers with a record of misconduct .
The police chief also proposed the use of real-time data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by officers so that supervisors could intervene more quickly .
The reforms Arradondo announced , symbolize a fresh wave of efforts from officers within his force to transform the relationship between people of color and the police amid global anti-racism and police brutality protests .
Arradondo — a black officer raised in the city he now is charged with protecting — lamented that the issue of race has long plagued the profession of law enforcement .
“ Communities of color have paid the heaviest of costs , ” Arradondo said , “ and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a tweet on Wednesday following Arradondo ’ s remarks , Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey , applauded Arradondo ’ s decision .

Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo announced on Wednesday the immediate withdrawal of his force from contract negotiations with the police union.
The chief said at a press conference on Wednesday that his department’s contract with the Police Officers Federation demanded restructuring to provide the transparency and “flexibility needed for true reform.” A review of the contract would look at issues such as critical incident protocols, use of force and disciplinary protocols, including for grievances and arbitration, he said.
“This is not about officers’ wages, bonuses or salaries,” Arradondo said.
Arradondo’s decision follows the proposal of a package of police reforms put forth by congressional Democrats on Monday and the emotional testimony of George Floyd’s brother regarding the police killing of his brother by Minneapolis police to the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.
In his view, the ties to a union that allows an officer to be back on the force and patrolling the streets impeded the ability of police chiefs to terminate officers with a record of misconduct.
The police chief also proposed the use of real-time data that could alert supervisors to problematic behavior by officers so that supervisors could intervene more quickly.
The reforms Arradondo announced, symbolize a fresh wave of efforts from officers within his force to transform the relationship between people of color and the police amid global anti-racism and police brutality protests.
Arradondo — a black officer raised in the city he now is charged with protecting — lamented that the issue of race has long plagued the profession of law enforcement.
“Communities of color have paid the heaviest of costs,” Arradondo said, “and that is with their lives.”
In a tweet on Wednesday following Arradondo’s remarks, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, applauded Arradondo’s decision.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-06-11--Trump Claims He Wanted To ‘Dominate The Streets’ By Using ‘Force With Compassion’

President Trump has a new defense regarding his demand earlier this month for governors to “ dominate ” protesters by activating the National Guard to quell the violence that emerged during protests in the wake of George Floyd ’ s death .
During a roundtable at Gateway Church in Dallas on Thursday afternoon — which included faith leaders , law enforcement officials and small business owners — Trump said that his administration “ working to finalize an executive order ” that will encourage police departments nationwide to use “ force with compassion.
” The President then proceeded to defend his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Guard to “ dominate the streets ” earlier this month , claiming that he meant using “ force with compassion.
” “ But if you ’ re going to have to really do a job , if somebody ’ s really bad , you ’ re going to have to do it with real strength , real power , ” Trump said , before responding to the criticism over his incendiary remarks by ripping into “ what happened in New York City.
” “ The damage they ’ ve done — you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I was criticized for that statement , ” Trump said .
“ I made the statements with the ‘ dominate the street ’ and they said , ‘ oh that ’ s such a terrible thing.
’ Well , guess what ?
You know who dominated the streets ?
People that you don ’ t want to dominate the streets , look at the damage they did.
” Trump added that he ’ ll “ stick with that ” and thinks “ most ” people attending the roundtable will also do so out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person in this room will stick with that , and we ’ re doing it with compassion , ” Trump said .
“ If you think about it , we ’ re dominating the street with compassion because we ’ re saving lives , we ’ re saving businesses , we ’ re saving families from being wiped out after working hard for 20 and 30 years .
”

President Trump has a new defense regarding his demand earlier this month for governors to “dominate” protesters by activating the National Guard to quell the violence that emerged during protests in the wake of George Floyd’s death.
During a roundtable at Gateway Church in Dallas on Thursday afternoon — which included faith leaders, law enforcement officials and small business owners — Trump said that his administration “working to finalize an executive order” that will encourage police departments nationwide to use “force with compassion.”
The President then proceeded to defend his demand for governors to call in the National Guard to “dominate the streets” earlier this month, claiming that he meant using “force with compassion.”
“But if you’re going to have to really do a job, if somebody’s really bad, you’re going to have to do it with real strength, real power,” Trump said, before responding to the criticism over his incendiary remarks by ripping into “what happened in New York City.”
“The damage they’ve done — you have to dominate the streets. And I was criticized for that statement,” Trump said. “I made the statements with the ‘dominate the street’ and they said, ‘oh that’s such a terrible thing.’ Well, guess what? You know who dominated the streets? People that you don’t want to dominate the streets, look at the damage they did.”
Trump added that he’ll “stick with that” and thinks “most” people attending the roundtable will also do so out of “compassion.”
“Maybe every person in this room will stick with that, and we’re doing it with compassion,” Trump said. “If you think about it, we’re dominating the street with compassion because we’re saving lives, we’re saving businesses, we’re saving families from being wiped out after working hard for 20 and 30 years.”
Watch Trump’s remarks below: