talkingpointsmemo--2020-06-14--GOP Sen Breaks From Trump’s Refusal To Rename Bases Honoring Confederate Generals

Sen. James Lankford ( R-OK ) on Sunday said that he supports renaming military bases honoring Confederate generals , contradicting President Trump ’ s tweet last week that he will “ not even consider ” changing bases .
Lankford ’ s latest remarks come just a few days after the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to require the Pentagon to rename military bases and equipment with Confederate names , monuments or symbols within three years .
The Republican senator of Oklahoma was initially hesitant to throw his support behind renaming the bases when the Senate committee voted on Wednesday , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were named after Confederate generals to begin with .
“ A lot of those statues and monuments were put there to kind of declare , ‘ We ’ re not going to integrate , ’ ” Lankford said , according to the New York Times .
“ I think we should acknowledge that and , say , ‘ No , we are.
’ And for those that were digging in during the time of Jim Crow , they need to know that time has passed.
” However , Lankford expressed his support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generals during an interview on ABC on Sunday morning .
When asked by ABC News ’ George Stephanopolous about whether it ’ s time for said bases to be renamed , Lankford replied , “ I do , actually.
” “ And I think the right way to be able to do this is to be able to look at : where did the name come from , what do we need to have to be able to take a serious look at it , and then to be able to transition , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ there are lots of great leaders , military leaders ” nationwide who “ we can continue to be able to honor and continue to be able to put names forward.
” Lankford then sees the naming of military bases “ like schools.
” “ Every school has a name , and you want those children in that school to be able to learn about the founder of that school or that person that school is named after and to be able to have them as a role model , ” Lankford said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a military base as well .
So , if you have a military base that is named after someone that actually rebelled against the United States government , then you would want to be able to go back and look at that name .
That should be a pretty basic principle.
” Last week , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) urged the removal of 11 statues representing Confederate figures from the U.S. Capitol as efforts to take down monuments linked to racism grow in the wake of George Floyd ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issued just hours after Trump tweeted that he will “ not even consider ” changing bases named after Confederate generals , a stark contrast from Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy ’ s statement last week saying that they are “ open to a bipartisan discussion ” on renaming the bases .

Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) on Sunday said that he supports renaming military bases honoring Confederate generals, contradicting President Trump’s tweet last week that he will “not even consider” changing bases.
Lankford’s latest remarks come just a few days after the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to require the Pentagon to rename military bases and equipment with Confederate names, monuments or symbols within three years. The Republican senator of Oklahoma was initially hesitant to throw his support behind renaming the bases when the Senate committee voted on Wednesday, but emphasized the importance of discussing why they were named after Confederate generals to begin with.
“A lot of those statues and monuments were put there to kind of declare, ‘We’re not going to integrate,’” Lankford said, according to the New York Times. “I think we should acknowledge that and, say, ‘No, we are.’ And for those that were digging in during the time of Jim Crow, they need to know that time has passed.” However, Lankford expressed his support for renaming bases paying tribute to Confederate generals during an interview on ABC on Sunday morning.
When asked by ABC News’ George Stephanopolous about whether it’s time for said bases to be renamed, Lankford replied, “I do, actually.”
“And I think the right way to be able to do this is to be able to look at: where did the name come from, what do we need to have to be able to take a serious look at it, and then to be able to transition,” Lankford said.
Lankford added that “there are lots of great leaders, military leaders” nationwide who “we can continue to be able to honor and continue to be able to put names forward.”
Lankford then sees the naming of military bases “like schools.”
“Every school has a name, and you want those children in that school to be able to learn about the founder of that school or that person that school is named after and to be able to have them as a role model,” Lankford said. “You would have that on a military base as well. So, if you have a military base that is named after someone that actually rebelled against the United States government, then you would want to be able to go back and look at that name. That should be a pretty basic principle.”
Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) urged the removal of 11 statues representing Confederate figures from the U.S. Capitol as efforts to take down monuments linked to racism grow in the wake of George Floyd’s death.
Pelosi’s letter was issued just hours after Trump tweeted that he will “not even consider” changing bases named after Confederate generals, a stark contrast from Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy’s statement last week saying that they are “open to a bipartisan discussion” on renaming the bases.
Watch Lankford’s remarks below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-06-14--Atlanta Police Officer Fired, Chief Resigns After Fatal Shooting Of Black Man

ATLANTA ( AP ) — An Atlanta police officer was fired following the fatal shooting of a black man and another officer was placed on administrative duty , the police department announced early Sunday .
The moves follows the Saturday resignation of Atlanta Police Chief Erika Shields , who stepped down as the Friday night killing of Rayshard Brooks , 27 , sparked a new wave of protests in Atlanta after turbulent demonstrations following the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police had simmered down .
The terminated officer was identified as Garrett Rolfe , who was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officer placed on administrative duty is Devin Brosnan , who was hired in September 2018 , according to a release from police spokesperson Sgt .
John Chafee .
The police department also released body camera and dash camera footage from both officers .
More than 40 minutes elapses between the time Brosnan first knocks on Brooks ’ car door while he ’ s in Wendy ’ s drive-thru and when gunshots ring out ; Rolfe arrives on scene about 16 minutes in .
The shooting is audible in footage from Rolfe ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cameras , but wasn ’ t captured on any of the four recordings provided by police .
Both body cameras fall off during the struggle that ensues when Rolfe moves to handcuff Brooks after speaking to him for about 20 minutes , although Brooks is briefly glimpsed being Tased before he ’ s shot .
Protesters on Saturday night set fire to the Wendy ’ s restaurant where Brooks was fatally shot the night before and blocked traffic on a nearby highway .
The fire was out by 11:30 p.m. , but video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aflame around 4 a.m. Sunday .
Atlanta police said 36 people were arrested at protests as of midnight .
Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms announced the police chief ’ s resignation at a Saturday afternoon news conference , and had called for the immediate firing of the officer who opened fire .
“ I do not believe that this was a justified use of deadly force , ” Bottoms said .
She said it was Shields ’ own decision to step aside and that she would remain with the city in an undetermined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will serve as interim police chief .
The Georgia Bureau of Investigation , which is probing the shooting , said the deadly confrontation started with a complaint that a man was sleeping in a car blocking the restaurant ’ s drive-thru lane .
The GBI said Brooks failed a field sobriety test and then resisted officers ’ attempts to arrest him .
Rolfe is seen on body camera video administering the field sobriety test , followed by a Breathalyzer test with Brooks ’ permission .
He moves to arrest Brooks after the Breathalyzer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tell Brooks the result , the machine displays a 0.108 in video captured by Rolfe ’ s own body camera .
The GBI released security camera video of the shooting Saturday , which does not show Brooks ’ initial struggle with police .
The footage shows a man running from two white police officers as he raises a hand , which is holding an object , toward an officer a few steps behind him .
The officer draws his gun and fires as the man keeps running , then falls to the ground @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vic Reynolds said Brooks had grabbed a Taser from one officer and appeared to point it at the officer as he fled .
The officer fired an estimated three shots .
L. Chris Stewart , an attorney for Brooks ’ family , said the officer who shot him should be charged for “ an unjustified use of deadly force , which equals murder.
” “ You can ’ t have it both ways in law enforcement , ” Stewart said .
“ You can ’ t say a Taser is a nonlethal weapon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it and runs with it , now it ’ s some kind of deadly , lethal weapon that calls for you to unload on somebody.
” He said Brooks was a father of four and had celebrated a daughter ’ s eighth birthday Friday before he was killed .
The shooting came at a time of heightened tension over police brutality and calls for reforms across the U.S. following the May 25 death of Floyd in Minneapolis .
Demonstrators , including members of Brooks ’ family , gathered Saturday outside the restaurant where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was Crystal Brooks , who said she is Rayshard Brooks ’ sister-in-law .
“ He wasn ’ t causing anyone any harm , ” she said .
“ The police went up to the car and even though the car was parked they pulled him out of the car and started tussling with him.
” She added : “ He did grab the Taser , but he just grabbed the Taser and ran.
” Shields , Atlanta ’ s police chief for under four years , was initially praised in the days following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the officers involved should go to prison and told demonstrators she understood their frustrations and fears .
She appeared at Bottoms ’ side as the mayor made an impassioned plea for protesters to go home when things turned violent with smashed storefronts and police cruisers set ablaze .
Days later , Shields fired two officers and benched three others caught on video in a hostile confrontation with two college students whose car was stuck in traffic caused by protests .
The officers fired Tasers at the pair and dragged them from the vehicle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the officers involved , however , Shields openly questioned the charges .
The shooting of Brooks two weeks later raised further questions about the Atlanta department .
“ It is time for the city to move forward and build trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve , ” Shields said in a statement .
Reynolds said his agents will turn over results of their investigation to Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard , whose office will decide whether criminal charges are warranted against either officer .
Howard said Saturday his office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ independent investigation of the incident.
” Brooks died after being taken to an Atlanta hospital .
One of the officers was treated and released for unspecified injuries .

ATLANTA (AP) — An Atlanta police officer was fired following the fatal shooting of a black man and another officer was placed on administrative duty, the police department announced early Sunday.
The moves follows the Saturday resignation of Atlanta Police Chief Erika Shields, who stepped down as the Friday night killing of Rayshard Brooks, 27, sparked a new wave of protests in Atlanta after turbulent demonstrations following the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police had simmered down.
The terminated officer was identified as Garrett Rolfe, who was hired in October 2013, and the officer placed on administrative duty is Devin Brosnan, who was hired in September 2018, according to a release from police spokesperson Sgt. John Chafee.
The police department also released body camera and dash camera footage from both officers.
More than 40 minutes elapses between the time Brosnan first knocks on Brooks’ car door while he’s in Wendy’s drive-thru and when gunshots ring out; Rolfe arrives on scene about 16 minutes in. The shooting is audible in footage from Rolfe’s dash camera and both officers’ body cameras, but wasn’t captured on any of the four recordings provided by police. Both body cameras fall off during the struggle that ensues when Rolfe moves to handcuff Brooks after speaking to him for about 20 minutes, although Brooks is briefly glimpsed being Tased before he’s shot.
Protesters on Saturday night set fire to the Wendy’s restaurant where Brooks was fatally shot the night before and blocked traffic on a nearby highway. The fire was out by 11:30 p.m., but video from local news stations showed it again aflame around 4 a.m. Sunday. Atlanta police said 36 people were arrested at protests as of midnight.
Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms announced the police chief’s resignation at a Saturday afternoon news conference, and had called for the immediate firing of the officer who opened fire.
“I do not believe that this was a justified use of deadly force,” Bottoms said.
She said it was Shields’ own decision to step aside and that she would remain with the city in an undetermined role. Interim Corrections Chief Rodney Bryant will serve as interim police chief.
The Georgia Bureau of Investigation, which is probing the shooting, said the deadly confrontation started with a complaint that a man was sleeping in a car blocking the restaurant’s drive-thru lane. The GBI said Brooks failed a field sobriety test and then resisted officers’ attempts to arrest him.
Rolfe is seen on body camera video administering the field sobriety test, followed by a Breathalyzer test with Brooks’ permission. He moves to arrest Brooks after the Breathalyzer test; while he doesn’t tell Brooks the result, the machine displays a 0.108 in video captured by Rolfe’s own body camera.
The GBI released security camera video of the shooting Saturday, which does not show Brooks’ initial struggle with police. The footage shows a man running from two white police officers as he raises a hand, which is holding an object, toward an officer a few steps behind him. The officer draws his gun and fires as the man keeps running, then falls to the ground in the parking lot.
GBI Director Vic Reynolds said Brooks had grabbed a Taser from one officer and appeared to point it at the officer as he fled. The officer fired an estimated three shots.
L. Chris Stewart, an attorney for Brooks’ family, said the officer who shot him should be charged for “an unjustified use of deadly force, which equals murder.”
“You can’t have it both ways in law enforcement,” Stewart said. “You can’t say a Taser is a nonlethal weapon … but when an African American grabs it and runs with it, now it’s some kind of deadly, lethal weapon that calls for you to unload on somebody.”
He said Brooks was a father of four and had celebrated a daughter’s eighth birthday Friday before he was killed.
The shooting came at a time of heightened tension over police brutality and calls for reforms across the U.S. following the May 25 death of Floyd in Minneapolis.
Demonstrators, including members of Brooks’ family, gathered Saturday outside the restaurant where he was shot.
Among those protesting was Crystal Brooks, who said she is Rayshard Brooks’ sister-in-law.
“He wasn’t causing anyone any harm,” she said. “The police went up to the car and even though the car was parked they pulled him out of the car and started tussling with him.”
She added: “He did grab the Taser, but he just grabbed the Taser and ran.”
Shields, Atlanta’s police chief for under four years, was initially praised in the days following Floyd’s death. She said the officers involved should go to prison and told demonstrators she understood their frustrations and fears. She appeared at Bottoms’ side as the mayor made an impassioned plea for protesters to go home when things turned violent with smashed storefronts and police cruisers set ablaze.
Days later, Shields fired two officers and benched three others caught on video in a hostile confrontation with two college students whose car was stuck in traffic caused by protests. The officers fired Tasers at the pair and dragged them from the vehicle. When prosecutors later charged six of the officers involved, however, Shields openly questioned the charges.
The shooting of Brooks two weeks later raised further questions about the Atlanta department.
“It is time for the city to move forward and build trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve,” Shields said in a statement.
Reynolds said his agents will turn over results of their investigation to Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard, whose office will decide whether criminal charges are warranted against either officer.
Howard said Saturday his office “has already launched an intense, independent investigation of the incident.”
Brooks died after being taken to an Atlanta hospital. One of the officers was treated and released for unspecified injuries.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-06-14--Kudlow: Extra $600 In Unemployment Checks Amid COVID-19 Pandemic Are ‘A Disincentive’

White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow called the extra $ 600 per week in unemployment checks as part of coronavirus relief efforts “ a disincentive ” during an interview on CNN Sunday morning .
Asked by CNN ’ s Jake Tapper about whether unemployment benefits stemming from coronavirus relief efforts will stop in August , Kudlow denied that ’ s the case before adding that the extra $ 600 per week currently given to those who filed for unemployment “ may stop ” because it ’ s “ a disincentive.
” “ The $ 600 plus-up that ’ s above @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue to receive is , in effect , a disincentive , ” Kudlow said .
“ I mean we ’ re paying people not to work , it ’ s better than their salaries would get .
And that might have worked for the first couple of months .
It ’ ll end in late July.
” Kudlow said that President Trump is “ looking at a reform measure ” to provide “ some kind of bonus for returning to work.
” “ So , we want people to go back to work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back to work , ” Kudlow said .
“ That was in the job figures .
Unemployment insurance , the weekly numbers , Jake , falling 10 consecutive weeks .
So , I think we are on our way .
We are reopening , and businesses are coming back .
And , therefore , the jobs are coming back .
And we don ’ t want to interfere with that process.
” Pressed again on his remark that the $ 600 extra a week in unemployment checks is a “ disincentive , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to go back to work .
“ And I think they welcome the reopening of the economy .
And I think they ’ re anxious to get out and about , ” Kudlow said .
“ However , at the margin , incentives do matter .
And so we have heard from business after business , industry after industry , and there ’ s already some evidence that this effect is taking place .
”

White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow called the extra $600 per week in unemployment checks as part of coronavirus relief efforts “a disincentive” during an interview on CNN Sunday morning.
Asked by CNN’s Jake Tapper about whether unemployment benefits stemming from coronavirus relief efforts will stop in August, Kudlow denied that’s the case before adding that the extra $600 per week currently given to those who filed for unemployment “may stop” because it’s “a disincentive.”
“The $600 plus-up that’s above the state unemployment benefits that they will continue to receive is, in effect, a disincentive,” Kudlow said. “I mean we’re paying people not to work, it’s better than their salaries would get. And that might have worked for the first couple of months. It’ll end in late July.”
Kudlow said that President Trump is “looking at a reform measure” to provide “some kind of bonus for returning to work.”
“So, we want people to go back to work. Temporary layoffs and furloughs can go back to work,” Kudlow said. “That was in the job figures. Unemployment insurance, the weekly numbers, Jake, falling 10 consecutive weeks. So, I think we are on our way. We are reopening, and businesses are coming back. And, therefore, the jobs are coming back. And we don’t want to interfere with that process.”
Pressed again on his remark that the $600 extra a week in unemployment checks is a “disincentive,” Kudlow said he agrees that people want to go back to work.
“And I think they welcome the reopening of the economy. And I think they’re anxious to get out and about,” Kudlow said. “However, at the margin, incentives do matter. And so we have heard from business after business, industry after industry, and there’s already some evidence that this effect is taking place.”
Watch Kudlow’s remarks below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-06-14--CA AG Asked To Conduct Independent Probe Of Black Man Found Hanging From Tree

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is being asked to respond to growing calls for an independent investigation into the death of a young black man found hanging from a tree near Palmdale City Hall .
On Saturday , Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger formally requested that Becerra conduct an independent investigation into the death of 24-year-old Robert Fuller , who was found hanging outside Palmdale City Hall early Wednesday .
In a statement , Barger wrote that Becerra “ will lend additional expertise and oversight into this important investigation and provide the community with the answers they deserve.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collective efforts will help to support those struggling and grieving surrounding the circumstances of this tragedy , ” Barger wrote in the statement .
Barger ’ s request comes on the heels of thousands of protesters in Palmdale gathering on Saturday to mourn Fuller ’ s death , which has roiled the Antelope Valley north of Los Angeles amid investigators reviewing whether his death was a suicide or if foul play was involved .
Fuller ’ s death also comes weeks after protests in the wake of George Floyd ’ s death .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ suicide , they walked back that statement and ordered an autopsy .
Lt. Kelly Yagerlener of the Los Angeles County medical examiner-coroner ’ s office said on Friday that a decision on the cause of Fuller ’ s death has not been determined and that a full autopsy is planned .
According to the Los Angeles Times , Lt. Derrick Ballentine addressed protesters in the courtyard behind Palmdale ’ s City Hall on Saturday , saying that homicide detectives are still investigating Fuller ’ s death and that he has no problem with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mentioned that ’ s not his call .
The LA Times reported that Diamond Alexander , Fuller ’ s sister , addressed protesters on Saturday as well , saying that “ we want to find out the truth on what really happened.
” “ Everything they told us is not right , ” Alexander said , according to the LA Times .
“ We just want the truth .
My brother was not suicidal .
He was a survivor .
He was street smart .
”

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is being asked to respond to growing calls for an independent investigation into the death of a young black man found hanging from a tree near Palmdale City Hall.
On Saturday, Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger formally requested that Becerra conduct an independent investigation into the death of 24-year-old Robert Fuller, who was found hanging outside Palmdale City Hall early Wednesday. In a statement, Barger wrote that Becerra “will lend additional expertise and oversight into this important investigation and provide the community with the answers they deserve.”
“It is my hope that our collective efforts will help to support those struggling and grieving surrounding the circumstances of this tragedy,” Barger wrote in the statement.
Barger’s request comes on the heels of thousands of protesters in Palmdale gathering on Saturday to mourn Fuller’s death, which has roiled the Antelope Valley north of Los Angeles amid investigators reviewing whether his death was a suicide or if foul play was involved. Fuller’s death also comes weeks after protests in the wake of George Floyd’s death.
Although authorities initially suspected that Fuller committed suicide, they walked back that statement and ordered an autopsy.
Lt. Kelly Yagerlener of the Los Angeles County medical examiner-coroner’s office said on Friday that a decision on the cause of Fuller’s death has not been determined and that a full autopsy is planned.
According to the Los Angeles Times, Lt. Derrick Ballentine addressed protesters in the courtyard behind Palmdale’s City Hall on Saturday, saying that homicide detectives are still investigating Fuller’s death and that he has no problem with an independent probe. However, Ballentine mentioned that’s not his call.
The LA Times reported that Diamond Alexander, Fuller’s sister, addressed protesters on Saturday as well, saying that “we want to find out the truth on what really happened.”
“Everything they told us is not right,” Alexander said, according to the LA Times. “We just want the truth. My brother was not suicidal. He was a survivor. He was street smart.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-06-15--Kudlow Finds It ‘Hard To Understand’ Systemic Racism Because White People Voted For Obama

White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow doubled down on his denial that systemic racism exists by mentioning former President Barack Obama ’ s two-term presidency , during an interview on CNBC Monday .
Last week , Kudlow told reporters at the White House that he “ does not believe there is systemic racism in the U.S. ” when asked about the country ’ s black unemployment rate .
According to the Labor Department , black unemployment in the U.S. went from a record low of 5.8 % in February to 16.8 % in May amid the COVID-19 pandemic .
Kudlow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the heels of several Trump administration officials — which include White House National Security Adviser Robert O ’ Brien , acting Homeland Security Sec .
Chad Wolf , Attorney General Bill Barr , and Housing and Urban Development Sec .
Ben Carson — expressing the same view recently as protests against police brutality mounted in the wake of George Floyd ’ s death .
On Monday afternoon , Kudlow echoed his denial on CNBC when pressed on economic data showing how racial inequality has been exacerbated as a result of the COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t believe in systemic racism , ” Kudlow said .
“ I think the American system is the best system ever devised for mankind , for history .
We are liberty , we are equality , we are fairness , we have come a long way in this country.
” Kudlow said that although “ there are some people who may be racist ” and that there are “ some bad apples ” in police forces , he believes that “ folks have good hearts in this country ” and that they “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discrimination.
” Kudlow then attempted to bolster his argument by mentioning how Obama gained the support of white voters .
“ Here ’ s a thought : President Obama , the first black president , was elected twice , and he got 79 million white votes — 79 million in two elections , ” Kudlow said .
“ Now therefore I find it hard to understand something called ‘ systemic racism.
’ ” Kudlow added that he “ absolutely ” thinks that changes can be made and that the President will issue an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reform .

White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow doubled down on his denial that systemic racism exists by mentioning former President Barack Obama’s two-term presidency, during an interview on CNBC Monday.
Last week, Kudlow told reporters at the White House that he “does not believe there is systemic racism in the U.S.” when asked about the country’s black unemployment rate. According to the Labor Department, black unemployment in the U.S. went from a record low of 5.8% in February to 16.8% in May amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
Kudlow’s denial of systemic racism came on the heels of several Trump administration officials — which include White House National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien, acting Homeland Security Sec. Chad Wolf, Attorney General Bill Barr, and Housing and Urban Development Sec. Ben Carson — expressing the same view recently as protests against police brutality mounted in the wake of George Floyd’s death.
On Monday afternoon, Kudlow echoed his denial on CNBC when pressed on economic data showing how racial inequality has been exacerbated as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“Well I don’t believe in systemic racism,” Kudlow said. “I think the American system is the best system ever devised for mankind, for history. We are liberty, we are equality, we are fairness, we have come a long way in this country.”
Kudlow said that although “there are some people who may be racist” and that there are “some bad apples” in police forces, he believes that “folks have good hearts in this country” and that they “do not work in the basis of discrimination.”
Kudlow then attempted to bolster his argument by mentioning how Obama gained the support of white voters.
“Here’s a thought: President Obama, the first black president, was elected twice, and he got 79 million white votes — 79 million in two elections,” Kudlow said. “Now therefore I find it hard to understand something called ‘systemic racism.’”
Kudlow added that he “absolutely” thinks that changes can be made and that the President will issue an executive order “soon” on police reform.
Watch Kudlow’s remarks below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-06-15--Why Gorsuch’s Role In Pro-LGBT Ruling Cuts Conservatives So Deep

When conservative groups spent millions of dollars to keep Justice Antonin Scalia ’ s Supreme Court vacant until a GOP president could fill it , Monday ’ s sweeping pro-LGBT ruling was just the kind of opinion they were trying to prevent .
The blockbuster opinion was written no less by Justice Neil Gorsuch , whose presence on the court was made possible by the Faustian bargain social conservatives made in electing Donald Trump .
As a candidate , Trump promised that he ’ d nominate the type of judges that they ’ d be happy with .
To make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a list of potential Scalia replacements that quickly got the approval of the Heritage Foundation and other influential conservative voices .
The Trump campaign ’ s approach was effective and it may be what ultimately put his longshot campaign over the edge .
The one-in-five voters who in exit polls said that the Supreme Court was the issue most important to them broke decidedly in Trump ’ s favor .
Gorsuch ’ s name was on the second iteration of the SCOTUS shortlist released in Sept. 2016 .
Once he was confirmed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ became the refrain among conservatives to wipe away all sorts of Trump misdeeds ; a stress ball with Gorsuch ’ s face and that slogan was even handed out at a 2017 Federalist Society event .
On Monday , the 52-year-old crossed the forces that helped put him on the bench by authoring a majority opinion that gave the LGBT rights movement a seminal court victory .
In an opinion backed by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court ’ s four liberals , Gorsuch said that 1964 Civil Rights Act ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discrimination against LGBT employees .
“ When we ’ ve gone so all-in on Trump and expected rulings that would leave religious conservatives pacified or pleased , this is egg on their face , ” Andrew T. Walker , professor at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary , told TPM .
“ You spend all this time telling yourself you can justify voting for someone who is tremendously flawed to get these great judges and get this utter failure of a ruling.
” Walker , who once considered himself a never-Trumper , has since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to his religious convictions .
To add insult to injury , Gorsuch framed his approach as growing out of the textualist tradition championed by the justice he replaced — a tradition in which courts set aside the intents of a statute ’ s drafters to look squarely at what the text of law itself says .
The invocation prompted an all out tizzy-fit from Justice Samuel Alito .
And while social conservatives had come to begrudgingly accept that the Chief Justice John Roberts would occasionally swing with the court ’ s liberals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ author the majority decision — also packed a punch .
“ I was thinking it would perhaps be more of a five-four decision with Roberts the unknown quantity , as to which way he was going , ” Mat Staver , whose law firm Liberty Counsel spearheads cases for religious causes , told TPM .
“ I didn ’ t expect Gorsuch to be behind a decision like this.
” Roberts received major blowback after he broke with the conservatives in 2012 to uphold the Affordable Care Act .
Roberts ’ second ruling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anthony Kennedy swing vote in favor of same-sex marriage — inspired another round of conservative outrage that culminated in a Senate hearing on ideas to “ rein in judicial tyranny.
” “ Roberts , among conservatives , is not regarded as someone reliably conservative — it would be tragic if Gorsuch was put in that category , but sadly , today ’ s ruling kind of gives that impression , ” Walker said .
“ I don ’ t think Gorsuch is a traitorous progressive or anything , ” he was quick to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a mistake.
” Trump himself exploited the betrayal conservatives felt toward Roberts during the 2016 campaign , calling the chief justice “ a nightmare for conservatives ” and blasting his primary opponent Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-SC ) for supporting Roberts ’ confirmation .
It ’ s unclear whether the current ire towards Gorsuch will as be long lasting as what conservatives now feel towards Roberts .
Walker hinted that “ good pro-life rulings , ” perhaps a decision on abortion regulations that the Supreme Court is due to hand down any week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ religious conservatives have about Gorsuch.
” But for now , some of Gorsuch ’ s biggest boosters are emitting a bit of buyer ’ s remorse .
Carrie Severino — who leads the Judicial Crisis Network , the dark money group that spends millions supporting conservative judicial nominees — has tweeted at length about her frustration with Gorsuch ’ s decision .
She said it amounted to a “ hijacking of textualism ” and that “ Justice Scalia would be disappointed that his successor has bungled textualism so badly today , for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ editorial boards.
” Conservative legal activist Ed Whelan said at the time of Gorsuch ’ s confirmation that he was “ brilliant jurist and dedicated originalist and textualist , ” and an “ eminently worthy successor ” to Scalia .
On Monday , Whelan described himself as someone who had “ much higher expectations for Gorsuch ( and for the Chief Justice ) , ” while warning of the “ extreme consequences ” of Gorsuch ’ s ruling .
He and other conservatives also alluded to the “ But Gorsuch ” refrain meeting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for President Trump himself , if social conservatives , disheartened by the decision , didn ’ t show up at the polls the way they did .
Staver said he doubted Monday ’ s decision would be held against Trump because the President “ would have known at that time ” of Gorsuch ’ s nomination that the justice would have ruled this way .
But , Staver said , it still “ definitely frustrates people.
” “ For many people , [ the Supreme Court ] was and still is the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he said .
“ They wouldn ’ t have expected something like this , of Gorsuch .
”

When conservative groups spent millions of dollars to keep Justice Antonin Scalia’s Supreme Court vacant until a GOP president could fill it, Monday’s sweeping pro-LGBT ruling was just the kind of opinion they were trying to prevent.
The blockbuster opinion was written no less by Justice Neil Gorsuch, whose presence on the court was made possible by the Faustian bargain social conservatives made in electing Donald Trump.
As a candidate, Trump promised that he’d nominate the type of judges that they’d be happy with. To make this point explicit, his campaign released a list of potential Scalia replacements that quickly got the approval of the Heritage Foundation and other influential conservative voices.
The Trump campaign’s approach was effective and it may be what ultimately put his longshot campaign over the edge. The one-in-five voters who in exit polls said that the Supreme Court was the issue most important to them broke decidedly in Trump’s favor.
Gorsuch’s name was on the second iteration of the SCOTUS shortlist released in Sept. 2016. Once he was confirmed to the bench, “But Gorsuch” became the refrain among conservatives to wipe away all sorts of Trump misdeeds; a stress ball with Gorsuch’s face and that slogan was even handed out at a 2017 Federalist Society event.
On Monday, the 52-year-old crossed the forces that helped put him on the bench by authoring a majority opinion that gave the LGBT rights movement a seminal court victory. In an opinion backed by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s four liberals, Gorsuch said that 1964 Civil Rights Act’s protections against sex discrimination applied to workplace discrimination against LGBT employees.
“When we’ve gone so all-in on Trump and expected rulings that would leave religious conservatives pacified or pleased, this is egg on their face,” Andrew T. Walker, professor at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, told TPM. “You spend all this time telling yourself you can justify voting for someone who is tremendously flawed to get these great judges and get this utter failure of a ruling.”
Walker, who once considered himself a never-Trumper, has since become a reluctant supporter in large part due to his religious convictions.
To add insult to injury, Gorsuch framed his approach as growing out of the textualist tradition championed by the justice he replaced — a tradition in which courts set aside the intents of a statute’s drafters to look squarely at what the text of law itself says.
The invocation prompted an all out tizzy-fit from Justice Samuel Alito. And while social conservatives had come to begrudgingly accept that the Chief Justice John Roberts would occasionally swing with the court’s liberals, seeing Gorsuch join him — and author the majority decision — also packed a punch.
“I was thinking it would perhaps be more of a five-four decision with Roberts the unknown quantity, as to which way he was going,” Mat Staver, whose law firm Liberty Counsel spearheads cases for religious causes, told TPM. “I didn’t expect Gorsuch to be behind a decision like this.”
Roberts received major blowback after he broke with the conservatives in 2012 to uphold the Affordable Care Act. Roberts’ second ruling in its favor — coupled with then-Justice Anthony Kennedy swing vote in favor of same-sex marriage — inspired another round of conservative outrage that culminated in a Senate hearing on ideas to “rein in judicial tyranny.”
“Roberts, among conservatives, is not regarded as someone reliably conservative — it would be tragic if Gorsuch was put in that category, but sadly, today’s ruling kind of gives that impression,” Walker said.
“I don’t think Gorsuch is a traitorous progressive or anything,” he was quick to add. “I think he made a mistake.”
Trump himself exploited the betrayal conservatives felt toward Roberts during the 2016 campaign, calling the chief justice “a nightmare for conservatives” and blasting his primary opponent Sen. Ted Cruz (R-SC) for supporting Roberts’ confirmation.
It’s unclear whether the current ire towards Gorsuch will as be long lasting as what conservatives now feel towards Roberts. Walker hinted that “good pro-life rulings,” perhaps a decision on abortion regulations that the Supreme Court is due to hand down any week now, “would mitigate skepticism that religious conservatives have about Gorsuch.”
But for now, some of Gorsuch’s biggest boosters are emitting a bit of buyer’s remorse.
Carrie Severino — who leads the Judicial Crisis Network, the dark money group that spends millions supporting conservative judicial nominees — has tweeted at length about her frustration with Gorsuch’s decision.
She said it amounted to a “hijacking of textualism” and that “Justice Scalia would be disappointed that his successor has bungled textualism so badly today, for the sake of appealing to college campuses and editorial boards.”
Conservative legal activist Ed Whelan said at the time of Gorsuch’s confirmation that he was “brilliant jurist and dedicated originalist and textualist,” and an “eminently worthy successor” to Scalia.
On Monday, Whelan described himself as someone who had “much higher expectations for Gorsuch (and for the Chief Justice),” while warning of the “extreme consequences” of Gorsuch’s ruling.
He and other conservatives also alluded to the “But Gorsuch” refrain meeting its death.
Others predicted political consequences for President Trump himself, if social conservatives, disheartened by the decision, didn’t show up at the polls the way they did.
Staver said he doubted Monday’s decision would be held against Trump because the President “would not have known at that time” of Gorsuch’s nomination that the justice would have ruled this way. But, Staver said, it still “definitely frustrates people.”
“For many people, [the Supreme Court] was and still is the most important part of the election process,” he said. “They wouldn’t have expected something like this, of Gorsuch.”
Correction: Due to a transcribing error, an earlier version of this story misquoted Mat Staver. He said that Trump “would not have known at that time” of Gorsuch’s nomination that Gorsuch would vote this way in the Title VII case.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-06-15--Trump Denounces John Bolton’s Book, Says Conversations Are ‘Highly Classified’

President Trump on Monday attacked ex-National Security Adviser John Bolton ’ s forthcoming book , arguing that any conversation with him as president is “ highly classified.
” Trump also suggested that criminal charges should be pursued against anyone who writes a book based on those supposedly “ classified ” chats .
“ I will consider every conversation with me as president highly classified , ” Trump told reporters Monday when asked about the upcoming tell-all account of the former official ’ s tenure at the White House .
“ So that would mean that if he wrote a book @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s broken the law .
I would think he would have criminal problems.
” Bolton ’ s book is expected to reveal alleged “ Ukraine-like transgressions , ” publisher Simon & Schuster wrote in a statement on Friday .
Bolton is said to have written a detailed personal account of these and other revelations that unfolded in the Trump White House and far exceed the original claims made against the president during House impeachment inquiries last fall .
Although the book was already delayed from an original publication date set for March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ classified information ahead of publication by the National Security Council , Attorney General Bill Bar claims that process was never completed .
“ I don ’ t know if any book that has been published so quickly while the officeholders are still in government and it ’ s about very current events , current leaders , current discussions , current policy issues .
Many of which are inherently classified , ” Barr said Monday at the event with Trump .
Barr dodged questions about an impending lawsuit to stop the book , titled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” from hitting shelves in its current iteration , which ABC News reported on Monday .
The network also announced that Bolton had taped a primetime sit-down interview with Martha Raddatz scheduled to air on Sunday night .

President Trump on Monday attacked ex-National Security Adviser John Bolton’s forthcoming book, arguing that any conversation with him as president is “highly classified.”
Trump also suggested that criminal charges should be pursued against anyone who writes a book based on those supposedly “classified” chats.
Trump said he disapproved of the release of ex-National Security Adviser John Bolton's upcoming book: "I will consider every conversation with me highly classified. If he wrote a book and the book gets out, he's broken the law and I would think you would have criminal problems." pic.twitter.com/IWVIQWSSq6 — Talking Points Memo (@TPM) June 15, 2020
“I will consider every conversation with me as president highly classified,” Trump told reporters Monday when asked about the upcoming tell-all account of the former official’s tenure at the White House. “So that would mean that if he wrote a book and if the book gets out he’s broken the law. I would think he would have criminal problems.”
Bolton’s book is expected to reveal alleged “Ukraine-like transgressions,” publisher Simon & Schuster wrote in a statement on Friday. Bolton is said to have written a detailed personal account of these and other revelations that unfolded in the Trump White House and far exceed the original claims made against the president during House impeachment inquiries last fall.
Although the book was already delayed from an original publication date set for March due to a standard security review for classified information ahead of publication by the National Security Council, Attorney General Bill Bar claims that process was never completed.
“I don’t know if any book that has been published so quickly while the officeholders are still in government and it’s about very current events, current leaders, current discussions, current policy issues. Many of which are inherently classified,” Barr said Monday at the event with Trump.
Barr dodged questions about an impending lawsuit to stop the book, titled “The Room Where It Happened,” from hitting shelves in its current iteration, which ABC News reported on Monday.
The network also announced that Bolton had taped a primetime sit-down interview with Martha Raddatz scheduled to air on Sunday night.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-06-15--Hydroxychloroquine, We Hardly Knew Ye

Hydroxychloroquine, We Hardly Knew Ye

The hopeful days of hydroxychloroquine as a potentially game-changing coronavirus treatment appear to be over .
On Monday , the Food and Drug Administration withdrew an emergency authorization that had allowed the government to funnel the drug to coronavirus patients across the country , despite little evidence showing that it worked against COVID-19 .
It is “ no longer reasonable to believe ” that hydroxychloroquine pills may be effective in treating the virus , nor that the known and potential benefits of using the drug outweigh the risks , the FDA ’ s chief scientist said .
And so ended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-malarial .
The hydroxychloroquine hype , in its early days , had some legitimacy .
Small trials and studies showed promise , though hardly the kind of evidence to support widespread use .
But with just a few words in mid-March , Trump got millions of Americans to pin their hopes on the drug as a COVID-19 cure-all .
It “ would be a game changer ” if it did happen to work , Trump said at a press conference .
“ I feel good about it , ” he added .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just a feeling .
I ’ m a smart guy.
” The country followed his lead : Within days of Trump ’ s pronouncement , the FDA had issued an emergency authorization for federal supplies of the pill to be used as a COVID-19 treatment .
Pharmacists and drug makers reported alarming spikes in demand for the pills .
And existing patients who for years had used hydroxychloroquine to treat conditions like lupus and rheumatoid arthritis saw their supplies of the medicine get swept up in the stampede .
As pharmaceutical interventions go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in recent history .
The viral conspiracy theory video “ Plandemic ” featured the pill prominently .
And conservative writers slammed reporters who raised questions about the drug as “ terrible Americans.
” In late March , the boy-pundit and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk falsely said that hydroxychloroquine had been proven “ 100 % effective ” at treating COVID-19 .
Democrats , he said , are “ okay with people dying if it means opposing Trump .
SICK !
” Within 11 minutes , Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani had quoted Kirk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( Both posts were removed for having “ violated the Twitter Rules.
” ) A few days later , the newly minted Republican Rep. Jeff Van Drew ( R-NJ ) tweeted that hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin “ have shown anecdotal evidence that they , if used early enough , have success in combatting [ sic ] the scourge of COVID-19.
” And at a mid-May protest against COVID-19 public health orders , when a crowd of Trump supporters harassed a local news reporter , one man in a Trump t-shirt cited the drug when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distance .
“ No , I got hydroxychloroquine , I ’ m fine , ” the man said , as he invaded the reporter ’ s personal space .
Perhaps the man was a Fox News viewer : For weeks , the network ’ s opinion hosts had trumpeted the pills .
Most notable was Laura Ingraham , who interviewed COVID-19 survivors who ’ d taken the drug .
“ Every patient that I ’ ve treated — serious , moderate — has had resolution of symptoms within 24 hours , ” one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ like Lazarus , up from the grave , ” Ingraham said .
Over two weeks in late March and early April , the network ’ s personalities and guests promoted the drug nearly 300 times , according to a Media Matters count .
Ingraham was still going with lengthy monologues about the drug weeks later : Trump ’ s hype campaign had its detractors : The government whistleblower Rick Bright , for example , was stripped of his position as a key research director and demoted after warning against hydroxychloroquine ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sell : Bright was just a “ disgruntled employee , ” he said , before changing the narrative and announcing that he was taking the drug himself as a prophylactic .
“ I ’ m taking the two , the zinc and the hydroxy , ” Trump told a clutch of astonished reporters .
“ And all I can tell you is , so far I seem to be okay.
” And , wouldn ’ t you know it , others in the right-wing conservative griftosphere had been taking the drug as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to say so until after after Trump ’ s announcement .
“ I ’ ve been taking it for more than a month , ” the radio host and former White House adviser Sebastian Gorka said following Trump ’ s announcement .
“ Will it kill you ?
Will it save you from the Chinese Virus ?
Tune in today to America First on the Salem Radio Network.
” The Fox News medical contributor Dr. Janette Nesheiwat , who ’ s also the medical director of the CityMD chain of urgent care clinics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news : “ It ’ s not going to be good for everyone , but it may be beneficial and potentially lifesaving for others , ” she said .
“ The Five ” co-host Greg Guttfield , on his own show , sounded a similar note : “ If it ’ s available to you , and you can take it , you do it.
” Rep. Roger Marshall ( R-KS ) jumped on the bandwagon , praising Trump and saying the whole Marshall family was also taking the drug to ward off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person over the age of 65 or with an underlying medical condition to talk to their own physician about taking hydroxychloroquine and I ’ m relieved President Trump is taking it , ” the congressman said .
No matter that the facts weren ’ t on the drug ’ s side : Study after study after study after study found no benefit in using hydroxychloroquine .
And within a month of its own emergency authorization , the FDA issued a warning against the widespread use of the drug , citing a pattern of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump hasn ’ t troubled himself with those scientific details .
A troubling study of VA patients , he said , was “ false ” and only tallied “ people that were ready to die.
” And the doctors involved were “ obviously not friends of the administration.
” After Trump announced that he was taking hydroxychloroquine himself as a prophylactic , reporters asked what evidence he ’ d seen to convince him of its efficacy .
The President said he ’ d heard from a New York doctor who ’ d treated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drug “ and he hasn ’ t lost one.
” “ Here ’ s my evidence , ” Trump added .
“ I get a lot of positive calls about it .
”

The hopeful days of hydroxychloroquine as a potentially game-changing coronavirus treatment appear to be over.
On Monday, the Food and Drug Administration withdrew an emergency authorization that had allowed the government to funnel the drug to coronavirus patients across the country, despite little evidence showing that it worked against COVID-19.
It is “no longer reasonable to believe” that hydroxychloroquine pills may be effective in treating the virus, nor that the known and potential benefits of using the drug outweigh the risks, the FDA’s chief scientist said.
And so ended months of happy talk about a decades-old anti-malarial.
The hydroxychloroquine hype, in its early days, had some legitimacy. Small trials and studies showed promise, though hardly the kind of evidence to support widespread use. But with just a few words in mid-March, Trump got millions of Americans to pin their hopes on the drug as a COVID-19 cure-all.
It “would be a game changer” if it did happen to work, Trump said at a press conference.
“I feel good about it,” he added. “That’s all it is, just a feeling. I’m a smart guy.”
The country followed his lead: Within days of Trump’s pronouncement, the FDA had issued an emergency authorization for federal supplies of the pill to be used as a COVID-19 treatment. Pharmacists and drug makers reported alarming spikes in demand for the pills. And existing patients who for years had used hydroxychloroquine to treat conditions like lupus and rheumatoid arthritis saw their supplies of the medicine get swept up in the stampede.
All Aboard The Hydroxy Train
As pharmaceutical interventions go, hydroxychloroquine was among the most politicized in recent history. The viral conspiracy theory video “Plandemic” featured the pill prominently. And conservative writers slammed reporters who raised questions about the drug as “terrible Americans.”
In late March, the boy-pundit and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk falsely said that hydroxychloroquine had been proven “100% effective” at treating COVID-19.
Democrats, he said, are “okay with people dying if it means opposing Trump. SICK!”
Within 11 minutes, Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani had quoted Kirk in a post of his own. (Both posts were removed for having “violated the Twitter Rules.”)
A few days later, the newly minted Republican Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ) tweeted that hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin “have shown anecdotal evidence that they, if used early enough, have success in combatting [sic] the scourge of COVID-19.”
And at a mid-May protest against COVID-19 public health orders, when a crowd of Trump supporters harassed a local news reporter, one man in a Trump t-shirt cited the drug when the reporter asked him to keep his distance.
“No, I got hydroxychloroquine, I’m fine,” the man said, as he invaded the reporter’s personal space.
Perhaps the man was a Fox News viewer: For weeks, the network’s opinion hosts had trumpeted the pills. Most notable was Laura Ingraham, who interviewed COVID-19 survivors who’d taken the drug.
“Every patient that I’ve treated — serious, moderate — has had resolution of symptoms within 24 hours,” one doctor told Ingraham.
Another patient was “like Lazarus, up from the grave,” Ingraham said.
Over two weeks in late March and early April, the network’s personalities and guests promoted the drug nearly 300 times, according to a Media Matters count.
Ingraham was still going with lengthy monologues about the drug weeks later:

Presidential Prophylactic
Trump’s hype campaign had its detractors: The government whistleblower Rick Bright, for example, was stripped of his position as a key research director and demoted after warning against hydroxychloroquine’s widespread use.
But Trump kept up the sell: Bright was just a “disgruntled employee,” he said, before changing the narrative and announcing that he was taking the drug himself as a prophylactic.
“I’m taking the two, the zinc and the hydroxy,” Trump told a clutch of astonished reporters. “And all I can tell you is, so far I seem to be okay.”
And, wouldn’t you know it, others in the right-wing conservative griftosphere had been taking the drug as well. They’d just neglected to say so until after after Trump’s announcement.
“I’ve been taking it for more than a month,” the radio host and former White House adviser Sebastian Gorka said following Trump’s announcement. “Will it kill you? Will it save you from the Chinese Virus? Tune in today to America First on the Salem Radio Network.”
The Fox News medical contributor Dr. Janette Nesheiwat, who’s also the medical director of the CityMD chain of urgent care clinics, said she welcomed Trump’s news: “It’s not going to be good for everyone, but it may be beneficial and potentially lifesaving for others,” she said.
“The Five” co-host Greg Guttfield, on his own show, sounded a similar note: “If it’s available to you, and you can take it, you do it.”
Rep. Roger Marshall (R-KS) jumped on the bandwagon, praising Trump and saying the whole Marshall family was also taking the drug to ward off coronavirus.
“I would encourage any person over the age of 65 or with an underlying medical condition to talk to their own physician about taking hydroxychloroquine and I’m relieved President Trump is taking it,” the congressman said.
‘A Lot Of Positive Calls’
No matter that the facts weren’t on the drug’s side: Study after study after study after study found no benefit in using hydroxychloroquine. And within a month of its own emergency authorization, the FDA issued a warning against the widespread use of the drug, citing a pattern of observed heart irregularities in patients.
But Trump hasn’t troubled himself with those scientific details.
A troubling study of VA patients, he said, was “false” and only tallied “people that were ready to die.” And the doctors involved were “obviously not friends of the administration.”
After Trump announced that he was taking hydroxychloroquine himself as a prophylactic, reporters asked what evidence he’d seen to convince him of its efficacy. The President said he’d heard from a New York doctor who’d treated “hundreds” of patients with the drug “and he hasn’t lost one.”
“Here’s my evidence,” Trump added. “I get a lot of positive calls about it.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-06-15--Trump On SCOTUS’ Landmark Gay Rights Ruling: ‘We Live With The Decision’

President Trump had an atypically muted response to the Supreme Court ’ s ruling protecting LGBTQ employees from workplace discrimination , during a roundtable for senior citizens on Monday afternoon .
Asked about the Supreme Court ’ s blockbuster ruling , Trump shared a brief response , saying that “ some people were surprised ” but that “ we live with that decision.
” “ That ’ s what it ’ s all about — we live with the decision of the Supreme Court , ” Trump said .
“ Very powerful , very powerful decision actually , but they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision , Supreme Court Chief Justices John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch — the latter of whom the President nominated in 2017 to succeed late Justice Antonin Scalia — voted with the court ’ s liberals in favor of the workplace protections for LGBTQ individuals .
Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh particularly took aim at Gorsuch in their scathing dissents reacting to Monday ’ s blockbuster ruling .
Earlier Monday , White House counselor Kellyanne Conway said that she was “ struck by the concurrence and the dissent ” by Kavanaugh and Alito @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gorsuch for siding with their liberal counterparts to deliver a landmark decision regarding LGBTQ workplace protections , arguing that the justices broke ideological ranks and are damaging Trump ’ s chances of re-election .

President Trump had an atypically muted response to the Supreme Court’s ruling protecting LGBTQ employees from workplace discrimination, during a roundtable for senior citizens on Monday afternoon.
Asked about the Supreme Court’s blockbuster ruling, Trump shared a brief response, saying that “some people were surprised” but that “we live with that decision.”
“That’s what it’s all about — we live with the decision of the Supreme Court,” Trump said. “Very powerful, very powerful decision actually, but they have so ruled.”
In a 6-3 decision, Supreme Court Chief Justices John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch — the latter of whom the President nominated in 2017 to succeed late Justice Antonin Scalia — voted with the court’s liberals in favor of the workplace protections for LGBTQ individuals. Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh particularly took aim at Gorsuch in their scathing dissents reacting to Monday’s blockbuster ruling.
Earlier Monday, White House counselor Kellyanne Conway said that she was “struck by the concurrence and the dissent” by Kavanaugh and Alito.
Conservatives are now criticizing Roberts and Gorsuch for siding with their liberal counterparts to deliver a landmark decision regarding LGBTQ workplace protections, arguing that the justices broke ideological ranks and are damaging Trump’s chances of re-election.
Watch Trump’s remarks below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-06-15--Conway Says Courts Should ‘Stick To The Statutes’ After SCOTUS’ Gay Rights Ruling

White House counselor Kellyanne Conway on Monday had a puzzling reaction to the Supreme Court ’ s ruling protecting LGBTQ employees from workplace discrimination , during an interview on Fox News .
In a 6-3 decision , Supreme Court Chief Justice John Robert and Justice Neil Gorsuch voted with the court ’ s liberals in favor of the workplace protections for LGBTQ individuals .
Justices Samuel Alito , Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas issued scathing dissents to Monday ’ s blockbuster ruling .
Alito , joined by Justice Clarence Thomas , accused the majority of “ [ u ] surping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Similarly , Kavanaugh alleged in his own dissent that the landmark ruling is a “ transgression of the Constitution ’ s separation of power.
” When asked about the Supreme Court ruling earlier Monday that delivered a huge win for LGBTQ rights advocates , Conway first replied that President Trump will probably field questions on the ruling during a roundtable focused on senior citizens .
She added that she was “ struck by the concurrence and the dissent ” by Justices Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito .
Conway said that Alito “ made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remember , ” before launching into a rant about how the role of the three branches of government is “ sacrosanct and it ’ s in our Constitution.
” “ The legislature makes the laws , the President executes the laws and judiciary interprets the laws — and that is important also , ” Conway said .
“ I think that Justice Alito made clear that he doesn ’ t think this is about textualism .
We ’ ve had the Civil Rights Act for 56 years and everybody has understood what it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s “ not going to get into the merits of the decision one way or the other ” and that she personally believes in “ liberty and justice for all.
” “ As I said earlier , I think it ’ s very important though to stick to a statute or a law as it is written when that is before the United States Supreme Court , ” Conway said .
“ If people want to change the law they should go to the Congress.
” Conway then threw Congress under the bus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ work as hard as the other two branches .
”

White House counselor Kellyanne Conway on Monday had a puzzling reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling protecting LGBTQ employees from workplace discrimination, during an interview on Fox News.
In a 6-3 decision, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Robert and Justice Neil Gorsuch voted with the court’s liberals in favor of the workplace protections for LGBTQ individuals. Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas issued scathing dissents to Monday’s blockbuster ruling.
Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, accused the majority of “[u]surping the constitutional authority of the other branches.” Similarly, Kavanaugh alleged in his own dissent that the landmark ruling is a “transgression of the Constitution’s separation of power.”
When asked about the Supreme Court ruling earlier Monday that delivered a huge win for LGBTQ rights advocates, Conway first replied that President Trump will probably field questions on the ruling during a roundtable focused on senior citizens. She added that she was “struck by the concurrence and the dissent” by Justices Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito.
Conway said that Alito “made clear something I want us all to remember,” before launching into a rant about how the role of the three branches of government is “sacrosanct and it’s in our Constitution.”
“The legislature makes the laws, the President executes the laws and judiciary interprets the laws — and that is important also,” Conway said. “I think that Justice Alito made clear that he doesn’t think this is about textualism. We’ve had the Civil Rights Act for 56 years and everybody has understood what it meant.”
Conway added that she’s “not going to get into the merits of the decision one way or the other” and that she personally believes in “liberty and justice for all.”
“As I said earlier, I think it’s very important though to stick to a statute or a law as it is written when that is before the United States Supreme Court,” Conway said. “If people want to change the law they should go to the Congress.”
Conway then threw Congress under the bus, accusing it of not seeming to “work as hard as the other two branches.”
Watch Conway’s remarks below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-06-15--Lawyer For Plaintiffs In Landmark SCOTUS Case On Gay Rights Explains Why They Won

Pamela Karlan , the attorney who represented the plaintiffs in the landmark Supreme Court case that ruled in favor of LGBTQ workplace protections , asserted on Monday that the stunning victory was a result of simply following the law as written .
During an interview on MSNBC , Karlan said the blockbuster decision “ follows directly from the text of Title VII ” in the 1964 Civil Rights Act .
“ Title VII says you can ’ t fire a worker because of that worker ’ s sex , ” she explained .
“ If you have two workers named @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and one is female , and you fire the male worker named Bobby because he marries somebody named Pete but you don ’ t fire the female worker for marrying somebody named Pete , that ’ s sex discrimination , pure and simple.
” The attorney asserted that the six justices who sided with her clients , including Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch , “ took the text of Title VII seriously ” instead of basing their decision on what the lawmakers behind the Civil Rights Act may have intended .
“ Because whatever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the words they wrote cover lesbian , gay , bisexual and transgender workers the same as every other worker , ” Karlan said .
As to why Gorsuch made the surprising move and even wrote the majority opinion , Karlan said that “ textualists ” like Gorsuch will put aside personal politics to follow the law as written .
“ Justice Gorsuch was not making a statement about what he would have done if he had been in Congress in 1964 , ” the lawyer said .
“ He was making a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 1964 mean .
”

Pamela Karlan, the attorney who represented the plaintiffs in the landmark Supreme Court case that ruled in favor of LGBTQ workplace protections, asserted on Monday that the stunning victory was a result of simply following the law as written.
During an interview on MSNBC, Karlan said the blockbuster decision “follows directly from the text of Title VII” in the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
“Title VII says you can’t fire a worker because of that worker’s sex,” she explained. “If you have two workers named Bobby, one of whom is male and one is female, and you fire the male worker named Bobby because he marries somebody named Pete but you don’t fire the female worker for marrying somebody named Pete, that’s sex discrimination, pure and simple.”
The attorney asserted that the six justices who sided with her clients, including Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch, “took the text of Title VII seriously” instead of basing their decision on what the lawmakers behind the Civil Rights Act may have intended.
“Because whatever [the lawmakers] intended to do, the words they wrote cover lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender workers the same as every other worker,” Karlan said.
As to why Gorsuch made the surprising move and even wrote the majority opinion, Karlan said that “textualists” like Gorsuch will put aside personal politics to follow the law as written.
“Justice Gorsuch was not making a statement about what he would have done if he had been in Congress in 1964,” the lawyer said. “He was making a statement about what the words Congress used in 1964 mean.”
Watch Karlan below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-06-15--Trump Expected To Sue To Block Release Of John Bolton’s Book

The Trump administration is expected to sue to block the publication of the tell-all account of John Bolton , the ex-national security adviser who spent a year and a half in the White House .
Trumps plans to sue over the memoir ’ s publication , according to an ABC News report Monday , after an announcement from the book ’ s publishers Simon & Schuster on Friday that the already once-delayed text would be on shelves June 23 .
Bolton was expected to reveal other “ Ukraine-like transgressions ” in the book , Simon & Schuster wrote in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president is seeking an injunction in federal court to stop the book , titled “ The Room Where It Happened , ” from being released as it is currently written , sources told ABC News .
The lawsuit is expected to be filed in the coming days and could come as early as Monday , sources told ABC News , although some details are still being finalized .
Bolton , who left the Trump White House last fall and famously refused to testify in the House ’ s impeachment inquiries , was supposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It was delayed due to standard security review for classified information ahead of publication by the National Security Council .

The Trump administration is expected to sue to block the publication of the tell-all account of John Bolton, the ex-national security adviser who spent a year and a half in the White House.
Trumps plans to sue over the memoir’s publication, according to an ABC News report Monday, after an announcement from the book’s publishers Simon & Schuster on Friday that the already once-delayed text would be on shelves June 23.
Bolton was expected to reveal other “Ukraine-like transgressions” in the book, Simon & Schuster wrote in the statement on Friday. But now the president is seeking an injunction in federal court to stop the book, titled “The Room Where It Happened,” from being released as it is currently written, sources told ABC News.
The lawsuit is expected to be filed in the coming days and could come as early as Monday, sources told ABC News, although some details are still being finalized.
Bolton, who left the Trump White House last fall and famously refused to testify in the House’s impeachment inquiries, was supposed to publish his book back in March. It was delayed due to standard security review for classified information ahead of publication by the National Security Council.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-06-15--Conservatives Declare End Of The World After Gorsuch, Roberts Help Deliver Huge LGBTQ Win

On Monday , Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch sided with their liberal counterparts to deliver a landmark decision about LGBTQ workplace protections .
And conservative observers are feeling the keen sting of betrayal .
Some are expressing outrage that the justices broke ideological ranks .
Some are declaring the decision the end of President Donald Trump ’ s reelection prospects .
And some are just plain mad .
Carrie Severino , president of Judicial Crisis Network — which spent massive amounts of money to help bolster Trump ’ s judicial nominees — invoked Justice Antonin Scalia ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gorsuch .
Varad Mehta , a historian who has written for conservative outlets like The Federalist and the Washington Examiner , suggested social conservatives would see Trump ’ s presidency as useless if his Supreme Court appointees don ’ t maintain partisan orthodoxy .
Erick Erikson , the conservative blogger and radio host , also prophesied the death of Trump ’ s reelection chances .
In a now-deleted tweet , Josh Hammer , conservative opinion editor at Newsweek , accused Justice Brett Kavanaugh of “ flaunting his virtue ” by congratulating “ gays @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even while he decided against it .
Daniel Horowitz , senior editor at the Conservative Review , called the decision a “ massacre.
” Rod Dreher , senior editor at the American Conservative , called the newfound consequences for churches that discriminate against LGBTQ people a “ loss ” for religious conservatives .
And on Fox News … not much .
After a quick hit on the news , with legal analyst Andrew Napolitano voicing the concern that decisions like this could become a “ slippery slope , ” and a question about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hasn ’ t been covering the decision .

On Monday, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch sided with their liberal counterparts to deliver a landmark decision about LGBTQ workplace protections. And conservative observers are feeling the keen sting of betrayal.
Some are expressing outrage that the justices broke ideological ranks. Some are declaring the decision the end of President Donald Trump’s reelection prospects. And some are just plain mad.
Carrie Severino, president of Judicial Crisis Network — which spent massive amounts of money to help bolster Trump’s judicial nominees — invoked Justice Antonin Scalia’s memory while impugning his replacement, Gorsuch.
Justice Scalia would be disappointed that his successor has bungled textualism so badly today, for the sake of appealing to college campuses and editorial boards. This was not judging, this was legislating—a brute force attack on our constitutional system. (1/x) — Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) June 15, 2020
Varad Mehta, a historian who has written for conservative outlets like The Federalist and the Washington Examiner, suggested social conservatives would see Trump’s presidency as useless if his Supreme Court appointees don’t maintain partisan orthodoxy.
The whole point of the Federalist Society judicial project, the whole point of electing Trump to implement it, was to deliver Supreme Court victories to social conservatives. If they can't deliver anything that basic, there's no point for either. The damage is incalculable. — Varad Mehta (@varadmehta) June 15, 2020
Erick Erikson, the conservative blogger and radio host, also prophesied the death of Trump’s reelection chances.
All those evangelicals who sided with Trump in 2016 to protect them from the cultural currents, just found their excuse to stay home in 2020 thank to Trump’s Supreme Court picks. — Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) June 15, 2020
In a now-deleted tweet, Josh Hammer, conservative opinion editor at Newsweek, accused Justice Brett Kavanaugh of “flaunting his virtue” by congratulating “gays and lesbians” on their win, even while he decided against it.
Daniel Horowitz, senior editor at the Conservative Review, called the decision a “massacre.”
Here we go, the “conservative” scotus codifies transgenderism into…1964 act! 4th massacre of the day at scotus. Gorsuch, Roberts join liberals in majority. I opposed both Trump nominees and i was right. What a pathetic movement. What a fraud. Thats real originalism there. — Daniel Horowitz (@RMConservative) June 15, 2020
Conservative Notre Dame professor Patrick Deneen labeled Gorsuch and Roberts fake social conservatives.
Remind me again why progressives so fiercely oppose Republican judicial nominees? They should know by now that their allegiance to their class will always trump any purported social conservatism. — Patrick Deneen (@PatrickDeneen) June 15, 2020
Rod Dreher, senior editor at the American Conservative, called the newfound consequences for churches that discriminate against LGBTQ people a “loss” for religious conservatives.
Thanks to two GOP appointees — Roberts and Gorsuch — churches and schools that discriminate against LGBTs stand at risk of losing tax-exempt status, per the Bob Jones ruling. Hard to overstate the magnitude of this loss for religious conservatives. — Rod Dreher (@roddreher) June 15, 2020
And on Fox News … not much. After a quick hit on the news, with legal analyst Andrew Napolitano voicing the concern that decisions like this could become a “slippery slope,” and a question about it for Kellyanne Conway, the channel hasn’t been covering the decision.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-06-15--Fox Host Claims Viewers Were Up In Arms Over Ex-Cop’s Argument On Rayshard Brooks

Fox News ’ Steve Hilton said viewers were “ fired up ” when former police officer Joe Ested made an argument on his Sunday night show that officers were not following protocol when they shot and killed Rayshard Brooks , a black man , outside of a Wendy ’ s restaurant in Atlanta on Friday .
The former police officer said that had the Atlanta police who killed Brooks followed training protocol Brooks ’ death could have been prevented .
Ested ’ s strong criticism of the police clashed with the perspective of former NYPD commissioner and recurring Fox News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani .
Kerik has consistently appeared on Fox News in recent weeks and has swatted away claims that there is a problem with systemic racism in policing .
Kerik , who appeared before Ested on the show Sunday , was given free and uninterrupted reign to criticize Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms for suggesting that the use of force that killed Brooks was unnecessary .
He also rebuked the mayor ’ s call for the officers involved in Brooks ’ death to be fired .
Kerik ’ s comments also come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who injured 75-year old protester Martin Gugino in Buffalo , New York in a viral video that shows Gugino tumbling to the ground and bleeding from his head after a forceful — and seemingly unprovoked — push from an officer .
Kerik was police chief in 2001 , when he made the decision that sent shocks of grief throughout black communities to reassign rather than fire the officers , who before his tenure , shot Bronx man Amadou Diallo 19 times , killing him .
With such a record of defending the police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told Fox News ’ Jeanne Pirro on Saturday that “ thugs ” in the Atlanta community should be told not to attack police .
But it was Ested , who also authored a book on the subject , “ Police Brutality Matters , ” who seemed to upset the ranks of blue uniform supporters when he condemned the actions of Garrett Rolfe the officer who was fired Sunday .
“ The community right now is screaming for accountability for bad policing , ” Ested said .
“ That ’ s called bad policing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” It was this rebuke of law enforcement that drew fire from Fox viewers , who apparently shot back at Ested over Twitter during the interview .
In a move that seemed as though engineered to sooth enraged Fox viewers , Hilton interrupted Ested , conceding even more time to Kerik to pile on further support of the officers — urging that they be given “ the benefit of the doubt.
” None of Ested ’ s interview was shown on Fox News on Monday , in spite of the re-airing of other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s defense of the officers .

Fox News’ Steve Hilton said viewers were “fired up” when former police officer Joe Ested made an argument on his Sunday night show that officers were not following protocol when they shot and killed Rayshard Brooks, a black man, outside of a Wendy’s restaurant in Atlanta on Friday.
The former police officer said that had the Atlanta police who killed Brooks followed training protocol Brooks’ death could have been prevented.
Ested’s strong criticism of the police clashed with the perspective of former NYPD commissioner and recurring Fox News guest Bernard Kerik, who served under then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Kerik has consistently appeared on Fox News in recent weeks and has swatted away claims that there is a problem with systemic racism in policing.
Kerik, who appeared before Ested on the show Sunday, was given free and uninterrupted reign to criticize Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms for suggesting that the use of force that killed Brooks was unnecessary. He also rebuked the mayor’s call for the officers involved in Brooks’ death to be fired.
Kerik’s comments also come after he recently defended the police officers who injured 75-year old protester Martin Gugino in Buffalo, New York in a viral video that shows Gugino tumbling to the ground and bleeding from his head after a forceful — and seemingly unprovoked — push from an officer.
Kerik was police chief in 2001, when he made the decision that sent shocks of grief throughout black communities to reassign rather than fire the officers, who before his tenure, shot Bronx man Amadou Diallo 19 times, killing him.
With such a record of defending the police, it is unsurprising that Kerik also told Fox News’ Jeanne Pirro on Saturday that “thugs” in the Atlanta community should be told not to attack police.
But it was Ested, who also authored a book on the subject, “Police Brutality Matters,” who seemed to upset the ranks of blue uniform supporters when he condemned the actions of Garrett Rolfe the officer who was fired Sunday.
“The community right now is screaming for accountability for bad policing,” Ested said. “That’s called bad policing what we just witnessed. Bad policing.”
It was this rebuke of law enforcement that drew fire from Fox viewers, who apparently shot back at Ested over Twitter during the interview. In a move that seemed as though engineered to sooth enraged Fox viewers, Hilton interrupted Ested, conceding even more time to Kerik to pile on further support of the officers — urging that they be given “the benefit of the doubt.”
After a commercial break, Hilton suggested that his audience was furious at Ested for his remarks, and said that Kerik would be back later to respond. pic.twitter.com/ldIEkt7f6T — John Whitehouse (@existentialfish) June 15, 2020
None of Ested’s interview was shown on Fox News on Monday, in spite of the re-airing of other elements from the program that featured Kerik’s defense of the officers.
Media Matters’ John Whitehouse flagged the exchange Monday morning:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-06-16--Pence Urges Guvs To Peddle Misleading Trump-Friendly Explanation For COVID-19 Increase

Vice President Mike Pence reportedly urged governors during a conference call on Monday to present a misleadingly rosy , Trump-friendly explanation of the spike in COVID-19 cases to their constituents .
According to the New York Times ’ audio of the call , Pence asserted that as the governors discuss the increasing rates of COVID-19 with their constituents , they also ought to “ continue to explain to your citizens the magnitude of the increase in testing ” and “ encourage people with the news that we ’ re safely reopening the country.
” President Donald Trump has been blaming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increased testing , which he argues “ makes us look bad.
” “ If you don ’ t test , you don ’ t have any cases .
If we stopped testing right now , we ’ d have very few cases , if any , ” Trump said during a Cabinet Room meeting on Monday afternoon .
However , that ’ s a false portrayal of the situation .
In fact , the Washington Post notes that the surge in cases outpaces the increase in testing in 14 states , while in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been growing even as the number of tests in those states decline .

Vice President Mike Pence reportedly urged governors during a conference call on Monday to present a misleadingly rosy, Trump-friendly explanation of the spike in COVID-19 cases to their constituents.
According to the New York Times’ audio of the call, Pence asserted that as the governors discuss the increasing rates of COVID-19 with their constituents, they also ought to “continue to explain to your citizens the magnitude of the increase in testing” and “encourage people with the news that we’re safely reopening the country.”
President Donald Trump has been blaming the rising number of COVID-19 cases on increased testing, which he argues “makes us look bad.”
“If you don’t test, you don’t have any cases. If we stopped testing right now, we’d have very few cases, if any,” Trump said during a Cabinet Room meeting on Monday afternoon.
However, that’s a false portrayal of the situation. In fact, the Washington Post notes that the surge in cases outpaces the increase in testing in 14 states, while in seven states the COVID-19 case rates have been growing even as the number of tests in those states decline.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-06-16--McConnell Blasts Pelosi For Trying To ‘Airbrush Capitol’ Of Confederate Statues

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) on Tuesday tore into House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) following her call to remove 11 statues representing Confederate figures from the U.S. Capitol .
Last week , Pelosi urged the removal of nearly a dozen statues in the Capitol paying tribute to Confederate figures in a letter sent to the leadership of the Joint Committee on the Library .
Pelosi wrote that statues in the Capitol “ should embody our highest ideals as Americans ” and that monuments of men linked to the Confederacy must be removed “ immediately.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts to take down monuments linked to racism grow in the wake of George Floyd ’ s death .
McConnell rejected her demand a week later , telling reporters on Tuesday afternoon that Pelosi ’ s request to remove Confederate statues from the Capitol is an effort to “ airbrush ” history .
“ What I do think is clearly a bridge too far is this nonsense that we need to airbrush the Capitol and scrub out everybody from years ago who had any connection to slavery , ” McConnell said , before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Look , as far as the statues are concerned , every state gets two .
Any state can trade out , as Sen. ( Roy ) Blunt ( R-MO ) pointed out , if they choose to .
And some actually are choosing to.
” McConnell ’ s latest remarks regarding Confederate statues in the Capitol echo sentiments that he and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy ( R-CA ) shared last week .
McConnell told reporters that “ the appropriate way to deal with the statue issue ” is for states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , McConnell on Tuesday afternoon expressed more openness to renaming military bases honoring Confederate generals , unlike President Trump who tweeted last week that he will “ not even consider ” changing bases .
“ If it ’ s appropriate to take another look at these names , I ’ m personally OK with that — and I am a descendant of a Confederate veteran myself , ” McConnell said .
“ With regard to military bases , whatever is ultimately decided , I don ’ t have a problem with.
” McConnell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tribute to Confederate generals comes two days after Sen. James Lankford ( R-OK ) said during an ABC News interview that he would support the move .
On Sunday , Lankford told ABC News ’ George Stephanopoulos that “ there are lots of great leaders , military leaders ” nationwide who “ we can continue to be able to honor and continue to be able to put names forward .
”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on Tuesday tore into House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) following her call to remove 11 statues representing Confederate figures from the U.S. Capitol.
Last week, Pelosi urged the removal of nearly a dozen statues in the Capitol paying tribute to Confederate figures in a letter sent to the leadership of the Joint Committee on the Library. Pelosi wrote that statues in the Capitol “should embody our highest ideals as Americans” and that monuments of men linked to the Confederacy must be removed “immediately.” The House Speaker issued her request as efforts to take down monuments linked to racism grow in the wake of George Floyd’s death.
McConnell rejected her demand a week later, telling reporters on Tuesday afternoon that Pelosi’s request to remove Confederate statues from the Capitol is an effort to “airbrush” history.
“What I do think is clearly a bridge too far is this nonsense that we need to airbrush the Capitol and scrub out everybody from years ago who had any connection to slavery,” McConnell said, before mentioning that eight former presidents owned slaves. “Look, as far as the statues are concerned, every state gets two. Any state can trade out, as Sen. (Roy) Blunt (R-MO) pointed out, if they choose to. And some actually are choosing to.”
McConnell’s latest remarks regarding Confederate statues in the Capitol echo sentiments that he and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) shared last week. McConnell told reporters that “the appropriate way to deal with the statue issue” is for states to “make that decision.”
However, McConnell on Tuesday afternoon expressed more openness to renaming military bases honoring Confederate generals, unlike President Trump who tweeted last week that he will “not even consider” changing bases.
“If it’s appropriate to take another look at these names, I’m personally OK with that — and I am a descendant of a Confederate veteran myself,” McConnell said. “With regard to military bases, whatever is ultimately decided, I don’t have a problem with.”
McConnell’s willingness to rename bases paying tribute to Confederate generals comes two days after Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) said during an ABC News interview that he would support the move.
On Sunday, Lankford told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos that “there are lots of great leaders, military leaders” nationwide who “we can continue to be able to honor and continue to be able to put names forward.”
Watch McConnell’s remarks below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-06-16--DOJ Sues John Bolton To Block Publication Of His Book

The Justice Department filed a lawsuit Tuesday seeking to block the publication of former National Security Advisor John Bolton ’ s book , which is scheduled for release next week .
The lawsuit alleges that Bolton breached his non-disclosure agreement with the government by moving forward with the release , despite having not finished the prepublication review process with the National Security Council .
The lawsuit claims that the book , titled The Room Where It Happened , contains classified information .
Claiming portions of the draft contain classified information — “ some up to several paragraphs in length ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that information could be “ expected to cause serious damage , or exceptionally grave damage , to the national security of the United States.
” Since the book deal was announced , President Trump has warned repeatedly that he ’ d take action to block its publication .
Just this week , Trump said that Bolton will face “ legal consequences ” because he considers ever conversation Bolton had “ with me as President highly classified.
” The lawsuit , meanwhile , alleges that , ” dissatisfied at the pace of NSC ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decided to take matters into his own hands ” by announcing the June 23 release date .
“ Simply put , Defendant struck a bargain with the United States as a condition of his employment in one of the most sensitive and important national security positions in the United States Government and now wants to renege on that bargain by unilaterally deciding that the prepublication review process is complete and deciding for himself whether classified information should be made public , ” the lawsuit said .
Bolton ’ s lawyer Chuck Cooper has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the draft had told Bolton in late April that she had not more edits for him , and only this month did he hear from a White House lawyer that there was still an issue with publishing the book .
Cooper said in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that the White House ’ s claims were a “ transparent attempt to use national security as a pretext to censor Mr. Bolton , in violation of his constitutional right to speak on matters of the utmost public import.
” Cooper did not immediately respond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the lawsuit .
The lawsuit claims that after the NSC official who had been working with Bolton had finished her review , Michael Ellis , the NSC ’ s Senior Director for Intelligence , began his own review of the draft .
Ellis “ was concerned that the manuscript still appeared to contain classified information , in part because the same Administration that the Author served is still in office and that the manuscript described sensitive information about ongoing foreign policy issues , ” the lawsuit says .
The book is expected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ transgressions ” that “ existed across the full range of his foreign policy , ” according to a preview from the publisher .
Bolton refused the House ’ s request that he testify about the Ukraine matter , saying he ’ d only do so if a court first upheld a congressional subpoena for his testimony .
The DOJ lawsuit requests that a court order Bolton to seek a delay in the release date of the book and that Bolton instruct his publisher to take “ all available steps to retrieve and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ book that have been distributed to third parties .

The Justice Department filed a lawsuit Tuesday seeking to block the publication of former National Security Advisor John Bolton’s book, which is scheduled for release next week.
The lawsuit alleges that Bolton breached his non-disclosure agreement with the government by moving forward with the release, despite having not finished the prepublication review process with the National Security Council. The lawsuit claims that the book, titled The Room Where It Happened, contains classified information.
Claiming portions of the draft contain classified information — “some up to several paragraphs in length”— the lawsuit alleges that disclosure of that information could be “expected to cause serious damage, or exceptionally grave damage, to the national security of the United States.”
Since the book deal was announced, President Trump has warned repeatedly that he’d take action to block its publication. Just this week, Trump said that Bolton will face “legal consequences” because he considers ever conversation Bolton had “with me as President highly classified.”
The lawsuit, meanwhile, alleges that,”dissatisfied at the pace of NSC’s review,” Bolton had “decided to take matters into his own hands” by announcing the June 23 release date.
“Simply put, Defendant struck a bargain with the United States as a condition of his employment in one of the most sensitive and important national security positions in the United States Government and now wants to renege on that bargain by unilaterally deciding that the prepublication review process is complete and deciding for himself whether classified information should be made public,” the lawsuit said.
Bolton’s lawyer Chuck Cooper has said the NSC official who was reviewing the draft had told Bolton in late April that she had not more edits for him, and only this month did he hear from a White House lawyer that there was still an issue with publishing the book. Cooper said in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that the White House’s claims were a “transparent attempt to use national security as a pretext to censor Mr. Bolton, in violation of his constitutional right to speak on matters of the utmost public import.”
Cooper did not immediately respond to TPM’s request for comment about the lawsuit.
The lawsuit claims that after the NSC official who had been working with Bolton had finished her review, Michael Ellis, the NSC’s Senior Director for Intelligence, began his own review of the draft. Ellis “was concerned that the manuscript still appeared to contain classified information, in part because the same Administration that the Author served is still in office and that the manuscript described sensitive information about ongoing foreign policy issues,” the lawsuit says.
The book is expected to cover the Ukraine saga and similar “transgressions” that “existed across the full range of his foreign policy,” according to a preview from the publisher.
Bolton refused the House’s request that he testify about the Ukraine matter, saying he’d only do so if a court first upheld a congressional subpoena for his testimony.
The DOJ lawsuit requests that a court order Bolton to seek a delay in the release date of the book and that Bolton instruct his publisher to take “all available steps to retrieve and dispose of any copies” of the book that have been distributed to third parties.
Read the DOJ lawsuit below: