talkingpointsmemo--2020-05-13--Missouri GOPers To Ask Voters To Let Them Rig The Electoral Playing Field

Missouri voters will decide this fall if they ’ ll allow their state to become a test case for a major anti-immigrant redistricting overhaul that ’ s been a long desired goal of the GOP .
After years of trying , Missouri Republican legislators on Wednesday formally advanced the redistricting measure — which also guts an anti-gerrymandering reform voters approved in 2019 — onto this year ’ s ballot .
The measure could fundamentally change how legislative maps are drawn , by drawing districts based on the number of citizens rather than the total population .
Whether such a move @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But its political consequences are well documented , perhaps most notoriously by a now-deceased GOP gerrymandering guru who pushed the Trump administration to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census .
“ A switch to the use of citizen voting age population as the redistricting population base for redistricting would be advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites , ” the guru , Thomas Hofellor , wrote in a private study that became public in the citizenship question litigation .
Missouri Republicans have been trying to change the state constitution to let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since at least 2018 , after the Trump administration announced it was adding a citizenship question to the census .
The Supreme Court ultimately blocked the move to add the question .
But the Census Bureau — under a directive from President Trump — is still planning to release for redistricting purposes citizenship data that it is assembling using existing government records .
In the most recent version of the measure Missouri Republicans advanced Wednesday , they tweaked the language to let them use data not produced by the decennial census itself when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several others that will water down an anti-gerrymandering constitutional amendment , called “ Clean Missouri , ” that more than 60 percent of Missouri voters approved in 2018 .
According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch , the Missouri House passed the ballot initiative in a 98-58 vote , with one Democrat — a black lawmaker who said she was concerned with how the “ Clean Missouri ” reforms affected the ability of African Americans to win elections — joining Republicans in supporting the measure .
“ Clean Missouri ” advocates are confident that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the GOP measure undoing its reforms at the polls this fall .
If they ’ re wrong , then any attempt by Missouri ’ s GOP legislators to exclude non-citizens from redistricting will almost certainly be challenged in court .
The Supreme Court has not said definitively that such a change is permissible .
Instead , it has unanimously said that the current method of redistricting based on total population is constitutional .
If the justices greenlight the change that Missouri Republicans are seeking as well , then Missouri is unlikely to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .

Missouri voters will decide this fall if they’ll allow their state to become a test case for a major anti-immigrant redistricting overhaul that’s been a long desired goal of the GOP.
After years of trying, Missouri Republican legislators on Wednesday formally advanced the redistricting measure — which also guts an anti-gerrymandering reform voters approved in 2019 — onto this year’s ballot.
The measure could fundamentally change how legislative maps are drawn, by drawing districts based on the number of citizens rather than the total population.
Whether such a move is legal is still an open question. But its political consequences are well documented, perhaps most notoriously by a now-deceased GOP gerrymandering guru who pushed the Trump administration to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.
“A switch to the use of citizen voting age population as the redistricting population base for redistricting would be advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites,” the guru, Thomas Hofellor, wrote in a private study that became public in the citizenship question litigation.
Missouri Republicans have been trying to change the state constitution to let them draw maps using a citizen-based metric since at least 2018, after the Trump administration announced it was adding a citizenship question to the census. The Supreme Court ultimately blocked the move to add the question. But the Census Bureau — under a directive from President Trump — is still planning to release for redistricting purposes citizenship data that it is assembling using existing government records.
In the most recent version of the measure Missouri Republicans advanced Wednesday, they tweaked the language to let them use data not produced by the decennial census itself when drawing maps.
The provision is among several others that will water down an anti-gerrymandering constitutional amendment, called “Clean Missouri,” that more than 60 percent of Missouri voters approved in 2018.
According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Missouri House passed the ballot initiative in a 98-58 vote, with one Democrat — a black lawmaker who said she was concerned with how the “Clean Missouri” reforms affected the ability of African Americans to win elections — joining Republicans in supporting the measure.
“Clean Missouri” advocates are confident that they’ll be able to defeat the GOP measure undoing its reforms at the polls this fall.
If they’re wrong, then any attempt by Missouri’s GOP legislators to exclude non-citizens from redistricting will almost certainly be challenged in court. The Supreme Court has not said definitively that such a change is permissible. Instead, it has unanimously said that the current method of redistricting based on total population is constitutional.
If the justices greenlight the change that Missouri Republicans are seeking as well, then Missouri is unlikely to be the last state that tries to implement it.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-05-13--Raging Against ‘Mere Life,’ The Federalist Has Declared War On Public Health Orders

String together coverage of COVID-19 “ stay-at-home ” orders in The Federalist , the conservative website , and it begins to resemble an ode to death itself .
So sings the chorus of conservative PhDs , right-wing think tankers , business owners and scientific contrarians narrating the impact of COVID-19 .
The Federalist is their echo chamber , publishing dozens of articles in recent weeks largely focused on the need to “ reopen ” society .
As public health experts warn that the pandemic will require long-term sacrifices in order to keep infection rates down , a TPM review of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Federalist has pursued a different route .
For weeks , the site has been at the vanguard of the backlash against COVID-19 public health orders .
After early attempts to interrogate the media ’ s “ hysteria ” about the virus — and amid an ongoing obsession with what to call it — the site has pushed to “ reopen ” despite the growing death toll .
That ’ s meant instructing readers to buck up , avoid “ cowardice , ” and fight back .
Or as executive editor Joy Pullmann put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats ’ latest stimulus proposal , “ Americans shouldn ’ t hide in our homes fumbling in our childrens ’ pockets for money like drunkards.
” “ Like the greatest generation , we owe it to our nation to face danger bravely , ” Pullmann wrote .
“ Our ancestors risked much worse to give us the best country in the world : cholera outbreaks , amputations without anesthesia , hand-to-paw combat with bears and panthers , natives who ruled territory through slavery and torture , establishing homes in a forbidding wilderness amid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fight from poisoned foxholes , perilous trips in rickety ships across a dark ocean.
” This isn ’ t a fringe blog .
The Federalist , though frequently a platform for the off-color and unscientific , is also read by those in power .
A spokesperson for Republicans on the House Oversight committee , for example , lauded an article last month on “ How Cowardice and Class Privilege Shift Support For Lockdowns.
” And members of Congress often publish Federalist op-eds .
A five-word blog post from Rep. Jim Jordan ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of many of them : “ We were right about everything , ” the congressman wrote .
President Donald Trump has boosted that post and several others from the site to his millions of Twitter followers .
And popular conservative voices like talk show host Mark Levin regularly spread The Federalist around .
At first , The Federalist ’ s coronavirus coverage was pretty straight-laced .
In late January , the site ’ s first post on the then-Wuhan-based outbreak focused on “ implications for international security and for the global economy.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from inside Wuhan as the city battled the virus .
Generally , coverage focused on criticisms of the Chinese government and the World Health Organization .
But as President Donald Trump began speaking more frequently in public about the virus , The Federalist changed its tone .
“ The Coronavirus Has Mutated—Into A Political Talking Point , ” political editor John Daniel Davidson observed on Feb. 27 , the day after Trump held his first press conference on the virus .
And boy did it : In the days and weeks that followed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its existing battles : For a border wall , against environmentalism and gender studies .
Even “ Big Porn ” got put on notice .
“ Like the coronavirus , pornography use is silent but deadly , a powerful disease that has had devastating effects across our society , ” wrote Terry Schilling , executive director of the American Principles Project , a conservative political group .
Given its conservative audience , the site ’ s authors mostly preach to a relatively defined choir : Readers interested in “ politics , religion , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” with a healthy dose of the culture wars on the side .
But as the COVID-19 takes grew more daring — notably with the late-March call for “ chickenpox parties ” to voluntarily spread the disease and establish herd immunity — the criticism grew sharper .
A few days prior to the “ pox parties ” article , for example , Dr. David Gorski , a surgeon and editor of the anti-quackery website Science-Based Medicine , called out Pullmann , the site ’ s executive editor , for “ citing pseudoscientific best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Hoover Institution ] as ‘ competing projections.
’ ” Pullmann had pointed to a Hoover article from the conservative legal scholar Richard Epstein , who wrote that “ the total number of cases world-wide will peak out at well under 1 million , with the total number of deaths at under 50,000.
” ( Emphasis hers . )
“ We don ’ t know if that estimate is accurate either , but that ’ s the point , ” Pullmann wrote .
The global case count exceeded Espstein ’ s estimate within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to Johns Hopkins University ; U.S. fatalities alone reached 50,000 three weeks after that .
Those optimistic projections , once face-to-face with the devastating scope of the pandemic , gave way to a less empirical crusade .
In March , after Trump and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy ( R-CA ) began calling it the “ China Virus , ” The Federalist enlisted in a new fight .
Sure , the World Health Organization dubbed it COVID-19 all the way back on Feb. 11 , creating a convenient international shorthand ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 ” ) uniformly used by scientists , doctors and policymakers .
But when President Trump and Republicans in Congress tried to change the label in March — in an effort , they acknowledged , to shift blame to China — the website couldn ’ t stay away .
In the weeks that followed , Federalist writers posted more than a dozen articles arguing for a name that pinned the pandemic to its country of origin .
The only thing they couldn ’ t agree on was a replacement : Across the site @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as “ Chinese coronavirus , ” “ Chinese virus , ” “ Wuhan virus , ” “ Wuhan Flu , ” “ WuFlu ” and “ ChiCom flu.
” Perhaps a bit ironically , Federalist staff contributed to the debate while at the same time performatively bemoaning the effort .
“ Yesterday , amid the ongoing economic and social disruptions caused by the coronavirus , rising numbers of infections and deaths globally , and widespread closures of schools and other extreme measures imposed across the country , the mainstream media decided we should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s racist for President Trump to call it the ‘ Chinese virus , ’ ” Davidson wrote on March 19 , in a piece titled “ The Media Are Embarrassing Themselves Over Trump ’ s Use Of ‘ Chinese Virus.
’ ” The most inventive contribution to the clicky naming debate genre came from a Lutheran pastor in a satirical interview with the virus itself — “ currently living in an undisclosed location on the East Coast and everywhere else on the planet.
” “ I ’ m very proud of my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ But I ’ m also really into the whole international thing these days.
” It should come as no surprise : the science behind the site ’ s coverage hasn ’ t exactly been pristine .
That , again , appears partially the result of Trump ’ s proclamations : In March , the President started hyping the anti-malarial medication hydroxychloroquine as a potential wonder cure for COVID-19 , despite almost no evidence showing it was effective .
Federalist writers quickly joined the effort .
On March 23 , for example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ preliminary scientific evidence suggests the drug chloroquine provides a therapeutic benefit to people with the coronavirus.
” She argued reporters were being real downers by pointing out to Trump that the drug wasn ’ t actually proven to be effective .
“ [ W ] hat seems clear now is that President Trump is hopeful , while the media come off as rooting for a failure , ” Cleveland wrote .
“ That doesn ’ t just make the press terrible reporters—it makes them terrible Americans.
” Reached Monday , Cleveland was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear , the reporters weren ’ t ‘ wary , ’ they were giddy for a failure , ” she wrote .
The site ’ s call for “ chickenpox parties , ” which a formerly licensed dermatologist figured could help establish herd immunity , was widely mocked on the web and led to a temporary suspension of The Federalist ’ s Twitter account .
Writer Douglas Perednia told The New Yorker afterward that he ’ d pitched the piece to a number of medical journals , blogs and news sites , all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Federalist accepted the piece no questions asked , he said .
The site ’ s speculation that saltwater gargling or smoking could help ward off infection , by contrast , slipped mercifully under the radar .
Yet as the virus rages on and social distancing rules remain largely in place for the majority of Americans , denunciations of society ’ s cowardice have also figured prominently .
A characteristic article last week , for example , chastened readers , “ Our Ancestors Would Be Amazed At Our Cowardly Coronavirus Hysteria.
” Theology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical workers and was not dismissing the pain of thousands who ’ ve lost loved ones , but also that medieval time travelers “ would realize we are a comparatively weak people.
” “ What I am talking about is the general fear that so quickly and easily overtook our politicians , media , and then citizens at large , resulting in an overreaction of total lockdown and now , presumably , a permanent health emergency , ” Stanglin wrote .
“ All of this led to the unnecessary wrecking of the economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government funding — and all of this for a virus with an infection fatality rate that is probably under 1 percent.
” In emails to TPM , Stanglin compared “ lockdown ” orders to “ shutting down all automobile traffic because tens of thousands of people die in auto accidents in this country every year.
” “ But we will continue to drive our cars , and pretty fast , too , ” he added .
“ We will mourn those who die in car wrecks , and we will get in our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” In the face of those lockdown orders , the Federalist has adopted the role of enforcer , focusing its efforts on an everyday annoyance : Snitches .
The impulse is understandable .
Ratting out your neighbors for breaking quarantine rules “ encourages a police response , which means an implicit threat of violence , ” Davidson , the political editor , wrote last month .
“ [ M ] ind your own freakin ’ business , ” regarding your neighbor ’ s black market hair cutting operation , New York correspondent David @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the website chose to get a bit more dramatic to illustrate the point .
Christopher Skeet , in his April 21 masterwork , “ The Snitches Tattling On My In-Laws ’ Pickleball Game Don ’ t Care About The Virus , ” knew how to really turn up the volume .
“ Bosnian and Rwandan ditches are full of corpses whose betrayers were lifelong neighbors a week prior , ” Skeet wrote , just a few paragraphs after detailing the demise of his in-laws ’ street ball game .

String together coverage of COVID-19 “stay-at-home” orders in The Federalist, the conservative website, and it begins to resemble an ode to death itself.
“Imagine for a moment that the nation were ruled by dictatorship of doctors…”
“Is it right for the nation to require our children’s futures be destroyed to keep alive less than 1 percent of our population until the next flu season?”
“It seems harsh to ask whether the nation might be better off letting a few hundred thousand people die.”
“So the barbaric, panicky elevation of mere life as the only good worth conserving is becoming increasingly shameful.”
“Is death the worst thing that could happen to you?”
So sings the chorus of conservative PhDs, right-wing think tankers, business owners and scientific contrarians narrating the impact of COVID-19. The Federalist is their echo chamber, publishing dozens of articles in recent weeks largely focused on the need to “reopen” society.
As public health experts warn that the pandemic will require long-term sacrifices in order to keep infection rates down, a TPM review of three months of coverage found that The Federalist has pursued a different route. For weeks, the site has been at the vanguard of the backlash against COVID-19 public health orders.
After early attempts to interrogate the media’s “hysteria” about the virus — and amid an ongoing obsession with what to call it — the site has pushed to “reopen” despite the growing death toll. That’s meant instructing readers to buck up, avoid “cowardice,” and fight back.
Or as executive editor Joy Pullmann put it in a critique Wednesday of House Democrats’ latest stimulus proposal, “Americans shouldn’t hide in our homes fumbling in our childrens’ pockets for money like drunkards.”
“Like the greatest generation, we owe it to our nation to face danger bravely,” Pullmann wrote. “Our ancestors risked much worse to give us the best country in the world: cholera outbreaks, amputations without anesthesia, hand-to-paw combat with bears and panthers, natives who ruled territory through slavery and torture, establishing homes in a forbidding wilderness amid outbreaks of starvation and disease, volunteering to fight from poisoned foxholes, perilous trips in rickety ships across a dark ocean.”
‘A Political Talking Point’
This isn’t a fringe blog. The Federalist, though frequently a platform for the off-color and unscientific, is also read by those in power. A spokesperson for Republicans on the House Oversight committee, for example, lauded an article last month on “How Cowardice and Class Privilege Shift Support For Lockdowns.” And members of Congress often publish Federalist op-eds. A five-word blog post from Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) on Friday captures the message of many of them: “We were right about everything,” the congressman wrote. President Donald Trump has boosted that post and several others from the site to his millions of Twitter followers. And popular conservative voices like talk show host Mark Levin regularly spread The Federalist around.
At first, The Federalist’s coronavirus coverage was pretty straight-laced. In late January, the site’s first post on the then-Wuhan-based outbreak focused on “implications for international security and for the global economy.” Senior contributor Helen Raleigh subsequently amplified voices from inside Wuhan as the city battled the virus. Generally, coverage focused on criticisms of the Chinese government and the World Health Organization.
But as President Donald Trump began speaking more frequently in public about the virus, The Federalist changed its tone.
“The Coronavirus Has Mutated—Into A Political Talking Point,” political editor John Daniel Davidson observed on Feb. 27, the day after Trump held his first press conference on the virus.
And boy did it: In the days and weeks that followed, The Federalist plugged the disease into its existing battles: For a border wall, against environmentalism and gender studies. Even “Big Porn” got put on notice.
“Like the coronavirus, pornography use is silent but deadly, a powerful disease that has had devastating effects across our society,” wrote Terry Schilling, executive director of the American Principles Project, a conservative political group.
Given its conservative audience, the site’s authors mostly preach to a relatively defined choir: Readers interested in “politics, religion, and culture from a conservatarian angle,” with a healthy dose of the culture wars on the side. But as the COVID-19 takes grew more daring — notably with the late-March call for “chickenpox parties” to voluntarily spread the disease and establish herd immunity — the criticism grew sharper.
A few days prior to the “pox parties” article, for example, Dr. David Gorski, a surgeon and editor of the anti-quackery website Science-Based Medicine, called out Pullmann, the site’s executive editor, for “citing pseudoscientific best case scenarios from ideology-deluded hacks at [The Hoover Institution] as ‘competing projections.’” Pullmann had pointed to a Hoover article from the conservative legal scholar Richard Epstein, who wrote that “the total number of cases world-wide will peak out at well under 1 million, with the total number of deaths at under 50,000.” (Emphasis hers.)
“We don’t know if that estimate is accurate either, but that’s the point,” Pullmann wrote.
The global case count exceeded Espstein’s estimate within two weeks of Pullmann’s citation, according to Johns Hopkins University; U.S. fatalities alone reached 50,000 three weeks after that.
‘The Media Are Embarrassing Themselves’
Those optimistic projections, once face-to-face with the devastating scope of the pandemic, gave way to a less empirical crusade. In March, after Trump and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) began calling it the “China Virus,” The Federalist enlisted in a new fight.
Sure, the World Health Organization dubbed it COVID-19 all the way back on Feb. 11, creating a convenient international shorthand (rather than “novel coronavirus disease of 2019”) uniformly used by scientists, doctors and policymakers.
But when President Trump and Republicans in Congress tried to change the label in March — in an effort, they acknowledged, to shift blame to China — the website couldn’t stay away. In the weeks that followed, Federalist writers posted more than a dozen articles arguing for a name that pinned the pandemic to its country of origin.
The only thing they couldn’t agree on was a replacement: Across the site, the viral disease is referred to as “Chinese coronavirus,” “Chinese virus,” “Wuhan virus,” “Wuhan Flu,” “WuFlu” and “ChiCom flu.”
Perhaps a bit ironically, Federalist staff contributed to the debate while at the same time performatively bemoaning the effort.
“Yesterday, amid the ongoing economic and social disruptions caused by the coronavirus, rising numbers of infections and deaths globally, and widespread closures of schools and other extreme measures imposed across the country, the mainstream media decided we should have a national debate about whether it’s racist for President Trump to call it the ‘Chinese virus,’” Davidson wrote on March 19, in a piece titled “The Media Are Embarrassing Themselves Over Trump’s Use Of ‘Chinese Virus.’”
The most inventive contribution to the clicky naming debate genre came from a Lutheran pastor in a satirical interview with the virus itself — “currently living in an undisclosed location on the East Coast and everywhere else on the planet.”
“I’m very proud of my Chinese heritage,” the virus said. “But I’m also really into the whole international thing these days.”
‘Preliminary Scientific Evidence’
It should come as no surprise: the science behind the site’s coverage hasn’t exactly been pristine.
That, again, appears partially the result of Trump’s proclamations: In March, the President started hyping the anti-malarial medication hydroxychloroquine as a potential wonder cure for COVID-19, despite almost no evidence showing it was effective. Federalist writers quickly joined the effort.
On March 23, for example, senior contributor Margot Cleveland wrote that “preliminary scientific evidence suggests the drug chloroquine provides a therapeutic benefit to people with the coronavirus.” She argued reporters were being real downers by pointing out to Trump that the drug wasn’t actually proven to be effective.
“[W]hat seems clear now is that President Trump is hopeful, while the media come off as rooting for a failure,” Cleveland wrote. “That doesn’t just make the press terrible reporters—it makes them terrible Americans.”
Reached Monday, Cleveland was adamant. “As my article made clear, the reporters weren’t ‘wary,’ they were giddy for a failure,” she wrote.
The site’s call for “chickenpox parties,” which a formerly licensed dermatologist figured could help establish herd immunity, was widely mocked on the web and led to a temporary suspension of The Federalist’s Twitter account. Writer Douglas Perednia told The New Yorker afterward that he’d pitched the piece to a number of medical journals, blogs and news sites, all of which had turned him down. The Federalist accepted the piece no questions asked, he said.
The site’s speculation that saltwater gargling or smoking could help ward off infection, by contrast, slipped mercifully under the radar.
‘Comparatively Weak People’
Yet as the virus rages on and social distancing rules remain largely in place for the majority of Americans, denunciations of society’s cowardice have also figured prominently. A characteristic article last week, for example, chastened readers, “Our Ancestors Would Be Amazed At Our Cowardly Coronavirus Hysteria.” Theology professor Keith Stanglin wrote that he respected medical workers and was not dismissing the pain of thousands who’ve lost loved ones, but also that medieval time travelers “would realize we are a comparatively weak people.”
“What I am talking about is the general fear that so quickly and easily overtook our politicians, media, and then citizens at large, resulting in an overreaction of total lockdown and now, presumably, a permanent health emergency,” Stanglin wrote. “All of this led to the unnecessary wrecking of the economy and need for trillions of dollars in government funding — and all of this for a virus with an infection fatality rate that is probably under 1 percent.”
In emails to TPM, Stanglin compared “lockdown” orders to “shutting down all automobile traffic because tens of thousands of people die in auto accidents in this country every year.”
“But we will continue to drive our cars, and pretty fast, too,” he added. “We will mourn those who die in car wrecks, and we will get in our cars and drive to attend their funerals.”
In the face of those lockdown orders, the Federalist has adopted the role of enforcer, focusing its efforts on an everyday annoyance: Snitches.
The impulse is understandable. Ratting out your neighbors for breaking quarantine rules “encourages a police response, which means an implicit threat of violence,” Davidson, the political editor, wrote last month. “[M]ind your own freakin’ business,” regarding your neighbor’s black market hair cutting operation, New York correspondent David Marcus instructed readers recently.
But some at the website chose to get a bit more dramatic to illustrate the point.
Christopher Skeet, in his April 21 masterwork, “The Snitches Tattling On My In-Laws’ Pickleball Game Don’t Care About The Virus,” knew how to really turn up the volume.
“Bosnian and Rwandan ditches are full of corpses whose betrayers were lifelong neighbors a week prior,” Skeet wrote, just a few paragraphs after detailing the demise of his in-laws’ street ball game.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-05-13--Schumer Torches WH And Its ‘Minions’ For Attacking ‘People Who Tell The Truth’

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-NY ) ripped the White House and GOP lawmakers on Wednesday for smearing President Donald Trump ’ s political enemies and health experts instead of focusing on the COVID-19 pandemic .
“ Are you concerned that the White House is censoring the public health information from the most important agency ?
” MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell asked Schumer , referring to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
The White House has “ gotten their minions and Fox News and everywhere else to just personally and vitriolically attack people who tell the truth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York lawmaker also slammed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ’ s ( R-KY ) “ ridiculous ” attacks on former President Barack Obama and Senate Republicans ’ pursuit of “ conspiracy theories ” about Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden , who happens to be Trump ’ s Democratic challenger .
“ This is amazing to me , ” Schumer said .
“ What alternative universe do they live in , spending their time on discredited conspiracy theories against Obama , against Biden , instead of dealing with with the greatest crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decades and decades and decades ?
What universe are they in ?
What is in their heads ?
”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) ripped the White House and GOP lawmakers on Wednesday for smearing President Donald Trump’s political enemies and health experts instead of focusing on the COVID-19 pandemic.
“Are you concerned that the White House is censoring the public health information from the most important agency?” MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell asked Schumer, referring to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“Yes, I am,” the Democratic leader replied.
The White House has “gotten their minions and Fox News and everywhere else to just personally and vitriolically attack people who tell the truth,” Schumer said.
The New York lawmaker also slammed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) “ridiculous” attacks on former President Barack Obama and Senate Republicans’ pursuit of “conspiracy theories” about Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden, who happens to be Trump’s Democratic challenger.
“This is amazing to me,” Schumer said. “What alternative universe do they live in, spending their time on discredited conspiracy theories against Obama, against Biden, instead of dealing with with the greatest crisis we’ve had in America in decades and decades and decades? What universe are they in? What is in their heads?”
Watch Schumer below:
Schumer says White House has gotten their "minions" to attack people who "tell the truth." pic.twitter.com/as7M4RghN3 — TPM Livewire (@TPMLiveWire) May 13, 2020


talkingpointsmemo--2020-05-13--READ: DNI Grenell Unmasks Obama Officials, Including Biden, In Boon For Fever Swamps

Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell released the names of Obama officials supposedly involved in “ unmasking ” Michael Flynn , including former Vice President and Democratic candidate for President Joe Biden , in an example of the Trump administration using its broad intelligence powers to attack a political opponent .
The list came within a day of Sens .
Chuck Grassley ( R-IA ) and Ron Johnson ( R-WS ) requesting the names of Obama officials who had asked that a U.S. citizen picked up on intelligence reports about Russian interference in the 2016 election be identified .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ reports are typically redacted .
High-ranking officials can ask for the names to be revealed .
The name that was revealed in this case was that of incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn .
The so-called “ unmasking ” of Flynn has become a firestorm directed by Trumpworld , which is using it to suggest that Flynn ’ s prosecution was somehow politically orchestrated .
The names on the list include then-U.S .
Ambassador to Russia John Tefft , U.N .
Ambassador Samantha Power , Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials listed should confirm whether they reviewed this information , why they asked for it and what they did with it , and answer many other questions that have been raised by recent revelations , ” Grassley and Johnson said in a statement .
“ The records are one step forward in an important effort to get to the bottom of what the Obama administration did during the Russia investigation and to Lt. General Flynn.
” Grenell made the decision to release the information along with Attorney General Bill Barr .
Sen. Rand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the development , calling Grenell to testify before the Senate next week .
“ Today I received the shocking reply that @ JoeBiden and many others knew !
” Paul tweeted .
“ What did President Obama know ?
” Trump repeated the phrase “ Obamagate ” in front of reporters on Monday , accusing the former President of committing a crime .
When a reporter asked Trump what crime Obama committed , the President replied , “ you know what it is.
” That in turn came after the DOJ performed an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a charge to which he had pleaded guilty .
The Justice Department moved to drop charges against the former National Security Adviser last week .

Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell released the names of Obama officials supposedly involved in “unmasking” Michael Flynn, including former Vice President and Democratic candidate for President Joe Biden, in an example of the Trump administration using its broad intelligence powers to attack a political opponent.
The list came within a day of Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Ron Johnson (R-WS) requesting the names of Obama officials who had asked that a U.S. citizen picked up on intelligence reports about Russian interference in the 2016 election be identified.
The names of American citizens in intelligence reports are typically redacted. High-ranking officials can ask for the names to be revealed.
The name that was revealed in this case was that of incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.
The so-called “unmasking” of Flynn has become a firestorm directed by Trumpworld, which is using it to suggest that Flynn’s prosecution was somehow politically orchestrated.
The names on the list include then-U.S. Ambassador to Russia John Tefft, U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and Biden, among others.
“The officials listed should confirm whether they reviewed this information, why they asked for it and what they did with it, and answer many other questions that have been raised by recent revelations,” Grassley and Johnson said in a statement. “The records are one step forward in an important effort to get to the bottom of what the Obama administration did during the Russia investigation and to Lt. General Flynn.”
Grenell made the decision to release the information along with Attorney General Bill Barr.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) immediately seized on the development, calling Grenell to testify before the Senate next week.
“Today I received the shocking reply that @JoeBiden and many others knew!” Paul tweeted. “What did President Obama know?”
Trump repeated the phrase “Obamagate” in front of reporters on Monday, accusing the former President of committing a crime. When a reporter asked Trump what crime Obama committed, the President replied, “you know what it is.”
That in turn came after the DOJ performed an unprecedented about face to absolve Flynn of a charge to which he had pleaded guilty. The Justice Department moved to drop charges against the former National Security Adviser last week.
Read the list here:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-05-13--Alexander Breaks With Paul: Fauci ‘Isn’t Holding Himself Up As An Omniscient Person’

Sen. Lamar Alexander ( R-TN ) , the chair of the Senate Health , Education , Labor , and Pensions Committee , pushed back Wednesday against Sen. Rand Paul ’ s ( R-KY ) assessment of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Dr. Anthony Fauci , who also serves on the White House ’ s COVID-19 task force .
During an interview on Fox News , Alexander said he disagreed with Paul ’ s portrayal of Fauci advising against reopening the U.S. at this stage of the COVID-19 outbreak as the doctor attempting to be “ omniscient.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holding himself up as an omniscient person , ” the Tennessee senator said .
“ He ’ s saying what he thinks as a person who ’ s been in charge of infectious disease since 1984 , since Ronald Reagan ’ s day.
” Alexander noted that Fauci “ usually is very careful ” to say when he doesn ’ t know something .
“ So I wouldn ’ t characterize him as trying to be omniscient .
I don ’ t think he tries to do that at all , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good advice , and then you can take the advice or leave it.
” During Fauci ’ s testimony in front of Alexander ’ s committee on Tuesday , Paul scolded the doctor and said he “ ought to have a little bit of humility in our belief that we know what ’ s best for the economy.
” Paul also told Fauci “ I don ’ t think you ’ re the end-all ” on deciding when the economy should reopen .
In a Fox News interview several hours later , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , saying “ I don ’ t think any of these experts are omniscient.
” “ I think that they have a basis of knowledge , but when you prognosticate about the future or when you advocate for things dramatic and drastic , like closing all the schools , you should look at all the information , ” he continued .

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), the chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, pushed back Wednesday against Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY) assessment of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Dr. Anthony Fauci, who also serves on the White House’s COVID-19 task force.
During an interview on Fox News, Alexander said he disagreed with Paul’s portrayal of Fauci advising against reopening the U.S. at this stage of the COVID-19 outbreak as the doctor attempting to be “omniscient.”
“Dr. Fauci isn’t holding himself up as an omniscient person,” the Tennessee senator said. “He’s saying what he thinks as a person who’s been in charge of infectious disease since 1984, since Ronald Reagan’s day.”
Alexander noted that Fauci “usually is very careful” to say when he doesn’t know something.
“So I wouldn’t characterize him as trying to be omniscient. I don’t think he tries to do that at all,” said the GOP lawmaker. “He gives good advice, and then you can take the advice or leave it.”
During Fauci’s testimony in front of Alexander’s committee on Tuesday, Paul scolded the doctor and said he “ought to have a little bit of humility in our belief that we know what’s best for the economy.” Paul also told Fauci “I don’t think you’re the end-all” on deciding when the economy should reopen.
In a Fox News interview several hours later, the Kentucky senator upheld his swipe at Fauci, saying “I don’t think any of these experts are omniscient.”
“I think that they have a basis of knowledge, but when you prognosticate about the future or when you advocate for things dramatic and drastic, like closing all the schools, you should look at all the information,” he continued.
Watch Alexander below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-05-13--In Blistering Response, Whitmer’s Team Blasts Legislature’s Lawsuit As A ‘Power Grab’

Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer ’ s ( D ) legal team filed a gloves-off response to the legislature ’ s lawsuit Tuesday , deriding it as no more than a “ power grab ” and attempt to foist their own responsibilities onto the judiciary .
The Republican-controlled legislature sued Whitmer last week in the Michigan state Court of Claims after she issued new executive orders extending the state ’ s emergency declaration amid the pandemic .
Legislative Republicans purposely allowed her previous executive order to expire , pointing to one of the state ’ s emergency management laws that requires @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 28 days .
Whitmer has cited another , conflicting state law that gives the governor broad emergency powers unfettered by time limitations or legislative input .
To cover her bases , Whitmer formally ended the original emergency declaration and issued a new one to skirt the 28-day limitation of the legislature ’ s favored law , the Emergency Management Act of 1976 .
And still , her lawyers argued , even if the court declared that action illegal , she ’ s covered by the other emergency statute , the Emergency Powers of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But even if this Court were to find that the Governor exceeded her authority under the EMA , that leaves her declaration under the EPGA undisturbed , ” the filing said .
“ Because the Governor ’ s declarations work as a belt and suspenders , even if the belt is removed , the suspenders remain.
” The other primary point Whitmer ’ s lawyers made was that if the legislature has a problem with the emergency laws , they have the power to change them .
“ The Legislative Plaintiffs , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws , even over the Governor ’ s objection , if they are dissatisfied with the authority they vest in the Governor or the Governor ’ s exercise of that authority , ” the lawyers wrote .
“ But they have not done so .
Instead , the Legislative Plaintiffs now asks this Court to referee this political disagreement and do their legislative work for them.
” Whitmer ’ s team asks the court to dismiss the legislature ’ s motion to declare her executive orders “ invalid and unenforceable.
” Tensions between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislature have been exceedingly high since the two sides failed to come to a compromise on extending the orders .
In one illustrative exchange , the governor ’ s office leaked emails from the staff of Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey ( R ) who had offered a trade : a one- or two-week extension on the emergency order in exchange for Whitmer ’ s public promise that she would stop issuing stay-at-home orders through executive power and let them go through the legislature instead .
The governor rejected the swap , asserting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of emergency whether the legislature likes it or not .
That anger has bled from the government leaders into the state at large , as angry Michiganders chafing under the shutdown order swarmed the capitol bearing weapons and cheered a defiant barber who refused to close his business .
This week , Whitmer implored the Republican leaders to “ denounce ” violent threats she ’ s been receiving before a protest planned for the Lansing capitol on Thursday , and for anyone with a title or platform to help “ turn down the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will meet ( virtually ) for oral arguments on Friday .
But based on this latest filing from team Whitmer , any cooling off of temperatures before then seems unlikely .
“ This is more than a political bluff for a dissatisfied coequal branch of government holding a losing hand under applicable law , ” her lawyers railed .
“ It is a power grab cloaked in the fineries of unfounded legal reasoning begging for judicial imprimatur .
”

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s (D) legal team filed a gloves-off response to the legislature’s lawsuit Tuesday, deriding it as no more than a “power grab” and attempt to foist their own responsibilities onto the judiciary.
The Republican-controlled legislature sued Whitmer last week in the Michigan state Court of Claims after she issued new executive orders extending the state’s emergency declaration amid the pandemic.
Legislative Republicans purposely allowed her previous executive order to expire, pointing to one of the state’s emergency management laws that requires legislative approval to extend the declaration past 28 days. Whitmer has cited another, conflicting state law that gives the governor broad emergency powers unfettered by time limitations or legislative input.
To cover her bases, Whitmer formally ended the original emergency declaration and issued a new one to skirt the 28-day limitation of the legislature’s favored law, the Emergency Management Act of 1976. And still, her lawyers argued, even if the court declared that action illegal, she’s covered by the other emergency statute, the Emergency Powers of the Governor Act from 1945.
“But even if this Court were to find that the Governor exceeded her authority under the EMA, that leaves her declaration under the EPGA undisturbed,” the filing said. “Because the Governor’s declarations work as a belt and suspenders, even if the belt is removed, the suspenders remain.”
The other primary point Whitmer’s lawyers made was that if the legislature has a problem with the emergency laws, they have the power to change them.
“The Legislative Plaintiffs, of course, remain free to amend these laws, even over the Governor’s objection, if they are dissatisfied with the authority they vest in the Governor or the Governor’s exercise of that authority,” the lawyers wrote. “But they have not done so. Instead, the Legislative Plaintiffs now asks this Court to referee this political disagreement and do their legislative work for them.”
Whitmer’s team asks the court to dismiss the legislature’s motion to declare her executive orders “invalid and unenforceable.”
Tensions between Whitmer and the Republican leaders of the legislature have been exceedingly high since the two sides failed to come to a compromise on extending the orders.
In one illustrative exchange, the governor’s office leaked emails from the staff of Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey (R) who had offered a trade: a one- or two-week extension on the emergency order in exchange for Whitmer’s public promise that she would stop issuing stay-at-home orders through executive power and let them go through the legislature instead. The governor rejected the swap, asserting that Michigan will remain in a state of emergency whether the legislature likes it or not.
That anger has bled from the government leaders into the state at large, as angry Michiganders chafing under the shutdown order swarmed the capitol bearing weapons and cheered a defiant barber who refused to close his business.
This week, Whitmer implored the Republican leaders to “denounce” violent threats she’s been receiving before a protest planned for the Lansing capitol on Thursday, and for anyone with a title or platform to help “turn down the heat.”
Attorneys for the two sides will meet (virtually) for oral arguments on Friday. But based on this latest filing from team Whitmer, any cooling off of temperatures before then seems unlikely.
“This is more than a political bluff for a dissatisfied coequal branch of government holding a losing hand under applicable law,” her lawyers railed. “It is a power grab cloaked in the fineries of unfounded legal reasoning begging for judicial imprimatur.”
Read Whitmer’s filing here:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-05-13--What We Now Know About The Curious New Developments In The Flynn Case

The Michael Flynn case continues to be a source of unusual and remarkable developments .
In the days since the Justice Department asked Flynn ’ s judge to drop the case — an extremely controversial move that signaled that the department had succumbed to President Trump ’ s pressure to lay off his allies — mystery has surrounded what the judge will do in response .
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan ’ s next moves are still not entirely clear .
But so far , he ’ s not acting quickly to grant the dismissal that the Justice Department and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s suggested that he ’ s willing to provide a forum for outside parties to debate what authorities he has to hold on to the case for a least a little while longer .
Such a debate touches on fundamental questions about the separation of powers and the politicization of the Justice Department .
Already , some former Watergate prosecutors are planning to argue that the judge doesn ’ t have to take the DOJ , in its stated reasons for dropping the case , at its word .
Sullivan first broke his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cryptic order suggesting that he ’ d consider the opinions of outside parties on what he should do next .
The acceptance of these “ friend-of-the-court ” briefs ( also known as amicus briefs ) is highly unusual in a criminal case .
It ’ s a practice generally reserved for civil litigation .
But as Sullivan ’ s order noted Wednesday , there is some precedent for amicus briefing in criminal cases , as well .
Why Sullivan issued the eyebrow-raising order became clearer a few hours later Tuesday evening .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the docket expressing opposition to the submission of friend-the-court briefs in his case , as they asked for Sullivan to dismiss the case “ immediately ” because “ no further delay should be tolerated.
” The Flynn filing revealed that a group of former Watergate prosecutors had sought to file such a brief on Monday .
The ex-prosecutors , according to a version of their filing made public late Tuesday night , wanted to argue to the judge that he has broad authority to probe the circumstances of the DOJ ’ s reversal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least substantial questions as to whether factual representations in the Motion are accurate and whether the Motion is made in good faith and consistent with the public interest , ” the ex-prosecutors said , referring to the DOJ motion to dismiss the case .
In another draft filing obtained by TPM , the ex-prosecutors compared the current situation to the “ Saturday Night Massacre , ” i.e .
the firing of the special prosecutor in the Watergate investigation .
“ Here , where the Motion seeks to reverse a prosecutorial judgment previously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Robert Mueller , the value the Watergate Prosecutors ’ unique perspective on the need for independent scrutiny and oversight to ensure that crucial decisions about prosecutions of high-ranking government officials are made in the public interest , are viewed as legitimate , and are not subsequently reversed by political intervention , ” the ex-prosecutors said .
In his filing Tuesday evening , Flynn told the judge to reject the amicus brief , as he had rejected proposed amicus briefs previously in the case .
But it seems that the DOJ ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now opening the door to hearing the opinions certain amici .
His order on Tuesday said that “ at the appropriate time ” he ’ d be laying out a schedule for the filing of amicus briefs — a point he reiterated Wednesday morning in a follow-up order denying the submission of the Watergate prosecutors brief , for now .
Nick Akerman , one of the Watergate prosecutors signed on to the proposed brief , told TPM that the effort to file as amicus came together in the last few days , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep in touch regularly .
“ It came together because so many of us were upset the Justice Department has become totally politicized and it is being used as an instrument of Trump to cover up the entire Russia investigation , ” Akerman said .
Akerman called the Justice Department ’ s reasons for wanting to dismiss the case “ bogus.
” He said that , because Flynn had twice in court submitted a guilty plea , and because the judge had already found that the evidence in the case backed the plea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authority not to grant the dismissal .
“ He has every right to sentence Flynn , ” Akerman said .
Just because Sullivan is considering letting Akerman and his colleagues formally weigh in doesn ’ t mean he ’ ll ultimately take their advice .
But it appears we ’ re at least in for a few more twists in the Flynn case before everything is over .
Read the draft filings by the Watergate prosecutors , as well as Flynn ’ s opposition to the filings , below :

The Michael Flynn case continues to be a source of unusual and remarkable developments.
In the days since the Justice Department asked Flynn’s judge to drop the case — an extremely controversial move that signaled that the department had succumbed to President Trump’s pressure to lay off his allies — mystery has surrounded what the judge will do in response.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan’s next moves are still not entirely clear. But so far, he’s not acting quickly to grant the dismissal that the Justice Department and Flynn are seeking. And he’s suggested that he’s willing to provide a forum for outside parties to debate what authorities he has to hold on to the case for a least a little while longer.
Such a debate touches on fundamental questions about the separation of powers and the politicization of the Justice Department. Already, some former Watergate prosecutors are planning to argue that the judge doesn’t have to take the DOJ, in its stated reasons for dropping the case, at its word.
Sullivan first broke his silence Tuesday afternoon, to issue a cryptic order suggesting that he’d consider the opinions of outside parties on what he should do next. The acceptance of these “friend-of-the-court” briefs (also known as amicus briefs) is highly unusual in a criminal case. It’s a practice generally reserved for civil litigation. But as Sullivan’s order noted Wednesday, there is some precedent for amicus briefing in criminal cases, as well.
Why Sullivan issued the eyebrow-raising order became clearer a few hours later Tuesday evening.
A filing from Flynn’s attorneys hit the docket expressing opposition to the submission of friend-the-court briefs in his case, as they asked for Sullivan to dismiss the case “immediately” because “no further delay should be tolerated.”
The Flynn filing revealed that a group of former Watergate prosecutors had sought to file such a brief on Monday.
The ex-prosecutors, according to a version of their filing made public late Tuesday night, wanted to argue to the judge that he has broad authority to probe the circumstances of the DOJ’s reversal in the case.
“There are at least substantial questions as to whether factual representations in the Motion are accurate and whether the Motion is made in good faith and consistent with the public interest,” the ex-prosecutors said, referring to the DOJ motion to dismiss the case.
In another draft filing obtained by TPM, the ex-prosecutors compared the current situation to the “Saturday Night Massacre,” i.e. the firing of the special prosecutor in the Watergate investigation.
“Here, where the Motion seeks to reverse a prosecutorial judgment previously entrusted to and made by Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, the value the Watergate Prosecutors’ unique perspective on the need for independent scrutiny and oversight to ensure that crucial decisions about prosecutions of high-ranking government officials are made in the public interest, are viewed as legitimate, and are not subsequently reversed by political intervention,” the ex-prosecutors said.
In his filing Tuesday evening, Flynn told the judge to reject the amicus brief, as he had rejected proposed amicus briefs previously in the case.
But it seems that the DOJ’s recent handling of the case has Sullivan now opening the door to hearing the opinions certain amici. His order on Tuesday said that “at the appropriate time” he’d be laying out a schedule for the filing of amicus briefs — a point he reiterated Wednesday morning in a follow-up order denying the submission of the Watergate prosecutors brief, for now.
Nick Akerman, one of the Watergate prosecutors signed on to the proposed brief, told TPM that the effort to file as amicus came together in the last few days, and that the group of former prosecutors generally keep in touch regularly.
“It came together because so many of us were upset the Justice Department has become totally politicized and it is being used as an instrument of Trump to cover up the entire Russia investigation,” Akerman said.
Akerman called the Justice Department’s reasons for wanting to dismiss the case “bogus.” He said that, because Flynn had twice in court submitted a guilty plea, and because the judge had already found that the evidence in the case backed the plea, it was within Sullivan’s authority not to grant the dismissal.
“He has every right to sentence Flynn,” Akerman said.
Just because Sullivan is considering letting Akerman and his colleagues formally weigh in doesn’t mean he’ll ultimately take their advice. But it appears we’re at least in for a few more twists in the Flynn case before everything is over.
Read the draft filings by the Watergate prosecutors, as well as Flynn’s opposition to the filings, below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-05-13--GOP Senators Follow Grenell’s Cue On Flynn ‘Unmasking,’ Ask For Obama Admin Names

Senate Republicans asked Attorney General Bill Barr and acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell for a list of Obama administration officials at the center of a right-wing conspiracy theory , days after Grenell declassified their identities .
Picking up on a decision by Grenell this week to declassify the names of Obama officials who asked to learn the identity of an American citizen flagged in intelligence reports , Sens .
Ron Johnson ( R-WI ) and Chuck Grassley ( R-IA ) followed on , asking that Grenell and Barr give them the names .
The American citizen who was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn .
The Trump administration dropped the charges to which Flynn had pleaded guilty last week , in a stunning example of politicization at the Justice Department .
Intelligence reports that capture the activities of U.S. citizens typically redact the identity of those Americans .
Top-level officials can ask for those identities to be revealed , in a confidential process — “ unmasking ” them .
The conspiratorial notion that Obama officials requested Flynn ’ s name and then orchestrated a political prosecution to take down the National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s focus on the so-called “ unmasking.
” “ We wholeheartedly agree that transparency is needed more now than ever , ” wrote Johnson and Grassley in the letter .
“ One of the most significant unanswered questions about what occurred during the 2016 election is how many Americans were ‘ unmasked , ’ at whose request , and for what purpose.
” The moves also come after President Trump spent several hours fixated on President Obama , accusing him via Twitter on Monday of committing a crime and repeating “ Obamagate ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked what crime Obama allegedly committed , Trump replied , “ you know what it is.
” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) also criticized Obama this week in an internet interview with Lara Trump , the President ’ s daughter-in-law .

Senate Republicans asked Attorney General Bill Barr and acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell for a list of Obama administration officials at the center of a right-wing conspiracy theory, days after Grenell declassified their identities.
Picking up on a decision by Grenell this week to declassify the names of Obama officials who asked to learn the identity of an American citizen flagged in intelligence reports, Sens. Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) followed on, asking that Grenell and Barr give them the names.
The American citizen who was “unmasked” by the requests was former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. The Trump administration dropped the charges to which Flynn had pleaded guilty last week, in a stunning example of politicization at the Justice Department.
Intelligence reports that capture the activities of U.S. citizens typically redact the identity of those Americans. Top-level officials can ask for those identities to be revealed, in a confidential process — “unmasking” them.
The conspiratorial notion that Obama officials requested Flynn’s name and then orchestrated a political prosecution to take down the National Security Adviser has animated the right’s focus on the so-called “unmasking.”
“We wholeheartedly agree that transparency is needed more now than ever,” wrote Johnson and Grassley in the letter. “One of the most significant unanswered questions about what occurred during the 2016 election is how many Americans were ‘unmasked,’ at whose request, and for what purpose.”
The moves also come after President Trump spent several hours fixated on President Obama, accusing him via Twitter on Monday of committing a crime and repeating “Obamagate” to a crowd of reporters. When asked what crime Obama allegedly committed, Trump replied, “you know what it is.”
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) also criticized Obama this week in an internet interview with Lara Trump, the President’s daughter-in-law.
Read the letter here:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-05-14--Trump Admin Shoots The Messenger As Whistleblower Highlights Ongoing Issues

Dr. Rick Bright , who became a whistleblower after being demoted from his job directing a crucial government research office , was clear during his testimony before a House subcomittee on Thursday : The Trump administration ’ s lacking response to the COVID-19 pandemic isn ’ t a past-tense story .
The failures continue .
There is still no government-wide plan for filling shortages in personal protective equipment , Bright testified to the House health subcommittee .
Drug and vaccine supply chains need to be ramped up .
And our comprehensive nationwide testing strategy is non-existent .
Before warning that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be catastrophic if not addressed in time for the development of a potential COVID-19 vaccine , Bright noted he ’ d learned that the government “ placed their first order for needles and syringes on May 1 , and another order was placed today.
” That comes despite Bright ’ s claim in his whistleblower complaint that White House and Health department officials were informed of the need for syringes as early as mid-February — three months ago .
The Trump administration has pursued a rather blunt response : Shooting the messenger .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s testimony , the President said Bright was “ a disgruntled employee , not liked or respected by people I spoke to.
” With Bright ’ s attitude , Trump said , he “ should no longer be working for our government !
” Perhaps no one told the President that Bright still is working for the government — he was demoted from his job directing BARDA , Biomedical Advance Research and Development Authority , to a post at the National Institutes of Health .
The Department of Health and Human Services similarly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a statement , the department said Bright was “ using his taxpayer-funded medical leave to work with partisan attorneys who are politicizing the response to COVID-19.
” Bright confirmed Thursday that he was dealing with hypertension related to the stress of being suddenly and quite publicly fired .
Health Secretary Alex Azar , speaking from the White House lawn in the middle of Bright ’ s testimony , made a similar point .
“ While we ’ re launching Operation Warp Speed , he ’ s not showing up for work to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , referring to a new vaccine initiative .
For good measure , Azar threw in some all-purpose praise of the President : “ Every single thing , this president was on , this president achieved.
” The President has not achieved “ every single thing , ” as the glowing gaps in the United States ’ COVID-19 response show : Testing and shortages remain , effective therapies and vaccines are far from achieved , and it took until Thursday for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to release edited guidelines on “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House officials nixed a more in-depth version that has yet to see the light of day .
Government experts like Bright , meanwhile , face ongoing political interference .
Dr. Anthony Fauci , for example , testified Wednesday that universities and grade schools would need a cautious , regional approach if they plan on reopening in the fall .
He said separately that seeking to lift public health orders on businesses and other institutions could result in a “ resurgence.
” “ He wants to play all sides of the equation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later : “ To me it ’ s not an acceptable answer.
” The problem with viruses , as Fauci and others know , is they care little about what is acceptable to Trump .
Here ’ s what else we were watching this week : • E.P.A .
Opts Against Limits on Water Contaminant Tied to Fetal Damage • None Investigation : Counties With Meatpacking Plants Report Twice the National Average Rate of COVID-19 Infections • Team Trump Pushes CDC to Dial Down Its Death Counts

Dr. Rick Bright, who became a whistleblower after being demoted from his job directing a crucial government research office, was clear during his testimony before a House subcomittee on Thursday: The Trump administration’s lacking response to the COVID-19 pandemic isn’t a past-tense story. The failures continue.
There is still no government-wide plan for filling shortages in personal protective equipment, Bright testified to the House health subcommittee. Drug and vaccine supply chains need to be ramped up. And our comprehensive nationwide testing strategy is non-existent.
Before warning that a shortage of supplies like syringes could be catastrophic if not addressed in time for the development of a potential COVID-19 vaccine, Bright noted he’d learned that the government “placed their first order for needles and syringes on May 1, and another order was placed today.”
That comes despite Bright’s claim in his whistleblower complaint that White House and Health department officials were informed of the need for syringes as early as mid-February — three months ago.
The Trump administration has pursued a rather blunt response: Shooting the messenger. In a tweet ahead of Bright’s testimony, the President said Bright was “a disgruntled employee, not liked or respected by people I spoke to.”
With Bright’s attitude, Trump said, he “should no longer be working for our government!” Perhaps no one told the President that Bright still is working for the government — he was demoted from his job directing BARDA, Biomedical Advance Research and Development Authority, to a post at the National Institutes of Health.
The Department of Health and Human Services similarly went after the vaccine specialist. In a statement, the department said Bright was “using his taxpayer-funded medical leave to work with partisan attorneys who are politicizing the response to COVID-19.” Bright confirmed Thursday that he was dealing with hypertension related to the stress of being suddenly and quite publicly fired.
Health Secretary Alex Azar, speaking from the White House lawn in the middle of Bright’s testimony, made a similar point. “While we’re launching Operation Warp Speed, he’s not showing up for work to be part of that,” Azar said, referring to a new vaccine initiative.
For good measure, Azar threw in some all-purpose praise of the President: “Every single thing, this president was on, this president achieved.”
The President has not achieved “every single thing,” as the glowing gaps in the United States’ COVID-19 response show: Testing and shortages remain, effective therapies and vaccines are far from achieved, and it took until Thursday for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to release edited guidelines on “reopening” various institutions — weeks after White House officials nixed a more in-depth version that has yet to see the light of day.
Government experts like Bright, meanwhile, face ongoing political interference. Dr. Anthony Fauci, for example, testified Wednesday that universities and grade schools would need a cautious, regional approach if they plan on reopening in the fall. He said separately that seeking to lift public health orders on businesses and other institutions could result in a “resurgence.”
“He wants to play all sides of the equation,” Trump told reporters Thursday, adding later: “To me it’s not an acceptable answer.”
The problem with viruses, as Fauci and others know, is they care little about what is acceptable to Trump.
Here’s what else we were watching this week:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-05-14--How Long Does It Take To Know Whether Reopening Causes A Spike In COVID Cases?

U.S. states and countries worldwide are cautiously relaxing restrictions while watching for potential spikes in coronavirus infections .
Getting the timing right is complicated .
Disease trackers note the impossibility of seeing clearly what ’ s happening without widespread testing .
A look at when we might start to see any health impacts of reopening : When Are We Going To Know ?
The virus can circulate undetected , then flare up in a nursing home or after a family gathering .
So it could be several weeks to see surges in infections .
What ’ s more , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lockdowns .
Some parts of the U.S. are seeing increasing numbers of daily new cases and some are seeing declines .
Health officials will be looking at the number of new cases per day and the percentage of positive COVID-19 tests .
Why Does It Take That Long ?
After exposure to the virus , it can take three to five days for someone to feel sick , and many infected people won ’ t have symptoms or only mild ones .
Some with mild illness might delay getting tested .
It can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results back and report them .
All told , it can take two weeks or so — the time for one group of people to spread the virus to another — to have enough testing data .
Crystal Watson of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security said it will take a few rounds of infection spread — five to six weeks — to know how reopening has affected epidemic curves .
If There ’ s A Spike , How Would We Stop It ?
Ideally , investigators would call people who test @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get them into quarantine before they can spread the virus to others .
There ’ s evidence the coronavirus can spread before people feel sick , making it important to act quickly .
States are just starting to expand their ability to do this contact tracing .
Without adequate testing and contact tracing , returning to restrictions or a lockdown might be necessary if there is a surge in infections .
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute ’ s Department of Science Education .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ content .

U.S. states and countries worldwide are cautiously relaxing restrictions while watching for potential spikes in coronavirus infections. Getting the timing right is complicated. Disease trackers note the impossibility of seeing clearly what’s happening without widespread testing.
A look at when we might start to see any health impacts of reopening:
When Are We Going To Know?
The virus can circulate undetected, then flare up in a nursing home or after a family gathering. So it could be several weeks to see surges in infections. What’s more, there are still new infections happening now during lockdowns. Some parts of the U.S. are seeing increasing numbers of daily new cases and some are seeing declines. Health officials will be looking at the number of new cases per day and the percentage of positive COVID-19 tests.
Why Does It Take That Long?
After exposure to the virus, it can take three to five days for someone to feel sick, and many infected people won’t have symptoms or only mild ones. Some with mild illness might delay getting tested. It can take another few days to get test results back and report them. All told, it can take two weeks or so — the time for one group of people to spread the virus to another — to have enough testing data. Crystal Watson of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security said it will take a few rounds of infection spread — five to six weeks — to know how reopening has affected epidemic curves.
If There’s A Spike, How Would We Stop It?
Ideally, investigators would call people who test positive, track down their contacts and get them into quarantine before they can spread the virus to others. There’s evidence the coronavirus can spread before people feel sick, making it important to act quickly. States are just starting to expand their ability to do this contact tracing. Without adequate testing and contact tracing, returning to restrictions or a lockdown might be necessary if there is a surge in infections.
___
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education. The AP is solely responsible for all content.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-05-14--CDC Releases Edited Guidance On Reopening Amid Coronavirus

NEW YORK ( AP ) — U.S. health officials on Thursday released some of their long-delayed guidance that schools , businesses and other organizations can use as states reopen from coronavirus shutdowns .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention posted six one-page “ decision tool ” documents that use traffic signs and other graphics to tell organizations what they should consider before reopening .
The tools are for schools , workplaces , camps , childcare centers , mass transit systems , and bars and restaurants .
The CDC originally also authored a document for churches and other religious facilities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thursday .
The agency declined to say why .
Early versions of the documents included detailed information for churches wanting to restart in-person services , with suggestions including maintaining distance between parishioners and limiting the size of gatherings .
The faith-related guidance was taken out after the White House raised concerns about the recommended restrictions , according to government emails obtained by the AP and a person inside the agency who didn ’ t have permission to talk with reporters and spoke on condition of anonymity .
On Thursday , a Trump administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said there were concerns about the propriety of the government making specific dictates to places of worship .
The CDC drafted the guidance more than a month ago and it was initially shelved by the Trump administration , The Associated Press reported last week .
The agency also had prepared even more extensive guidance — about 57 pages of it — that has not been posted .
That longer document , which the AP obtained , would give different organizations specifics about how to reopen while still limiting spread of the virus , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feet apart and closing break rooms and cafeterias to limit gatherings .
Many of the suggestions already appear on federal websites but they haven ’ t been presented as reopening advice .
Some health experts and politicians have been pushing for the CDC to release as much guidance as possible to help businesses and organizations decide how to proceed .
“ They want to be able to tell their own employees the guidance of the federal government , ” Dr. Tom Inglesby , director of the Center for Health Security at Johns Hopkins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wednesday .
“ They want to be able to tell their customers , ‘ We ’ ve done everything that ’ s been asked of us.
’ ” The guidance relates to another document released by the Trump administration on April 17 .
That phased-in reopening plan broadly outlines how to move away from stay-at-home orders , school closures and other measures designed to stop the spread of the new coronavirus that has caused more than 1.3 million reported U.S. illnesses and more than 80,000 deaths .
U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a resolution — blocked by Republicans — to encourage release of all the documents .
“ America needs and must have the candid guidance of our best scientists unfiltered , unedited , uncensored by president Trump or his political minions .
The CDC report on reopening the country is an important piece of that guidance , ” Schumer said .
The decision tools have been undergoing review by different federal officials , and they ’ ve been edited from earlier versions .
For example , an earlier draft of the one-page document on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if their program would limit attendance to people who live nearby .
If the answer was no , the camp was advised not to reopen .
That local attendance limitation was dropped and was not in the version posted Thursday .
And in that document and others , language has been dropped that asked if the organization is in a community that is still requiring significant disease mitigation .
If the answer was yes , the organization was advised not to reopen .
AP reporters Mary Clare Jalonick and Zeke Miller in Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Dearen reported from Gainesville , Florida .

NEW YORK (AP) — U.S. health officials on Thursday released some of their long-delayed guidance that schools, businesses and other organizations can use as states reopen from coronavirus shutdowns.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention posted six one-page “decision tool” documents that use traffic signs and other graphics to tell organizations what they should consider before reopening.
The tools are for schools, workplaces, camps, childcare centers, mass transit systems, and bars and restaurants. The CDC originally also authored a document for churches and other religious facilities, but that wasn’t posted Thursday. The agency declined to say why.
Early versions of the documents included detailed information for churches wanting to restart in-person services, with suggestions including maintaining distance between parishioners and limiting the size of gatherings. The faith-related guidance was taken out after the White House raised concerns about the recommended restrictions, according to government emails obtained by the AP and a person inside the agency who didn’t have permission to talk with reporters and spoke on condition of anonymity.
On Thursday, a Trump administration official also speaking on condition of anonymity said there were concerns about the propriety of the government making specific dictates to places of worship.
The CDC drafted the guidance more than a month ago and it was initially shelved by the Trump administration, The Associated Press reported last week.
The agency also had prepared even more extensive guidance — about 57 pages of it — that has not been posted.
That longer document, which the AP obtained, would give different organizations specifics about how to reopen while still limiting spread of the virus, including by spacing workers or students 6 feet apart and closing break rooms and cafeterias to limit gatherings. Many of the suggestions already appear on federal websites but they haven’t been presented as reopening advice.
Some health experts and politicians have been pushing for the CDC to release as much guidance as possible to help businesses and organizations decide how to proceed.
“They want to be able to tell their own employees the guidance of the federal government,” Dr. Tom Inglesby, director of the Center for Health Security at Johns Hopkins University, said at a congressional hearing Wednesday. “They want to be able to tell their customers, ‘We’ve done everything that’s been asked of us.’”
The guidance relates to another document released by the Trump administration on April 17. That phased-in reopening plan broadly outlines how to move away from stay-at-home orders, school closures and other measures designed to stop the spread of the new coronavirus that has caused more than 1.3 million reported U.S. illnesses and more than 80,000 deaths.
U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, on Wednesday offered a resolution — blocked by Republicans — to encourage release of all the documents.
“America needs and must have the candid guidance of our best scientists unfiltered, unedited, uncensored by president Trump or his political minions. The CDC report on reopening the country is an important piece of that guidance,” Schumer said.
The decision tools have been undergoing review by different federal officials, and they’ve been edited from earlier versions.
For example, an earlier draft of the one-page document on camps obtained by the AP asked organizers if their program would limit attendance to people who live nearby. If the answer was no, the camp was advised not to reopen. That local attendance limitation was dropped and was not in the version posted Thursday.
And in that document and others, language has been dropped that asked if the organization is in a community that is still requiring significant disease mitigation. If the answer was yes, the organization was advised not to reopen.
___
AP reporters Mary Clare Jalonick and Zeke Miller in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report. Dearen reported from Gainesville, Florida.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-05-14--Trump Demands Graham Make Obama Testify. Graham Says No Thanks.

President Donald Trump on Thursday explicitly demanded that Senate Judiciary Committee chair Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) haul former President Barack Obama in to testify , but Graham ’ s not so sure that ’ s a good idea — for Trump .
On Thursday morning , Trump claimed via Twitter that his predecessor “ knew EVERYTHING ” about the “ biggest political crime and scandal in the history of the USA , ” a baseless conspiracy theory that Obama was somehow involved in Michael Flynn ’ s criminal case ( Trump has yet to actually explain in detail what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any evidence of its existence , let alone Obama ’ s supposed involvement in it ) .
Saying that Obama would be “ the first person ” to call in to testify , the President tried to order Graham to do exactly that .
“ Do it @ LindseyGrahamSC , just do it , ” Trump tweeted .
“ No more Mr. Nice Guy .
No more talk !
” “ I don ’ t think now ’ s the time for me to do that , ” Graham told Politico .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s even possible .
I have grave concerns about the role of executive privilege and all kinds of issues.
” “ I understand President Trump ’ s frustration , but be careful what you wish for .
Just be careful what you wish for , ” the senator warned .
Graham noted that forcing the former president to testify would be unprecedented and emphasized again that “ presidentially , I ’ d be careful what I wish for.
” After all , Democrats have been pursuing multiple threads of Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using his office to boost profits at his real estate properties and his refusal to hand over his tax returns .
Thus setting a precedent of having former presidents testify would clearly backfire on Trump .
Graham had already distanced himself from Trump ’ s bogus “ Obamagate ” conspiracy theory on Monday .
“ I ’ m not anticipating calling President Obama , ” he said during a separate interview with Politico .

President Donald Trump on Thursday explicitly demanded that Senate Judiciary Committee chair Lindsey Graham (R-SC) haul former President Barack Obama in to testify, but Graham’s not so sure that’s a good idea — for Trump.
On Thursday morning, Trump claimed via Twitter that his predecessor “knew EVERYTHING” about the “biggest political crime and scandal in the history of the USA,” a baseless conspiracy theory that Obama was somehow involved in Michael Flynn’s criminal case (Trump has yet to actually explain in detail what the “crime” was or provide any evidence of its existence, let alone Obama’s supposed involvement in it).
Saying that Obama would be “the first person” to call in to testify, the President tried to order Graham to do exactly that.
“Do it @LindseyGrahamSC, just do it,” Trump tweeted. “No more Mr. Nice Guy. No more talk!”
However, Mr. Nice Guy doesn’t plan on playing ball.
“I don’t think now’s the time for me to do that,” Graham told Politico. “I don’t know if that’s even possible. I have grave concerns about the role of executive privilege and all kinds of issues.”
“I understand President Trump’s frustration, but be careful what you wish for. Just be careful what you wish for,” the senator warned.
Graham noted that forcing the former president to testify would be unprecedented and emphasized again that “presidentially, I’d be careful what I wish for.”
After all, Democrats have been pursuing multiple threads of Trump’s alleged wrongdoing for years, such as using his office to boost profits at his real estate properties and his refusal to hand over his tax returns. Thus setting a precedent of having former presidents testify would clearly backfire on Trump.
Graham had already distanced himself from Trump’s bogus “Obamagate” conspiracy theory on Monday.
“I’m not anticipating calling President Obama,” he said during a separate interview with Politico.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-05-14--MI Lawmakers Closed Capitol Ahead Of Protest, Leaving Damp Demonstrators On The Lawn

At the end of Wednesday ’ s session , Michigan state lawmakers chose not to reconvene until next week ahead of a protest billed as “ Judgement Day ” at the Lansing capitol on Thursday .
New precautions taken amid the coronavirus pandemic leave the capitol building shuttered to the public when the legislature is not in session and committees aren ’ t meeting .
As a result , the protesters — around 200 at their peak , per the Michigan State Police — had to wave their signs and axes outside on the soggy lawn beneath a persistent drizzle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the tensest scenes from the last protest , when armed demonstrators entered the building and yelled at them from the public galleries above the chamber floors .
Since then , the Michigan State Capitol Commission has taken up the question of whether to ban guns from the capitol .
Attorney General Dana Nessel wrote in a formal opinion that the commissioners do have the authority to bar the weapons .
Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey ( R ) called on the panel to delay its decision until members could talk it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the police .
The commission ultimately voted to establish a special committee to examine the issue , leaving the current gun allowances in place for Thursday ’ s protest .
Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer ( D ) , who has been the subject of violent threats from some in Facebook groups supporting the protest , said she was “ very disappointed ” in the Commission ’ s move .
Sen. Dana Polehanki ( D ) , who told TPM after the last round of protests that the presence of the armed protesters was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resolution Tuesday to call for a ban of all firearms in the capitol , except those carried by law enforcement .
Some of her fellow Democrats also gave floor speeches on the need for action .
Shirkey , on the other hand , put the onus on Whitmer and Nessel to urge capitol police to arrest those illegally brandishing their weapons rather than taking the “ cowardly ” route of a ban from the commission .
He had previously denounced the protesters who used “ the threat of physical harm ” to intimidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Nessel responded to his suggestion on Twitter .
Lawyers for the legislature and governor will virtually meet Friday for oral arguments on the overarching debate about Whitmer ’ s executive authority .
The Republican-controlled legislature sued Whitmer earlier this month for extending her stay-at-home order without legislative approval .
She maintains that she doesn ’ t need it under the state ’ s emergency laws .
The current stay-at-home order is scheduled to expire May 28 .

At the end of Wednesday’s session, Michigan state lawmakers chose not to reconvene until next week ahead of a protest billed as “Judgement Day” at the Lansing capitol on Thursday.
New precautions taken amid the coronavirus pandemic leave the capitol building shuttered to the public when the legislature is not in session and committees aren’t meeting.
As a result, the protesters — around 200 at their peak, per the Michigan State Police — had to wave their signs and axes outside on the soggy lawn beneath a persistent drizzle.
The adjournment also spares lawmakers from some of the tensest scenes from the last protest, when armed demonstrators entered the building and yelled at them from the public galleries above the chamber floors.
Since then, the Michigan State Capitol Commission has taken up the question of whether to ban guns from the capitol.
Attorney General Dana Nessel wrote in a formal opinion that the commissioners do have the authority to bar the weapons. Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey (R) called on the panel to delay its decision until members could talk it over with members of the legislature and the police. The commission ultimately voted to establish a special committee to examine the issue, leaving the current gun allowances in place for Thursday’s protest.
Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D), who has been the subject of violent threats from some in Facebook groups supporting the protest, said she was “very disappointed” in the Commission’s move.
Sen. Dana Polehanki (D), who told TPM after the last round of protests that the presence of the armed protesters was “nerve wracking,” introduced a resolution Tuesday to call for a ban of all firearms in the capitol, except those carried by law enforcement. Some of her fellow Democrats also gave floor speeches on the need for action.
Shirkey, on the other hand, put the onus on Whitmer and Nessel to urge capitol police to arrest those illegally brandishing their weapons rather than taking the “cowardly” route of a ban from the commission. He had previously denounced the protesters who used “the threat of physical harm” to intimidate others as “a bunch of jackasses.”
Nessel responded to his suggestion on Twitter.
I would urge you to take quick action before any lives are needlessly lost. The life you end up saving may be your own. — Dana Nessel (@dananessel) May 12, 2020
Lawyers for the legislature and governor will virtually meet Friday for oral arguments on the overarching debate about Whitmer’s executive authority. The Republican-controlled legislature sued Whitmer earlier this month for extending her stay-at-home order without legislative approval. She maintains that she doesn’t need it under the state’s emergency laws. The current stay-at-home order is scheduled to expire May 28.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-05-14--There’s Still No ‘Master Plan’ For COVID-19 Response, Whistleblower Says

A whistleblower recently ousted from a key research office said repeatedly Thursday that the Trump administration still has no government-wide plan to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic .
“ There is no master , coordinated plan on how to respond to this outbreak , ” Dr. Rick Bright told the House Health Subcommittee Thursday , asked about shortages of simple supplies like swabs .
“ We don ’ t have a strategy or plan in place that identifies each of those critical components and we don ’ t have as designated agency that is sourcing those critical components and coming up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have those supplies when we need them , ” Bright added .
Until recently , Bright led BARDA , the Department of Health and Human Services ’ Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority , a key office in supporting the development of vaccines and other countermeasures to biological threats .
Bright released a whistleblower complaint after being demoted to another job ; he alleges the move was retaliation for exposing political influence and incompetence in the administration ’ s COVID-19 response .
Bright ’ s complaint alleges that the Trump administration let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crucial preparations , like stocking up on masks and certain drugs .
The complaint singled out Health Secretary Alex Azar and Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response Robert Kadlec , Bright ’ s superior until recently .
Azar responded on Thursday to Bright ’ s allegations , yelling to reporters as Marine One whirred nearby at the White House .
“ Everything he ’ s complaining about was achieved , ” Azar said .
“ Everything he talked about was done.
” “ This is like somebody who was in a choir and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a soloist back then , ” Azar added .
“ What he was saying is what every single member of this administration and the president was saying : We need more personal protective equipment , we need more ventilators , we need therapeutics , we need vaccines .
Every single thing , this President was on , this President achieved.
” Asked specifically during his testimony Thursday what needed to be done going forward , Bright said there was still no “ single point of leadership ” or “ master plan ” for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he said were critical .
“ We need to unleash the voices of the scientists in our public health system in the United States so they can be heard , and their guidances need to be listened to , ” Bright testified .
“ We need to be able to convey that information to the American public so they have the truth about the real risk and dire consequences of this virus , and they have the truth about the consequences of their actions if they don ’ t follow those guidances.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ individual allegations included in Bright ’ s complaint , HHS downplayed Bright ’ s knowledge of the department ’ s early COVID-19 response measures .
“ As head of BARDA , Rick Bright ’ s role was limited to providing support for the development of drugs , vaccines , and diagnostics , ” a statement from the department Thursday morning read .
“ He didn ’ t have visibility into the enormous amount of work being done by Secretary Azar and Dr. Kadlec , much less by other components of HHS and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bright testified that HHS ’ early “ indifference ” to key supply chain issues — notably the nation ’ s supply of N95 masks , crucial to protect health workers from infection — led to otherwise avoidable sickness and death .
“ Lives were in danger , and I believe lives were lost , and not only that , we were forced to procure these supplies from other countries without the right quality standards , ” he said .
“ So even our doctors and nurses in the hospitals today are wearing N95-marked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ providing the sufficient protection that a U.S. standard N95 mask would provide them .
Some of those masks are only 30 % effective .
Therefore , nurses are rushing into hospitals thinking they ’ re protected and they ’ re not.
” Bright warned in his prepared remarks Thursday that the United States faced the “ darkest winter in modern history ” without proper planning .
Even aside from the mask shortages , he explained later , drug and vaccine supply chains need to be “ ramped up.
” And there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ find this virus and track it and kill it ” where it appears , Bright testified .
“ Everyone across the government and everyone in America needs to know what that plan is and what role they play , ” Bright said .

A whistleblower recently ousted from a key research office said repeatedly Thursday that the Trump administration still has no government-wide plan to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic.
“There is no master, coordinated plan on how to respond to this outbreak,” Dr. Rick Bright told the House Health Subcommittee Thursday, asked about shortages of simple supplies like swabs.
“We don’t have a strategy or plan in place that identifies each of those critical components and we don’t have as designated agency that is sourcing those critical components and coming up with a strategy to make sure that we have those supplies when we need them,” Bright added.
Until recently, Bright led BARDA, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, a key office in supporting the development of vaccines and other countermeasures to biological threats.
Bright released a whistleblower complaint after being demoted to another job; he alleges the move was retaliation for exposing political influence and incompetence in the administration’s COVID-19 response. Bright’s complaint alleges that the Trump administration let critical early weeks slip by without making crucial preparations, like stocking up on masks and certain drugs. The complaint singled out Health Secretary Alex Azar and Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response Robert Kadlec, Bright’s superior until recently.
Azar responded on Thursday to Bright’s allegations, yelling to reporters as Marine One whirred nearby at the White House.
“Everything he’s complaining about was achieved,” Azar said. “Everything he talked about was done.”
“This is like somebody who was in a choir and is now trying to say he was a soloist back then,” Azar added. “What he was saying is what every single member of this administration and the president was saying: We need more personal protective equipment, we need more ventilators, we need therapeutics, we need vaccines. Every single thing, this President was on, this President achieved.”
Asked specifically during his testimony Thursday what needed to be done going forward, Bright said there was still no “single point of leadership” or “master plan” for the government response, and two points that he said were critical.
“We need to unleash the voices of the scientists in our public health system in the United States so they can be heard, and their guidances need to be listened to,” Bright testified. “We need to be able to convey that information to the American public so they have the truth about the real risk and dire consequences of this virus, and they have the truth about the consequences of their actions if they don’t follow those guidances.”
In its first response to the individual allegations included in Bright’s complaint, HHS downplayed Bright’s knowledge of the department’s early COVID-19 response measures.
“As head of BARDA, Rick Bright’s role was limited to providing support for the development of drugs, vaccines, and diagnostics,” a statement from the department Thursday morning read. “He didn’t have visibility into the enormous amount of work being done by Secretary Azar and Dr. Kadlec, much less by other components of HHS and the Administration as a whole.”
Nonetheless, Bright testified that HHS’ early “indifference” to key supply chain issues — notably the nation’s supply of N95 masks, crucial to protect health workers from infection — led to otherwise avoidable sickness and death.
“Lives were in danger, and I believe lives were lost, and not only that, we were forced to procure these supplies from other countries without the right quality standards,” he said. “So even our doctors and nurses in the hospitals today are wearing N95-marked masks from other countries that are not providing the sufficient protection that a U.S. standard N95 mask would provide them. Some of those masks are only 30% effective. Therefore, nurses are rushing into hospitals thinking they’re protected and they’re not.”
Bright warned in his prepared remarks Thursday that the United States faced the “darkest winter in modern history” without proper planning.
Even aside from the mask shortages, he explained later, drug and vaccine supply chains need to be “ramped up.” And there’s still no comprehensive national testing strategy to “find this virus and track it and kill it” where it appears, Bright testified.
“Everyone across the government and everyone in America needs to know what that plan is and what role they play,” Bright said.