talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-22--Pentagon Used Congress Funding For PPE To Stockpile Military Equipment Instead

Investigation into a $ 1 billion fund allotted by Congress to the Pentagon in March to bolster the country ’ s supplies of medical equipment reveals that the funds have been mostly diverted to defense contractors and used to manufacture military equipment like jet engine parts , body armor and dress uniforms .
The Washington Post reported the finding which demonstrates how a taxpayer-based effort to combat COVID-19 was redirected to stockpiling military supplies .
Passed earlier this year , the Cares Act distributed funds to the Pentagon to “ prevent , prepare for , and respond to coronavirus.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter of weeks , the Defense Department began reshaping how that money would be used — diverging from the original intent of Congress for the funds .
The payments were made despite warnings from health officials as recently as last week that suggested there continue to be major funding gaps in responding to the pandemic .
CDC director Robert Redfield , testified to the Senate last week that states desperately need $ 6 billion to distribute vaccines to Americans early next year .
The funds could also be used to fill what continues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masks at some hospitals knees-deep in their fight against the virus .
But in the months after the stimulus package was passed , the Pentagon made other plans for the money .
According to the Post ’ s report , the Pentagon instead decided to give defense contractors hundreds of millions of dollars from the fund , mostly for projects that have little to do with the coronavirus response .
Defense Department lawyers quickly determined that the funds could be used for defense production , a conclusion that Congress later disputed .
Rolls-Royce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 183 million to maintain the shipbuilding industry ; tens of millions of dollars were awarded for satellite , drone and space surveillance technology ; $ 80 million were given to a Kansas aircraft parts business which suffered a blow following the slowing of air travel amid the coronavirus and the Boeing 737 Max grounding .
A domestic manufacturer for Army dress uniform fabric also received $ 2 million , the Post found .
DOD officials contended to the Post that they have sought to balance boosting American medical production with supporting the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is critical to national security .
But the Post ’ s review of a House Committee on Appropriations report shows that the use of emergency funding to boost defense contractors goes against the committee ’ s intent to promote the manufacturing of personal protective equipment .
“ The Committee ’ s expectation was that the Department would address the need for PPE industrial capacity rather than execute the funding for the DIB ( defense industrial base ) , ” the committee wrote in its report on the 2021 defense bill .
Per the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decisions , saying that they have been transparent with both Democrats and Republicans in Congress on their plans for the funds .

Investigation into a $1 billion fund allotted by Congress to the Pentagon in March to bolster the country’s supplies of medical equipment reveals that the funds have been mostly diverted to defense contractors and used to manufacture military equipment like jet engine parts, body armor and dress uniforms.
The Washington Post reported the finding which demonstrates how a taxpayer-based effort to combat COVID-19 was redirected to stockpiling military supplies.
Passed earlier this year, the Cares Act distributed funds to the Pentagon to “prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus.” But per the Post, in a matter of weeks, the Defense Department began reshaping how that money would be used — diverging from the original intent of Congress for the funds.
The payments were made despite warnings from health officials as recently as last week that suggested there continue to be major funding gaps in responding to the pandemic. CDC director Robert Redfield, testified to the Senate last week that states desperately need $6 billion to distribute vaccines to Americans early next year.
The funds could also be used to fill what continues to be a severe shortage of N95 masks at some hospitals knees-deep in their fight against the virus. But in the months after the stimulus package was passed, the Pentagon made other plans for the money.
According to the Post’s report, the Pentagon instead decided to give defense contractors hundreds of millions of dollars from the fund, mostly for projects that have little to do with the coronavirus response. Defense Department lawyers quickly determined that the funds could be used for defense production, a conclusion that Congress later disputed.
Rolls-Royce and ArcelorMittal among other firms were awarded $183 million to maintain the shipbuilding industry; tens of millions of dollars were awarded for satellite, drone and space surveillance technology; $80 million were given to a Kansas aircraft parts business which suffered a blow following the slowing of air travel amid the coronavirus and the Boeing 737 Max grounding. A domestic manufacturer for Army dress uniform fabric also received $2 million, the Post found.
DOD officials contended to the Post that they have sought to balance boosting American medical production with supporting the defense industry, whose health they say is critical to national security.
But the Post’s review of a House Committee on Appropriations report shows that the use of emergency funding to boost defense contractors goes against the committee’s intent to promote the manufacturing of personal protective equipment.
“The Committee’s expectation was that the Department would address the need for PPE industrial capacity rather than execute the funding for the DIB (defense industrial base),” the committee wrote in its report on the 2021 defense bill.
Per the Post, Pentagon officials have defended their decisions, saying that they have been transparent with both Democrats and Republicans in Congress on their plans for the funds.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-22--McConnell Locks In Gardner And Grassley For SCOTUS Vote

Two more key GOP senators have joined ranks with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-KY ) in his controversial move to fill the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s seat .
Sen. Cory Gardner ( R-CO ) , who represents a crucial seat in Republicans ’ fight to keep the Senate and who is trailing former Colorado Gov .
John Hickenlooper ( D ) in the polls , announced on Monday night that he would support a vote to confirm President Donald Trump ’ s pick for the Supreme Court .
“ I have and will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect our Constitution , not legislate from the bench , and uphold the law , ” Gardner said in a statement .
“ Should a qualified nominee who meets this criteria be put forward , I will vote to confirm.
” Sen. Chuck Grassley ( R-IA ) , who said in 2018 that he would not allow a SCOTUS vacancy to be filled in 2020 if he were still chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee “ if the ball ’ s the same as it is ” when former President Barack Obama tried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Moines Register on Monday that “ once the hearings are underway , it ’ s my responsibility to evaluate the nominee on the merits , just as I always have.
” “ While there was ambiguity about the American people ’ s will for the direction of the Supreme Court in 2016 under a divided government , there is no such ambiguity in 2020 , ” Grassley said .
Gardner and Grassley , who has been replaced by Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) as Judiciary chair , were part of a handful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blocked McConnell and President Donald Trump ’ s efforts to replace Ginsburg , given Gardner ’ s tough reelection bid and Grassley ’ s previous remarks against a Supreme Court appointment in 2020 .

Two more key GOP senators have joined ranks with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) in his controversial move to fill the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat.
Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO), who represents a crucial seat in Republicans’ fight to keep the Senate and who is trailing former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) in the polls, announced on Monday night that he would support a vote to confirm President Donald Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court.
“I have and will continue to support judicial nominees who will protect our Constitution, not legislate from the bench, and uphold the law,” Gardner said in a statement. “Should a qualified nominee who meets this criteria be put forward, I will vote to confirm.”
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who said in 2018 that he would not allow a SCOTUS vacancy to be filled in 2020 if he were still chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee “if the ball’s the same as it is” when former President Barack Obama tried to appoint Merrick Garland, told Des Moines Register on Monday that “once the hearings are underway, it’s my responsibility to evaluate the nominee on the merits, just as I always have.”
“While there was ambiguity about the American people’s will for the direction of the Supreme Court in 2016 under a divided government, there is no such ambiguity in 2020,” Grassley said.
Gardner and Grassley, who has been replaced by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) as Judiciary chair, were part of a handful of Republican senators who could have potentially blocked McConnell and President Donald Trump’s efforts to replace Ginsburg, given Gardner’s tough reelection bid and Grassley’s previous remarks against a Supreme Court appointment in 2020.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-22--What Happens When John Roberts Can’t Be The Swing Vote Who Moderates The Court?

In opinions that came down this summer , Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to be settling into a new era of the Supreme Court , with him as the swing justice .
But that era may already be over , with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s death on Friday .
In giving Republicans the opportunity to cement 6-3 conservative control of the court , Ginsburg ’ s death made it much harder for Roberts to steer the court in a more moderate direction in cases where the conservative position put its legitimacy at risk .
The two terms during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the court — a position he took over after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement in 2018 — showed that Roberts was willing to play that role .
Regardless of who emerges as the new median justice , there will be fewer occasions for the swing justice to exert influence in a 6-3 court than in the closely divided 5-4 court that persisted for years .
“ John Roberts has tried very hard to keep the court out of extreme hot water .
He has a keen sense of the institutional interest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own ideological preferences at times , and that effort will largely be lost , ” Barry Friedman , a professor at the New York University School of Law , told TPM .
Roberts is by no means a moderate like Kennedy , and on key issues like church v. state and voting rights , he has already pulled the court farther right than what would have been expected with Kennedy still on the bench .
But in cases like the challenge to President Trump ’ s census citizenship question and whether Trump could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roberts has been able to find narrow reasons to vote with the liberals , and in the process , defuse major political bombs .
The 7-2 decisions that Roberts secured in this year ’ s high stakes Trump subpoenas , meanwhile showcased the chief ’ s ability to use his leverage to build decisions that protect the court from accusations of pure partisanship .
Just as telling were the cases the Supreme Court didn ’ t take up while Roberts has been the median justice , such as several cases which would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights .
Many believe the court passed up those cases because the conservative justices did not believe a Roberts vote in their favor was guaranteed .
In recent decades , who constitutes the court ’ s “ swing ” justice has been shifting to the right — from Justice Sandra Day O ’ Connor in the 1990s and early 2000s to Justice Kennedy in the decade or so after that — with every major shake up .
But as chief justice , Roberts also has an additional interest in navigating the court away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interested in ruling on the side of Republicans .
Even while he still had Kennedy on the court to his left , that interest appeared to play a major role in cases like the two Obama-era Affordable Care Act challenges when he broke with conservatives to uphold the law .
“ The data shows that he does moderate in cases that seem to have implications for the legitimacy of the court or keeping courts out of highly political situations , ” James Weinstein , a law professor at Arizona State , told TPM @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Roberts because of his ACA decision was only exacerbated in how he handled the cases involving census and the deportation protections for young immigrants .
Roberts ’ personal ideological preferences took a back seat to rulings against the Trump administration because it failed to follow the rules in making those two consequential policy changes .
“ I don ’ t think [ Justice Samual ] Alito or Justice [ Clarence ] Thomas cares about things Roberts cares about , ” Weinstein said .
Because the two justices who could most conceivably step @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — are very new to the court , it ’ s hard to game out just when and how they would embrace playing such a role .
For the most part , Gorsuch has positioned himself on the court ’ s far-right wing .
But he has occasionally delivered surprises , like when he wrote a majority opinion expanding LGBT protections this year .
Kavanaugh , while appearing to be less willing to sign on to some hardline dissents , has also not shown significant interest in breaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For instance , Kavanaugh dissented when Roberts this year voted with the liberals in favor of striking down an abortion restriction that was a replica of a law the court had ruled unconstitutional just a few years prior .
“ It ’ s possible that the new median will have the same institutional interests , but I see no evidence of that generally , so I think we ’ re in for a wild ride , ” Friedman said .
Because he remains the court ’ s chief , Roberts still has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court .
He gets to assign opinions , which may help him still guide the court towards opinions that take a more incrementalist approach to delivering decisions that are nonetheless conservative victories .
Serious threats from Democrats that they ’ re considering restructuring the court could strengthen Roberts ’ arguments for the justices taking a more minimalistic approach .
“ Even if he was not the swing vote in the same ways , he has an audience in his colleagues who are willing to work with him to find ways to decide cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible to people who disagree with results , ” Arthur Hellman , a professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law , said .
But if Democrats don ’ t control the Congress and the White House , Hellman said , “ then at the point , Roberts loses some of his leverage in trying to moderate .
”

In opinions that came down this summer, Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to be settling into a new era of the Supreme Court, with him as the swing justice. But that era may already be over, with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death on Friday.
In giving Republicans the opportunity to cement 6-3 conservative control of the court, Ginsburg’s death made it much harder for Roberts to steer the court in a more moderate direction in cases where the conservative position put its legitimacy at risk.
The two terms during which he served as the median justice on the court — a position he took over after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement in 2018 — showed that Roberts was willing to play that role. Regardless of who emerges as the new median justice, there will be fewer occasions for the swing justice to exert influence in a 6-3 court than in the closely divided 5-4 court that persisted for years.
“John Roberts has tried very hard to keep the court out of extreme hot water. He has a keen sense of the institutional interest of the court and rises above his own ideological preferences at times, and that effort will largely be lost,” Barry Friedman, a professor at the New York University School of Law, told TPM.
Roberts is by no means a moderate like Kennedy, and on key issues like church v. state and voting rights, he has already pulled the court farther right than what would have been expected with Kennedy still on the bench.
But in cases like the challenge to President Trump’s census citizenship question and whether Trump could unravel deportation protections for young immigrants, Roberts has been able to find narrow reasons to vote with the liberals, and in the process, defuse major political bombs. The 7-2 decisions that Roberts secured in this year’s high stakes Trump subpoenas, meanwhile showcased the chief’s ability to use his leverage to build decisions that protect the court from accusations of pure partisanship.
Just as telling were the cases the Supreme Court didn’t take up while Roberts has been the median justice, such as several cases which would have allowed the court to significantly expand gun rights. Many believe the court passed up those cases because the conservative justices did not believe a Roberts vote in their favor was guaranteed.
In recent decades, who constitutes the court’s “swing” justice has been shifting to the right — from Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in the 1990s and early 2000s to Justice Kennedy in the decade or so after that — with every major shake up.
But as chief justice, Roberts also has an additional interest in navigating the court away from a reputation that it was only interested in ruling on the side of Republicans. Even while he still had Kennedy on the court to his left, that interest appeared to play a major role in cases like the two Obama-era Affordable Care Act challenges when he broke with conservatives to uphold the law.
“The data shows that he does moderate in cases that seem to have implications for the legitimacy of the court or keeping courts out of highly political situations,” James Weinstein, a law professor at Arizona State, told TPM.
The distrust the Republican base has for Roberts because of his ACA decision was only exacerbated in how he handled the cases involving census and the deportation protections for young immigrants. Roberts’ personal ideological preferences took a back seat to rulings against the Trump administration because it failed to follow the rules in making those two consequential policy changes.
“I don’t think [Justice Samual] Alito or Justice [Clarence] Thomas cares about things Roberts cares about,” Weinstein said.
Because the two justices who could most conceivably step into the “swing” position— Justice Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — are very new to the court, it’s hard to game out just when and how they would embrace playing such a role. For the most part, Gorsuch has positioned himself on the court’s far-right wing. But he has occasionally delivered surprises, like when he wrote a majority opinion expanding LGBT protections this year.
Kavanaugh, while appearing to be less willing to sign on to some hardline dissents, has also not shown significant interest in breaking with the conservative bloc as a whole. For instance, Kavanaugh dissented when Roberts this year voted with the liberals in favor of striking down an abortion restriction that was a replica of a law the court had ruled unconstitutional just a few years prior.
“It’s possible that the new median will have the same institutional interests, but I see no evidence of that generally, so I think we’re in for a wild ride,” Friedman said.
Because he remains the court’s chief, Roberts still has some influence over the rest of the court. He gets to assign opinions, which may help him still guide the court towards opinions that take a more incrementalist approach to delivering decisions that are nonetheless conservative victories.
Serious threats from Democrats that they’re considering restructuring the court could strengthen Roberts’ arguments for the justices taking a more minimalistic approach.
“Even if he was not the swing vote in the same ways, he has an audience in his colleagues who are willing to work with him to find ways to decide cases in ways that are least inflammatory as possible to people who disagree with results,” Arthur Hellman, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, said.
But if Democrats don’t control the Congress and the White House, Hellman said, “then at the point, Roberts loses some of his leverage in trying to moderate.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-22--Biden Says Cindy McCain Is Endorsing Him In Light Of Trump’s Fallen Soldier ‘Loser’ Remarks

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden announced on Tuesday that Cindy McCain , the wife of late Sen. John McCain ( R-AZ ) , will endorse him in the November presidential election in light of President Trump ’ s disparaging comments toward fallen soldiers reported in The Atlantic .
Earlier this month , The Atlantic reported that Trump skipped a visit to the cemetery in France honoring fallen soldiers in the Battle of Belleau Woods , who he reportedly dismissed as “ losers.
” The President also reportedly called the late Arizona senator — who was captured by the Vietnamese , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years — a “ fucking loser ” in 2018 .
Shortly after the report in The Atlantic was published , Trump administration officials denied that the President made the denigrating comments toward fallen soldiers .
Trump himself denied that he had mocked McCain and fallen soldiers behind closed doors and dismissed the report as “ fake news ” in a series of tweets .
According to a pool report on Tuesday , Biden made his announcement of McCain ’ s endorsement during a virtual fundraiser on Tuesday .
The Democratic presidential nominee said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remarks reported in The Atlantic as key to her decision .
“ Maybe I shouldn ’ t say it but I ’ m about to go on one of these Zooms with John McCain ’ s wife , who is first time ever is endorsing me because of what he talks about with my son and John ’ s who are heroes , who served their country , you know he said they ’ re losers , they ’ re suckers , ” Biden said during the virtual fundraiser , according to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endorsement of Biden comes a month after she narrated a video aired during the Democratic National Convention last month .
Although McCain did not explicitly endorse the former VP in the video , the wife of the late Arizona Republican recounted her husband ’ s friendship with the Democratic presidential nominee .
During her video appearance in the DNC last month , McCain discussed how Biden , who was serving as a Delaware senator , met her husband when he served as a military aide for him on a trip overseas .
McCain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friendship and that their families would convene for picnics held in the Bidens ’ backyard .
“ They would just sit and joke .
It was like a comedy show , sometimes , to watch the two of them , ” McCain said in the video aired during the DNC .

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden announced on Tuesday that Cindy McCain, the wife of late Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), will endorse him in the November presidential election in light of President Trump’s disparaging comments toward fallen soldiers reported in The Atlantic.
Earlier this month, The Atlantic reported that Trump skipped a visit to the cemetery in France honoring fallen soldiers in the Battle of Belleau Woods, who he reportedly dismissed as “losers.” The President also reportedly called the late Arizona senator — who was captured by the Vietnamese, tortured and imprisoned for more than five years — a “fucking loser” in 2018.
Shortly after the report in The Atlantic was published, Trump administration officials denied that the President made the denigrating comments toward fallen soldiers. Trump himself denied that he had mocked McCain and fallen soldiers behind closed doors and dismissed the report as “fake news” in a series of tweets.
According to a pool report on Tuesday, Biden made his announcement of McCain’s endorsement during a virtual fundraiser on Tuesday. The Democratic presidential nominee said that McCain cited Trump’s disparaging remarks reported in The Atlantic as key to her decision.
“Maybe I shouldn’t say it but I’m about to go on one of these Zooms with John McCain’s wife, who is first time ever is endorsing me because of what he talks about with my son and John’s who are heroes, who served their country, you know he said they’re losers, they’re suckers,” Biden said during the virtual fundraiser, according to a pool report.
McCain’s reported endorsement of Biden comes a month after she narrated a video aired during the Democratic National Convention last month. Although McCain did not explicitly endorse the former VP in the video, the wife of the late Arizona Republican recounted her husband’s friendship with the Democratic presidential nominee.
During her video appearance in the DNC last month, McCain discussed how Biden, who was serving as a Delaware senator, met her husband when he served as a military aide for him on a trip overseas. McCain said that the two then formed a friendship and that their families would convene for picnics held in the Bidens’ backyard.
“They would just sit and joke. It was like a comedy show, sometimes, to watch the two of them,” McCain said in the video aired during the DNC.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-22--PA GOP Queues Up First Post-RBG Election Dispute For SCOTUS

In a sign of how critical Pennsylvania is to the Republican Party ’ s election litigation strategy , the state GOP wants the U.S. Supreme Court to review a state case that opened up absentee voting , while the Trump campaign is seeking to revive a federal lawsuit targeting Pennsylvania ’ s plans for pandemic voting .
The indication Tuesday that the U.S. Supreme Court will be asked to get involved in the state court case marks the first time the high court ’ s intervention will be sought since the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
Democrats and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court battle over several aspects of Pennsylvania ’ s absentee voting process .
Last week , in a lawsuit brought by Democrats , the state Supreme Court okayed Pennsylvania ’ s plans to set up ballot drop boxes and it upheld the state ’ s requirement that poll watchers reside in the county they are assigned to .
It also ruled that election officials should count ballots that arrive in the three days after the election .
The Pennsylvania GOP as well as the Republican leaders of its legislature indicated on Tuesday that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particularly its extension for the receipt deadline for absentee ballots — to the U.S. Supreme Court .
The notice came in requests to the state Supreme Court that it put its opinion on hold while U.S. Supreme Court review is sought .
Tuesday ’ s filings , which were first reported by the Hill , argue that the state Supreme Court ’ s opinion violates the Election Clause of the U.S. Constitution by allowing ballots to be counted after Election Day even if they lacked postmarks confirming they were sent by then .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ head off a federal lawsuit filed by the Trump campaign and the RNC that took aim at the drop boxes and the poll watcher residency requirements .
The lawsuit had been put on hold while the state Supreme Court decision was pending .
The federal judge , a President Trump appointee , has since jumpstarted the case .
That case too provides Republicans the opportunity to drag the U.S. Supreme Court into the fight over Pennsylvania ’ s election tules .
It is continuing to request that the federal court block the use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and to declare unconstitutional the residency requirement for poll watchers .

In a sign of how critical Pennsylvania is to the Republican Party’s election litigation strategy, the state GOP wants the U.S. Supreme Court to review a state case that opened up absentee voting, while the Trump campaign is seeking to revive a federal lawsuit targeting Pennsylvania’s plans for pandemic voting.
The indication Tuesday that the U.S. Supreme Court will be asked to get involved in the state court case marks the first time the high court’s intervention will be sought since the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Democrats and Republicans have been engaged in a multi-front court battle over several aspects of Pennsylvania’s absentee voting process.
Last week, in a lawsuit brought by Democrats, the state Supreme Court okayed Pennsylvania’s plans to set up ballot drop boxes and it upheld the state’s requirement that poll watchers reside in the county they are assigned to. It also ruled that election officials should count ballots that arrive in the three days after the election.
The Pennsylvania GOP as well as the Republican leaders of its legislature indicated on Tuesday that it would appeal that decision — and particularly its extension for the receipt deadline for absentee ballots — to the U.S. Supreme Court. The notice came in requests to the state Supreme Court that it put its opinion on hold while U.S. Supreme Court review is sought.
Tuesday’s filings, which were first reported by the Hill, argue that the state Supreme Court’s opinion violates the Election Clause of the U.S. Constitution by allowing ballots to be counted after Election Day even if they lacked postmarks confirming they were sent by then.
Democrats filed the state court dispute to head off a federal lawsuit filed by the Trump campaign and the RNC that took aim at the drop boxes and the poll watcher residency requirements. The lawsuit had been put on hold while the state Supreme Court decision was pending. The federal judge, a President Trump appointee, has since jumpstarted the case.
That case too provides Republicans the opportunity to drag the U.S. Supreme Court into the fight over Pennsylvania’s election tules. It is continuing to request that the federal court block the use of “unmanned” ballots boxes, and to declare unconstitutional the residency requirement for poll watchers.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-22--WaPo: FDA To Set Higher Bar For COVID Vaccine, Likely Delaying Approval Past Election

The Food and Drug Administration is set to issue higher standards before approving a COVID-19 vaccine , the Washington Post reported on Tuesday , a move that could push any vaccine being deployed until after the November election .
A COVID-19 vaccine would almost certainly be approved through emergency use authorization , officials have said , a tool that allows the government to approve treatments before full , multi-year testing regimens are complete .
Citing two anonymous sources , the Post reported that the FDA intends to ask vaccine manufacturers who are seeking an emergency authorization to “ follow participants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of at least two months , starting after they receive a second vaccine shot.
” The two vaccine trials that are the furthest along , Moderna and Pfizer , both require two shots , one month apart .
The first people to receive the second round of shots did so in the final week of August , suggesting that the new regulation would prevent a request for authorization from being issued until late October .
The new regulation reportedly also requires there to be cases at least five severe cases of COVID-19 in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well as some COVID-19 cases in older people , before approval .
The new criteria could prolong the FDA ’ s timeline for issuing an emergency approval for a vaccine .
President Trump has said that a vaccine would be approved before Election Day , while administration officials have reportedly referred to a pre-election vaccine as a “ holy grail ” for President Trump ’ s re-election hopes .
It ’ s not clear how new or tough the criteria are , compared to those that the FDA was previously using for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Speed , the Trump administration ’ s effort to accelerate vaccine development , has said that any COVID-19 vaccine must be at least 50 percent effective in order to be approved , the FDA has so far not released the detailed criteria that it is using to establish vaccine safety and efficacy .
Joe Biden has called on the Trump administration to make that criteria publicly available .

The Food and Drug Administration is set to issue higher standards before approving a COVID-19 vaccine, the Washington Post reported on Tuesday, a move that could push any vaccine being deployed until after the November election.
A COVID-19 vaccine would almost certainly be approved through emergency use authorization, officials have said, a tool that allows the government to approve treatments before full, multi-year testing regimens are complete.
Citing two anonymous sources, the Post reported that the FDA intends to ask vaccine manufacturers who are seeking an emergency authorization to “follow participants in late-stage clinical trials for a median of at least two months, starting after they receive a second vaccine shot.”
The two vaccine trials that are the furthest along, Moderna and Pfizer, both require two shots, one month apart. The first people to receive the second round of shots did so in the final week of August, suggesting that the new regulation would prevent a request for authorization from being issued until late October.
The new regulation reportedly also requires there to be cases at least five severe cases of COVID-19 in the trial’s placebo population, as well as some COVID-19 cases in older people, before approval.
The new criteria could prolong the FDA’s timeline for issuing an emergency approval for a vaccine. President Trump has said that a vaccine would be approved before Election Day, while administration officials have reportedly referred to a pre-election vaccine as a “holy grail” for President Trump’s re-election hopes.
It’s not clear how new or tough the criteria are, compared to those that the FDA was previously using for the COVID-19 vaccine. Though Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration’s effort to accelerate vaccine development, has said that any COVID-19 vaccine must be at least 50 percent effective in order to be approved, the FDA has so far not released the detailed criteria that it is using to establish vaccine safety and efficacy.
Joe Biden has called on the Trump administration to make that criteria publicly available.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-22--WH Uses Briefing To Bash Ex-Aides Who Spoke Out Against Trump

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany and Keith Kellogg , national security adviser to Vice President Mike Pence , dedicated the end of Tuesday ’ s briefing to bashing former Trump administration officials who have recently come out against the President ahead of the November election .
Earlier Tuesday , Olivia Troye , a former top aide to Vice President Mike Pence who announced last week that she plans to vote for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden , jabbed Trump over his “ frightening ” COVID-19 response in a clip of an interview set to air on “ NBC Nightly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who served for eight months on the White House Coronavirus Task Force , also criticized the President by claiming that he was more concerned about his “ personal agenda ” than protecting Americans against the infectious disease .
During a briefing at the White House later Tuesday , McEnany called Kellogg — who seldom makes media appearances — to the podium toward the end of the briefing .
Kellogg proceeded to go after Troye by first claiming that he fired her “ because her performance started to drop ” after her time on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backbencher.
” Kellogg said that Troye was responsible for coordinating meetings and that when her “ performance level dropped off , ” he recommended to Pence that she leave .
“ I ’ m the one who escorted her off the compound , ” Kellogg said .
Kellogg went on to say that he had never heard of the claims that Troye waged that are critical of Trump , before adding that he particularly takes issue with her criticisms against the administration overall .
“ What she has said I ’ ve never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What bothers me about what Olivia said is , by insinuation , the disparagement of the task force , the vice president , and the President of the United States.
” Right after Kellogg concluded his remarks slamming Troye , McEnany took the podium again and referred to Troye as a “ disgruntled detailee.
” “ Troye failed to speak up and she struggled to keep up because she was constantly complaining about how exhausted and overwhelmed she was with coordinating conference calls and meetings , ” McEnany said .
“ Troye ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she ’ s cutting commercials for a fringe club of ‘ Never Trumpers ’ who are desperate for relevancy and the price of admission to this club is fabricated smears and flat-out lies against President Trump.
” McEnany then railed against Miles Taylor , a former Department of Homeland Security chief of staff who also threw his support behind Biden recently , by characterizing him as “ similarly irrelevant.
” McEnany jabbed Taylor for his employment at CNN as a contributor as well as his work at Google .
Taylor announced last month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absence from Google through the November election .
“ Desperate to please his new Silicon Valley friends , Miles made up lies against President Trump to fit in , ” McEnany said .
“ He can now rest easy at Google having earned his anti-Trump credentials and the approval of his big tech peers.
” McEnany concluded that neither Troye nor Taylor knew the President , “ but they certainly are trying to profit off of their time here in the White House of flat-out lies .
”

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany and Keith Kellogg, national security adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, dedicated the end of Tuesday’s briefing to bashing former Trump administration officials who have recently come out against the President ahead of the November election.
Earlier Tuesday, Olivia Troye, a former top aide to Vice President Mike Pence who announced last week that she plans to vote for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, jabbed Trump over his “frightening” COVID-19 response in a clip of an interview set to air on “NBC Nightly News” Tuesday evening.
Troye, who served for eight months on the White House Coronavirus Task Force, also criticized the President by claiming that he was more concerned about his “personal agenda” than protecting Americans against the infectious disease.
During a briefing at the White House later Tuesday, McEnany called Kellogg — who seldom makes media appearances — to the podium toward the end of the briefing. Kellogg proceeded to go after Troye by first claiming that he fired her “because her performance started to drop” after her time on the coronavirus task force as “a backbencher.”
Kellogg said that Troye was responsible for coordinating meetings and that when her “performance level dropped off,” he recommended to Pence that she leave.
“I’m the one who escorted her off the compound,” Kellogg said.
Kellogg went on to say that he had never heard of the claims that Troye waged that are critical of Trump, before adding that he particularly takes issue with her criticisms against the administration overall.
“What she has said I’ve never heard,” Kellogg said. “What bothers me about what Olivia said is, by insinuation, the disparagement of the task force, the vice president, and the President of the United States.”
Right after Kellogg concluded his remarks slamming Troye, McEnany took the podium again and referred to Troye as a “disgruntled detailee.”
“Troye failed to speak up and she struggled to keep up because she was constantly complaining about how exhausted and overwhelmed she was with coordinating conference calls and meetings,” McEnany said. “Troye’s detail was cut short and now she’s cutting commercials for a fringe club of ‘Never Trumpers’ who are desperate for relevancy and the price of admission to this club is fabricated smears and flat-out lies against President Trump.”
McEnany then railed against Miles Taylor, a former Department of Homeland Security chief of staff who also threw his support behind Biden recently, by characterizing him as “similarly irrelevant.”
McEnany jabbed Taylor for his employment at CNN as a contributor as well as his work at Google. Taylor announced last month that he is taking a leave of absence from Google through the November election.
“Desperate to please his new Silicon Valley friends, Miles made up lies against President Trump to fit in,” McEnany said. “He can now rest easy at Google having earned his anti-Trump credentials and the approval of his big tech peers.”
McEnany concluded that neither Troye nor Taylor knew the President, “but they certainly are trying to profit off of their time here in the White House of flat-out lies.”
Watch their remarks below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-22--OK, Here’s What You Need To Know About The Whole Pelosi As President Poli-Sci Fantasy

The idea of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) ascending to the presidency seems outlandish , little more than a Fox News fever dream or # Resistance fan fiction .
But it ’ s not entirely impossible — and , ironically , could be made marginally more likely by a last-minute attempt by President Donald Trump to muck with the election , a possibility that scholars , journalists and the general public has begun to game out .
Though it would require some serious planetary alignment , there are mechanisms that could propel Pelosi to the presidency , should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : picture a deadlocked Electoral College , or a litigative slog reminiscent of the 2008 Franken-Coleman Senate election , with legal teams scrambling to sort out the winner while Trump sits cross-armed in the Oval Office .
Trump himself has even fretted about the possibility ( though he wasn ’ t quite right about the mechanics of how it would work ) .
Here ’ s how we could end up crossing into the political Twilight Zone .
An exact tie would be freakish , stunning — but not quite impossible .
Say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s 2nd Congressional District to Joe Biden , but holds everything else he won in 2016 ; or what if Biden wins Arizona and Iowa , but loses Michigan and Wisconsin ?
The Constitution requires that the winning candidate get an “ absolute majority ” of electoral votes , or 270 .
A draw would trigger a “ contingent election ” once the new Congress is sworn in in January , a process established by the 12th Amendment and tweaked by the 20th .
Every state delegation in the House would get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates — presumably Joe Biden , Donald Trump and the third party candidate who accrued the most votes .
Right now , Republicans have more state delegation majorities in the House , despite the fact that Democrats have more members in totum .
( That could also change depending on how the 2020 elections shake out . )
The most likely situation here is that the party with the majority of state delegations picks its president and that ’ s that .
So , if the make-up of the House is similar to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely win .
But — what if Democrats pick up a few delegations in the 2020 election and Republicans lose a few , leaving the House split right down the middle ?
In this case , the House has failed to pick a president , and the camera pans to the Senate .
There , each senator gets a vote for who would be vice president , the de facto president if the House fails to pick one .
Currently , Republicans have a slim majority there too .
But , as is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Colorado , Maine , etc.
, Democrats could make gains in November to claw some seats back .
Imagine they successfully won back three seats and the chamber was now a 50-50 split .
If everyone voted the way they ’ d be expected to , it ’ s another tie .
Under the Constitution , Trump and Vice President Pence must leave on January 20 .
If Congress fails to pick a new president , Pelosi , the third person in the order of succession , would ascend .
Note : there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history , and none has double deadlocked .
Say that on election night , the race is extremely close — a 2000 Bush-Gore situation .
Suppose that this time , the race hangs on Pennsylvania , leading to a “ morass of certifications and court orders that leaves Congress with a choice of which result to accept , ” as Brian Kalt , law professor at Michigan State University , put it to TPM .
According to the Electoral Counting Act of 1887 , electors must be chosen no more than 41 days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in this year ’ s case .
Now , in this weird pandemic year , it ’ s guaranteed that some states , buried under an avalanche of mail-in ballots , will take more time than usual to reach their final vote tallies .
During Pennsylvania ’ s June primary , Philadelphia , for instance , took over two weeks to count all of its votes .
Election officials in the commonwealth , while hoping for a quicker turnaround than the summer election , are largely in agreement that it ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So let ’ s take that example and use it to paint a nightmarish hypothetical .
Say November does see a June repeat , and votes in Philadelphia , a Democratic stronghold , come in particularly slowly .
That delay , plus the fact that 64 percent of Democrats intend to vote by mail versus just 10 percent of Republicans , makes for a reasonable possibility that , in this key state , Trump will be ahead on election night with a lead Biden at least chips away at , if not overcomes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the following days .
While the days slip by and the count continues , Trump will likely fan the flames of the doubts he ’ s been sowing for months : that mailed ballots are unreliable and the system rife with fraud .
If Biden pulls ahead , Trump could be even more likely to claim election tampering .
Say ballots are tossed and lawsuits are filed — now the count is ensnared in the courts .
Even with an expedited process , December 14 could come and go without a judicial decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s unclear how electors would be selected .
While currently , every state appoints electors based on the popular vote , there is no constitutional mandate for them to do that .
In fact , states are given extremely broad latitude : electors , according to Article II of the Constitution , shall be appointed “ in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.
” The Supreme Court has since confirmed twice ( once during the 2000 Bush-Gore showdown ) that states can revert back to directly appointing electors if they wish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governor and secretary of state might pick a slate of electors based on the popular vote .
But Pennsylvania ’ s Republican-led general assembly could clings to its constitutional right and Trump ’ s claims of voter fraud , and present its own competing slate of Trump-friendly electors .
Assuming that the majorities of the House and Senate remain the same after the 2020 elections as they are now , it ’ s a stalemate .
There is no clear legal consensus on what to do at this point — whether Pennsylvania ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the equation and leave the winner of the remaining electoral votes as president , or whether a candidate still needs 270 to win .
If the latter , a contingent election is triggered .
Which brings us back to scenario one .
Scenario # 3 : Trump tries to delay or cancel the election Trump has already floated delaying the election “ until people can properly , securely and safely vote.
” While he can ’ t delay or cancel the election outright without Congress passing a new law , he could theoretically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their state ’ s election .
As explained in scenario two , it would be constitutional , if wholly undemocratic , for Republican legislatures to forego the election and assign the electors to Trump .
It ’ s unclear if governors could veto such a move .
Critical swing states — Pennsylvania , Michigan , Wisconsin — all have Democratic governors who would quash the maneuver if they could , even if the GOP legislatures were game to play along .
Governors have to send a certification to the Archivist of the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what would happen if the governor refused to , or sent a certification at odds with what the legislature finagled .
The Constitution is clear that “ the terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January.
” That would , normally , elevate the speaker to the presidency .
Except , there ’ s a deeper , even less likely level of the hypothetical .
Pelosi is up for reelection this year too — so if there were no congressional elections by January @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
All of a sudden , Senate President Pro Tempore Chuck Grassley ( R-IA ) is the highest-ranking official left .
But without reelections taking place , the Senate would be hollowed out and Democrats would have a majority of the seats remaining , allowing them to essentially pick a new Senate President Pro Tempore — who would then become the new president .
Some states do let their governors appoint temporary replacement senators , but many states ’ lines of succession would also be disrupted by the lack of election .
Bonus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ succession In case the combination of archaic laws and far-fetched election scenarios hasn ’ t yet made your head spin , here ’ s a fun fact .
There is intense scholarly debate around if the speaker is rightly third in the line of succession in the first place .
According to the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 , she is .
But , the Constitution ’ s Succession Clause asserts that only an “ officer ” can succeed the President , a term many scholars think does not apply to a member @ @ @ @ @ @ @ set up a nightmare scenario where both Pelosi and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have grounds to claim themselves next in command .
Fun !
In the end , chances of any of these situations happening are very , very , very tiny .
The presidential election would have to be breathtakingly close , and a lot of Republicans would have to be willing to go along with Trump ’ s strong-arming .
It ’ s worth noting , though , that in a country special because of its smooth transitions of power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to favor his own reelection over the safeguarding of critical democratic norms to bring these nightmare scenarios into the realm of discussion , and a bit closer to reality than they ever have been before .

The idea of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) ascending to the presidency seems outlandish, little more than a Fox News fever dream or #Resistance fan fiction.
But it’s not entirely impossible — and, ironically, could be made marginally more likely by a last-minute attempt by President Donald Trump to muck with the election, a possibility that scholars, journalists and the general public has begun to game out.
Though it would require some serious planetary alignment, there are mechanisms that could propel Pelosi to the presidency, should a scene from political science fiction materialize: picture a deadlocked Electoral College, or a litigative slog reminiscent of the 2008 Franken-Coleman Senate election, with legal teams scrambling to sort out the winner while Trump sits cross-armed in the Oval Office. Trump himself has even fretted about the possibility (though he wasn’t quite right about the mechanics of how it would work).
Here’s how we could end up crossing into the political Twilight Zone.
Scenario #1: Biden and Trump deadlock at 269 electoral votes apiece
An exact tie would be freakish, stunning — but not quite impossible. Say Trump loses Michigan, Pennsylvania and Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District to Joe Biden, but holds everything else he won in 2016; or what if Biden wins Arizona and Iowa, but loses Michigan and Wisconsin? The Constitution requires that the winning candidate get an “absolute majority” of electoral votes, or 270.
A draw would trigger a “contingent election” once the new Congress is sworn in in January, a process established by the 12th Amendment and tweaked by the 20th. Every state delegation in the House would get one vote for the top three presidential candidates — presumably Joe Biden, Donald Trump and the third party candidate who accrued the most votes. Right now, Republicans have more state delegation majorities in the House, despite the fact that Democrats have more members in totum. (That could also change depending on how the 2020 elections shake out.) The most likely situation here is that the party with the majority of state delegations picks its president and that’s that. So, if the make-up of the House is similar to what it is now, Trump would likely win.
But — what if Democrats pick up a few delegations in the 2020 election and Republicans lose a few, leaving the House split right down the middle? In this case, the House has failed to pick a president, and the camera pans to the Senate.
There, each senator gets a vote for who would be vice president, the de facto president if the House fails to pick one. Currently, Republicans have a slim majority there too. But, as is currently being battled out in Montana, Colorado, Maine, etc., Democrats could make gains in November to claw some seats back. Imagine they successfully won back three seats and the chamber was now a 50-50 split. If everyone voted the way they’d be expected to, it’s another tie.
Under the Constitution, Trump and Vice President Pence must leave on January 20. If Congress fails to pick a new president, Pelosi, the third person in the order of succession, would ascend.
Note: there have been three contingent elections in U.S. history, and none has double deadlocked.
Scenario #2: A long, litigious morass inflamed by Trump’s conspiracy theorizing
Say that on election night, the race is extremely close — a 2000 Bush-Gore situation. Suppose that this time, the race hangs on Pennsylvania, leading to a “morass of certifications and court orders that leaves Congress with a choice of which result to accept,” as Brian Kalt, law professor at Michigan State University, put it to TPM.
According to the Electoral Counting Act of 1887, electors must be chosen no more than 41 days after Election Day — by December 14, in this year’s case. Now, in this weird pandemic year, it’s guaranteed that some states, buried under an avalanche of mail-in ballots, will take more time than usual to reach their final vote tallies. During Pennsylvania’s June primary, Philadelphia, for instance, took over two weeks to count all of its votes. Election officials in the commonwealth, while hoping for a quicker turnaround than the summer election, are largely in agreement that it’ll at least take a few days.
So let’s take that example and use it to paint a nightmarish hypothetical. Say November does see a June repeat, and votes in Philadelphia, a Democratic stronghold, come in particularly slowly. That delay, plus the fact that 64 percent of Democrats intend to vote by mail versus just 10 percent of Republicans, makes for a reasonable possibility that, in this key state, Trump will be ahead on election night with a lead Biden at least chips away at, if not overcomes, as more ballots are counted in the following days.
While the days slip by and the count continues, Trump will likely fan the flames of the doubts he’s been sowing for months: that mailed ballots are unreliable and the system rife with fraud. If Biden pulls ahead, Trump could be even more likely to claim election tampering.
Say ballots are tossed and lawsuits are filed — now the count is ensnared in the courts. Even with an expedited process, December 14 could come and go without a judicial decision.
At that point, it’s unclear how electors would be selected.
While currently, every state appoints electors based on the popular vote, there is no constitutional mandate for them to do that. In fact, states are given extremely broad latitude: electors, according to Article II of the Constitution, shall be appointed “in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” The Supreme Court has since confirmed twice (once during the 2000 Bush-Gore showdown) that states can revert back to directly appointing electors if they wish.
So: Pennsylvania’s Democratic governor and secretary of state might pick a slate of electors based on the popular vote. But Pennsylvania’s Republican-led general assembly could clings to its constitutional right and Trump’s claims of voter fraud, and present its own competing slate of Trump-friendly electors.
Assuming that the majorities of the House and Senate remain the same after the 2020 elections as they are now, it’s a stalemate. There is no clear legal consensus on what to do at this point — whether Pennsylvania’s electoral votes should be removed from the equation and leave the winner of the remaining electoral votes as president, or whether a candidate still needs 270 to win.
If the latter, a contingent election is triggered. Which brings us back to scenario one.
Scenario #3: Trump tries to delay or cancel the election
Trump has already floated delaying the election “until people can properly, securely and safely vote.” While he can’t delay or cancel the election outright without Congress passing a new law, he could theoretically strong arm Republican state legislatures into circumventing their state’s election.
As explained in scenario two, it would be constitutional, if wholly undemocratic, for Republican legislatures to forego the election and assign the electors to Trump.
It’s unclear if governors could veto such a move. Critical swing states — Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin — all have Democratic governors who would quash the maneuver if they could, even if the GOP legislatures were game to play along. Governors have to send a certification to the Archivist of the United States, but it’s unclear what would happen if the governor refused to, or sent a certification at odds with what the legislature finagled.
The Constitution is clear that “the terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January.” That would, normally, elevate the speaker to the presidency.
Except, there’s a deeper, even less likely level of the hypothetical. Pelosi is up for reelection this year too — so if there were no congressional elections by January, she is also out of office. All of a sudden, Senate President Pro Tempore Chuck Grassley (R-IA) is the highest-ranking official left. But without reelections taking place, the Senate would be hollowed out and Democrats would have a majority of the seats remaining, allowing them to essentially pick a new Senate President Pro Tempore — who would then become the new president. Some states do let their governors appoint temporary replacement senators, but many states’ lines of succession would also be disrupted by the lack of election.
Bonus Confusion: Fighting over the line of succession
In case the combination of archaic laws and far-fetched election scenarios hasn’t yet made your head spin, here’s a fun fact. There is intense scholarly debate around if the speaker is rightly third in the line of succession in the first place. According to the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, she is. But, the Constitution’s Succession Clause asserts that only an “officer” can succeed the President, a term many scholars think does not apply to a member of Congress. That confusion could hypothetically set up a nightmare scenario where both Pelosi and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have grounds to claim themselves next in command. Fun!
In the end, chances of any of these situations happening are very, very, very tiny. The presidential election would have to be breathtakingly close, and a lot of Republicans would have to be willing to go along with Trump’s strong-arming. It’s worth noting, though, that in a country special because of its smooth transitions of power, it only took one President choosing to favor his own reelection over the safeguarding of critical democratic norms to bring these nightmare scenarios into the realm of discussion, and a bit closer to reality than they ever have been before.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-22--Whistling Past The Graveyard: Senate GOP Pretending So Hard New Justice Won’t Kill ACA

GOP senators are close to putting on the Supreme Court a justice who could be the deciding vote to kill Obamacare , delivering to the Republican Party its decade-long goal – and exposing it to the political repercussions previous failures have spared it , and during a pandemic , no less .
Accordingly , Senate Republicans don ’ t seem too happy about their new prospect of ripping out Obamacare by the roots .
As is usually the case when it comes to the popular parts of Obamacare , they ’ d rather pretend they ’ re not tearing it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refused to comment to TPM about it .
Others , including members of Senate leadership , suggested that it ’ s too soon to say whether the Affordable Care Act is really under threat .
A few Republicans seemed willing to acknowledge that they should maybe revisit the idea of replacing the ACA soon — an endeavor that collapsed spectacularly in the Senate in 2017 .
“ Respective of what the court decides , many of us — including myself — believe that Obamacare is not the best approach , so we should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Sen. Marco Rubio ( R-FL ) said .
“ But it ’ s been a difficult issue to move on because there have been strong differences of opinion even in the Republican Party about what that should look like .
You remember we had that conversation 2-3 years ago , and it was not an easy lift.
” With astonishing speed , the path has cleared for President Trump to push through his yet-to-be-named replacement for the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , who died last week .
If the nominee is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be the plan , she could be on the court in time to hear a major anti-Obamacare case coming out of Texas , which is scheduled for arguments in November .
In the two previous challenges to the ACA before the Supreme Court , Chief Justice John Roberts voted in favor of saving the law , and was the deciding vote in the 2012 case .
Ginsburg ’ s death and Trump ’ s move to quickly replace her shifts the balance of the court to 6-3 , meaning a Roberts vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , by itself , be enough to salvage it .
Any judge that Trump picks to replace Ginsburg is expected to be against the law ; his leading contender , U.S .
Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett has publicly criticized the Roberts decision that initially saved it in 2012 .
The Trump appointees that have joined the court since the last Obamacare decision are also solidly to Roberts ’ right , and are far from sure votes for upholding the ACA .
Some top Senate Republicans were not yet ready to engage with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s too early .
… You ’ re assuming a lot of things , ” Senate Majority Whip John Thune ( R-SD ) said .
“ We just want to manage the next few days and weeks , but I am sure there will be plenty of discussion about health care among other economic issues in the future.
” Asked if getting a justice on the court by the election increases pressure on Republicans to come up with an ACA replacement , Sen. John Cornyn ( R-TX ) said that , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ points for the Democrats , but I don ’ t see those as directly related.
” Sen. Roy Blunt ( R-MO ) , who like Cornyn and Thune , is also a member of GOP Senate leadership , leaned into the idea that it ’ s not yet certain that Trump ’ s nominee would be on the court on time to hear the case .
“ Whether the court hears on the day they ’ re scheduled — and hard to imagine we ’ d have somebody on the court by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case — so I don ’ t know how that works out , ” he said .
Adding to the irony of the current conundrum for Senate Republicans is Texas ’ legal case against the ACA rests on a provision in the tax bill they passed in 2017 that zeroed out the individual mandate .
The Trump Justice Department is supporting Texas in the case and has argued that the law should be fully dismantled .
Under the Trump argument , both the law ’ s protections of pre-existing conditions and its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 12 million Americans , should be killed .
Before Ginsburg ’ s death , some Senate Republicans pointed to the likelihood that Roberts would uphold the law again as a reason they weren ’ t concerned about the GOP arguments in the case .
Now , they ’ re accusing Democrats of “ fear-mongering , ” as Sen. John Barrasso ( R-WY ) put it , around the issue as part of Dems ’ broader Supreme Court messaging .
“ I think what Biden and what my Democrat colleagues are trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everything you love about America will be lost if Biden doesn ’ t get to pick the next Supreme Court justice , ” said Sen. James Lankford ( R-OK ) .
“ I don ’ t think that ’ s true obviously — they ’ re trying to sell fear at this point.
” Sen. Rick Scott ( R-FL ) said that “ Democrats actually don ’ t want to fix health care , they want to use it as a campaign issue , ” as he pointed to a bill that Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sen. Thom Tillis ( R-NC ) , who faces a tough reelection campaign , claims to protect coverage for pre-existing conditions .
It doesn ’ t address the law ’ s Medicaid expansion , and it under-delivers on its central promise .
Barrasso also pointed to Tillis ’ bill , as well as President Trump ’ s repeated promises to release an executive order addressing the replacement of the ACA .
“ I think you ’ re aware the President has been working on that , will have an executive order coming out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vacancy occurred on the Supreme Court , ” Barrasso .
The President and his aides have for several months been promising that that plan was just “ two weeks ” away .
Some veterans of the 2017 Obamacare repeal disaster , like Sens .
Todd Young ( R-IN ) and John Boozman ( R-AR ) , said that in the event that the Supreme Court invalidates Obamacare , they ’ d hope for a bipartisan fix .
Sen. Mike Braun ( R-IN ) , who wasn ’ t in the Senate for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the dilemma his party faces if their long-sought goal to tear down Obama ’ s signature legislation is achieved .
“ I ’ ve been on record for that — if we as a Republican Party do not come up with something other than ‘ no ’ on healthcare , we ’ ll be on the curb anyway , ” he said .

John Roberts can’t save them now.
GOP senators are close to putting on the Supreme Court a justice who could be the deciding vote to kill Obamacare, delivering to the Republican Party its decade-long goal – and exposing it to the political repercussions previous failures have spared it, and during a pandemic, no less.
Accordingly, Senate Republicans don’t seem too happy about their new prospect of ripping out Obamacare by the roots. As is usually the case when it comes to the popular parts of Obamacare, they’d rather pretend they’re not tearing it out at all.
Several GOP senators refused to comment to TPM about it. Others, including members of Senate leadership, suggested that it’s too soon to say whether the Affordable Care Act is really under threat.
A few Republicans seemed willing to acknowledge that they should maybe revisit the idea of replacing the ACA soon — an endeavor that collapsed spectacularly in the Senate in 2017.
“Respective of what the court decides, many of us — including myself — believe that Obamacare is not the best approach, so we should be moving on that front anyways,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said. “But it’s been a difficult issue to move on because there have been strong differences of opinion even in the Republican Party about what that should look like. You remember we had that conversation 2-3 years ago, and it was not an easy lift.”
With astonishing speed, the path has cleared for President Trump to push through his yet-to-be-named replacement for the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died last week. If the nominee is confirmed before the election, as appears to be the plan, she could be on the court in time to hear a major anti-Obamacare case coming out of Texas, which is scheduled for arguments in November.
In the two previous challenges to the ACA before the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts voted in favor of saving the law, and was the deciding vote in the 2012 case. Ginsburg’s death and Trump’s move to quickly replace her shifts the balance of the court to 6-3, meaning a Roberts vote to uphold the law won’t, by itself, be enough to salvage it.
Any judge that Trump picks to replace Ginsburg is expected to be against the law; his leading contender, U.S. Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett has publicly criticized the Roberts decision that initially saved it in 2012. The Trump appointees that have joined the court since the last Obamacare decision are also solidly to Roberts’ right, and are far from sure votes for upholding the ACA.
Some top Senate Republicans were not yet ready to engage with this reality.
“I think it’s too early. … You’re assuming a lot of things,” Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R-SD) said. “We just want to manage the next few days and weeks, but I am sure there will be plenty of discussion about health care among other economic issues in the future.”
Asked if getting a justice on the court by the election increases pressure on Republicans to come up with an ACA replacement, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said that, “I know that’s the talking points for the Democrats, but I don’t see those as directly related.”
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO), who like Cornyn and Thune, is also a member of GOP Senate leadership, leaned into the idea that it’s not yet certain that Trump’s nominee would be on the court on time to hear the case.
“Whether the court hears on the day they’re scheduled — and hard to imagine we’d have somebody on the court by the day they’re scheduled to hear the case — so I don’t know how that works out,” he said.
Adding to the irony of the current conundrum for Senate Republicans is Texas’ legal case against the ACA rests on a provision in the tax bill they passed in 2017 that zeroed out the individual mandate. The Trump Justice Department is supporting Texas in the case and has argued that the law should be fully dismantled. Under the Trump argument, both the law’s protections of pre-existing conditions and its Medicaid expansion, which has provided coverage to 12 million Americans, should be killed.
Before Ginsburg’s death, some Senate Republicans pointed to the likelihood that Roberts would uphold the law again as a reason they weren’t concerned about the GOP arguments in the case.
Now, they’re accusing Democrats of “fear-mongering,” as Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) put it, around the issue as part of Dems’ broader Supreme Court messaging.
“I think what Biden and what my Democrat colleagues are trying to say over and over again is that everything you love about America will be lost if Biden doesn’t get to pick the next Supreme Court justice,” said Sen. James Lankford (R-OK). “I don’t think that’s true obviously — they’re trying to sell fear at this point.”
Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) said that “Democrats actually don’t want to fix health care, they want to use it as a campaign issue,” as he pointed to a bill that Democrats blocked. The bill, introduced by Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), who faces a tough reelection campaign, claims to protect coverage for pre-existing conditions. It doesn’t address the law’s Medicaid expansion, and it under-delivers on its central promise.
Barrasso also pointed to Tillis’ bill, as well as President Trump’s repeated promises to release an executive order addressing the replacement of the ACA.
“I think you’re aware the President has been working on that, will have an executive order coming out, has been planned long before the vacancy occurred on the Supreme Court,” Barrasso. The President and his aides have for several months been promising that that plan was just “two weeks” away.
Some veterans of the 2017 Obamacare repeal disaster, like Sens. Todd Young (R-IN) and John Boozman (R-AR), said that in the event that the Supreme Court invalidates Obamacare, they’d hope for a bipartisan fix.
Sen. Mike Braun (R-IN), who wasn’t in the Senate for the 2017 fiasco, was more candid about the dilemma his party faces if their long-sought goal to tear down Obama’s signature legislation is achieved.
“I’ve been on record for that — if we as a Republican Party do not come up with something other than ‘no’ on healthcare, we’ll be on the curb anyway,” he said.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-22--White House As US Hits 200K COVID Deaths: Hey, At Least It’s Not 2 Million

As the United Stated tops 200,000 lives lost to COVID-19 , White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany suggested Tuesday that the fact that 2 million people haven ’ t died due to coronavirus is worth celebrating .
“ We were looking at the prospect of 2 million people potentially perishing from the coronavirus in this country , ” McEnany told reporters when asked about the President ’ s response to the grim milestone during a press briefing .
“ We grieve when even one life is lost — the fact that we have come nowhere near that number is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” When pressed by multiple reporters on the President ’ s silence amid reports of the nation ’ s COVID-19 death toll milestone , she referred them to Trump ’ s past remarks .
“ He has said before it keeps him up at night , ” McEnany said .
The United States has continued to exceed all other nations with its staggering death toll , even as the President suggested earlier this month that the United States had “ rounded the final turn ” in its fight against the coronavirus .
Those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts , like infectious diseases expert Dr. Anthony Fauci who warned that Americans need to “ hunker down ” in the colder months .
He called a review of nationwide statistics earlier this month revealing that new cases of infection were plateauing at 40,000 daily , and reports of roughly 1,000 deaths per day , “ disturbing.
” McEnany also recycled a tired defense for the Trump administration ’ s response to COVID-19 , saying the President took “ immediate action ” by banning travel from China — a victory that is now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the crowning victory of the administration .
The ban has been repeatedly used by the press secretary as a catch-all defense for the President ’ s many other failures in leadership amid the pandemic .
The press secretary also appeared to discount documented interviews where the President can be heard telling investigative journalist Bob Woodward that even though he knew the coronavirus was “ deadly stuff ” he was purposely “ playing it down ” — and effectively misleading the American public .
“ The President never downplayed critical health information , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called an about-face when asked why the President has repeatedly misled the public about the deadliness of coronavirus .
On Monday , the President continued that narrative at a rally in Swanton , Ohio , suggesting that the coronavirus affected “ affects virtually nobody.
” He was referring mostly to young people .
Hours later , Fauci , who directs the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , told CNN ’ s Dr. Sanjay Gupta during an interview early Tuesday that it was “ unacceptable ” not to acknowledge that the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ period ” with the virus .
“ It ’ s unacceptable to not realize that we are entering into a risk period , ” Fauci said , adding that the threat of coronavirus needs to be taken more seriously .

As the United Stated tops 200,000 lives lost to COVID-19, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany suggested Tuesday that the fact that 2 million people haven’t died due to coronavirus is worth celebrating.
“We were looking at the prospect of 2 million people potentially perishing from the coronavirus in this country,” McEnany told reporters when asked about the President’s response to the grim milestone during a press briefing. “We grieve when even one life is lost — the fact that we have come nowhere near that number is a testament to this president taking immediate action.”
When pressed by multiple reporters on the President’s silence amid reports of the nation’s COVID-19 death toll milestone, she referred them to Trump’s past remarks.
“He has said before it keeps him up at night,” McEnany said.
The United States has continued to exceed all other nations with its staggering death toll, even as the President suggested earlier this month that the United States had “rounded the final turn” in its fight against the coronavirus. Those comments contradicted the wisdom of public health experts, like infectious diseases expert Dr. Anthony Fauci who warned that Americans need to “hunker down” in the colder months. He called a review of nationwide statistics earlier this month revealing that new cases of infection were plateauing at 40,000 daily, and reports of roughly 1,000 deaths per day, “disturbing.”
McEnany also recycled a tired defense for the Trump administration’s response to COVID-19, saying the President took “immediate action” by banning travel from China — a victory that is now six months old but seems to remain the crowning victory of the administration. The ban has been repeatedly used by the press secretary as a catch-all defense for the President’s many other failures in leadership amid the pandemic.
The press secretary also appeared to discount documented interviews where the President can be heard telling investigative journalist Bob Woodward that even though he knew the coronavirus was “deadly stuff” he was purposely “playing it down” — and effectively misleading the American public.
“The President never downplayed critical health information,” McEnany said in what can only be called an about-face when asked why the President has repeatedly misled the public about the deadliness of coronavirus.
On Monday, the President continued that narrative at a rally in Swanton, Ohio, suggesting that the coronavirus affected “affects virtually nobody.” He was referring mostly to young people.
Hours later, Fauci, who directs the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta during an interview early Tuesday that it was “unacceptable” not to acknowledge that the United States is entering a new “risk period” with the virus.
“It’s unacceptable to not realize that we are entering into a risk period,” Fauci said, adding that the threat of coronavirus needs to be taken more seriously.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-22--Trump Admin Faces Questions Over Mid-October Vaccine Distribution Plan

The Trump administration is asking states to have vaccine distribution plans in place by mid-October , stoking fears that the government will rush the release of an unproven COVID-19 vaccine before the election at a risk to public health .
At a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on Tuesday , the CDC ’ s premier vaccine group , scientists presented on the progress of a COVID shot and its distribution .
But after a broadcasted presentation on vaccine safety and distribution , one scientist said that an Oct. 16 deadline made her “ concerned about finalizing state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s known as a jurisdictional response plan , which includes plans for storing and distributing a COVID-19 vaccine as soon as its available .
“ Is this a hard deadline , or one just to be considered ?
” the scientist asked .
“ Because in my mind , this would be a time to build relationships with city and state officials.
” She added that given that vaccine data won ’ t be available by that date , “ October 16 seems a little premature.
” Dr. Nancy Messonnier , director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Respiratory Diseases at the CDC , replied , saying that “ our colleagues in Operation Warp Speed say that they expect there will be vaccine as early as November.
” “ And , therefore , we need to be ready so that there is no delay in distributing that vaccine , ” Messonnier added .
Operation Warp Speed , the Trump administration ’ s effort to speed up vaccine development and distribution for COVID-19 , has signaled that it intends to begin distributing a vaccine before the November election .
President Trump himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which would approve any COVID-19 vaccine for use , to approve one before Election Day , while Trump officials have reportedly referred to a pre-election vaccine approval as a “ holy grail ” for President Trump ’ s re-election chances .
“ I think its really important to understand that we have a lot of goals here , but one goal is to be ready on the first day that we can actually distribute vaccine , ” Messonnier added .
A CDC spokeswoman did not immediately return a request for comment about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state distribution plans did not come out of nowhere .
Rather , it emerged from a playbook that the CDC sent out to state and territorial public health officials last week .
That document described the Trump administration ’ s plan to distribute the COVID-19 vaccine , free of cost , to the entire U.S. population .
At first , scientists have said , vaccine will be available in extremely limited doses .
The vaccine is not expected to become widely available , upon demand , to the U.S. population until next year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ range of November to April for when the shot will be available to the entire U.S. population .
In testimony before Congress last week , CDC Director Robert Redfield suggested that summer 2021 was a more realistic estimate .
Early phases of vaccine distribution would , instead , focus on critical groups like ER doctors and the elderly .
“ We have to be ready for that early phase , ” Messonier said .

The Trump administration is asking states to have vaccine distribution plans in place by mid-October, stoking fears that the government will rush the release of an unproven COVID-19 vaccine before the election at a risk to public health.
At a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on Tuesday, the CDC’s premier vaccine group, scientists presented on the progress of a COVID shot and its distribution.
But after a broadcasted presentation on vaccine safety and distribution, one scientist said that an Oct. 16 deadline made her “concerned about finalizing state plans.”
States have to submit what’s known as a jurisdictional response plan, which includes plans for storing and distributing a COVID-19 vaccine as soon as its available.
“Is this a hard deadline, or one just to be considered?” the scientist asked. “Because in my mind, this would be a time to build relationships with city and state officials.”
She added that given that vaccine data won’t be available by that date, “October 16 seems a little premature.”
Dr. Nancy Messonnier, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the CDC, replied, saying that “our colleagues in Operation Warp Speed say that they expect there will be vaccine as early as November.”
“And, therefore, we need to be ready so that there is no delay in distributing that vaccine,” Messonnier added.
Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration’s effort to speed up vaccine development and distribution for COVID-19, has signaled that it intends to begin distributing a vaccine before the November election. President Trump himself has pressured the FDA, the agency which would approve any COVID-19 vaccine for use, to approve one before Election Day, while Trump officials have reportedly referred to a pre-election vaccine approval as a “holy grail” for President Trump’s re-election chances.
“I think its really important to understand that we have a lot of goals here, but one goal is to be ready on the first day that we can actually distribute vaccine,” Messonnier added.
A CDC spokeswoman did not immediately return a request for comment about the exchange.
The Oct. 16 deadline for state distribution plans did not come out of nowhere.
Rather, it emerged from a playbook that the CDC sent out to state and territorial public health officials last week. That document described the Trump administration’s plan to distribute the COVID-19 vaccine, free of cost, to the entire U.S. population.
At first, scientists have said, vaccine will be available in extremely limited doses. The vaccine is not expected to become widely available, upon demand, to the U.S. population until next year, though President Trump has given a range of November to April for when the shot will be available to the entire U.S. population.
In testimony before Congress last week, CDC Director Robert Redfield suggested that summer 2021 was a more realistic estimate. Early phases of vaccine distribution would, instead, focus on critical groups like ER doctors and the elderly.
“We have to be ready for that early phase,” Messonier said.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-22--Fox News’ Chris Wallace Chooses Topics For First Presidential Debate

Fox News anchor Chris Wallace , who is set to moderate the first presidential debate between President Trump and Democratic @ @ @ @ @ week , announced on Tuesday six topics for the debate .
According to a statement @ @ @ @ @ Presidential Debates on Tuesday , Wallace selected the following topics for the upcoming debate , @ @ @ @ @ possible changes because of news developments ” : The first 2020 presidential debate is scheduled @ @ @ @ @ at Case Western Reserve University and Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland , Ohio .
The format @ @ @ @ @ six 15-minute time segments dedicated to the topics selected by Wallace .
It begins at @ @ @ @ @ will run for 90 minutes straight , with no ad breaks .

Fox News anchor Chris Wallace, who is set to moderate the first presidential debate between President Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden next week, announced on Tuesday six topics for the debate.
According to a statement released by the Commission on Presidential Debates on Tuesday, Wallace selected the following topics for the upcoming debate, which are “subject to possible changes because of news developments”:
The Trump and Biden Records
The Supreme Court
Covid-19
The Economy
Race and Violence in our Cities
The Integrity of the Election
The first 2020 presidential debate is scheduled for Tuesday, September 29 at Case Western Reserve University and Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio.
The format for the first debate entails six 15-minute time segments dedicated to the topics selected by Wallace. It begins at 9 p.m. ET and will run for 90 minutes straight, with no ad breaks.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-22--Ex-Pence Aide Rips Trump Over ‘Frightening’ COVID-19 Response

Olivia Troye , a former top aide to Vice President Mike Pence who announced last week that she plans to vote for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden , recounted what she viewed as President Trump ’ s “ frightening ” COVID-19 response during an interview set to air on NBC Nightly News on Tuesday .
In a preview of her interview that aired during the “ TODAY ” show , Troye said that during her eight months serving on the White House coronavirus task force , the President was more concerned about his “ personal agenda ” than protecting Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was really focused on public image , messaging and it was really more about , you know , his personal agenda than really the agenda that the task force had at hand , which was how are we going to save and protect Americans , ” Troye said .
Troye , who left the Trump administration last month after serving as Pence ’ s homeland security and counterterrorism adviser , went on to rip Trump for his “ frightening ” COVID-19 response when asked about the President ’ s remark in early this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ disappear.
” Troye reiterated her claim that Trump expressed that the COVID-19 pandemic might be a positive development because he no longer had to shake hands with his supporters , who she said he characterized as “ disgusting.
” “ I can ’ t imagine how any , honestly , normal human being would ever say that out loud in the middle of a pandemic , ” Troye said .
Troye also criticized the President for hyping unfounded treatments for COVID-19 , such as hydroxychloroquine , before claiming that Trump “ undermined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus task force .
“ I felt that I needed to tell the truth about what was happening and what we were dealing with internally , especially with the President who was undermining the work that was going on in the task force , ” Troye said .
“ I just felt that it mattered more than ever.
” Although both Trump and Pence dismissed Troye ’ s account of her experience on the coronavirus task force , Troye said that she still respects the vice president but that he was put in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President ’ s handling of COVID-19 .

Olivia Troye, a former top aide to Vice President Mike Pence who announced last week that she plans to vote for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, recounted what she viewed as President Trump’s “frightening” COVID-19 response during an interview set to air on NBC Nightly News on Tuesday.
In a preview of her interview that aired during the “TODAY” show, Troye said that during her eight months serving on the White House coronavirus task force, the President was more concerned about his “personal agenda” than protecting Americans against the infectious disease.
“He was really focused on public image, messaging and it was really more about, you know, his personal agenda than really the agenda that the task force had at hand, which was how are we going to save and protect Americans,” Troye said.
Troye, who left the Trump administration last month after serving as Pence’s homeland security and counterterrorism adviser, went on to rip Trump for his “frightening” COVID-19 response when asked about the President’s remark in early this year that the novel coronavirus will someday “disappear.”
Troye reiterated her claim that Trump expressed that the COVID-19 pandemic might be a positive development because he no longer had to shake hands with his supporters, who she said he characterized as “disgusting.”
“I can’t imagine how any, honestly, normal human being would ever say that out loud in the middle of a pandemic,” Troye said.
Troye also criticized the President for hyping unfounded treatments for COVID-19, such as hydroxychloroquine, before claiming that Trump “undermined” the work of the White House coronavirus task force.
“I felt that I needed to tell the truth about what was happening and what we were dealing with internally, especially with the President who was undermining the work that was going on in the task force,” Troye said. “I just felt that it mattered more than ever.”
Although both Trump and Pence dismissed Troye’s account of her experience on the coronavirus task force, Troye said that she still respects the vice president but that he was put in an “impossible situation” regarding the President’s handling of COVID-19.
Watch Troye’s remarks below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-23--Trump Applauds Fed Violence Against Journalists: ‘It’s Actually A Beautiful Sight’

President Donald Trump gloried in violence against reporters by federal law enforcement on Tuesday night .
During a campaign rally in Moon Township , Pennsylvania , Trump described with relish how the feds “ cleaned everything up ” in Minneapolis , Minnesota during the George Floyd protests and were “ grabbing ” people “ left and right.
” “ They grabbed one guy : ‘ I ’ m a reporter !
I ’ m a reporter ! '
” Trump said in a mock quote .
“ They threw him aside like he was little bag of popcorn , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I mean honestly , when you watch the crap that we ’ ve all had to take so long , when you see that , it ’ s actually–you don ’ t want to do that–but when you see it , it ’ s actually a beautiful sight , ” he continued .
“ It ’ s a beautiful sight.
” Trump also mocked MSNBC correspondent Ali Velshi for the second time for getting struck by a rubber bullet by the police in Minneapolis .
The President had first brought up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Friday , and both times he incorrectly claimed Velshi had been hit with a teargas canister .
“ He went down and he didn ’ t like it , ” Trump said on Tuesday to laughter and applause from his supporters .

President Donald Trump gloried in violence against reporters by federal law enforcement on Tuesday night.
During a campaign rally in Moon Township, Pennsylvania, Trump described with relish how the feds “cleaned everything up” in Minneapolis, Minnesota during the George Floyd protests and were “grabbing” people “left and right.”
“They grabbed one guy: ‘I’m a reporter! I’m a reporter!'” Trump said in a mock quote.
“They threw him aside like he was little bag of popcorn,” the President added as the crowd laughed.
“I mean honestly, when you watch the crap that we’ve all had to take so long, when you see that, it’s actually–you don’t want to do that–but when you see it, it’s actually a beautiful sight,” he continued. “It’s a beautiful sight.”
Trump also mocked MSNBC correspondent Ali Velshi for the second time for getting struck by a rubber bullet by the police in Minneapolis. The President had first brought up the incident during a campaign rally on Friday, and both times he incorrectly claimed Velshi had been hit with a teargas canister.
“He went down and he didn’t like it,” Trump said on Tuesday to laughter and applause from his supporters.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-23--Trump Nominates Former Nunes Staffer To Be Intelligence Inspector General

The White House announced Wednesday the nomination of a former aide to fervent President Trump loyalist Rep. Devin Nunes ( R-CA ) to be the new inspector general for the intelligence community .
The nominee , Allen Souza , currently works at the National Security Council and served as minority staff director when Nunes was the ranking member on the House Intel Committee .
Before that , he worked as a lawyer for the committee while Nunes was spearheading its Trump-Russia investigation , which unsurprisingly found no evidence of collusion .
Trump abruptly fired the last IG , Michael Atkinson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instrumental in getting the whistleblower complaint about Trump ’ s call with Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky into the hands of the congressional intelligence committees , kickstarting the inquiry that led to Trump ’ s impeachment .
Trump reportedly seethed over Atkinson ’ s actions for months .
“ Trump ’ s dead of night decision to fire ICIG Michael Atkinson is another blatant attempt to gut the independence of the Intelligence Community and retaliate against those who dare to expose presidential wrongdoing , ” committee chairman Adam Schiff ( D-CA ) tweeted at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country and national security at even greater risk.
” Atkinson is one of many agency watchdogs Trump has deemed to be insufficiently loyal , and he went on a firing spree this spring .
The White House has largely brushed off requests for more information about the firings , falling back on the excuse that a President “ losing confidence ” in an inspector general is enough .
Presidents have historically respected the independence of inspectors general and not expected them to act like political appointees .

The White House announced Wednesday the nomination of a former aide to fervent President Trump loyalist Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) to be the new inspector general for the intelligence community.
The nominee, Allen Souza, currently works at the National Security Council and served as minority staff director when Nunes was the ranking member on the House Intel Committee. Before that, he worked as a lawyer for the committee while Nunes was spearheading its Trump-Russia investigation, which unsurprisingly found no evidence of collusion.
Trump abruptly fired the last IG, Michael Atkinson, in early April. Atkinson was instrumental in getting the whistleblower complaint about Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky into the hands of the congressional intelligence committees, kickstarting the inquiry that led to Trump’s impeachment. Trump reportedly seethed over Atkinson’s actions for months.
Democrats immediately called foul upon the late-night firing.
“Trump’s dead of night decision to fire ICIG Michael Atkinson is another blatant attempt to gut the independence of the Intelligence Community and retaliate against those who dare to expose presidential wrongdoing,” committee chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) tweeted at the time. “It puts our country and national security at even greater risk.”
Atkinson is one of many agency watchdogs Trump has deemed to be insufficiently loyal, and he went on a firing spree this spring. The White House has largely brushed off requests for more information about the firings, falling back on the excuse that a President “losing confidence” in an inspector general is enough. Presidents have historically respected the independence of inspectors general and not expected them to act like political appointees.