talkingpointsmemo--2020-08-31--Liberty University Investigating ‘All Facets’ Of Jerry Falwell’s Tenure

RICHMOND , Va. ( AP ) — Liberty University is opening an independent investigation into Jerry Falwell Jr. ’ s tenure as president , a wide-ranging inquiry that will include financial , real estate and legal matters , the evangelical school ’ s board announced Monday .
In a statement , the board said it had retained an outside firm to investigate “ all facets ” of the school ’ s operations under Falwell , and that it was “ committed to learning the consequences that have flowed from a lack of spiritual stewardship by our former president.
” Calls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since Falwell ’ s departure last week from the post he had held since 2007 .
He officially resigned on Tuesday , after a confusing day of back-and-forths about whether or not he would be leaving .
His departure came after a news outlet published an interview with Giancarlo Granda , a much younger business partner of the Falwell family .
Granda said that he had a yearslong sexual relationship with Becki Falwell and that Jerry Falwell participated in some of the liaisons as a voyeur .
Although the Falwells have acknowledged that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Jerry Falwell has denied any participation .
The couple allege that Granda sought to extort them by threatening to reveal the relationship unless he was paid substantial monies .
The couple said in a statement provided to The Associated Press late Sunday that they support Liberty ’ s board and “ welcome any inquiry as we have nothing to hide.
” Falwell took over as the president of Liberty after the death of his famous evangelist father , the Rev .
Jerry Falwell Sr .
He oversaw a period of expansive growth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ program exploded , as did its endowment , the campus underwent a massive transformation and the athletics programs improved .
Falwell also stayed in the news for a series of divisive remarks as well as his vocal support of President Donald Trump , and was the subject of news stories that focused on his business dealings .
Liberty ’ s statement acknowledged that Falwell ’ s sharpest critics have long been calling for a departure .
“ Some may say that all the signs were there for a long time before last week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s certainly fair to say that there were questionable comments made , worrying behavior , and inappropriate social media posts , but all the signs were not there until the start of last week.
” The statement also said the school is considering a separate move to reorient it toward its “ spiritual mission ” by establishing a post in the university leadership dedicated to spiritual guidance for other leaders , ensuring they “ live out the Christian walk expected of each and every one of us at Liberty.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spiritually focused leadership post underscores its concern over the degree to which Falwell ’ s alleged personal conduct would have violated the behavioral codes the school sets for its own students .
Falwell told the AP last week that “ I never broke a single rule that applies to staff members at Liberty , which I was.
” Albert Mohler , president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary , said in a Monday podcast that he didn ’ t see the school ’ s treatment of Falwell as a sign of “ hypocrisy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” because once the school became aware of the full scope of Falwell ’ s behavior , he stepped aside .
But , Mohler added , “ There may well have been hypocrisy and a failure over time to apply moral standards to the president of the institution that were clearly applicable to students and to faculty .
All of that remains to be considered by Liberty University.
” Associated Press religion coverage receives support from the Lilly Endowment through the Religion News Foundation .
The AP is solely responsible for this content @

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Liberty University is opening an independent investigation into Jerry Falwell Jr.’s tenure as president, a wide-ranging inquiry that will include financial, real estate and legal matters, the evangelical school’s board announced Monday.
In a statement, the board said it had retained an outside firm to investigate “all facets” of the school’s operations under Falwell, and that it was “committed to learning the consequences that have flowed from a lack of spiritual stewardship by our former president.”
Calls for such an investigation had been mounting since Falwell’s departure last week from the post he had held since 2007.
He officially resigned on Tuesday, after a confusing day of back-and-forths about whether or not he would be leaving. His departure came after a news outlet published an interview with Giancarlo Granda, a much younger business partner of the Falwell family. Granda said that he had a yearslong sexual relationship with Becki Falwell and that Jerry Falwell participated in some of the liaisons as a voyeur.
Although the Falwells have acknowledged that Granda and Becki Falwell had an affair, Jerry Falwell has denied any participation. The couple allege that Granda sought to extort them by threatening to reveal the relationship unless he was paid substantial monies.
The couple said in a statement provided to The Associated Press late Sunday that they support Liberty’s board and “welcome any inquiry as we have nothing to hide.”
Falwell took over as the president of Liberty after the death of his famous evangelist father, the Rev. Jerry Falwell Sr. He oversaw a period of expansive growth and transformation: Liberty’s online program exploded, as did its endowment, the campus underwent a massive transformation and the athletics programs improved.
Falwell also stayed in the news for a series of divisive remarks as well as his vocal support of President Donald Trump, and was the subject of news stories that focused on his business dealings.
Liberty’s statement acknowledged that Falwell’s sharpest critics have long been calling for a departure.
“Some may say that all the signs were there for a long time before last week,” the statement said. “It’s certainly fair to say that there were questionable comments made, worrying behavior, and inappropriate social media posts, but all the signs were not there until the start of last week.”
The statement also said the school is considering a separate move to reorient it toward its “spiritual mission” by establishing a post in the university leadership dedicated to spiritual guidance for other leaders, ensuring they “live out the Christian walk expected of each and every one of us at Liberty.”
The school’s consideration of that new spiritually focused leadership post underscores its concern over the degree to which Falwell’s alleged personal conduct would have violated the behavioral codes the school sets for its own students. Falwell told the AP last week that “I never broke a single rule that applies to staff members at Liberty, which I was.”
Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said in a Monday podcast that he didn’t see the school’s treatment of Falwell as a sign of “hypocrisy on the part of the evangelical movement” because once the school became aware of the full scope of Falwell’s behavior, he stepped aside.
But, Mohler added, “There may well have been hypocrisy and a failure over time to apply moral standards to the president of the institution that were clearly applicable to students and to faculty. All of that remains to be considered by Liberty University.”
___
Associated Press religion coverage receives support from the Lilly Endowment through the Religion News Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for this content.
___
Schor reported from New York.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-08-31--‘It’s Taken Over My Life’: Ex-Melania Friend Working With Prosecutors On Inauguration Probe

Stephanie Winston Wolkoff , a former close friend to first lady Melania Trump , claimed on Monday that she is working with three prosecutors in their investigations into the Trump inaugural committee .
“ I ’ m working with three different prosecutors , and it ’ s taken over my life , ” she told ABC News in a pre-taped interview .
Those would be the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York , along with the attorneys general in New Jersey and Washington , D.C. Winston Wolkoff was an adviser to the inaugural committee , which spent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ event after raising more than $ 107 million .
Her ABC News interview is part of her media tour to promote her tell-all book , “ Melania and Me : The Rise and Fall of My Friendship with the First Lady.
” The New York Times reported in February 2018 that Winston Wolkoff ’ s event planning firm had received more than $ 26 million .
Winston Wolkoff claimed to ABC News that she did not personally received that full sum after paying her employees and transferring the funds to an outside company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Grisham , Melania Trump ’ s spokesperson , told the New York Times in its exposé that Trump had “ no involvement ” with the inaugural committee , a statement Winston Wolkoff described as “ complete and utter horseshit ” in her book .
Winston Wolkoff told ABC News that Trump had “ turned her back on me ” when she “ begged ” the first lady to publicly admit she knew how the committee ’ s finances were being run .
Winston Wolkoff claimed she had a recorded conversation with Michael Cohen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personal attorney , in which she discussed the committee ’ s expenditures .
The FBI later seized the recording during its raid in the investigation into Cohen .
Grisham told ABC News that Winston Wolkoff ’ s allegations were “ clearly based on some imagined need for revenge .
”

Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, a former close friend to first lady Melania Trump, claimed on Monday that she is working with three prosecutors in their investigations into the Trump inaugural committee.
“I’m working with three different prosecutors, and it’s taken over my life,” she told ABC News in a pre-taped interview.
Those would be the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, along with the attorneys general in New Jersey and Washington, D.C.
Winston Wolkoff was an adviser to the inaugural committee, which spent a jaw-dropping $104 million on the event after raising more than $107 million. Her ABC News interview is part of her media tour to promote her tell-all book, “Melania and Me: The Rise and Fall of My Friendship with the First Lady.”
The New York Times reported in February 2018 that Winston Wolkoff’s event planning firm had received more than $26 million. Winston Wolkoff claimed to ABC News that she did not personally received that full sum after paying her employees and transferring the funds to an outside company that would produce the events.
Stephanie Grisham, Melania Trump’s spokesperson, told the New York Times in its exposé that Trump had “no involvement” with the inaugural committee, a statement Winston Wolkoff described as “complete and utter horseshit” in her book.
Winston Wolkoff told ABC News that Trump had “turned her back on me” when she “begged” the first lady to publicly admit she knew how the committee’s finances were being run.
Winston Wolkoff claimed she had a recorded conversation with Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s former personal attorney, in which she discussed the committee’s expenditures. The FBI later seized the recording during its raid in the investigation into Cohen.
Grisham told ABC News that Winston Wolkoff’s allegations were “clearly based on some imagined need for revenge.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-08-31--Feds Cite ‘Voluminous’ Info Seized In We Build The Wall Case Against Bannon

Federal prosecutors have seized “ voluminous ” amounts of information in the We Build The Wall case against Steve Bannon , Brian Kolfage and two others , telling a federal judge on Monday that the government has been executing search warrants through August .
Assistant U.S. Attorney Alison Moe said at Monday ’ s hearing that the feds had executed search warrants on electronic devices in July and August , and were still in the process of gaining access to the email accounts within .
The disclosure comes after Manhattan federal prosecutors charged Bannon , Kolfage , and two others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conspiracy to commit money laundering over an alleged scheme to siphon money out of a project to raise private donations to build a wall along the southern border .
Bannon pleaded not guilty to the charges in an Aug. 20 arraignment .
Kolfage and the two other defendants — Timothy Shea and Andrew Badolato — also entered pleas of not guilty at Monday ’ s hearing , held remotely before U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres for the Southern District of New York .
Moe said that prosecutors had obtained a search warrant for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 , and agreed to produce an initial “ wave ” of evidence by September 29 .
Brian Kolfage took the opportunity at the Monday hearing to air out a dispute with federal prosecutors over his aggressive social media posts , which prosecutors flagged in a letter to the court Friday .
Among other things , Kolfage has accused prosecutors of wanting to seize We Build The Wall donors ’ information and target them for political purposes .
“ That deeply concerned the government , ” Moe said Monday , stressing that prosecutors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gag order , merely that Judge Torres remind Kolfage of the court ’ s rule against statements that could bias a jury pool , which she did on Monday .
But Kolfage ’ s attorney Harvey Steinberg wasn ’ t going to let the government have the last word : In a several-minute statement , he accused prosecutors of breaking the same rule by referring to Kolfage as a “ fraudster ” who was living a “ lavish ” lifestyle in a press release announcing the charges against the We Build The Wall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bully who picks on , if you will , the person he perceives to be the weakest — and then when the weakest hits him back , he runs to the teacher , ” Steinberg said , referring to the prosecutors ’ letter to the court .
Kolfage referenced the DOJ press release in a Facebook message to TPM Friday .
Projecting his lawyer ’ s moves , he said , “ Someone is going to get ripped Monday and it won ’ t be me.
” Torres didn ’ t “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that both sides understood court ’ s rule , and that “ My expectation is that there will not be violations of the rule.
” “ If I have to hold an additional proceeding to determine whether the rules have been violated , well , we shall see , ” she added .
One morsel left over from Bannon ’ s Aug. 20 arraignment was the question of a potential conflict of interest in the case .
Prosecutors had said that they were concerned by a conflict present in Bannon ’ s legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House official Bill Burck of Quinn Emanuel .
On Monday , Moe said that the law firm had represented We Build The Wall last year , creating a potential conflict in its representation of Bannon .
Burck downplayed the issue , saying that a partner and associate at the firm had spent a combined “ fourteen hours ” on a project for We Build the Wall last fall .
It wasn ’ t clear what the nature of the project was .
Judge Torres set a preliminary trial date in the case for @ @ @ @ @

Federal prosecutors have seized “voluminous” amounts of information in the We Build The Wall case against Steve Bannon, Brian Kolfage and two others, telling a federal judge on Monday that the government has been executing search warrants through August.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Alison Moe said at Monday’s hearing that the feds had executed search warrants on electronic devices in July and August, and were still in the process of gaining access to the email accounts within.
The disclosure comes after Manhattan federal prosecutors charged Bannon, Kolfage, and two others with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering over an alleged scheme to siphon money out of a project to raise private donations to build a wall along the southern border.
Bannon pleaded not guilty to the charges in an Aug. 20 arraignment. Kolfage and the two other defendants — Timothy Shea and Andrew Badolato — also entered pleas of not guilty at Monday’s hearing, held remotely before U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres for the Southern District of New York.
Moe said that prosecutors had obtained a search warrant for email accounts in the case in January 2020, and agreed to produce an initial “wave” of evidence by September 29.
Running to the teacher
Brian Kolfage took the opportunity at the Monday hearing to air out a dispute with federal prosecutors over his aggressive social media posts, which prosecutors flagged in a letter to the court Friday.
Among other things, Kolfage has accused prosecutors of wanting to seize We Build The Wall donors’ information and target them for political purposes.
“That deeply concerned the government,” Moe said Monday, stressing that prosecutors weren’t yet asking for a gag order, merely that Judge Torres remind Kolfage of the court’s rule against statements that could bias a jury pool, which she did on Monday.
But Kolfage’s attorney Harvey Steinberg wasn’t going to let the government have the last word: In a several-minute statement, he accused prosecutors of breaking the same rule by referring to Kolfage as a “fraudster” who was living a “lavish” lifestyle in a press release announcing the charges against the We Build The Wall leader.
“It reminds me of the bully who picks on, if you will, the person he perceives to be the weakest — and then when the weakest hits him back, he runs to the teacher,” Steinberg said, referring to the prosecutors’ letter to the court.
Kolfage referenced the DOJ press release in a Facebook message to TPM Friday. Projecting his lawyer’s moves, he said, “Someone is going to get ripped Monday and it won’t be me.”
Torres didn’t “rip” anyone. Instead she said that both sides understood court’s rule, and that “My expectation is that there will not be violations of the rule.”
“If I have to hold an additional proceeding to determine whether the rules have been violated, well, we shall see,” she added.
Conflict?
One morsel left over from Bannon’s Aug. 20 arraignment was the question of a potential conflict of interest in the case. Prosecutors had said that they were concerned by a conflict present in Bannon’s legal team, helmed by former Bush White House official Bill Burck of Quinn Emanuel.
On Monday, Moe said that the law firm had represented We Build The Wall last year, creating a potential conflict in its representation of Bannon.
Burck downplayed the issue, saying that a partner and associate at the firm had spent a combined “fourteen hours” on a project for We Build the Wall last fall. It wasn’t clear what the nature of the project was.
Judge Torres set a preliminary trial date in the case for May 24, 2021.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-08-31--Appeals Court Finds Another Way To Stymie House’s McGahn Subpoena

After the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C .
Circuit had rejected its previous reasons for not enforcing the House ’ s Don McGahn subpoena , a right-leaning panel of appellate judges found another rationale to stymie the demand that he testify .
By a 2-1 vote , the panel said on Monday that the House Judiciary Committee could not seek court enforcement of the subpoena without Congress first passing a law to give the House that right to do so .
The two appellate judges , both Republican appointees , disagreed with the House ’ s argument @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Constitution .
“ Because the Committee lacks a cause of action to enforce its subpoena , this lawsuit must be dismissed , ” the case said .
If allowed to stand , the ruling essentially guts the House ’ s subpoena power .
The same panel of judges had originally thrown out the McGahn subpoena by claiming that courts had no authority to settle subpoena disputes between the Executive and Legislative branches .
The full D.C .
Circuit earlier this month ordered that the panel reconsider the case after the full court determined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authority .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already said that she will ask the full appeals court to rehear Monday ’ s decision .
But the back-and-forth goes to show how effectively the Trump administration has been able to use the slow process of the legal system to avoid congressional oversight of the President ’ s conduct .
The House initially sought McGahn ’ s testimony in April 2019 , and the current legal case to enforce its subpoena has been percolating for more than a year .
Incredibly , the appeals court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the central claim the administration was making in ordering that McGahn not comply with the subpoena .
The administration has argued that there is an “ absolute ” immunity shielding a President ’ s closest advisors from congressional demands that they testify .
“ We have no occasion to address the immunity argument because we conclude that the Committee lacks a cause of action , ” the panel said Monday .
The majority opinion , written by Judge Thomas Griffith and joined by Judge Karen Henderson , pointed to laws that , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed to pass a law to give the House the ability to seek a court enforcement of its subpoena .
The laws explicitly give the Senate the authority to go to court to enforce its subpoena while carving out an exemption for subpoenas against federal government employees who are claiming a “ governmental privilege.
” “ [ W ] e should not ignore Congress ’ s carefully drafted limitations on its authority to sue to enforce a subpoena , ” the majority said , while accusing the House of trying to use another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal court.
” In her dissent , Judge Judith Rogers pushed back on that conclusion , while also arguing that the absolute immunity claim “ lacks merit.
” “ The power that the Committee seeks to exercise in the present lawsuit flows from the Constitution , ” she wrote .
She disagreed with the majority ’ s assumption that the Senate subpoena law showed that the House lacked a cause of action by pointing to the Senate ’ s report on that legislation , which said the law “ is not intended to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courts do not now have the authority to hear a civil action to enforce a subp [ o ] ena against an officer or employee of the Federal Government.
” Rogers said that if the “ absolute immunity ” claim — which the panel ’ s majority did not weigh in on — was validated by the court , it would “ revive a view of Presidential power expressly rejected by the Supreme Court.
” Pelosi called the majority ’ s decision “ wrong headed ” and said that it “ represents a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Representatives.
” “ This unprecedented ruling again represents a direct challenge to our Constitution ’ s system of checks and balances and therefore to our very Democracy , particularly in light of this Administration ’ s blanket defiance and obstruction of Congress ’ s constitutional legislative oversight authority , ” she said .

After the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit had rejected its previous reasons for not enforcing the House’s Don McGahn subpoena, a right-leaning panel of appellate judges found another rationale to stymie the demand that he testify.
By a 2-1 vote, the panel said on Monday that the House Judiciary Committee could not seek court enforcement of the subpoena without Congress first passing a law to give the House that right to do so.
The two appellate judges, both Republican appointees, disagreed with the House’s argument that such authority is implied in the Constitution.
“Because the Committee lacks a cause of action to enforce its subpoena, this lawsuit must be dismissed,” the case said.
If allowed to stand, the ruling essentially guts the House’s subpoena power. The same panel of judges had originally thrown out the McGahn subpoena by claiming that courts had no authority to settle subpoena disputes between the Executive and Legislative branches. The full D.C. Circuit earlier this month ordered that the panel reconsider the case after the full court determined that the judicial branch does have such authority.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already said that she will ask the full appeals court to rehear Monday’s decision. But the back-and-forth goes to show how effectively the Trump administration has been able to use the slow process of the legal system to avoid congressional oversight of the President’s conduct.
The House initially sought McGahn’s testimony in April 2019, and the current legal case to enforce its subpoena has been percolating for more than a year.
Incredibly, the appeals court panel has yet to even rule on the central claim the administration was making in ordering that McGahn not comply with the subpoena. The administration has argued that there is an “absolute” immunity shielding a President’s closest advisors from congressional demands that they testify.
“We have no occasion to address the immunity argument because we conclude that the Committee lacks a cause of action,” the panel said Monday.
The majority opinion, written by Judge Thomas Griffith and joined by Judge Karen Henderson, pointed to laws that, according to the panel, showed that Congress needed to pass a law to give the House the ability to seek a court enforcement of its subpoena. The laws explicitly give the Senate the authority to go to court to enforce its subpoena while carving out an exemption for subpoenas against federal government employees who are claiming a “governmental privilege.”
“[W]e should not ignore Congress’s carefully drafted limitations on its authority to sue to enforce a subpoena,” the majority said, while accusing the House of trying to use another law to “bootstrap its way into federal court.”
In her dissent, Judge Judith Rogers pushed back on that conclusion, while also arguing that the absolute immunity claim “lacks merit.”
“The power that the Committee seeks to exercise in the present lawsuit flows from the Constitution,” she wrote.
She disagreed with the majority’s assumption that the Senate subpoena law showed that the House lacked a cause of action by pointing to the Senate’s report on that legislation, which said the law “is not intended to be a Congressional finding that the Federal courts do not now have the authority to hear a civil action to enforce a subp[o]ena against an officer or employee of the Federal Government.”
Rogers said that if the “absolute immunity” claim — which the panel’s majority did not weigh in on — was validated by the court, it would “revive a view of Presidential power expressly rejected by the Supreme Court.”
Pelosi called the majority’s decision “wrong headed” and said that it “represents a flawed judicial attack on the entire House of Representatives.”
“This unprecedented ruling again represents a direct challenge to our Constitution’s system of checks and balances and therefore to our very Democracy, particularly in light of this Administration’s blanket defiance and obstruction of Congress’s constitutional legislative oversight authority,” she said.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-08-31--House Oversight Committee Will Subpoena Postmaster General For Docs On Mail Slowdown

The House Oversight Committee Chair Carolyn Maloney ( D-NY ) on Monday announced her intention to subpoena the postmaster general for documents related to a slowdown of mail services in recent months .
Postmaster General Louis DeJoy has not produced “ a single additional document ” since testifying before Senate and House committees this month , a statement from the Committee read , despite requests from Congress for documents related to new initiatives of his at USPS , as well as his contacts with the Trump campaign .
In a memo , the committee pointed to several unfulfilled or partially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ related to the decommissioning of mail sorting machines and the vague status of the USPS overtime policy .
Another document ran through what specifically DeJoy is would be required to produce , including records on the USPS treatment of election mail .
On the list was the postmaster general ’ s “ complete , unredacted calendar.
” That item had been the subject of a rejected Freedom of Information Act request by watchdog groups .
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-NY ) subsequently asked the committee to consider subpoenaing it during DeJoy ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Members of the House and Senate for Mr. DeJoy to produce documents regarding the nature , scope , and effects of his sweeping changes , as well as other matters , it is clear that a subpoena has become necessary to further the Committee ’ s investigation and help inform potential legislative actions , ” the committee wrote .
In a statement quoted by The Wall Street Journal , the USPS said “ given the straightforward and cooperative nature of these communications with the Committee staff , we were frankly surprised and confused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about her intent to issue a subpoena to the Postal Service.
” DeJoy has irked congressional Democrats by not responding fully , or at all , to various requests for documents — a point Maloney highlighted by publishing an internal USPS analysis that showed dramatic mail delivery slowdowns in July after DeJoy instituted a policy cutting back on late trips typically used to avoid mail delays .
DeJoy has cast the policy as a matter of making Postal Service trucks run on time — even if they ’ re missing mail that late @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the requested documents , the committee wrote , DeJoy sent the committee a letter stating , “ I trust my August 24 testimony before the Committee on Oversight and Reform clarified any outstanding questions you had.
” The committee also sent a document request to Robert Duncan , the Republican donor turned Chairman of the Postal Service Board of Governors .
“ If there are any questions about whether you are legally authorized to produce these documents , please let the Committee know , and we will issue a subpoena to resolve these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she wrote .

The House Oversight Committee Chair Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) on Monday announced her intention to subpoena the postmaster general for documents related to a slowdown of mail services in recent months.
Postmaster General Louis DeJoy has not produced “a single additional document” since testifying before Senate and House committees this month, a statement from the Committee read, despite requests from Congress for documents related to new initiatives of his at USPS, as well as his contacts with the Trump campaign.
In a memo, the committee pointed to several unfulfilled or partially fulfilled requests for records, including those related to the decommissioning of mail sorting machines and the vague status of the USPS overtime policy. Another document ran through what specifically DeJoy is would be required to produce, including records on the USPS treatment of election mail.
On the list was the postmaster general’s “complete, unredacted calendar.” That item had been the subject of a rejected Freedom of Information Act request by watchdog groups. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) subsequently asked the committee to consider subpoenaing it during DeJoy’s testimony.
“Despite urgent requests from Members of the House and Senate for Mr. DeJoy to produce documents regarding the nature, scope, and effects of his sweeping changes, as well as other matters, it is clear that a subpoena has become necessary to further the Committee’s investigation and help inform potential legislative actions,” the committee wrote.
In a statement quoted by The Wall Street Journal, the USPS said “given the straightforward and cooperative nature of these communications with the Committee staff, we were frankly surprised and confused by Chairwoman Maloney’s statement today about her intent to issue a subpoena to the Postal Service.”
DeJoy has irked congressional Democrats by not responding fully, or at all, to various requests for documents — a point Maloney highlighted by publishing an internal USPS analysis that showed dramatic mail delivery slowdowns in July after DeJoy instituted a policy cutting back on late trips typically used to avoid mail delays. DeJoy has cast the policy as a matter of making Postal Service trucks run on time — even if they’re missing mail that late trips would include.
Instead of providing the requested documents, the committee wrote, DeJoy sent the committee a letter stating, “I trust my August 24 testimony before the Committee on Oversight and Reform clarified any outstanding questions you had.”
The committee also sent a document request to Robert Duncan, the Republican donor turned Chairman of the Postal Service Board of Governors.
“If there are any questions about whether you are legally authorized to produce these documents, please let the Committee know, and we will issue a subpoena to resolve these doubts and compel their production,” she wrote.
Tierney Sneed contributed reporting.
Read the House Oversight Committee documents below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-08-31--Biden Rips Trump For Having ‘Forfeited Any Moral Leadership’

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden ’ s speech in Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania on Monday criticized President Trump over his response to multiple crises in the country that “ keep multiplying ” under him .
Biden began his speech by condemning the violence that has erupted during recent protests in Portland , Oregon and Kenosha , Wisconsin .
“ Looting is not protesting .
Setting fires is not protesting .
None of this is protesting , ” Biden said .
“ It ’ s lawlessness .
Plain and simple .
And those who do it should be prosecuted .
Violence will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bring destruction .
It ’ s wrong in every way.
” Biden then tore into Trump for having “ long ago forfeited any moral leadership in this country ” and argued that he “ can ’ t stop the violence because for years he ’ s fomented it.
” “ Fires are burning and we have a President who fans the flames , ” Biden said .
“ Rather than fighting the flames .
But we must not burn .
We have to build.
” Biden appeared to call Trump out specifically over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a violent clash in Portland , Oregon that happened after his supporters descended upon the city , which resulted in the fatal shooting of one person .
On Sunday morning , Trump praised his supporters involved in the violent clash by tweeting a video of his supporters driving into Portland and calling them “ GREAT PATRIOTS.
” “ He may believe mouthing the words law and order makes him strong , but his failure to call on his own supporters to stop acting as an armed militia in this country shows you how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The former VP later took aim at Trump ’ s claim that “ you won ’ t be safe in Joe Biden ’ s America.
” “ What is their proof ?
The violence we are seeing in Donald Trump ’ s America , ” Biden said .
Additionally , Biden questioned whether anyone believes there will be less violence if Trump wins re-election and argued that the multiple crises that the country is facing — which include COVID-19 , economic devastation , police brutality , white nationalism and a reckoning on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” under Trump ’ s watch .
“ An incumbent president who makes things worse , not better , ” Biden said .
“ An incumbent president who sows chaos rather than providing order.
” Biden concluded his speech by saying that Trump “ has been a toxic presence in our nation for four years ” and that the President is “ determined to instill fear in America.
” “ That ’ s what the entire campaign has come down to : fear .
But I believe Americans are stronger than that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ll be guided by the words of Pope John Paul II , words drawn from the scriptures .
‘ Be not afraid , be not afraid.
’ Fear never builds the future , but hope does .
”

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s speech in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on Monday criticized President Trump over his response to multiple crises in the country that “keep multiplying” under him.
Biden began his speech by condemning the violence that has erupted during recent protests in Portland, Oregon and Kenosha, Wisconsin.
“Looting is not protesting. Setting fires is not protesting. None of this is protesting,” Biden said. “It’s lawlessness. Plain and simple. And those who do it should be prosecuted. Violence will not bring change. It will only bring destruction. It’s wrong in every way.”
Biden then tore into Trump for having “long ago forfeited any moral leadership in this country” and argued that he “can’t stop the violence because for years he’s fomented it.”
“Fires are burning and we have a President who fans the flames,” Biden said. “Rather than fighting the flames. But we must not burn. We have to build.”
Biden appeared to call Trump out specifically over only condemning Black Lives Matter protesters following a violent clash in Portland, Oregon that happened after his supporters descended upon the city, which resulted in the fatal shooting of one person. On Sunday morning, Trump praised his supporters involved in the violent clash by tweeting a video of his supporters driving into Portland and calling them “GREAT PATRIOTS.”
“He may believe mouthing the words law and order makes him strong, but his failure to call on his own supporters to stop acting as an armed militia in this country shows you how weak he is,” Biden said.
The former VP later took aim at Trump’s claim that “you won’t be safe in Joe Biden’s America.”
“What is their proof? The violence we are seeing in Donald Trump’s America,” Biden said.
Additionally, Biden questioned whether anyone believes there will be less violence if Trump wins re-election and argued that the multiple crises that the country is facing — which include COVID-19, economic devastation, police brutality, white nationalism and a reckoning on racism — will only “keep multiplying” under Trump’s watch.
“An incumbent president who makes things worse, not better,” Biden said. “An incumbent president who sows chaos rather than providing order.”
Biden concluded his speech by saying that Trump “has been a toxic presence in our nation for four years” and that the President is “determined to instill fear in America.”
“That’s what the entire campaign has come down to: fear. But I believe Americans are stronger than that,” Biden said. “I believe we’ll be guided by the words of Pope John Paul II, words drawn from the scriptures. ‘Be not afraid, be not afraid.’ Fear never builds the future, but hope does.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-08-31--Appeals Court Rejects Flynn Bid To Force Judge To End Criminal Case, No Questions Asked

Michael Flynn can not immediately force a federal judge to agree to drop criminal charges against the former national security adviser , a full panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C .
Circuit court ruled 8-2 on Monday .
The ruling means that U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan for the District of Columbia can proceed in examining why the Justice Department took the unprecedented step of dropping its criminal case against Flynn , after Flynn had pleaded guilty and then sought to withdraw his plea .
In its opinion , the D.C .
Circuit said that Flynn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prematurely , because Sullivan had not yet ruled on the DOJ motion to dismiss Flynn ’ s case .
“ Petitioner has not cited any case in which our Court , or any court , issued the writ to compel a district court to decide an undecided motion in a particular way—i.e.
, when the district court might yet decide the motion in that way on its own , ” the opinion said .
The majority noted that its decision Monday did not foreclose Flynn from seeking another appeals court intervention — known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — later on in the proceedings .
But for now , Flynn would suffer no “ extraordinary harm , ” according to the D.C .
Circuit , by waiting until Sullivan formally acted on the dismissal request , at which point he could appeal a hypothetical ruling denying the dismissal .
The fallout from the Justice Department ’ s May decision to walk away from Flynn ’ s prosecution has been extraordinary and unprecedented .
Rather than immediately grant the DOJ dismissal request , Sullivan indicated that he would be considering the advice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do next and had even asked for a retired judge to file so-called “ friend of the court ” briefings opposing the DOJ request .
Sullivan had scheduled a hearing for mid-July to examine the DOJ ’ s dismissal request and the friend-of-the-court filings submitted to oppose it .
But that plan was put off once Flynn successfully got the appeals court involved .
The latest appeals court order is a reversal of the intervention a three-judge appellate panel made in the case earlier this summer , when it commanded that Sullivan immediately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court had already blocked that order , in an early indication that it was skeptical of the move to intervene in the district court proceedings at this time .
The two appeals court judges — both GOP appointees — who had initially ordered Flynn ’ s case dismissed dissented from Monday ’ s decision , while another GOP-appointed appellate judge , Thomas Griffith , filed a concurring opinion .
Judge Greg Katsas , who previously worked in President Trump ’ s White House , did not participate in the decision .
In Monday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court squarely rejected the panel ’ s rationale for ordering that Sullivan dismiss the case , while noting that it was planning to rehear the decision , regardless of Sullivan ’ s own request that the panel ’ s order be reviewed .
“ [ I ] t is simply not the case that the Executive will be irreparably harmed by the procedures ordered by the District Court such that mandamus should issue to forestall them , ” the full appeals court said .
The Justice Department had expressed fear that Sullivan would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other testimony that could expose how the Trump administration reached its decision to seek to drop charges against Flynn .
The appeals court said that “ those harms are speculative and may never come to pass.
” Monday ’ s opinion also emphasized that Flynn and the DOJ had raised concerns to the appeals court about Sullivan ’ s handling of the case without first raising those issues to Sullivan himself .
It is not immediately clear whether Flynn or the Justice Department will try to get the Supreme Court involved , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Flynn ’ s case .
At the oral arguments in front of the full appeals court earlier this month , Sullivan ’ s lawyer Beth Wilkinson played down the possibility that Sullivan would launch the kind of probing inquiry into the DOJ ’ s motives that the Department had warned against in the appellate proceedings .
Wilkinson suggested that it was possible , had the mid-July hearing been allowed to go forward , that Sullivan would have dismissed the case as requested then .
The appeals court , meanwhile , indicated to Sullivan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any more than he had to .
“ As the underlying criminal case resumes , in the District Court , we trust and expect the District Court to proceed with appropriate dispatch , ” the D.C .
Circuit said .
In his concurring opinion , Judge Griffith took aim at those who would interpret the decision as a victory for President Trump ’ s political opponents .
“ The party affiliation of the President who appoints a judge becomes an explanation for the judge ’ s real reason for the disposition , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a cover for the exercise of raw political power , ” the judge wrote .
“ No doubt there will be some who will describe the court ’ s decision today in such terms , but they would be mistaken.
” Griffith added that , in deciding the case , the court had reached “ the unexceptional yet important conclusion ” that it should wait until Sullivan issued a ruling before considering the case .
The Bush appointee added that “ it would be highly unusual ” if Sullivan denied the Justice Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that if that were to occur “ General Flynn has multiple avenues of relief that he can pursue.
” Judge Karen Henderson — one of the two appellate judges who had initially ordered Sullivan to dismiss the case — accused Sullivan of bias in her Monday dissent , saying that the case should have been transferred to another judge because Sullivan had demonstrated “ ‘ extreme ’ conduct ” in the case , showing that he was unable “ to render fair judgment.
” Henderson , who in her earlier ruling denied a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to another judge , wrote that Sullivan ’ s decision to seek the review of the full appeals court had convinced her that Sullivan had “ disqualified himself.
” “ I can not think of an action more inimical to the appearance of an impartial arbiter , ” Henderson wrote , arguing that Sullivan ’ s decision to follow up on the appeal made him a party to the case .
“ He plainly appears to view himself as a ‘ party , ’ ” Henderson wrote , adding that “ his attempted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of impartiality required of all federal judges has been compromised beyond repair.
” The Bush Sr. appointee added that Sullivan ’ s statements throughout the case — including his expression of “ disgust ” for Flynn ’ s actions at the abortive December 2018 sentencing hearing — constituted evidence of bias .
The majority pushed back on Henderson , who was joined by Rao , for reversing course on Sullivan ’ s supposed bias — reversal that appeared “ only ” based on his request that the D.C .
Circuit rehear the panel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it was the appellate panel who had first invited Sullivan to participate in that mandamus proceedings , writing that “ nothing about that participation created a reasonable impression of partiality , nor could it.
” Rao wrote her own opinion to lay out why she believed Flynn ’ s case already met the “ extraordinary ” circumstances warranting an appeals court intervention .
She accused the majority of taking a “ a wait-and-see approach , hoping and hinting that the district judge will not take the actions he clearly states he will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ version of events that Flynn — and to a lesser extent , the Justice Department — are trying to put forward to justify dropping the prosecution .
Flynn only “ allegedly ” made false statements about his 2016 Russian contacts to the FBI , which had no business interviewing him , since the agents “ already possessed transcripts ” and had gone against the preference of DOJ leadership that the White House be notified of the FBI ’ s plans to interview Flynn .
Rao gave credence to the evidence the DOJ now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explaining its dismissal request .
She went on to defend the Justice Department ’ s argument , now in the mandamus proceedings , that it would be irreparably harmed if it was subjected to Sullivan ’ s plans to examine its dismissal request .
“ The harms are far from speculative , as the majority concludes , but instead are clearly laid out in the actions and representations of the district court , ” Rao said .
Much of her ire was focused on the majority ’ s willingness to take Sullivan ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she had minimized the likelihood that Sullivan would do additional fact-finding around the DOJ ’ s move to drop the case .
She accused the majority of turning a blind eye to what Sullivan had put in written filings , in favor of what his lawyer had said at the oral arguments .
“ By shutting its eyes to the irreparable harms and failing to pronounce as improper this probing inquisition , the majority emboldens the district court to make good on its pledge to superintend and fact check the Executive , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executive branch will be stuck making “ multiple ” requests for the appeals court intervention to challenge “ each separate intrusion during a process of factfinding.
” “ Wishful waiting can not forestall the irreparable harm to the Executive Branch , ” Rao said .
She also nodded to the “ numerous harms ” that Flynn claims he was being subjected to due “ stemming from protracted litigation , ” as Rao accused the majority of leaving Flynn to “ twist in the wind while the district court pursues a prosecution without a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Michael Flynn cannot immediately force a federal judge to agree to drop criminal charges against the former national security adviser, a full panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit court ruled 8-2 on Monday.
The ruling means that U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan for the District of Columbia can proceed in examining why the Justice Department took the unprecedented step of dropping its criminal case against Flynn, after Flynn had pleaded guilty and then sought to withdraw his plea.
In its opinion, the D.C. Circuit said that Flynn’s request for an intervention came prematurely, because Sullivan had not yet ruled on the DOJ motion to dismiss Flynn’s case.
“Petitioner has not cited any case in which our Court, or any court, issued the writ to compel a district court to decide an undecided motion in a particular way—i.e., when the district court might yet decide the motion in that way on its own,” the opinion said. The majority noted that its decision Monday did not foreclose Flynn from seeking another appeals court intervention — known as a “writ of mandamus” — later on in the proceedings.
But for now, Flynn would suffer no “extraordinary harm,” according to the D.C. Circuit, by waiting until Sullivan formally acted on the dismissal request, at which point he could appeal a hypothetical ruling denying the dismissal.
The fallout from the Justice Department’s May decision to walk away from Flynn’s prosecution has been extraordinary and unprecedented. Rather than immediately grant the DOJ dismissal request, Sullivan indicated that he would be considering the advice of outside parties on what he should do next and had even asked for a retired judge to file so-called “friend of the court” briefings opposing the DOJ request.
Sullivan had scheduled a hearing for mid-July to examine the DOJ’s dismissal request and the friend-of-the-court filings submitted to oppose it. But that plan was put off once Flynn successfully got the appeals court involved.
The latest appeals court order is a reversal of the intervention a three-judge appellate panel made in the case earlier this summer, when it commanded that Sullivan immediately dismiss that case. The full appeals court had already blocked that order, in an early indication that it was skeptical of the move to intervene in the district court proceedings at this time.
The two appeals court judges — both GOP appointees — who had initially ordered Flynn’s case dismissed dissented from Monday’s decision, while another GOP-appointed appellate judge, Thomas Griffith, filed a concurring opinion. Judge Greg Katsas, who previously worked in President Trump’s White House, did not participate in the decision.
In Monday’s opinion, the en banc court squarely rejected the panel’s rationale for ordering that Sullivan dismiss the case, while noting that it was planning to rehear the decision, regardless of Sullivan’s own request that the panel’s order be reviewed.
“[I]t is simply not the case that the Executive will be irreparably harmed by the procedures ordered by the District Court such that mandamus should issue to forestall them,” the full appeals court said.
The Justice Department had expressed fear that Sullivan would use the proceedings to elicit affidavits or other testimony that could expose how the Trump administration reached its decision to seek to drop charges against Flynn.
The appeals court said that “those harms are speculative and may never come to pass.”
Monday’s opinion also emphasized that Flynn and the DOJ had raised concerns to the appeals court about Sullivan’s handling of the case without first raising those issues to Sullivan himself.
It is not immediately clear whether Flynn or the Justice Department will try to get the Supreme Court involved, a request that could further delay resolution of Flynn’s case.
At the oral arguments in front of the full appeals court earlier this month, Sullivan’s lawyer Beth Wilkinson played down the possibility that Sullivan would launch the kind of probing inquiry into the DOJ’s motives that the Department had warned against in the appellate proceedings. Wilkinson suggested that it was possible, had the mid-July hearing been allowed to go forward, that Sullivan would have dismissed the case as requested then.
The appeals court, meanwhile, indicated to Sullivan that he should not drag matters out any more than he had to.
“As the underlying criminal case resumes, in the District Court, we trust and expect the District Court to proceed with appropriate dispatch,” the D.C. Circuit said.
In his concurring opinion, Judge Griffith took aim at those who would interpret the decision as a victory for President Trump’s political opponents.
“The party affiliation of the President who appoints a judge becomes an explanation for the judge’s real reason for the disposition, and the legal reasoning employed is seen as a cover for the exercise of raw political power,” the judge wrote. “No doubt there will be some who will describe the court’s decision today in such terms, but they would be mistaken.”
Griffith added that, in deciding the case, the court had reached “the unexceptional yet important conclusion” that it should wait until Sullivan issued a ruling before considering the case. The Bush appointee added that “it would be highly unusual” if Sullivan denied the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss, adding that if that were to occur “General Flynn has multiple avenues of relief that he can pursue.”
Conservatives suggest Sullivan is biased
Judge Karen Henderson — one of the two appellate judges who had initially ordered Sullivan to dismiss the case — accused Sullivan of bias in her Monday dissent, saying that the case should have been transferred to another judge because Sullivan had demonstrated “‘extreme’ conduct” in the case, showing that he was unable “to render fair judgment.”
Henderson, who in her earlier ruling denied a Flynn request that the case be reassigned to another judge, wrote that Sullivan’s decision to seek the review of the full appeals court had convinced her that Sullivan had “disqualified himself.”
“I cannot think of an action more inimical to the appearance of an impartial arbiter,” Henderson wrote, arguing that Sullivan’s decision to follow up on the appeal made him a party to the case.
“He plainly appears to view himself as a ‘party,’” Henderson wrote, adding that “his attempted action removes any doubt that the appearance of impartiality required of all federal judges has been compromised beyond repair.”
The Bush Sr. appointee added that Sullivan’s statements throughout the case — including his expression of “disgust” for Flynn’s actions at the abortive December 2018 sentencing hearing — constituted evidence of bias.
The majority pushed back on Henderson, who was joined by Rao, for reversing course on Sullivan’s supposed bias — reversal that appeared “only” based on his request that the D.C. Circuit rehear the panel’s decision.
The majority noted that it was the appellate panel who had first invited Sullivan to participate in that mandamus proceedings, writing that “nothing about that participation created a reasonable impression of partiality, nor could it.”
Rao wrote her own opinion to lay out why she believed Flynn’s case already met the “extraordinary” circumstances warranting an appeals court intervention.
She accused the majority of taking a “a wait-and-see approach, hoping and hinting that the district judge will not take the actions he clearly states he will take.”
Her dissent whole-heartedly bought the version of events that Flynn — and to a lesser extent, the Justice Department — are trying to put forward to justify dropping the prosecution.
Flynn only “allegedly” made false statements about his 2016 Russian contacts to the FBI, which had no business interviewing him, since the agents “already possessed transcripts” and had gone against the preference of DOJ leadership that the White House be notified of the FBI’s plans to interview Flynn.
Rao gave credence to the evidence the DOJ now says it “newly discovered” in explaining its dismissal request.
She went on to defend the Justice Department’s argument, now in the mandamus proceedings, that it would be irreparably harmed if it was subjected to Sullivan’s plans to examine its dismissal request.
“The harms are far from speculative, as the majority concludes, but instead are clearly laid out in the actions and representations of the district court,” Rao said.
Much of her ire was focused on the majority’s willingness to take Sullivan’s lawyer at her word, when she had minimized the likelihood that Sullivan would do additional fact-finding around the DOJ’s move to drop the case. She accused the majority of turning a blind eye to what Sullivan had put in written filings, in favor of what his lawyer had said at the oral arguments.
“By shutting its eyes to the irreparable harms and failing to pronounce as improper this probing inquisition, the majority emboldens the district court to make good on its pledge to superintend and fact check the Executive,” Rao wrote.
She warned that the executive branch will be stuck making “multiple” requests for the appeals court intervention to challenge “each separate intrusion during a process of factfinding.”
“Wishful waiting cannot forestall the irreparable harm to the Executive Branch,” Rao said.
She also nodded to the “numerous harms” that Flynn claims he was being subjected to due “ stemming from protracted litigation,” as Rao accused the majority of leaving Flynn to “twist in the wind while the district court pursues a prosecution without a prosecutor.”
This post has been updated.
Read the opinion here:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-08-31--WH Rips Biden For Not Visiting Kenosha, Unlike Trump Who ‘Shows Up’

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany on Monday managed to jab Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden as she responded to Wisconsin Gov .
Tony Evers ’ ( D ) plea for President Trump to cancel his upcoming trip to Kenosha amid unrest over the shooting of Jacob Blake by police .
On Sunday , Evers urged Trump in a letter to “ reconsider ” his upcoming trip to Kenosha on Tuesday .
Evers wrote that he is “ concerned your presence will only hinder our healing , ” which echoes Democrats ’ concerns that Trump ’ s visit to Kenosha @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after peaceful protests turned violent when police officers clashed with demonstrators .
When asked about Biden opting to visit Pittsburgh later Monday instead of Kenosha during an interview on “ Fox and Friends ” on Monday morning , McEnany accused Democrats of “ ignoring ” Wisconsin like they did in 2016 , appearing to refer to Trump ’ s narrow win in the state that year .
“ One would think that be the case — here we go again Democrats ignoring the state of Wisconsin as they did in 2016 , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President has “ showed up ” recently in response to devastation from Hurricane Laura in Texas and Louisiana .
McEnany argued that Trump ’ s visit to Kenosha on Tuesday shows that he is “ demonstrating his respect for the American people by actually going to places where Americans are hurting.
” “ He ’ ll always show up that ’ s what this president has done for four years and he ’ ll continue to do , ” McEnany said .
McEnany was then asked about her thoughts on Evers ’ letter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boasting how Trump “ loves the people of Wisconsin.
” McEnany went on to bolster Trump ’ s claim that he is the President of “ law and order ” by attributing the quelling of protests in Minneapolis and Kenosha to National Guard deployment .
“ We did see a noticeable difference when they came in , ” McEnany said .
“ So this President is always willing to help and he ’ s going to show up and he ’ ll be there tomorrow.
” McEnany ’ s remarks come as Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who refused the President ’ s offer to help quell unrest amid ongoing protests against police brutality in the city by deploying federal law enforcement .
Republicans have also echoed the President ’ s sentiment by shifting blame to local officials in Democrat-led cities .

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany on Monday managed to jab Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden as she responded to Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers’ (D) plea for President Trump to cancel his upcoming trip to Kenosha amid unrest over the shooting of Jacob Blake by police.
On Sunday, Evers urged Trump in a letter to “reconsider” his upcoming trip to Kenosha on Tuesday. Evers wrote that he is “concerned your presence will only hinder our healing,” which echoes Democrats’ concerns that Trump’s visit to Kenosha amid ongoing unrest would incite more violence after peaceful protests turned violent when police officers clashed with demonstrators.
When asked about Biden opting to visit Pittsburgh later Monday instead of Kenosha during an interview on “Fox and Friends” on Monday morning, McEnany accused Democrats of “ignoring” Wisconsin like they did in 2016, appearing to refer to Trump’s narrow win in the state that year.
“One would think that be the case — here we go again Democrats ignoring the state of Wisconsin as they did in 2016,” McEnany said, before mentioning that the President has “showed up” recently in response to devastation from Hurricane Laura in Texas and Louisiana.
McEnany argued that Trump’s visit to Kenosha on Tuesday shows that he is “demonstrating his respect for the American people by actually going to places where Americans are hurting.”
“He’ll always show up that’s what this president has done for four years and he’ll continue to do,” McEnany said.
McEnany was then asked about her thoughts on Evers’ letter to Trump, and she replied by boasting how Trump “loves the people of Wisconsin.”
McEnany went on to bolster Trump’s claim that he is the President of “law and order” by attributing the quelling of protests in Minneapolis and Kenosha to National Guard deployment.
“We did see a noticeable difference when they came in,” McEnany said. “So this President is always willing to help and he’s going to show up and he’ll be there tomorrow.”
McEnany’s remarks come as Trump repeatedly rails against Portland mayor Ted Wheeler, who refused the President’s offer to help quell unrest amid ongoing protests against police brutality in the city by deploying federal law enforcement. Republicans have also echoed the President’s sentiment by shifting blame to local officials in Democrat-led cities.
Watch McEnany’s remarks below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-08-31--Uhhhh: Herman Cain’s Twitter Claims COVID Is ‘Not As Deadly’ As ‘Mainstream Media’ Portrayed

The Twitter account belonging to the late Herman Cain , who died after being infected with COVID-19 in July , @ @ @ @ @ Sunday night .
“ It looks like the virus is not as deadly as the @ @ @ @ @ out to be , ” the account tweeted with an article by the Western Journal @ @ @ @ @ .
After the former GOP presidential candidate ’ s death on July 30 , his @ @ @ @ @ by his “ team and family , ” who rebranded the account as “ The @ @ @ @ @ the account ’ s original @ THEHermanCain handle .
Twitter users were initially taken aback @ @ @ @ @ under Cain ’ s full name at the time , tweeted for the first time @ @ @ @ @ Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his running mate , Sen. Kamala Harris ( D-CA @ @ @ @ @ family later revealed that they had taken control of the account .

The Twitter account belonging to the late Herman Cain, who died after being infected with COVID-19 in July, issued an eyebrow-raising proclamation on Sunday night.
“It looks like the virus is not as deadly as the mainstream media first made it out to be,” the account tweeted with an article by the Western Journal, a right-wing media outlet.
The tweet was subsequently deleted.
A deleted tweet from Herman Cain’s Twitter account pic.twitter.com/cuHMjN4LV1 — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 31, 2020
After the former GOP presidential candidate’s death on July 30, his verified account was taken over by his “team and family,” who rebranded the account as “The Cain Gang” while keeping the account’s original @THEHermanCain handle.
Twitter users were initially taken aback when the account, still under Cain’s full name at the time, tweeted for the first time on August 12 to bash Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his running mate, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA):
Just in case you thought Biden's candidacy was going to be anything other than completely nuts, team Trump has released a new video. #JoeBiden #KamalaHarris https://t.co/GjAC8VDaVF — The Cain Gang (@THEHermanCain) August 12, 2020
Aren’t you uh dead tho — Erin Profoundly Ryan (@morninggloria) August 13, 2020
Cain’s family later revealed that they had taken control of the account.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-01--Trump Compares Jacob Blake Shooting To Golf Blunder: ‘They Miss A Three-Foot Putt’

President Donald Trump on Monday night compared the shooting of Jacob Blake , an unarmed Black man who was shot seven times in the back by a police officer , to a blunder in a golf tournament .
During a pre-taped interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham , Trump asserted that among the “ 10,000 great acts ” by the police , sometimes an officer can “ choke ” during an arrest .
“ Shooting a guy in the back many times…I mean , couldn ’ t you have done something different , couldn ’ t you have wrestled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been going for a weapon , ” Trump told Ingraham .
“ You know there ’ s a whole big thing there.
” “ But they choke , ” he added .
“ Just like in a golf tournament they miss a three-foot putt– ” Ingraham cut off the President in an apparent attempt to rescue him from backlash over the jaw-dropping comparison .
“ You ’ re not comparing it to golf because of course that ’ s what the media would say , ” the Fox News host said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And people are bad people .
You ’ re both .
You have some bad people and they choke , ” Trump replied .
“ You could be a police officer for 15 years and all of a sudden you ’ re confronted .
You ’ ve got a quarter of a second to make a decision , ” he continued .
“ If you don ’ t make the decision and you ’ re wrong , you ’ re dead .
People choke under those circumstances and they make a bad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amid unrest in Kenosha , Wisconsin after police officer Rusten Sheskey shot Blake in the back seven times during an arrest , leaving Blake paralyzed .
Trump frequently defends the police in response to protests over anti-Black police brutality , painting cops as largely innocent while also demonizing Black Lives Matter protesters , whom he describes as “ thugs ” in a “ Marxist ” movement .

President Donald Trump on Monday night compared the shooting of Jacob Blake, an unarmed Black man who was shot seven times in the back by a police officer, to a blunder in a golf tournament.
During a pre-taped interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham, Trump asserted that among the “10,000 great acts” by the police, sometimes an officer can “choke” during an arrest.
“Shooting a guy in the back many times…I mean, couldn’t you have done something different, couldn’t you have wrestled him? In the meantime he might have been going for a weapon,” Trump told Ingraham. “You know there’s a whole big thing there.”
“But they choke,” he added. “Just like in a golf tournament they miss a three-foot putt–”
Ingraham cut off the President in an apparent attempt to rescue him from backlash over the jaw-dropping comparison.
“You’re not comparing it to golf because of course that’s what the media would say,” the Fox News host said.
“I’m saying people choke. And people are bad people. You’re both. You have some bad people and they choke,” Trump replied.
“You could be a police officer for 15 years and all of a sudden you’re confronted. You’ve got a quarter of a second to make a decision,” he continued. “If you don’t make the decision and you’re wrong, you’re dead. People choke under those circumstances and they make a bad decision.”
Trump’s comments come amid unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin after police officer Rusten Sheskey shot Blake in the back seven times during an arrest, leaving Blake paralyzed.
Trump frequently defends the police in response to protests over anti-Black police brutality, painting cops as largely innocent while also demonizing Black Lives Matter protesters, whom he describes as “thugs” in a “Marxist” movement.
Watch Trump below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-01--Pence Insists Trump Has ‘Remarkable’ Health Amid POTUS Tirade Against Stroke Claims

Nothing to see here , apparently .
Vice President Mike Pence on Tuesday backed President Trump ’ s ongoing denial that he suffered a stroke late last year — a suggestion that the President vehemently denies yet continues to rehash .
Throughout Tuesday , Trump repeatedly brought up and denied a suggestion that CNN political analyst Joe Lockhart floated that speculated that the President ’ s unexpected visit to Walter Reed late last year was prompted by a stroke , which the President dismissed as “ fake news ” in a tweet .
The Trump campaign later issued a scathing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Even the President ’ s physician , Dr. Sean Conley , hit back at the suggestion that Trump suffered from a stroke late last year by issuing his own statement .
Conley wrote that he can confirm that the President had not experienced nor had been evaluated for stroke , mini stroke or any acute cardiovascular emergencies .
Conley added that recent comments surrounding Trump ’ s health have been “ incorrectly reported in the media.
” Trump ’ s tirade over the suggestion that he suffered from a stroke came after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michael Schmidt wrote in his forthcoming book that Pence was privately put on “ standby ” to assume presidential powers “ temporarily if Trump had to undergo a procedure that would have required him to be anesthetized ” at Walter Reed .
When pressed on whether it ’ s true that the VP was put on “ standby ” late last year during an interview on Fox News on Tuesday evening , Pence insisted that Trump is “ in excellent health.
” “ I ’ m always informed of the President ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day or any other day , I ’ m informed , ” Pence said .
“ But there was nothing out of the ordinary about that moment or that day.
” Pence referred “ any other questions ” to Conley , the White House physician , before being pressed again on whether he was put on “ standby ” if Trump were to undergo a procedure that would have required him to be anesthetized at Walter Reed .
“ I don ’ t recall being told to be on standby , ” Pence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the President had a doctor ’ s appointment , and I ’ ve got to tell you , part of this job is you are always on standby if you are Vice President of the United States.
” Pence added that the public “ can be confident that this President is in remarkable good health ” and that “ every single day I see that energy and high relief .
”

Nothing to see here, apparently.
Vice President Mike Pence on Tuesday backed President Trump’s ongoing denial that he suffered a stroke late last year — a suggestion that the President vehemently denies yet continues to rehash.
Throughout Tuesday, Trump repeatedly brought up and denied a suggestion that CNN political analyst Joe Lockhart floated that speculated that the President’s unexpected visit to Walter Reed late last year was prompted by a stroke, which the President dismissed as “fake news” in a tweet. The Trump campaign later issued a scathing statement calling for CNN to fire Lockhart.
Even the President’s physician, Dr. Sean Conley, hit back at the suggestion that Trump suffered from a stroke late last year by issuing his own statement. Conley wrote that he can confirm that the President had not experienced nor had been evaluated for stroke, mini stroke or any acute cardiovascular emergencies. Conley added that recent comments surrounding Trump’s health have been “incorrectly reported in the media.”
Trump’s tirade over the suggestion that he suffered from a stroke came after CNN reported that New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt wrote in his forthcoming book that Pence was privately put on “standby” to assume presidential powers “temporarily if Trump had to undergo a procedure that would have required him to be anesthetized” at Walter Reed.
When pressed on whether it’s true that the VP was put on “standby” late last year during an interview on Fox News on Tuesday evening, Pence insisted that Trump is “in excellent health.”
“I’m always informed of the President’s movements. Whether it was on that day or any other day, I’m informed,” Pence said. “But there was nothing out of the ordinary about that moment or that day.”
Pence referred “any other questions” to Conley, the White House physician, before being pressed again on whether he was put on “standby” if Trump were to undergo a procedure that would have required him to be anesthetized at Walter Reed.
“I don’t recall being told to be on standby,” Pence said. “I was informed that the President had a doctor’s appointment, and I’ve got to tell you, part of this job is you are always on standby if you are Vice President of the United States.”
Pence added that the public “can be confident that this President is in remarkable good health” and that “every single day I see that energy and high relief.”
Watch Pence’s remarks below:


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-01--Mnuchin Touts ‘Strongly’ Recovering Economy, Offers No Concessions On Further Relief

In between trumpeting that the economy is “ recovering very strongly ” and that the jobs market is “ strengthening , ” Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin admitted that “ certain areas ” of the economy need more help — but offered little in the way of concessions that would restart negotiations on legislation to address the problem .
He opened his testimony before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Tuesday by touting “ increases in jobs , retail sales , business activities and home sales , ” making the argument that the economy is making a strong and rapid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is not like a normal economic crisis , ” he said , claiming that the still-dismal , but not-as-dismal-as-a-few-months-ago joblessness numbers are a sign of major recovery .
He admitted that there are certain industries and sectors of the economy that need further relief , and said that he was “ prepared to sit down with the Speaker at any time to negotiate.
” During an exchange with Rep. Maxine Waters ( D-CA ) , he promised to call House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) as soon as the hearing concluded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggested I call her right after the hearing ?
” Mnuchin asked .
“ Done , I will call her right after the hearing , ” Mnuchin said .
But despite his protestations that he was ready and willing to restart the broken-down negotiations , he offered no concessions that would constitute a good-faith effort to restart the deal-making .
Mnuchin , like White House chief of staff Mark Meadows , seems to have shifted into campaign mode when it comes to the COVID-19 relief negotiations that fell apart last month .
Meadows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s work , and painting the situation as one where Pelosi is the main obstacle to the two sides coming together on relief like extending the unemployment insurance benefit , or restarting the Paycheck Protection Program .
In reality , the two sides are billions and billions of dollars apart on almost every facet of a relief plan , even if they agree amorphously that there needs to be some aid delivered .
Democrats have also been unmoveable on their desire for an expansive relief package , like the $ 3.4 trillion HEROES @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Senate Republicans have not been able to coalesce behind much of anything , leaving the White House negotiators to offer standalone legislation on certain planks of relief .
Pelosi and Schumer have refused to play ball , fearful that Meadows and Mnuchin will walk off the court after getting a couple things done they can tout as administrative accomplishments while leaving other problems unaddressed .
Democrats have offered to come down from their HEROES Act a full $ 1.2 trillion to be more palatable to Republicans , a concession that was flat-out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Pelosi a few days ago , the most the negotiators have spoken in weeks .
“ I do not support $ 2.2 trillion , ” Mnuchin said at the hearing .
“ But what is more important is what is the breakdown of getting money to American workers , American families , kids , ” he said , adding that “ there are tremendous areas of agreement and that ’ s what we should be doing right away.
” He named the PPP specifically as something to target that has bipartisan support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before released a report today on the very topic on which he ’ s so eager to find common ground : upon analysis of the PPP , the committee found that “ a lack of oversight and accountability from SBA and Treasury may have led to billions of dollars being diverted to fraud , waste , and abuse , rather than reaching small businesses truly in need , ” said Chairman Jim Clyburn ( D-SC ) .

In between trumpeting that the economy is “recovering very strongly” and that the jobs market is “strengthening,” Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin admitted that “certain areas” of the economy need more help — but offered little in the way of concessions that would restart negotiations on legislation to address the problem.
He opened his testimony before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Tuesday by touting “increases in jobs, retail sales, business activities and home sales,” making the argument that the economy is making a strong and rapid comeback under the Trump administration.
“This is not like a normal economic crisis,” he said, claiming that the still-dismal, but not-as-dismal-as-a-few-months-ago joblessness numbers are a sign of major recovery.
He admitted that there are certain industries and sectors of the economy that need further relief, and said that he was “prepared to sit down with the Speaker at any time to negotiate.” During an exchange with Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), he promised to call House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as soon as the hearing concluded.
“Can I tell her you suggested I call her right after the hearing?” Mnuchin asked.
“Yes, yes, yes,” Waters responded enthusiastically.
“Done, I will call her right after the hearing,” Mnuchin said.
But despite his protestations that he was ready and willing to restart the broken-down negotiations, he offered no concessions that would constitute a good-faith effort to restart the deal-making.
Mnuchin, like White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, seems to have shifted into campaign mode when it comes to the COVID-19 relief negotiations that fell apart last month. Meadows too has been touting the administration’s work, and painting the situation as one where Pelosi is the main obstacle to the two sides coming together on relief like extending the unemployment insurance benefit, or restarting the Paycheck Protection Program.
In reality, the two sides are billions and billions of dollars apart on almost every facet of a relief plan, even if they agree amorphously that there needs to be some aid delivered. Democrats have also been unmoveable on their desire for an expansive relief package, like the $3.4 trillion HEROES Act passed by the House in May.
Senate Republicans have not been able to coalesce behind much of anything, leaving the White House negotiators to offer standalone legislation on certain planks of relief. Pelosi and Schumer have refused to play ball, fearful that Meadows and Mnuchin will walk off the court after getting a couple things done they can tout as administrative accomplishments while leaving other problems unaddressed.
Democrats have offered to come down from their HEROES Act a full $1.2 trillion to be more palatable to Republicans, a concession that was flat-out denied by Meadows during a 25-minute call with Pelosi a few days ago, the most the negotiators have spoken in weeks.
“I do not support $2.2 trillion,” Mnuchin said at the hearing. “But what is more important is what is the breakdown of getting money to American workers, American families, kids,” he said, adding that “there are tremendous areas of agreement and that’s what we should be doing right away.” He named the PPP specifically as something to target that has bipartisan support.
The same committee that Mnuchin testified before released a report today on the very topic on which he’s so eager to find common ground: upon analysis of the PPP, the committee found that “a lack of oversight and accountability from SBA and Treasury may have led to billions of dollars being diverted to fraud, waste, and abuse, rather than reaching small businesses truly in need,” said Chairman Jim Clyburn (D-SC).


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-01--USPS Review Finds Decrease In On-Time Election Mail Delivery Since 2018

The Postal Service ’ s internal watchdog found an decrease in on-time delivery of election and political mail in a review earlier this year , the results of which were published Tuesday , underlining fears that a sharp uptick in mail-in voting may end up disenfranchising some voters this November .
The review from the USPS inspector general took place in May and June this year .
Importantly , that was before the new postmaster general , Louis DeJoy , instituted a series of changes that resulted in mail slowdowns across the country .
And many of the inspector general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Postal Service employees themselves , but rather their counterparts in state and local government .
Still , with a record number of Americans expected to use the mail to vote this year , the report identified key weaknesses that could impact the vote tally .
“ Since our prior audits , the Postal Service has improved internal communication between headquarters and mail processing facilities , and developed online Election and Political Mail training , ” the report found .
“ However , the amount of identifiable Election and Political Mail delivered on-time nationwide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ June 2020 , a decrease of 1.7 percentage points compared to the same time period in 2018.
” The inspector general also highlighted a point that the USPS general counsel flagged to 46 states and the District of Columbia earlier this summer : Local deadlines for requesting and casting ballots are often set close to Election Day , meaning that some voters who request or submit ballots at the “ last minute ” may actually be out of luck .
The inspector general ’ s report , citing numbers from USPS management , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election officials : In 11 states , for example , over 44,000 ballots were sent from election boards to voters “ the day of or day before the state ’ s primary election.
” In Pennsylvania , 500 ballots were sent to voters the day after the election .
The state-by-state patchwork of election laws , especially concerning something like postmarking requirements , makes national election mail policy a difficult balance : New York voters realized this might be a problem in primary season , when postmarking errors imperiled thousands of ballots .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ mailed by voters , a ballot could be rejected and a vote not counted , ” the report read .
In recent congressional testimony , DeJoy was short on details about a plan to ensure the prompt delivery of election mail , but he did reiterate to lawmakers that it was USPS policy to postmark all ballots , and that the USPS would seek to expedite all election mail , not just first-class mail .
But , frustrated with DeJoy ’ s refusal to hand over certain documents related to changes in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , decommissioned sorting machines and other issues , the House Oversight Committee on Monday announced its intent to subpoena him .
The IG report also identified several pitfalls that , experts have told TPM , could especially impact states where postal and election workers have less experience with high vote-by-mail volumes , such as instances of election and political mail getting left behind at USPS facilities .
Over the two-month review of processing and distribution centers ( P & DC ) in seven cities , the report found , “ we identified approximately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ & DC and 68,000 Political Mail mailpieces at the Baltimore P & DC that had not been processed.
” ( The ballots in Oklahoma were successfully delivered after investigators noticed them , the report assured readers . )
And none of the seven facilities used the Postal Service ’ s “ Operational Clean Sweep Search Checklist , ” the review found , referring to the list of specific facility areas to check to ensure that election and political mail isn ’ t lost in the system .
In large part , USPS management @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But it disagreed with the inspector general ’ s recommendation “ to work toward creating a separate , simplified mail product exclusively for Election Mail that would support uniform mail processing , including mandatory mailpiece tracking and proper mailpiece design.
” There simply is not enough time to do so before the 2020 elections , USPS management said in an included response to the report .
However , the agency ’ s management responded , the Postal Service will undertake “ herculean efforts ” to ensure that ballots meet state deadlines .

The Postal Service’s internal watchdog found an decrease in on-time delivery of election and political mail in a review earlier this year, the results of which were published Tuesday, underlining fears that a sharp uptick in mail-in voting may end up disenfranchising some voters this November.
The review from the USPS inspector general took place in May and June this year. Importantly, that was before the new postmaster general, Louis DeJoy, instituted a series of changes that resulted in mail slowdowns across the country. And many of the inspector general’s findings don’t concern Postal Service employees themselves, but rather their counterparts in state and local government.
Still, with a record number of Americans expected to use the mail to vote this year, the report identified key weaknesses that could impact the vote tally.
“Since our prior audits, the Postal Service has improved internal communication between headquarters and mail processing facilities, and developed online Election and Political Mail training,” the report found. “However, the amount of identifiable Election and Political Mail delivered on-time nationwide was 94.5 percent from April 2020 through June 2020, a decrease of 1.7 percentage points compared to the same time period in 2018.”
The inspector general also highlighted a point that the USPS general counsel flagged to 46 states and the District of Columbia earlier this summer: Local deadlines for requesting and casting ballots are often set close to Election Day, meaning that some voters who request or submit ballots at the “last minute” may actually be out of luck.
The inspector general’s report, citing numbers from USPS management, highlighted a few significant shortcomings from state election officials: In 11 states, for example, over 44,000 ballots were sent from election boards to voters “the day of or day before the state’s primary election.” In Pennsylvania, 500 ballots were sent to voters the day after the election.
The state-by-state patchwork of election laws, especially concerning something like postmarking requirements, makes national election mail policy a difficult balance:
New York voters realized this might be a problem in primary season, when postmarking errors imperiled thousands of ballots.
“Without a postmark on return ballots mailed by voters, a ballot could be rejected and a vote not counted,” the report read.
In recent congressional testimony, DeJoy was short on details about a plan to ensure the prompt delivery of election mail, but he did reiterate to lawmakers that it was USPS policy to postmark all ballots, and that the USPS would seek to expedite all election mail, not just first-class mail.
But, frustrated with DeJoy’s refusal to hand over certain documents related to changes in the USPS policy toward late mail delivery trips, decommissioned sorting machines and other issues, the House Oversight Committee on Monday announced its intent to subpoena him.
The IG report also identified several pitfalls that, experts have told TPM, could especially impact states where postal and election workers have less experience with high vote-by-mail volumes, such as instances of election and political mail getting left behind at USPS facilities.
Over the two-month review of processing and distribution centers (P&DC) in seven cities, the report found, “we identified approximately 200 ballots at the Oklahoma City P&DC and 68,000 Political Mail mailpieces at the Baltimore P&DC that had not been processed.” (The ballots in Oklahoma were successfully delivered after investigators noticed them, the report assured readers.)
And none of the seven facilities used the Postal Service’s “Operational Clean Sweep Search Checklist,” the review found, referring to the list of specific facility areas to check to ensure that election and political mail isn’t lost in the system.
In large part, USPS management acknowledged the shortcomings identified in the report. But it disagreed with the inspector general’s recommendation “to work toward creating a separate, simplified mail product exclusively for Election Mail that would support uniform mail processing, including mandatory mailpiece tracking and proper mailpiece design.” There simply is not enough time to do so before the 2020 elections, USPS management said in an included response to the report.
However, the agency’s management responded, the Postal Service will undertake “herculean efforts” to ensure that ballots meet state deadlines.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-09-01--Not Stroke Victim Donald Trump Rails Against Stroke Claims

President Trump wants you to know he definitely did not have a stroke last year .
In fact , Trump was so adamant in his denials that he couldn ’ t stop bringing it up over and over again on Tuesday , making it an even bigger story .
In a statement issued Tuesday afternoon , the Trump campaign urged CNN to fire political analyst Joe Lockhart after he floated a suggestion that Trump ’ s unexpected visit to Walter Reed late last year was prompted by a stroke , which the President dismissed as “ fake news ” in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ CNN should fire Joe Lockhart , a lifetime failure who thought it was a great idea for fellow loser Michael Dukakis to put on that stupid helmet , for knowingly pushing a conspiracy theory about President Trump ’ s health , ” the Trump campaign said in an unsigned statement .
The Trump campaign went on to rip into Lockhart — who formerly served as a press secretary under the Clinton administration — for supposedly having “ single-handedly ” torpedoed John Kerry ’ s campaign , and predicted that he will do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden “ from a distance.
” “ If another CNN employee said similar things about Barack Obama they ’ d be fired immediately , so the same standard should be applied here , ” the Trump campaign wrote .
‘ That is , of course , unless CNN is complicit in the smear campaign in order to level the playing field against Joe Biden , somebody who truly has lost a step.
” Trump ’ s tirade over the suggestion that he suffered from a stroke came after CNN reported that New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forthcoming book that Vice President Mike Pence was privately put on “ standby ” to assume presidential powers “ temporarily if Trump had to undergo a procedure that would have required him to be anesthetized ” at Walter Reed .
Although the White House claimed that the President was “ fine ” and that his unexpected visit to the Maryland-baed medical center in November 2019 just involved a series of “ quick exam and labs ” ahead of a “ very busy 2020 , ” a CNN source pointed out that Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a routine presidential medical exam , which fueled speculation over why the President paid an unscheduled visit .
Earlier Tuesday , Dr. Sean Conley , physician to the President , rebuked the suggestion that Trump had suffered from a stroke late last year .
Conley wrote that he can confirm that the President had not experienced nor had been evaluated for stroke , mini stroke or any acute cardiovascular emergencies .
Conley added that recent comments surrounding Trump ’ s health have been “ incorrectly reported in the media.
” Shortly after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the President ’ s denial of having suffered a stroke , the President roped Matt Drudge into his ongoing tirade against the suggestion that he vehemently denies yet continues to rehash .
And another one : CNN did not immediately respond to TPM ’ s request for comment .

President Trump wants you to know he definitely did not have a stroke last year. In fact, Trump was so adamant in his denials that he couldn’t stop bringing it up over and over again on Tuesday, making it an even bigger story.
In a statement issued Tuesday afternoon, the Trump campaign urged CNN to fire political analyst Joe Lockhart after he floated a suggestion that Trump’s unexpected visit to Walter Reed late last year was prompted by a stroke, which the President dismissed as “fake news” in a tweet earlier in the day.
“CNN should fire Joe Lockhart, a lifetime failure who thought it was a great idea for fellow loser Michael Dukakis to put on that stupid helmet, for knowingly pushing a conspiracy theory about President Trump’s health,” the Trump campaign said in an unsigned statement.
The Trump campaign went on to rip into Lockhart — who formerly served as a press secretary under the Clinton administration — for supposedly having “single-handedly” torpedoed John Kerry’s campaign, and predicted that he will do the same to Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden “from a distance.”
“If another CNN employee said similar things about Barack Obama they’d be fired immediately, so the same standard should be applied here,” the Trump campaign wrote. ‘That is, of course, unless CNN is complicit in the smear campaign in order to level the playing field against Joe Biden, somebody who truly has lost a step.”
Trump’s tirade over the suggestion that he suffered from a stroke came after CNN reported that New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt wrote in his forthcoming book that Vice President Mike Pence was privately put on “standby” to assume presidential powers “temporarily if Trump had to undergo a procedure that would have required him to be anesthetized” at Walter Reed.
Although the White House claimed that the President was “fine” and that his unexpected visit to the Maryland-baed medical center in November 2019 just involved a series of “quick exam and labs” ahead of a “very busy 2020,” a CNN source pointed out that Trump’s visit did not follow the protocol of a routine presidential medical exam, which fueled speculation over why the President paid an unscheduled visit.
Earlier Tuesday, Dr. Sean Conley, physician to the President, rebuked the suggestion that Trump had suffered from a stroke late last year. Conley wrote that he can confirm that the President had not experienced nor had been evaluated for stroke, mini stroke or any acute cardiovascular emergencies. Conley added that recent comments surrounding Trump’s health have been “incorrectly reported in the media.”
Shortly after the Trump campaign issued its statement bolstering the President’s denial of having suffered a stroke, the President roped Matt Drudge into his ongoing tirade against the suggestion that he vehemently denies yet continues to rehash.
Drudge didn’t support me in 2016, and I hear he doesn’t support me now. Maybe that’s why he is doing poorly. His Fake News report on Mini-Strokes is incorrect. Possibly thinking about himself, or the other party’s “candidate”. https://t.co/9FraoFqOKq — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 1, 2020
And another one:
Not even a “minor” one. Thank you! https://t.co/PEgbb9XyhU — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 1, 2020
CNN did not immediately respond to TPM’s request for comment.