buzzfeed--2020-10-16--Why Does The Electoral College Still Exist?

This is a really confusing time .
BuzzFeed News is working to answer some of your burning questions leading up to the election .
Have a question you want answered ?
Email addy.baird @ buzzfeed.com .
WASHINGTON — More than 14 million Americans have already voted in the presidential election — but none of them actually voted directly for the president .
Because of the Electoral College system in the United States , you ’ re not actually voting for former vice president Joe Biden or President Donald Trump ; voters cast their votes for electors , who in turn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Electoral College system is laid out in the Constitution and was envisioned by the founders as a system of voting in a time when there was little mass media , when many Americans would not have access to much information about the candidates .
But on five occasions , the winner of the popular vote and the winner of the Electoral College have not been the same : It happened in 2000 , it happened in 2016 , and it could easily happen again in 2020 .
Polls have consistently found that a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and would prefer to elect the president by popular vote .
But because the system is laid out in the Constitution , it ’ s pretty difficult to change .
Doing so would require a constitutional amendment , approved by two-thirds of both the House and the Senate as well as three-quarters of the states .
( Another option for amending the Constitution is having two-thirds of state legislatures call for a constitutional convention and then get three-quarters of the states to sign off on the amendment , but that ’ s never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791 , there have been 17 amendments added to the Constitution .
The most recent addition was the 27th Amendment , passed in 1992 .
Because of the extremely high threshold for passing an amendment , it ’ s unlikely that abolishing the Electoral College would be successful in Congress at all , especially given that the system has tended to benefit Republicans in recent decades .
The Electoral College has meant that voters in rural areas — usually white people — and smaller states have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than voters in big cities , where more people of color live and vote .
For example , as the Washington Post has reported , about 586,000 people live in Wyoming , and the state has three electoral votes .
More than 39 million people live in California , but the state has just 55 electoral votes , meaning that one voter in Wyoming has about 3.6 times more power than one voter in California .
The issue became a hot topic during the Democratic primary — though Biden broke from many of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not support abolishing the Electoral College .
Some states are trying a new tactic to end its use : So far , 15 states and the District of Columbia have entered into an agreement called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact ( NPVIC ) .
The idea is that , rather than awarding their electoral votes to the winner of the state ’ s popular vote , the group of states will give them to the winner of the national popular vote .
( The agreement is currently suspended in Colorado , however @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the ballot in the state to decide whether it will stay in the coalition . )
According to the NPVIC , including Colorado ’ s Electoral College votes , the coalition currently represents 196 electoral votes .
If enough states joined — representing more than 270 votes , the number needed to win the Electoral College — the group could essentially guarantee the winner of the presidency is the winner of the popular vote .
But the system does present problems : If , for example , a Republican wins the popular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York ( both of which have entered into the coalition ) would have to award their votes to someone whom the majority of the state voted against .

WASHINGTON — More than 14 million Americans have already voted in the presidential election — but none of them actually voted directly for the president.
Because of the Electoral College system in the United States, you’re not actually voting for former vice president Joe Biden or President Donald Trump; voters cast their votes for electors, who in turn cast their votes for president.
The Electoral College system is laid out in the Constitution and was envisioned by the founders as a system of voting in a time when there was little mass media, when many Americans would not have access to much information about the candidates. But on five occasions, the winner of the popular vote and the winner of the Electoral College have not been the same: It happened in 2000, it happened in 2016, and it could easily happen again in 2020.
Polls have consistently found that a majority of Americans dislike the Electoral College and would prefer to elect the president by popular vote.
But because the system is laid out in the Constitution, it’s pretty difficult to change. Doing so would require a constitutional amendment, approved by two-thirds of both the House and the Senate as well as three-quarters of the states. (Another option for amending the Constitution is having two-thirds of state legislatures call for a constitutional convention and then get three-quarters of the states to sign off on the amendment, but that’s never happened in US history.)
Since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, there have been 17 amendments added to the Constitution. The most recent addition was the 27th Amendment, passed in 1992. Because of the extremely high threshold for passing an amendment, it’s unlikely that abolishing the Electoral College would be successful in Congress at all, especially given that the system has tended to benefit Republicans in recent decades.
The Electoral College has meant that voters in rural areas — usually white people — and smaller states have significantly more influence at the ballot box than voters in big cities, where more people of color live and vote. For example, as the Washington Post has reported, about 586,000 people live in Wyoming, and the state has three electoral votes. More than 39 million people live in California, but the state has just 55 electoral votes, meaning that one voter in Wyoming has about 3.6 times more power than one voter in California.
The issue became a hot topic during the Democratic primary — though Biden broke from many of his fellow Democrats and said he did not support abolishing the Electoral College.
Some states are trying a new tactic to end its use: So far, 15 states and the District of Columbia have entered into an agreement called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC).
The idea is that, rather than awarding their electoral votes to the winner of the state’s popular vote, the group of states will give them to the winner of the national popular vote. (The agreement is currently suspended in Colorado, however, and there’s an initiative on the ballot in the state to decide whether it will stay in the coalition.)
According to the NPVIC, including Colorado’s Electoral College votes, the coalition currently represents 196 electoral votes. If enough states joined — representing more than 270 votes, the number needed to win the Electoral College — the group could essentially guarantee the winner of the presidency is the winner of the popular vote.
But the system does present problems: If, for example, a Republican wins the popular vote, Democratic strongholds like California and New York (both of which have entered into the coalition) would have to award their votes to someone whom the majority of the state voted against.


buzzfeed--2020-10-16--A Federal Judge Accused Other Judges Across The Country Of A “Systematic Effort” To Suppress Votes

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals judge on Thursday accused her colleagues and other judges across the country of sanctioning “ a systematic effort to suppress voter turnout and undermine the right to vote.
” Judge Karen Nelson Moore of the US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit wrote a scathing dissent in a case about how Tennessee handles absentee voting — she disagreed with her two colleagues in the majority who rejected a challenge to the state ’ s signature match rules for mail-in ballots .
But Moore ’ s dissent went further , criticizing judges across the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limit mail-in voting this year .
Moore called the Tennessee decision “ another drop in the bucket that is the degradation of the right to vote in this country , ” and then cited examples of other decisions this year that affected voting in Florida and Wisconsin .
“ Hiding behind closed courthouse doors does not change the fact that ruling by ruling , many courts are chipping away at votes that ought to be counted .
It is a disgrace to the federal courts ’ foundational role in ensuring democracy ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ persons that wish to participate in it fully , ” Moore wrote .
Moore ’ s dissent came as judges across the country are racing to resolve a flood of lawsuits this year challenging how states are handling voting during the coronavirus pandemic .
President Donald Trump ’ s campaign , the Republican National Committee , and state Republican party organizations have argued in favor of states that place restrictions on mail-in voting , relying on unfounded and debunked claims of voter fraud , while their Democratic counterparts have argued in favor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of in-person contact .
In Tennessee , voting rights groups filed a lawsuit challenging a variety of state rules that limit absentee voting , but the decision released by the 6th Circuit on Thursday was only about the signature match requirement .
Under Tennessee ’ s election laws , a county election official must compare the signature on the envelope of an absentee ballot with the signature on file for that voter ’ s registration record .
If they don ’ t match , the ballot gets tossed out .
Election officials notify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because the signatures don ’ t match , and those voters can either submit a new absentee ballot or vote in person .
Voting rights groups argued that that process was unconstitutional , and asked for a court order requiring the state to give voters a chance to fix ballots with inconsistent signatures before rejecting those ballots altogether .
A federal district judge in Tennessee denied the injunction request .
Sixth Circuit Judge Julia Smith Gibbons , joined by Judge Chad Readler , wrote that the voting rights groups that sued lacked standing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to show there was a “ threat of actual , imminent harm.
” Gibbons wrote that the challengers didn ’ t present any “ official data ” to show that absentee ballots would be wrongly rejected based on signature match problems .
Election officials went through training about how to evaluate signatures , and were directed to “ accept all but the most obviously inconsistent signatures , ” the judge wrote .
If a ballot is rejected , Gibbons wrote that officials “ go to great lengths ” to quickly notify voters , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or cast a ballot in person .
Moore wrote that the challengers had cited data about previous rates of ballot rejection in Tennessee and presented evidence from an expert that many rejections were likely to be faulty because of “ inadequate training ” for election officials .
She wrote that the voting rights groups had presented enough evidence that voters would be affected by the signature match rules and that gave the groups standing to sue .
Moore explained that she would also find the groups had standing to sue based on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters about the signature requirement .
On the merits of the constitutional challenge to Tennessee ’ s signature match rules , Moore wrote that she would find that voters ’ rights were violated by the lack of notice and chance to “ cure ” a ballot with a signature issue before that ballot is rejected .
The judge wrote that there was no guarantee a voter would be notified that their ballot was tossed out in time to request another one .
“ As a result of today ’ s decision , Tennessee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not thousands of its citizens who cast their votes absentee by mail .
Masking today ’ s outcome in standing doctrine obscures that result , but that makes it all the more disquieting , ” Moore wrote .
“ I will not be a party to this passive sanctioning of disenfranchisement .
I dissent.
” A spokesperson for the Tennessee secretary of state ’ s office did not immediately return a request for comment .

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals judge on Thursday accused her colleagues and other judges across the country of sanctioning “a systematic effort to suppress voter turnout and undermine the right to vote.”
Judge Karen Nelson Moore of the US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit wrote a scathing dissent in a case about how Tennessee handles absentee voting — she disagreed with her two colleagues in the majority who rejected a challenge to the state’s signature match rules for mail-in ballots. But Moore’s dissent went further, criticizing judges across the US who have sided with states seeking to limit mail-in voting this year.
Moore called the Tennessee decision “another drop in the bucket that is the degradation of the right to vote in this country,” and then cited examples of other decisions this year that affected voting in Florida and Wisconsin.
“Hiding behind closed courthouse doors does not change the fact that ruling by ruling, many courts are chipping away at votes that ought to be counted. It is a disgrace to the federal courts’ foundational role in ensuring democracy’s function, and a betrayal to the persons that wish to participate in it fully,” Moore wrote.
Moore’s dissent came as judges across the country are racing to resolve a flood of lawsuits this year challenging how states are handling voting during the coronavirus pandemic. President Donald Trump’s campaign, the Republican National Committee, and state Republican party organizations have argued in favor of states that place restrictions on mail-in voting, relying on unfounded and debunked claims of voter fraud, while their Democratic counterparts have argued in favor of expanding the practice given the health risks of in-person contact.
In Tennessee, voting rights groups filed a lawsuit challenging a variety of state rules that limit absentee voting, but the decision released by the 6th Circuit on Thursday was only about the signature match requirement. Under Tennessee’s election laws, a county election official must compare the signature on the envelope of an absentee ballot with the signature on file for that voter’s registration record. If they don’t match, the ballot gets tossed out.
Election officials notify Tennessee voters when their ballots are rejected because the signatures don’t match, and those voters can either submit a new absentee ballot or vote in person. Voting rights groups argued that that process was unconstitutional, and asked for a court order requiring the state to give voters a chance to fix ballots with inconsistent signatures before rejecting those ballots altogether.
A federal district judge in Tennessee denied the injunction request. Sixth Circuit Judge Julia Smith Gibbons, joined by Judge Chad Readler, wrote that the voting rights groups that sued lacked standing to bring the case because they failed to show there was a “threat of actual, imminent harm.”
Gibbons wrote that the challengers didn’t present any “official data” to show that absentee ballots would be wrongly rejected based on signature match problems. Election officials went through training about how to evaluate signatures, and were directed to “accept all but the most obviously inconsistent signatures,” the judge wrote. If a ballot is rejected, Gibbons wrote that officials “go to great lengths” to quickly notify voters, who can then send another absentee ballot or cast a ballot in person.
Moore wrote that the challengers had cited data about previous rates of ballot rejection in Tennessee and presented evidence from an expert that many rejections were likely to be faulty because of “inadequate training” for election officials. She wrote that the voting rights groups had presented enough evidence that voters would be affected by the signature match rules and that gave the groups standing to sue. Moore explained that she would also find the groups had standing to sue based on the resources they had to redirect to educate voters about the signature requirement.
On the merits of the constitutional challenge to Tennessee’s signature match rules, Moore wrote that she would find that voters’ rights were violated by the lack of notice and chance to “cure” a ballot with a signature issue before that ballot is rejected. The judge wrote that there was no guarantee a voter would be notified that their ballot was tossed out in time to request another one.
“As a result of today’s decision, Tennessee is free to—and will—disenfranchise hundreds, if not thousands of its citizens who cast their votes absentee by mail. Masking today’s outcome in standing doctrine obscures that result, but that makes it all the more disquieting,” Moore wrote. “I will not be a party to this passive sanctioning of disenfranchisement. I dissent.”
A spokesperson for the Tennessee secretary of state’s office did not immediately return a request for comment.


buzzfeed--2020-10-16--Trump Tweeted About Releasing All "Russia Hoax'' Documents, But He Didn't Mean It Literally

Two tweets by President Donald Trump last week stating he had “ fully authorized the total declassification ” of all documents related to the Russia investigation should not be taken literally , the Justice Department said in court documents Tuesday .
Trump claimed in one tweet that he had ordered the declassification of the “ Russia Hoax Scandal ” information long ago .
But it seems the Justice Department never got the message .
The Justice Department was told by the White House counsel that Trump ’ s “ statements on Twitter were not self-executing declassification orders and do not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The government ’ s official position — and the White House ’ s — was given in court filings responding to three separate emergency motions that BuzzFeed News filed last week to compel the government to immediately release unredacted copies of Russia-related documents sought in its Freedom of Information Act lawsuits .
The documents at issue included an unredacted copy of former special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s report , unredacted copies of FBI interview summaries of witnesses who spoke to Mueller ’ s investigators , and thousands of other records that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year .
Hours after BuzzFeed News filed the motions , the federal judge presiding over two of those cases directed the Justice Department to “ confer with the White House ” and report back to the court the “ official position regarding the declassification and release to the public of information related to the Russia investigation.
” A different judge handling a separate lawsuit gave the department until Oct. 16 to respond but didn ’ t order that it consult with the White House .
On Tuesday , Bradley Weinsheimer , associate deputy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the court that after consulting with the White House counsel , the Justice Department was informed that Trump ’ s tweets “ do not require altering any redactions on any record ” cited in BuzzFeed News ’ lawsuits .
Additionally , Weinsheimer noted that what Trump authorized for declassification was documents related to the ongoing review by Attorney General Bill Barr into the genesis of the Russia investigation .
In a motion seeking to dismiss the request from BuzzFeed News , another Justice Department attorney went even further , stating Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ do not refer to any specific document and do not indicate that the President was exercising his Constitutional authority to declassify specific information .
They were not an order to declassify particular material.
” The president has broad authority to declassify documents without any formal process .
In his first tweet last week , Trump wrote : “ I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History , the Russia Hoax .
Likewise , the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tweeted , “ All Russia Hoax Scandal information was Declassified by me long ago .
”

Two tweets by President Donald Trump last week stating he had “fully authorized the total declassification” of all documents related to the Russia investigation should not be taken literally, the Justice Department said in court documents Tuesday.
Trump claimed in one tweet that he had ordered the declassification of the “Russia Hoax Scandal” information long ago.
But it seems the Justice Department never got the message.
The Justice Department was told by the White House counsel that Trump’s “statements on Twitter were not self-executing declassification orders and do not require the declassification of any particular documents.”
The government’s official position — and the White House’s — was given in court filings responding to three separate emergency motions that BuzzFeed News filed last week to compel the government to immediately release unredacted copies of Russia-related documents sought in its Freedom of Information Act lawsuits. The documents at issue included an unredacted copy of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, unredacted copies of FBI interview summaries of witnesses who spoke to Mueller’s investigators, and thousands of other records that BuzzFeed News sued the government for last year.
Hours after BuzzFeed News filed the motions, the federal judge presiding over two of those cases directed the Justice Department to “confer with the White House” and report back to the court the “official position regarding the declassification and release to the public of information related to the Russia investigation.” A different judge handling a separate lawsuit gave the department until Oct. 16 to respond but didn’t order that it consult with the White House.
On Tuesday, Bradley Weinsheimer, associate deputy attorney general, said in a declaration for the court that after consulting with the White House counsel, the Justice Department was informed that Trump’s tweets “do not require altering any redactions on any record” cited in BuzzFeed News’ lawsuits.
Additionally, Weinsheimer noted that what Trump authorized for declassification was documents related to the ongoing review by Attorney General Bill Barr into the genesis of the Russia investigation.
In a motion seeking to dismiss the request from BuzzFeed News, another Justice Department attorney went even further, stating Trump’s tweets are “ambiguous” and “do not refer to any specific document and do not indicate that the President was exercising his Constitutional authority to declassify specific information. They were not an order to declassify particular material.”
The president has broad authority to declassify documents without any formal process.
In his first tweet last week, Trump wrote: “I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History, the Russia Hoax. Likewise, the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal. No redactions!”
He later tweeted, “All Russia Hoax Scandal information was Declassified by me long ago.”


buzzfeed--2020-10-17--16 Things I Learned From My Toxic Friendship

It 's natural for friends to lean on each other during hard times — but overall , both of you @ @ @ @ @ are being met and you 're maintaining your independence .
Sometimes you may need to @ @ @ @ @ friend — but when this becomes constant , you might need to ask yourself if @ @ @ @ @ the same for you .
What 's going on in your life is just as @ @ @ @ @ on in theirs , even if their situation might seem more serious .
Jacobs says @ @ @ @ @ too much to another ’ s 'needs , ' whether it be feeling like you @ @ @ @ @ as to not upset them or spending copious amounts of emotional energy figuring out how @ @ @ @ @ are sacrificing pieces of who you are for the sake of the relationship .
This @ @ @ @ @ the friendship , one that can be quite hard to recalibrate . ''

But some friendships can be...well, draining. Some can even be toxic. There's a lot of focus when we're growing up and in media on romantic relationships and what good and bad relationships look like — but what about good and bad friendships?


buzzfeed--2020-10-17--A Blind Woman Is Going Viral For Showing How She Does Everyday Tasks

Lucy 's message for other people who are blind is this : `` You are blind , not broken .
@ @ @ @ @ bad blind days , but , I promise you , it is going to be @ @ @ @ @ side — even if you ca n't see the sun .
It is about looking @ @ @ @ @ , not what we ca n't .
And , to anyone out there reading this @ @ @ @ @ can acquire a disability at any point — just because someone is disabled does n't @ @ @ @ @ are .
Do n't just look at a person 's impairment , look at the @ @ @ @ @ is something to celebrate , and we should all be proud of who we are @ @ @ @ @ when I came out as blind to myself , accepted who I was , and @ @ @ @ @

Lucy's message for other people who are blind is this: "You are blind, not broken. There are going to be bad blind days, but, I promise you, it is going to be OK. Look on the bright side — even if you can't see the sun. It is about looking at what we can do, not what we can't. And, to anyone out there reading this without a disability, you can acquire a disability at any point — just because someone is disabled doesn't mean they lose who they are. Don't just look at a person's impairment, look at the whole person. Being different is something to celebrate, and we should all be proud of who we are. I found true acceptance when I came out as blind to myself, accepted who I was, and became unapologetically Lucy."


buzzfeed--2020-10-17--Barron Trump Tested Positive For COVID-19

Barron Trump tested positive for COVID-19 shortly after his parents revealed they had been infected with the virus , first lady Melania Trump announced Wednesday .
President Donald Trump and the first lady announced they had tested positive for the virus on Oct. 1 .
The next day , the president was flown to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center , where he was tended by a team of doctors for three days .
`` Naturally , my mind went immediately to our son , '' the first lady said in a statement released Wednesday .
`` To our great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as so many parents have thought over the past months , I could n't help but think 'what about tomorrow or the next day ? '
My fear came true when he was tested again and it came up positive . ''
Melania said Barron , 14 , exhibited no symptoms during his infection and has since tested negative , although no date was given as to when the test was conducted .
`` In one way I was glad the three of us went through this at the same time so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and spend time together , '' the statement added .
The infections among members of the first family came after the president for months took on a cavalier and dismissive tone against measures recommended by his own CDC on how to prevent and slow down the spread of the coronavirus .
The president held large indoor rallies and mocked his election rival , Joe Biden , for wearing a mask .
He has also refused to regularly wear a mask and did not do so publicly until months into the pandemic .
Just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positive test result , the White House held a gathering to announce the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court , an event where people sat shoulder to shoulder and few wore masks .
The event is now believed to be a possible super-spreader event .
In her statement , the first lady said she herself experienced only minimal symptoms , such as body aches , a cough , headaches , and fatigue but decided to take a `` more natural route in terms of medicine , opting more for vitamins @ @ @ @ @

Barron Trump tested positive for COVID-19 shortly after his parents revealed they had been infected with the virus, first lady Melania Trump announced Wednesday.
President Donald Trump and the first lady announced they had tested positive for the virus on Oct. 1. The next day, the president was flown to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, where he was tended by a team of doctors for three days.
"Naturally, my mind went immediately to our son," the first lady said in a statement released Wednesday. "To our great relief he tested negative, but again, as so many parents have thought over the past months, I couldn't help but think 'what about tomorrow or the next day?' My fear came true when he was tested again and it came up positive."
Melania said Barron, 14, exhibited no symptoms during his infection and has since tested negative, although no date was given as to when the test was conducted.
"In one way I was glad the three of us went through this at the same time so we could take care of one another and spend time together," the statement added.
The infections among members of the first family came after the president for months took on a cavalier and dismissive tone against measures recommended by his own CDC on how to prevent and slow down the spread of the coronavirus.
The president held large indoor rallies and mocked his election rival, Joe Biden, for wearing a mask. He has also refused to regularly wear a mask and did not do so publicly until months into the pandemic.
Just days before news of the president's positive test result, the White House held a gathering to announce the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, an event where people sat shoulder to shoulder and few wore masks. The event is now believed to be a possible super-spreader event.
In her statement, the first lady said she herself experienced only minimal symptoms, such as body aches, a cough, headaches, and fatigue but decided to take a "more natural route in terms of medicine, opting more for vitamins and healthy food."


buzzfeed--2020-10-18--16 Things I Learned From My Toxic Friendship


buzzfeed--2020-10-18--A Blind Woman Is Going Viral For Showing How She Does Everyday Tasks


buzzfeed--2020-10-17--Savannah Guthrie Compared Trump To A "Crazy Uncle" For Sharing False Bin Laden Conspiracy Theories

NBC anchor Savannah Guthrie called out President Donald Trump at the network 's presidential town hall event Thursday for sharing false conspiracy theories relating to the death of Osama bin Laden .
`` You 're the president , '' the Today show anchor told Trump .
`` You 're not someone 's crazy uncle who can retweet whatever . ''
Guthrie 's comment came after she asked the president about why he had shared at least two posts from followers of the QAnon mass delusion to his 87 million Twitter followers that questioned whether 9/11 terrorist leader Osama bin Laden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tweets suggested former President Barack Obama and former vice president Joe Biden , Trump 's opponent in the 2020 election , had secretly had a bin Laden body double killed .
His tweets prompted a widespread outcry , including from Robert O'Neill , the former Navy SEAL who fired the shots that killed bin Laden during the 2011 raid in Pakistan .
`` Very brave men said [ goodbye ] to their kids to go kill Osama bin Laden .
We were given the order by President Obama .
It was not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who is a supporter of Trump .

NBC anchor Savannah Guthrie called out President Donald Trump at the network's presidential town hall event Thursday for sharing false conspiracy theories relating to the death of Osama bin Laden.
"You're the president," the Today show anchor told Trump. "You're not someone's crazy uncle who can retweet whatever."
Guthrie's comment came after she asked the president about why he had shared at least two posts from followers of the QAnon mass delusion to his 87 million Twitter followers that questioned whether 9/11 terrorist leader Osama bin Laden had really been killed.
The false tweets suggested former President Barack Obama and former vice president Joe Biden, Trump's opponent in the 2020 election, had secretly had a bin Laden body double killed.
His tweets prompted a widespread outcry, including from Robert O'Neill, the former Navy SEAL who fired the shots that killed bin Laden during the 2011 raid in Pakistan.
"Very brave men said [goodbye] to their kids to go kill Osama bin Laden. We were given the order by President Obama. It was not a body double," tweeted O'Neill, who is a supporter of Trump.


buzzfeed--2020-10-17--Scientists Are Slamming The Great Barrington Declaration’s Call For “Herd Immunity”

As the Trump administration signals a willingness to build “ herd immunity ” by purposely allowing the coronavirus to spread , major scientific organizations are denouncing a plan they say would be life-threatening and practically impossible .
That plan , laid out by three scientists in a controversial document called the `` Great Barrington Declaration , '' calls for only protecting “ vulnerable ” people and letting everyone else get infected with COVID-19 .
The authors discussed the strategy in a meeting with two top White House officials last week .
This week , top US heath official Anthony Fauci @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Organization , and more than a dozen groups representing thousands of infectious disease and public health experts fiercely pushed back in a series of formal denouncements .
“ We just got ta look that square in the eye and say it ’ s nonsense , ” Fauci , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , told ABC News Thursday .
“ Never in the history of public health has herd immunity been used as a strategy for responding to an outbreak , let alone a pandemic .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said on Monday .
And on Wednesday , a group of 80 researchers called the idea “ a dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence ” in a letter published in the Lancet , a high-profile medical journal .
The Great Barrington Declaration , published on a website sponsored by a libertarian think tank , argues that the coronavirus is not that dangerous for many people , so “ those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal.
” Citing “ grave concerns about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the prevailing COVID-19 policies , ” the letter calls for bringing back in-person teaching , reopening restaurants and businesses , and resuming large gatherings like concerts and sports events .
So far , the letter has been signed by more than 35,000 self-identified scientists and clinicians — although some signatories , such as “ Dr .
Johnny Bananas ” and “ Professor Cominic Dummings , '' were identified as clearly fake .
All of the signatures were later made private .
The document ’ s architects are a trio of scientists from Harvard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of whom have been telling policymakers for months that the virus is not that deadly .
Last week they met with Alex Azar , secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services , and Scott Atlas , a Stanford neuroradiologist on the White House coronavirus task force .
Both expressed support for the scientists ’ views .
Afterward , Azar tweeted that they heard “ strong reinforcement of the Trump Administration ’ s strategy of aggressively protecting the vulnerable while opening schools and the workplace.
” And on a call convened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anonymous senior administration officials referenced the Great Barrington Declaration to reporters .
“ We ’ re not endorsing a plan , ” one official said , according to the Washington Post .
“ The plan is endorsing what the president ’ s policy has been for months.
” The Great Barrington Declaration is stirring public interest months into a pandemic that the federal government has failed to control .
More than 216,000 Americans have died .
Life has been upended in virtually every sense : Jobs have been lost on a massive scale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and businesses , schools , and restaurants closed .
Data indicates that the pandemic is having non–COVID-19 health effects : People are putting off getting screened for cancer and treated for strokes , and more adults are having issues related to mental health and substance abuse .
As the world awaits a vaccine , “ pandemic fatigue ” is spreading in the US and elsewhere .
In the UK , where COVID-19 cases are surging again , lawmakers are contending with public resistance as they seek to implement a second round of lockdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says that essentially giving up on protecting healthy people from the virus is not an acceptable solution .
Up to 90 % of the US population remains susceptible to the virus , according to recent CDC estimates .
Health experts worry that letting the pathogen spread unchecked in healthy people , in the absence of a vaccine , would sicken , hospitalize , and kill many of them , not to mention overwhelm the healthcare system .
And even if young , healthy people die at relatively lower rates , they can still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ join the “ long-haulers ” who endure debilitating symptoms for months on end .
It also is not guaranteed that survivors will become immune forever : No one knows how long immunity lasts , and there have been a handful of reported reinfections .
These experts also say that it would also be next to impossible to isolate the millions of “ vulnerable ” Americans who are elderly , have preexisting conditions , or live in multigenerational households .
The Great Barrington Declaration proposes to sequester these groups from the rest of society @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how to do so .
“ Promoting the concept of ‘ herd immunity ’ as framed in a recently circulated document as an answer to the COVID-19 pandemic is inappropriate , irresponsible and ill-informed , ” said the heads of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the HIV Medicine Association , which respectively represent more than 12,000 infectious disease experts and 6,000 HIV/AIDS specialists , in a statement Wednesday .
In another joint statement on Wednesday , 14 prominent public health organizations declared that “ the suggestions put forth by the Great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and they would “ haphazardly and unnecessarily sacrifice lives.
” “ The declaration is not a strategy , it is a political statement , ” wrote the groups , which included the American Public Health Association , the Association of Public Health Laboratories , and the Johns Hopkins Center for Public Security .
“ It ignores sound public health expertise .
It preys on a frustrated populace .
Instead of selling false hope that will predictably backfire , we must focus on how to manage this pandemic in a safe , responsible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group of 80 researchers is countering the Great Barrington Declaration with an open letter of its own : the John Snow Memorandum , named for the 19th-century physician who tracked the source of a cholera outbreak in London and is considered a founder of modern epidemiology .
In the letter , the signatories acknowledged that there has been “ widespread demoralisation and diminishing trust ” in the face of ongoing restrictions in countries that have failed to adopt “ adequate provisions to manage the pandemic and its societal impacts.
” But society can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unchecked in large groups of people , argued the letter , which was led by 30 researchers and signed by 50 others spanning public health , epidemiology , medicine , health policy , and other disciplines .
Measures such as widespread testing and contact tracing need to be implemented , “ and they must be supported by financial and social programmes that encourage community responses and address the inequities that have been amplified by the pandemic , ” they wrote .
They cited Japan , Vietnam , and New Zealand as countries that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The evidence is very clear : controlling community spread of COVID-19 is the best way to protect our societies and economies until safe and effective vaccines and therapeutics arrive within the coming months , ” they wrote .
“ We can not afford distractions that undermine an effective response ; it is essential that we act urgently based on the evidence .
”

As the Trump administration signals a willingness to build “herd immunity” by purposely allowing the coronavirus to spread, major scientific organizations are denouncing a plan they say would be life-threatening and practically impossible.
That plan, laid out by three scientists in a controversial document called the "Great Barrington Declaration," calls for only protecting “vulnerable” people and letting everyone else get infected with COVID-19. The authors discussed the strategy in a meeting with two top White House officials last week.
This week, top US heath official Anthony Fauci, the head of the World Health Organization, and more than a dozen groups representing thousands of infectious disease and public health experts fiercely pushed back in a series of formal denouncements.
“We just gotta look that square in the eye and say it’s nonsense,” Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told ABC News Thursday.
“Never in the history of public health has herd immunity been used as a strategy for responding to an outbreak, let alone a pandemic. It is scientifically and ethically problematic,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said on Monday.
And on Wednesday, a group of 80 researchers called the idea “a dangerous fallacy unsupported by scientific evidence” in a letter published in the Lancet, a high-profile medical journal.
The Great Barrington Declaration, published on a website sponsored by a libertarian think tank, argues that the coronavirus is not that dangerous for many people, so “those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal.” Citing “grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies,” the letter calls for bringing back in-person teaching, reopening restaurants and businesses, and resuming large gatherings like concerts and sports events.
So far, the letter has been signed by more than 35,000 self-identified scientists and clinicians — although some signatories, such as “Dr. Johnny Bananas” and “Professor Cominic Dummings," were identified as clearly fake. All of the signatures were later made private.
The document’s architects are a trio of scientists from Harvard, Stanford, and Oxford universities, some of whom have been telling policymakers for months that the virus is not that deadly. Last week they met with Alex Azar, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, and Scott Atlas, a Stanford neuroradiologist on the White House coronavirus task force.
Both expressed support for the scientists’ views. Afterward, Azar tweeted that they heard “strong reinforcement of the Trump Administration’s strategy of aggressively protecting the vulnerable while opening schools and the workplace.” And on a call convened by the White House on Monday, anonymous senior administration officials referenced the Great Barrington Declaration to reporters. “We’re not endorsing a plan,” one official said, according to the Washington Post. “The plan is endorsing what the president’s policy has been for months.”
The Great Barrington Declaration is stirring public interest months into a pandemic that the federal government has failed to control. More than 216,000 Americans have died. Life has been upended in virtually every sense: Jobs have been lost on a massive scale, gatherings large and small canceled, and businesses, schools, and restaurants closed. Data indicates that the pandemic is having non–COVID-19 health effects: People are putting off getting screened for cancer and treated for strokes, and more adults are having issues related to mental health and substance abuse.
As the world awaits a vaccine, “pandemic fatigue” is spreading in the US and elsewhere. In the UK, where COVID-19 cases are surging again, lawmakers are contending with public resistance as they seek to implement a second round of lockdown measures.
But the mainstream scientific community says that essentially giving up on protecting healthy people from the virus is not an acceptable solution.
Up to 90% of the US population remains susceptible to the virus, according to recent CDC estimates. Health experts worry that letting the pathogen spread unchecked in healthy people, in the absence of a vaccine, would sicken, hospitalize, and kill many of them, not to mention overwhelm the healthcare system. And even if young, healthy people die at relatively lower rates, they can still transmit the virus to at-risk groups or join the “long-haulers” who endure debilitating symptoms for months on end. It also is not guaranteed that survivors will become immune forever: No one knows how long immunity lasts, and there have been a handful of reported reinfections.
These experts also say that it would also be next to impossible to isolate the millions of “vulnerable” Americans who are elderly, have preexisting conditions, or live in multigenerational households. The Great Barrington Declaration proposes to sequester these groups from the rest of society but does not provide a plan for how to do so.
“Promoting the concept of ‘herd immunity’ as framed in a recently circulated document as an answer to the COVID-19 pandemic is inappropriate, irresponsible and ill-informed,” said the heads of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the HIV Medicine Association, which respectively represent more than 12,000 infectious disease experts and 6,000 HIV/AIDS specialists, in a statement Wednesday.
In another joint statement on Wednesday, 14 prominent public health organizations declared that “the suggestions put forth by the Great Barrington Declaration are NOT based in science” and they would “haphazardly and unnecessarily sacrifice lives.”
“The declaration is not a strategy, it is a political statement,” wrote the groups, which included the American Public Health Association, the Association of Public Health Laboratories, and the Johns Hopkins Center for Public Security. “It ignores sound public health expertise. It preys on a frustrated populace. Instead of selling false hope that will predictably backfire, we must focus on how to manage this pandemic in a safe, responsible, and equitable way.”
And a group of 80 researchers is countering the Great Barrington Declaration with an open letter of its own: the John Snow Memorandum, named for the 19th-century physician who tracked the source of a cholera outbreak in London and is considered a founder of modern epidemiology.
In the letter, the signatories acknowledged that there has been “widespread demoralisation and diminishing trust” in the face of ongoing restrictions in countries that have failed to adopt “adequate provisions to manage the pandemic and its societal impacts.”
But society cannot simply allow the virus to spread unchecked in large groups of people, argued the letter, which was led by 30 researchers and signed by 50 others spanning public health, epidemiology, medicine, health policy, and other disciplines.
Measures such as widespread testing and contact tracing need to be implemented, “and they must be supported by financial and social programmes that encourage community responses and address the inequities that have been amplified by the pandemic,” they wrote. They cited Japan, Vietnam, and New Zealand as countries that have shown that transmission can be controlled.
“The evidence is very clear: controlling community spread of COVID-19 is the best way to protect our societies and economies until safe and effective vaccines and therapeutics arrive within the coming months,” they wrote.
“We cannot afford distractions that undermine an effective response; it is essential that we act urgently based on the evidence.”


buzzfeed--2020-10-18--Gal Gadot Broke Her Silence On Her Controversial "Imagine" Video, Calling It "Not The Right Good Dee

Gal Gadot Broke Her Silence On Her Controversial "Imagine" Video, Calling It "Not The Right Good Deed"

In the video , she says that the pandemic has made her feel `` philosophical '' and that it `` @ @ @ @ @ are , where you 're from , we 're all in this together . ''
@ @ @ @ @ Imagine , '' and is joined by a roster of other A-list celebs , including @ @ @ @ @ , Natalie Portman , Jimmy Fallon , Leslie Odom Jr. , Zoë Kravitz , Amy @ @ @ @ @ all singing from the comforts of their big ol ' Hollywood homes .

"Sometimes it can get me in trouble," she said. “There is something that I’ve learned to say, which is, ‘I don’t disagree with you, but’ — so basically I’m disagreeing with you. So I adapted. I just came to the conclusion: I do me, you do you. I’d rather have you not liking me at this moment than not saying my truth.”


buzzfeed--2020-10-18--Savannah Guthrie Compared Trump To A "Crazy Uncle" For Sharing False Bin Laden Conspiracy Theories


buzzfeed--2020-10-18--Why Does The Electoral College Still Exist?


buzzfeed--2020-10-19--A Blind Woman Is Going Viral For Showing How She Does Everyday Tasks


buzzfeed--2020-10-19--These Scientists Have A Controversial Plan For “Herd Immunity” — And The White House Is Listening

For months , a small group of scientists has pushed policies that mainstream health experts say would cause many more COVID-19 deaths .
They just got their biggest audience yet .
Kulldorff said they discussed their proposal with Azar and Atlas for under an hour .
But he insisted that he and his colleagues were not pushing a herd immunity “ strategy.
” “ No matter what strategy is used , we will reach herd immunity sooner or later , just as an airplane will reach the ground one way or another , ” Kulldorff said by email .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of death [ s ] until we reach herd immunity , and that is what the Great Barrington Declaration is about.
” Ravina Kullar , an infectious disease epidemiologist and a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America , vehemently disagreed with the scientists ’ vision .
“ Based on simple math and past experiences and outbreaks , and emerging evidence from this ongoing pandemic , this claim is quite honestly a fantasy , ” she said .
The letter calls for nursing homes to have frequent testing and staffers with “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ living at home to have supplies delivered .
But it is light on specifics , saying that “ a comprehensive and detailed list of measures , including approaches to multi-generational households , can be implemented , and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.
” This language doesn ’ t come anywhere near acknowledging how challenging it would be to implement such a plan , outside experts say .
Isolating people who have preexisting conditions that make them especially susceptible to the virus would mean isolating nearly half the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who have the relatively highest risk of death , would mean isolating an overlapping group of tens of millions .
Only about 13 % of Americans over the age of 64 were in a nursing home or other senior living setting in 2015 , meaning the vast majority are embedded in communities .
About 64 million Americans lived in multigenerational households as of 2016 .
What the Great Barrington Declaration also does not acknowledge is that young , healthy adults who get infected can spread the virus to middle-aged and older Americans , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Young people themselves may die of COVID-19 at much lower rates than older people , but a not insignificant portion get sick enough to become hospitalized , straining the healthcare system that much more .
And “ long-haulers , ” many of them young and formerly healthy , can for months experience debilitating effects that are not yet understood .
“ They ’ re not going to be able to age-target , ” Gonsalves said .
“ They ’ re not going to be able to protect these hundreds of millions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vaccine is highly impractical for other reasons , too .
For one , scientists are not sure how long immunity lasts , and there have been a handful of reported cases of reinfection .
And the CDC director recently estimated that as many as 90 % of Americans remain susceptible to the virus .
Even in New York , one of the hardest-hit places in the country and therefore among the closest to herd immunity , the virus has infected only about 20 % of the population .
Purposely letting the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ millions .
More would continue to get infected and die even once herd immunity was reached , scientists say .
“ Depending on natural infections to control the outbreak could lead to months , if not years , of a cycle where cases subside and then they surge , ” said Ravina Kullar of the Infectious Diseases Society of America .
“ That is not the solution to this pandemic.
” Asked about these and other criticisms , Kulldorff said he was open to a “ proper scientific debate ” with anyone who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ return multiple requests for comment .
Spokespeople for Stanford and Oxford did not comment on the Great Barrington Declaration other than to say that the institutions supported their faculty members ’ academic freedom .
Harvard did not return a request for comment .
The US is caught in a “ patchwork pandemic ” — a whack-a-mole game where outbreaks have jumped from region to region where restrictions were either never put into place or were prematurely scaled back .
The lack of national coordination of public health measures like masking , contact tracing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cycle , Gonsalves said .
“ We could be like countries in Asia and countries in Europe and other places that have buffered the effects of the pandemic while doing real frontline public health to keep rates down , and we haven ’ t done it , ” he said .
“ And we made a national choice to do that.
” As the pandemic worsens and the election nears , the White House has increasingly peddled the idea that the virus can be vanquished through natural immunity .
Or , as Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Sept. 15 , “ herd mentality.
” At the event , he proclaimed that the US was “ rounding the corner ” on the pandemic .
The interviewer pointed out that Anthony Fauci , the nation ’ s top infectious diseases expert , disagreed .
“ Well , I mean , but a lot of people do agree with me , ” the president replied .
“ You look at Scott Atlas , you look at some of the other doctors that are highly ... from Stanford .
Look at some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later , a reporter asked Atlas about the CDC director ’ s recent assertion that most Americans are still susceptible to infections .
Atlas said that the director had “ misstated ” the situation , and cited Kulldorff , Bhattacharya , Ioannidis , and Gupta .
“ These are people who know the latest data on the immunology and what ’ s happening , and I just recited it to you , ” he said .
On Sept. 24 , Bhattacharya and Kulldorff joined a livestreamed discussion with Florida ’ s governor .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stanford , a Nobel laureate who has incorrectly predicted that the virus was about to run its course in multiple countries — vouched for the governor ’ s efforts to reopen schools and the economy .
“ At this point , we know that the benefits of a lockdown are small , ” Bhattacharya said .
“ All they do is push cases off into the future ; it doesn ’ t actually prevent the disease from happening .
And the costs are absolutely catastrophic , enormous.
” The next day , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Florida college campuses , DeSantis announced that the state was lifting all restrictions on restaurants and businesses .
“ Dr .
Scott Atlas and Dr. Bhattacharya are truth tellers in a sea of government misinformation , ” Sen. Rand Paul , a Kentucky Republican , tweeted on Sept. 28 .
Yet despite receiving national attention for his ideas , Bhattacharya has repeatedly claimed he is being silenced .
“ I ’ ve been really concerned about censorship in science around this epidemic , ” he said on a podcast last month .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I think that has been one of the things I ’ ve regretted throughout this entire crisis , ” he said , “ is this attempt to suppress scientific discussion because some ideas are too dangerous to even discuss.
” Who was suppressing him , he didn ’ t say .
The video was posted Oct. 5 , the day of his meeting with the Trump administration .
●

On Monday, as President Donald Trump was urging the world not to fear the virus he was newly infected with, top health officials of his were meeting with a trio of scientists pushing the same belief.
Their highly controversial recommendation to Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and coronavirus task force adviser Scott Atlas: Only “vulnerable” people should be protected from the virus. It should be allowed to spread among everyone else until they achieve “herd” immunity, a tipping point at which the virus fizzles out because enough people are immune.
According to many health experts who weren’t in the room, this is a dangerous proposal to unleash on a population that, by and large, is still susceptible to infection. Aiming for herd immunity would needlessly sicken and kill countless people on top of the more than 210,000 Americans who have already died. It’s also impractical: Many scientists agree that it would be enormously difficult to reach herd immunity without an effective and widely used vaccine.
Nevertheless, the three epidemiologists — Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University, and Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University — have been broadcasting their ideas far and wide. Now they’re finding a warm reception at the highest levels of decision-making in the US.
The same day as their meeting with Azar and Atlas, they laid out their argument for what they dubbed “focused protection” in an open letter on a website newly registered to a libertarian think tank, the American Institute for Economic Research. And they touted the plan on Laura Ingraham’s Fox News show.
“Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal,” read the letter, called the Great Barrington Declaration, which by Friday had been signed by an additional 5,900-plus self-identified “medical and public health scientists,” though at least dozens of those names appear to be fake. The letter called for bringing back in-person teaching, reopening restaurants and businesses, and resuming large gatherings like concerts and sport events, citing “grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies.”
For months, some of the letter’s authors and a small contingent of other scientists, who also believe that the coronavirus is not deadly enough to justify lockdowns, have been writing op-eds and talking to policymakers across the country. As early as March, a group of them, including Bhattacharya, tried to meet with Trump to warn him against lockdown policies that had not yet even started in most of the US.
At this week’s meeting in Washington, DC, Azar appeared to like what he had heard, as first reported by the Hill. “We heard strong reinforcement of the Trump Administration’s strategy of aggressively protecting the vulnerable while opening schools and the workplace,” he wrote on Twitter.
Also there was Atlas, a Stanford neuroradiologist whose speciality is not infectious diseases or epidemiology. He was the scientists’ “point of contact” for the meeting, according to Politico.
“I do not advocate any ‘strategy’ of achieving herd immunity and have never advised the president to pursue that,” Atlas told BuzzFeed News by email. “To say that was a strategy even suggested at our meeting would be a gross misinterpretation.” He has repeatedly advocated for allowing the virus to spread among healthy people in order to achieve widespread immunity.
“All of my policy recommendations are directly backed by the science, and they are in line with what many of the world's top infectious disease scientists advise,” he wrote, referencing a group of scientists that included Bhattacharya, Kulldorff, and Gupta.
But Gregg Gonsalves, an epidemiologist who specializes in infectious diseases at Yale School of Public Health, said the scientists’ proposal is not out of place with what Trump and his administration are already doing to undermine government scientists, cast doubt on masks and other public health interventions, and generally fail to control a pandemic that has infected more than 7 million Americans.
“It isn’t that they’re reorienting their strategy toward herd immunity — it’s been that all along,” Gonsalves told BuzzFeed News, calling the Great Barrington Declaration “slightly grotesque” and “shocking.” “It goes really, really far in terms of reopening all the institutions that we’ve been trying to manage outbreaks in,” he said. “They go way out on a limb.”


buzzfeed--2020-10-20--17 Eye-Opening Films And Documentaries That Made People Cut Out Meat

`` I had wanted to go veggie for years and after an illness made me unable to try , I @ @ @ @ @ my flatmates happened to be meat-free , and their eating habits did n't seem so @ @ @ @ @ watching the graphic scenes in Cowspiricy on Netflix really helped the decision ! ''
`` @ @ @ @ @ then I just continued my own research ! ''

BuzzFeed Bring Me
Obsessed with travel? Discover unique things to do, places to eat, and sights to see in the best destinations around the world with Bring Me!


buzzfeed--2020-10-19--16 Things I Learned From My Toxic Friendship


buzzfeed--2020-10-20--Here’s How Private Equity Firms Targeted Republican Sen. John Cornyn With Dark Money To Preserve Sur

Here’s How Private Equity Firms Targeted Republican Sen. John Cornyn With Dark Money To Preserve Surprise Medical Billing

WASHINGTON — Last June , Texas Sen. John Cornyn was one of many senators to tout a bipartisan bill to end surprise medical billing — patients unwittingly being hit with hefty out-of-network bills — once and for all .
Then the money came .
Private equity companies launched a yearlong , nation-wide dark money campaign worth tens of millions of dollars to kill the bill , and Cornyn was in their crosshairs .
The companies spent millions of dollars on ads in Texas pressuring Cornyn , while executives personally donated tens of thousands of dollars to Cornyn ’ s reelection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rival bill backed by private equity , and Congress , divided between the plans , did not pass anything to protect vulnerable patients from being hit with massive bills for emergency room visits .
It ’ s a saga that played out in several key swing states where Republicans , like Cornyn , are facing tough reelection fights , and it shows how powerful industry groups can lean on Congress to block fixes to deeply unpopular — and harmful — problems , not through shady backroom deals but expensive ad campaigns that play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 , it seemed obvious that surprise billing would not be long for this world .
Politicians unanimously agreed it was a brazenly unfair practice that exploited vulnerable patients , and needed to be banned .
Surprise bills come from a gap in the system : Patients go to a hospital inside their health insurance network , only to be later hit by a hefty bill because the hospital employees who treated them turn out to be out-of-network .
These out-of-network specialists can charge whatever they want .
Emergency room patients have no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coming — after all , they are going to hospitals ostensibly covered by their insurance plan — and no recourse to stop them .
Yet they had become endemic , with one 2019 study finding that 4 out of every 10 emergency room visits resulted in a surprise bill .
A 60-year-old woman with COVID-19 who needed to be airlifted to a hospital for treatment was charged $ 52,000 for the flight , the New York Times recently reported .
The Senate Committee on Health , Education , Labor , and Pensions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill to end surprise billing by hamstringing both doctors and insurance companies ; it would put limits on how much out-of-network medical staff could charge and require insurers to cover the costs .
In June 2019 , the bill passed through committee by a vote of 20–3 ( Cornyn is not on the committee ) .
Then , in late July , a mysterious new group called Doctor Patient Unity was incorporated .
Within just a few weeks , it spent $ 2.3 million on ads attacking the HELP bill .
These ads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up for reelection .
In Texas , the ads mentioned Cornyn by name , urging constituents to call him and ask him to oppose “ government rate setting.
” For a while , no one knew who was paying for these ads .
As the name suggests , Doctor Patient Unity claimed to represent doctors and patients .
It would later be revealed that the PAC was run by the private equity giants that profit off of surprise medical billing , Blackstone Group and KKR & Co .
In recent years both had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hire out ER doctors , radiologists , and anesthesiologists to hospitals .
These specialists are most likely to issue surprise medical bills .
For Blackstone and KKR , a lot was on the line .
Both had bought up staffing firms with massive leveraged buyouts : KKR took out a $ 4.5 billion loan to acquire Envision Healthcare in 2018 , while Blackstone borrowed $ 2.7 billion to buy TeamHealth in 2017 .
The sales were followed by a sharp rise in surprise billing .
Last summer , Wall Street grew concerned that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thus threatening the repayment of these loans .
The value of Envision ’ s debt fell to 77 cents on the dollar , while ratings agencies Fitch and Moody ’ s lowered their outlooks for Envision and TeamHealth .
Doctor Patient Unity quickly became an advertising powerhouse .
Through the second half of 2019 , it spent a whopping $ 54 million on ads attacking legislation to end surprise billing , according to Bloomberg News .
FEC data shows the ads ran in states with tight Senate races like North Carolina , Georgia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cornyn is facing off against Democratic challenger MJ Hegar .
Doctor Patient Unity didn ’ t respond to a request for comment .
In early September , KKR threw Cornyn a fundraiser in New York City .
Cornyn reported $ 89,000 in personal donations from executives at KKR , Envision Healthcare , and Global Medical Response , an air ambulance company also owned by KKR .
Air ambulances can result in surprise bills of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars .
Private equity–owned companies charge almost twice as much for air ambulances @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that KKR has long been a supporter of the senator and the fundraiser was not linked to the issue of surprise medical billing .
As momentum in Congress shifted away from the HELP bill over the fall — and towards proposals favored by ER doctors — the ad campaigns shifted as well .
In October , Doctor Patient Unity was again running ads in Texas , but these no longer mentioned Cornyn by name .
Instead , they attacked “ big insurance companies ” for pushing a government rate-setting scheme that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and fewer healthcare options for us all.
” When Cornyn next spoke about the HELP bill he committed to debating it and offering amendments — but not to voting for it .
In a speech on the Senate floor in November , he blamed Democrats for endangering the chances of passing any health reform because they were obsessed with impeaching President Donald Trump .

WASHINGTON — Last June, Texas Sen. John Cornyn was one of many senators to tout a bipartisan bill to end surprise medical billing — patients unwittingly being hit with hefty out-of-network bills — once and for all. Then the money came.
Private equity companies launched a yearlong, nation-wide dark money campaign worth tens of millions of dollars to kill the bill, and Cornyn was in their crosshairs. The companies spent millions of dollars on ads in Texas pressuring Cornyn, while executives personally donated tens of thousands of dollars to Cornyn’s reelection campaign.
Cornyn ended up supporting a rival bill backed by private equity, and Congress, divided between the plans, did not pass anything to protect vulnerable patients from being hit with massive bills for emergency room visits. It’s a saga that played out in several key swing states where Republicans, like Cornyn, are facing tough reelection fights, and it shows how powerful industry groups can lean on Congress to block fixes to deeply unpopular — and harmful — problems, not through shady backroom deals but expensive ad campaigns that play out in public.
Back in early 2019, it seemed obvious that surprise billing would not be long for this world. Politicians unanimously agreed it was a brazenly unfair practice that exploited vulnerable patients, and needed to be banned. Surprise bills come from a gap in the system: Patients go to a hospital inside their health insurance network, only to be later hit by a hefty bill because the hospital employees who treated them turn out to be out-of-network. These out-of-network specialists can charge whatever they want.
Emergency room patients have no way to know these surprise bills are coming — after all, they are going to hospitals ostensibly covered by their insurance plan — and no recourse to stop them. Yet they had become endemic, with one 2019 study finding that 4 out of every 10 emergency room visits resulted in a surprise bill. A 60-year-old woman with COVID-19 who needed to be airlifted to a hospital for treatment was charged $52,000 for the flight, the New York Times recently reported.
The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, known as HELP, drafted a bipartisan bill to end surprise billing by hamstringing both doctors and insurance companies; it would put limits on how much out-of-network medical staff could charge and require insurers to cover the costs. In June 2019, the bill passed through committee by a vote of 20–3 (Cornyn is not on the committee).
Then, in late July, a mysterious new group called Doctor Patient Unity was incorporated. Within just a few weeks, it spent $2.3 million on ads attacking the HELP bill. These ads targeted swing states where vulnerable Republicans were up for reelection. In Texas, the ads mentioned Cornyn by name, urging constituents to call him and ask him to oppose “government rate setting.”
For a while, no one knew who was paying for these ads. As the name suggests, Doctor Patient Unity claimed to represent doctors and patients. It would later be revealed that the PAC was run by the private equity giants that profit off of surprise medical billing, Blackstone Group and KKR & Co. In recent years both had bought up physician staffing firms, which hire out ER doctors, radiologists, and anesthesiologists to hospitals. These specialists are most likely to issue surprise medical bills.
For Blackstone and KKR, a lot was on the line. Both had bought up staffing firms with massive leveraged buyouts: KKR took out a $4.5 billion loan to acquire Envision Healthcare in 2018, while Blackstone borrowed $2.7 billion to buy TeamHealth in 2017. The sales were followed by a sharp rise in surprise billing. Last summer, Wall Street grew concerned that Congressional action could lower doctor fees, thus threatening the repayment of these loans. The value of Envision’s debt fell to 77 cents on the dollar, while ratings agencies Fitch and Moody’s lowered their outlooks for Envision and TeamHealth.
Doctor Patient Unity quickly became an advertising powerhouse. Through the second half of 2019, it spent a whopping $54 million on ads attacking legislation to end surprise billing, according to Bloomberg News. FEC data shows the ads ran in states with tight Senate races like North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, and Texas, where Cornyn is facing off against Democratic challenger MJ Hegar. Doctor Patient Unity didn’t respond to a request for comment.
In early September, KKR threw Cornyn a fundraiser in New York City. Cornyn reported $89,000 in personal donations from executives at KKR, Envision Healthcare, and Global Medical Response, an air ambulance company also owned by KKR. Air ambulances can result in surprise bills of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. Private equity–owned companies charge almost twice as much for air ambulances than others.
A spokesperson for Cornyn said that KKR has long been a supporter of the senator and the fundraiser was not linked to the issue of surprise medical billing.
As momentum in Congress shifted away from the HELP bill over the fall — and towards proposals favored by ER doctors — the ad campaigns shifted as well. In October, Doctor Patient Unity was again running ads in Texas, but these no longer mentioned Cornyn by name. Instead, they attacked “big insurance companies” for pushing a government rate-setting scheme that “could mean fewer hospitals, fewer physicians, and fewer healthcare options for us all.”
When Cornyn next spoke about the HELP bill he committed to debating it and offering amendments — but not to voting for it. In a speech on the Senate floor in November, he blamed Democrats for endangering the chances of passing any health reform because they were obsessed with impeaching President Donald Trump.


buzzfeed--2020-10-20--The Supreme Court Will Let Pennsylvania Count Mail-In Ballots Received After Election Day

WASHINGTON — The US Supreme Court will allow election officials in Pennsylvania to count ballots received up to three days after Election Day , rejecting Republicans ' challenge to an expansion of mail-in voting in the state .
The court on Monday voted 4–4 on whether to take up the challenge , a tie that leaves in place a state court ruling that ordered the additional days of ballot-counting .
Pennsylvania Republicans had petitioned the justices to block a 4-3 ruling from the state Supreme Court last month that required election officials not only to count mail-in ballots postmarked by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5 p.m. , but also to count ballots without a clear postmark during that time frame as well , as long as there was no evidence it was put in the mail after Election Day .
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. sided with the court 's three liberal-leaning justices in voting to deny the state Republicans ' request for an immediate order temporarily halting the state court decision from taking effect before Election Day .
The court 's four other conservative-leaning justices voted in favor of granting the state Republicans ' request .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ dissenting opinion to explain their vote .
The possibility of tie votes loomed over the court 's docket after the death last month of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
President Donald Trump announced Judge Amy Coney Barrett as his nominee for Ginsburg 's seat a week after the late justice had died , publicly saying that he wanted a full bench to hear any election-related cases that might reach the court .
Republicans are racing to get Barrett confirmed ; the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on her nomination on Oct. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McConnell has committed to holding a final vote soon after .
Barrett has n't ruled in any election-related cases during her three years on the 7th Circuit .
During her Senate confirmation hearings last week , Democrats pressed her to commit to recusing from any election-related cases this year , given Trump 's comments that he expects the election to end up in the Supreme Court and that he is “ counting on ” the court to “ look at the ballots.
” Barrett declined to say what she would do .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faithfully applying the law of recusal .
...
I will apply the factors that other justices have before me in determining whether the circumstances require my recusal or not , ” Barrett said at the time .
“ But I ca n't offer a legal conclusion right now about the outcome of the decision I would reach.
” Voting rights advocates and state and national Democratic organizations have argued in courts across the country in favor of extending the deadlines for election officials to accept absentee ballots .
They 've pointed to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mail-in voting during the coronavirus pandemic and reported delays this summer with US Postal Service delivery times .
There are other election-related cases pending before the Supreme Court .
Democrats are challenging a decision by the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit earlier this month that reinstated Wisconsin 's Election Day deadline for accepting mail-in ballots ; a district judge had extended the deadline for receiving ballots until Nov. 9. , but the appeals court voted 2-1 to reverse that decision .
“ Today , in the midst of a pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court leaves voters to their own devices , ” Judge Ilana Rovner wrote in a dissenting opinion .
“ Good luck and G-d bless , Wisconsin .
You are going to need it.
” Republicans in Alabama , meanwhile , have petitioned the Supreme Court to undo a decision from the 11th Circuit this month that blocked the state from enforcing a de facto ban on curbside voting this year .
Other cases challenging how states are handling voting during the pandemic are still working their way up through state and federal courts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Election Day .
A federal judge in Pennsylvania earlier this month rejected an effort by Trump 's reelection campaign to challenge the state 's plan to set up drop sites where voters could return absentee ballots and to argue for stricter rules around when ballots are rejected because the voter 's signature does n't match what 's on file ; the campaign 's lawyers vowed to appeal , but have n't filed any paperwork to date .
The Supreme Court in recent months has generally sided with states seeking to enforce limits on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the court entered a brief order reinstating a South Carolina law that requires an absentee voter to have someone witness them signing their ballot and to prove it by having the witness sign the ballot , too .
No justice dissented from that decision .
In April , the court voted 5-4 — with Roberts joining the court 's other conservative-leaning justices — to block an extended timeline for counting mail-in ballots in Wisconsin during the primary election this spring .
In that case , the majority found that a federal district judge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting procedures just days before the election was scheduled to take place .

WASHINGTON — The US Supreme Court will allow election officials in Pennsylvania to count ballots received up to three days after Election Day, rejecting Republicans' challenge to an expansion of mail-in voting in the state.
The court on Monday voted 4–4 on whether to take up the challenge, a tie that leaves in place a state court ruling that ordered the additional days of ballot-counting.
Pennsylvania Republicans had petitioned the justices to block a 4-3 ruling from the state Supreme Court last month that required election officials not only to count mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day received by Nov. 6 at 5 p.m., but also to count ballots without a clear postmark during that time frame as well, as long as there was no evidence it was put in the mail after Election Day.
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. sided with the court's three liberal-leaning justices in voting to deny the state Republicans' request for an immediate order temporarily halting the state court decision from taking effect before Election Day. The court's four other conservative-leaning justices voted in favor of granting the state Republicans' request. No justice wrote a separate concurring or dissenting opinion to explain their vote.
The possibility of tie votes loomed over the court's docket after the death last month of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. President Donald Trump announced Judge Amy Coney Barrett as his nominee for Ginsburg's seat a week after the late justice had died, publicly saying that he wanted a full bench to hear any election-related cases that might reach the court. Republicans are racing to get Barrett confirmed; the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on her nomination on Oct. 22, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has committed to holding a final vote soon after.
Barrett hasn't ruled in any election-related cases during her three years on the 7th Circuit. During her Senate confirmation hearings last week, Democrats pressed her to commit to recusing from any election-related cases this year, given Trump's comments that he expects the election to end up in the Supreme Court and that he is “counting on” the court to “look at the ballots.” Barrett declined to say what she would do.
“I commit to you to fully and faithfully applying the law of recusal. ... I will apply the factors that other justices have before me in determining whether the circumstances require my recusal or not,” Barrett said at the time. “But I can't offer a legal conclusion right now about the outcome of the decision I would reach.”
Voting rights advocates and state and national Democratic organizations have argued in courts across the country in favor of extending the deadlines for election officials to accept absentee ballots. They've pointed to the one-two punch of an unprecedented surge in mail-in voting during the coronavirus pandemic and reported delays this summer with US Postal Service delivery times.
There are other election-related cases pending before the Supreme Court. Democrats are challenging a decision by the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit earlier this month that reinstated Wisconsin's Election Day deadline for accepting mail-in ballots; a district judge had extended the deadline for receiving ballots until Nov. 9., but the appeals court voted 2-1 to reverse that decision.
“Today, in the midst of a pandemic and significantly slowed mail delivery, this court leaves voters to their own devices,” Judge Ilana Rovner wrote in a dissenting opinion. “Good luck and G-d bless, Wisconsin. You are going to need it.”
Republicans in Alabama, meanwhile, have petitioned the Supreme Court to undo a decision from the 11th Circuit this month that blocked the state from enforcing a de facto ban on curbside voting this year. Other cases challenging how states are handling voting during the pandemic are still working their way up through state and federal courts and could also reach the justices before Election Day. A federal judge in Pennsylvania earlier this month rejected an effort by Trump's reelection campaign to challenge the state's plan to set up drop sites where voters could return absentee ballots and to argue for stricter rules around when ballots are rejected because the voter's signature doesn't match what's on file; the campaign's lawyers vowed to appeal, but haven't filed any paperwork to date.
The Supreme Court in recent months has generally sided with states seeking to enforce limits on mail-in voting. On Oct. 6, the court entered a brief order reinstating a South Carolina law that requires an absentee voter to have someone witness them signing their ballot and to prove it by having the witness sign the ballot, too. No justice dissented from that decision.
In April, the court voted 5-4 — with Roberts joining the court's other conservative-leaning justices — to block an extended timeline for counting mail-in ballots in Wisconsin during the primary election this spring. In that case, the majority found that a federal district judge was wrong to alter the state's voting procedures just days before the election was scheduled to take place.


buzzfeed--2020-10-20--This Is What Actual Teenagers Think About Claudia Conway

The daughter of former Trump strategist Kellyanne Conway has been treated as a political hero , but fellow teens just find her relatable .
As the list of Republicans and White House staffers diagnosed with COVID-19 grew over the last few weeks , all eyes seemed to be on an unlikely figure : a 16-year-old girl named Claudia Conway .
Claudia is the daughter of Kellyanne Conway , a former top adviser to President Donald Trump and a staple at the White House .
Kellyanne was among those who caught the virus , which we heard first not from breaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TikTok , where she has 1.5 million followers .
People also took to her liberal politics , and a star was born .
As people turned to the teen ’ s videos in the hope of insider information , a debate emerged over how exactly adults should think of a minor who 's been thrust into the public eye .
But it wasn ’ t politically minded adults who made Claudia TikTok-famous .
She 's made it big on the platform because of the Gen Z teens and young adults who make up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ base , and they love her politics just as much as her frequent lip syncs and dance videos .
Kazamira Baggott first found Claudia after one of her TikToks was posted on Twitter .
Baggott , a 21-year-old in Arizona , knew who Kellyanne Conway was , which is what first intrigued her , but kept watching because she grew to like Claudia as a person .
“ She 's really funny and relatable , ” said Baggott .
“ I 'm a few years older than her but can still relate.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Claudia have similar political views .
But she ’ s also been drawn in because she ’ s concerned for Claudia , who has posted before about seeking emancipation from her parents .
“ I do n't really put her up on a pedestal , because she 's just a 16-year-old girl dealing with a lot of home issues , which I feel like everyone 's experienced at one time or another , ” she said .
For Jacob Sellers , an 18-year-old in California , it ’ s a similar story to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I was manipulated — and seeing it in Claudia ’ s videos really drew me into her in the first place , ” he said .
He was also first drawn to Claudia because of who her mother is , but he stuck around because of how she uses her voice .
“ Claudia ’ s content is awesome because it ’ s hers .
She uses her platform to express herself and share her views , ” he said .
Her influence has also expanded beyond the United States .
Elena @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said she loves Claudia .
“ Even though I 'm not from the USA and I do n't know a lot about politics there , I can say that Claudia is really brave , ” Elena said .
“ She stands for what 's right and is n't scared to go against her mom .
Some people may find this inappropriate for a teenager , but I think she 's a good role model.
” Elena said she would personally never be able to go against her parents ’ beliefs the way Claudia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see her stand up for herself .
Claudia ’ s rebellion , both against her mom ’ s politics and to hints that her parents would rather she not be so bold on social media , has had adults lauding her as a sort of leftist hero .
But for the teens who love her , their view is more nuanced .
“ Claudia is not a hero or a rebel .
She is a kid who needs help , ” said Sellers .
Everyone BuzzFeed News talked to felt fiercely protective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of media scrutiny that she herself has complained about in her videos .
“ Just because she 's a famous person ’ s daughter does n't mean she should be open to such public criticism , especially when it 's taken out of context or makes her look like a horrible child for not agreeing with her mom , ” said Baggott .
Bailey Diamond , a 17-year-old in Las Vegas , said the media can be a hard place for children , let alone Kellyanne Conway 's child .
“ Many articles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come off in a bashing manner .
At the end of the day , she is a young 16-year-old with a voice and opinion with a large platform to show it off , ” she said .
“ If she was a child of the same age and the same views but not a child of the Conway family , would the media still report her in the same light ?
” She added that , at the end of the day , it ’ s not Claudia 's closeness to the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fact that she appears to have remained true to herself despite it .
“ I like that Claudia is using her platform to inform and educate people on her political views , yet she still shows that at the end of the day she ’ s just a teenager who can relate to many other teenagers , ” Bailey said .
“ When she speaks up for herself , no matter how many times she ’ s been put down , she proves to many that she is a strong person .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ person you would want to be friends with as she knows what she wants and she goes for it .
”

As people turned to the teen’s videos in the hope of insider information, a debate emerged over how exactly adults should think of a minor who's been thrust into the public eye. But it wasn’t politically minded adults who made Claudia TikTok-famous. She's made it big on the platform because of the Gen Z teens and young adults who make up much of the app’s user base, and they love her politics just as much as her frequent lip syncs and dance videos.
Kazamira Baggott first found Claudia after one of her TikToks was posted on Twitter. Baggott, a 21-year-old in Arizona, knew who Kellyanne Conway was, which is what first intrigued her, but kept watching because she grew to like Claudia as a person.
“She's really funny and relatable,” said Baggott. “I'm a few years older than her but can still relate.”
In particular, Baggott said she and Claudia have similar political views. But she’s also been drawn in because she’s concerned for Claudia, who has posted before about seeking emancipation from her parents.
“I don't really put her up on a pedestal, because she's just a 16-year-old girl dealing with a lot of home issues, which I feel like everyone's experienced at one time or another,” she said.
For Jacob Sellers, an 18-year-old in California, it’s a similar story to his own.
“My whole childhood, I was manipulated — and seeing it in Claudia’s videos really drew me into her in the first place,” he said.
He was also first drawn to Claudia because of who her mother is, but he stuck around because of how she uses her voice.


buzzfeed--2020-10-19--FEMA Threw Out The Faulty Ventilators Russia Gave The US Without Ever Using Them

As the US was bracing for a major wave of seriously ill coronavirus patients in March , President Donald Trump asked President Vladimir Putin in a phone call for help .
In response , Moscow sent 45 ventilators and other medical supplies in crates stamped “ From Russia , With Love.
” They were part of a lopsided aid deal between the countries that would ultimately see Russia delivering a little more than $ 1 million worth of supplies to the US in April , followed by the US sending about $ 5.6 million to Russia over the following two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Federal Emergency Management Agency officials in New York on April 1 and divided up between hospitals there and in New Jersey .
But there were problems with the Aventa-M ventilators from the moment they landed and they were never used .
Now , according to FEMA , they have essentially been tossed in the trash .
“ The donated ventilators in question were disposed of following strict hazardous waste disposal regulatory guidelines set by the U.S. General Services Administration ( GSA ) and the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monday .
It is unclear when exactly the agency disposed of the ventilators .
FEMA told BuzzFeed News in May that it had put the machines in storage facilities in New York and New Jersey after technical problems with them became known .
First , the Aventa-M ventilators required an electrical voltage not compatible in the US , meaning they could not be used without an adapter that hospitals did not have .
Weeks later , several of the same models caught fire in Russian hospitals , causing the deaths of six people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manufacture .
Moreover , they were made by a Russian company under US sanctions .
The ventilators also caused an uproar , particularly among congressional Democrats , who chided the White House for receiving ventilators from a sanctioned company as well as the apparent cost of them .
( Russia first said it would charge the US $ 660,000 for the machines and other supplies — roughly half the cost of the shipment — but later a government official told BuzzFeed News that it had not billed Washington because the countries had agreed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were also outraged over the difference in the cost and amount of medical aid provided by Russia to the US versus that delivered by the US to Russia .
The US sent $ 5.6 million in medical supplies to Russia to help it combat the coronavirus pandemic .
A video posted to the Twitter account of the US Embassy in Moscow in June showed an American military cargo plane arriving with some of the aid , including 200 ventilators .
The Kremlin , the US State Department , and Trump himself hailed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between the two adversarial nations to fight a common enemy .
Speaking alongside members of his coronavirus task force in the White House Rose Garden on March 30 , Trump said , “ Russia sent us a very , very large planeload of things , medical equipment , which was very nice.
” The US and Russia remain among the countries with the highest number of cases of COVID-19 , and both are currently experiencing new waves of infections .
Just this week , Russia set a new daily record with over 15,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And there are many similarities in how the two have managed the crisis .
One difference , though , is how Trump , who contracted the virus last month and was hospitalized , and Putin have dealt with it personally .
Unlike Trump , who continues to hold public rallies , Putin has ridden out the pandemic cloistered in his palatial residence .

As the US was bracing for a major wave of seriously ill coronavirus patients in March, President Donald Trump asked President Vladimir Putin in a phone call for help. In response, Moscow sent 45 ventilators and other medical supplies in crates stamped “From Russia, With Love.”
They were part of a lopsided aid deal between the countries that would ultimately see Russia delivering a little more than $1 million worth of supplies to the US in April, followed by the US sending about $5.6 million to Russia over the following two months.
The Russian ventilators were received by Federal Emergency Management Agency officials in New York on April 1 and divided up between hospitals there and in New Jersey. But there were problems with the Aventa-M ventilators from the moment they landed and they were never used.
Now, according to FEMA, they have essentially been tossed in the trash.
“The donated ventilators in question were disposed of following strict hazardous waste disposal regulatory guidelines set by the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),” a FEMA spokesperson told BuzzFeed News on Monday.
It is unclear when exactly the agency disposed of the ventilators. FEMA told BuzzFeed News in May that it had put the machines in storage facilities in New York and New Jersey after technical problems with them became known.
First, the Aventa-M ventilators required an electrical voltage not compatible in the US, meaning they could not be used without an adapter that hospitals did not have. Weeks later, several of the same models caught fire in Russian hospitals, causing the deaths of six people and prompting the government to halt their manufacture.
Moreover, they were made by a Russian company under US sanctions.
The ventilators also caused an uproar, particularly among congressional Democrats, who chided the White House for receiving ventilators from a sanctioned company as well as the apparent cost of them. (Russia first said it would charge the US $660,000 for the machines and other supplies — roughly half the cost of the shipment — but later a government official told BuzzFeed News that it had not billed Washington because the countries had agreed to swap medical aid). Democrats were also outraged over the difference in the cost and amount of medical aid provided by Russia to the US versus that delivered by the US to Russia.
The US sent $5.6 million in medical supplies to Russia to help it combat the coronavirus pandemic. A video posted to the Twitter account of the US Embassy in Moscow in June showed an American military cargo plane arriving with some of the aid, including 200 ventilators.
The Kremlin, the US State Department, and Trump himself hailed the delivery as a rare example of collaboration between the two adversarial nations to fight a common enemy.
Speaking alongside members of his coronavirus task force in the White House Rose Garden on March 30, Trump said, “Russia sent us a very, very large planeload of things, medical equipment, which was very nice.”
The US and Russia remain among the countries with the highest number of cases of COVID-19, and both are currently experiencing new waves of infections. Just this week, Russia set a new daily record with over 15,000 new cases, the Moscow Times reported.
And there are many similarities in how the two have managed the crisis. One difference, though, is how Trump, who contracted the virus last month and was hospitalized, and Putin have dealt with it personally. Unlike Trump, who continues to hold public rallies, Putin has ridden out the pandemic cloistered in his palatial residence.