buzzfeed--2020-05-13--Nixon And Clinton Lost When They Went To The Supreme Court To Shield Their Records. Trump Is Hoping

Nixon And Clinton Lost When They Went To The Supreme Court To Shield Their Records. Trump Is Hoping For A Different Result.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump ’ s success fending off subpoenas for his tax returns and financial records hinges in part on whether his lawyers convinced the US Supreme Court on Tuesday that his situation is different from the last two presidents who went to court to shield records , and lost .
The Watergate and Whitewater scandals involving presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton , respectively , played a starring role during three hours of telephone arguments before the Supreme Court on Tuesday in lawsuits Trump brought challenging demands for his records .
Two of the cases involve congressional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grand jury subpoena issued as part of a criminal investigation by New York District Attorney Cyrus Vance .
Trump is fighting congressional subpoenas to his accounting firm , Mazars USA LLC , and two banks he ’ s done business with in the past , Deutsche Bank and Capital One , for a broad swath of financial records .
Vance specifically subpoenaed eight years of Trump ’ s tax returns , a particular political sticking point since Trump broke tradition with past presidents in refusing to make his returns public .
Justice Ruth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Patrick Strawbridge Tuesday how Trump ’ s cases were different from Clinton and Nixon ’ s , noting that Clinton ’ s personal records and then-first lady Hillary Clinton ’ s law firm billing records were subpoenaed during the Whitewater investigation , that Nixon ’ s White House tapes were subpoenaed as part of the Watergate investigation , and the Supreme Court ruled Clinton could face a civil lawsuit while in office .
“ The aura of this case is really sauce for the goose that serves the gander as well , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Whitewater were “ cases of relatively recent vintage , ” and that the court tends to look for a deeper historical record in considering separation of powers issues .
He also argued that the legal fights that came out of those past scandals didn ’ t involve the same type of challenge to the power of a committee to subpoena documents as part of its legislative function .
Nixon and Clinton ’ s legal entanglements resulted in court decisions that serve as the foundation for whatever the Supreme Court decides to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial records .
During the Watergate investigation , the Supreme Court ruled in 1974 that the president wasn ’ t entitled to immunity from a grand jury subpoena for audio tapes he ’ d recorded of White House conversations .
And when former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones sued former president Bill Clinton , the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that a sitting president was not entitled to absolute immunity from a civil lawsuit related to events before he took office .
Justice Elena Kagan told Strawbridge that she was struck by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before , but the subpoena power at issue in Trump ’ s cases had never come to the court in the past because the two sides had always been able to reach “ accommodations.
” “ What it seems to me you 're asking us to do is to put a kind of 10-ton weight on the scales between the president and Congress and essentially to make it impossible for Congress to perform oversight and to carry out its functions where the president is concerned , ” Kagan said .
When Strawbridge responded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a line ” because it was the first time Congress had tried subpoena documents of this “ scale ” and “ scope ” from a president , Kagan mused that “ some former presidents ” might push back on that argument .
Trump hired his own lawyers in these cases , but the Justice Department is backing him .
Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall , who participated in arguments in the congressional subpoena cases on Tuesday , argued that the Supreme Court ’ s 1997 decision finding that Bill Clinton wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because the justices said at the time that a president was still entitled to “ some special protection.
” Wall argued that a congressional committee had to be more specific about its legislative goals for a subpoena to be valid .
Sotomayor asked what other “ investigative body ” was required to provide more specific information about the purpose of a subpoena than what the congressional committees gave for subpoenaing Trump ’ s records ; the committees gave different reasons for wanting Trump ’ s records , including an interest in updating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the US political process .
Wall cited the Nixon case , saying the prosecutor there had to show “ a specific need.
” Sotomayor pushed back , noting Nixon ’ s case involved executive privilege concerns .
Wall said that helped Trump ’ s argument .
“ They 're targeting the personal life of the president before he was a candidate for office .
That raises , granted , somewhat different but deeply troubling and equally problematic constitutional concerns that you will harass— , ” Wall argued before he was cut off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who was enforcing time limits during the telephone arguments .

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s success fending off subpoenas for his tax returns and financial records hinges in part on whether his lawyers convinced the US Supreme Court on Tuesday that his situation is different from those of the last two presidents who went to court to shield records, and lost.
The Watergate and Whitewater scandals involving presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, respectively, played a starring role during three hours of telephone arguments before the Supreme Court on Tuesday in lawsuits Trump that brought, challenging demands for his records. Two of the cases involve congressional subpoenas, and the third involves a grand jury subpoena issued as part of a criminal investigation by New York District Attorney Cyrus Vance.
Trump is fighting congressional subpoenas to his accounting firm, Mazars USA LLC, and two banks he’s done business with in the past, Deutsche Bank and Capital One, for a broad swath of financial records. Vance specifically subpoenaed eight years of Trump’s tax returns, a particular political sticking point since Trump broke tradition with past presidents in refusing to make his returns public.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked Trump’s lawyer Patrick Strawbridge on Tuesday how the president's cases were different from those of Clinton and Nixon, noting that Clinton’s personal records and then–first lady Hillary Clinton’s law firm's billing records were subpoenaed during the Whitewater investigation, that Nixon’s White House tapes were subpoenaed as part of the Watergate investigation, and the Supreme Court ruled Clinton could face a civil lawsuit while in office.
“The aura of this case is really sauce for the goose that serves the gander as well,” Ginsburg said.
Strawbridge argued that Watergate and Whitewater were “cases of relatively recent vintage,” and that the court tends to look for a deeper historical record in considering separation-of-powers issues. He also argued that the legal fights that came out of those past scandals didn’t involve the same type of challenge to the power of a committee to subpoena documents as part of its legislative function.
Nixon's and Clinton’s legal entanglements resulted in court decisions that serve as the foundation for whatever the Supreme Court decides to do in the cases about Trump’s financial records. During the Watergate investigation, the Supreme Court ruled in 1974 that the president wasn’t entitled to immunity from a grand jury subpoena for audio tapes he’d recorded of White House conversations.
And when former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones sued former president Bill Clinton, the Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that a sitting president was not entitled to absolute immunity from a civil lawsuit related to events before he took office.
Justice Elena Kagan told Strawbridge that she was struck by the fact that Congress and presidents had fought before, but the subpoena power at issue in Trump’s cases had never come to the court in the past because the two sides had always been able to reach “accommodations.”
“What it seems to me you're asking us to do is to put a kind of 10-ton weight on the scales between the president and Congress and essentially to make it impossible for Congress to perform oversight and to carry out its functions where the president is concerned,” Kagan said.
When Strawbridge responded that the court had to “draw a line” because it was the first time Congress had tried subpoena documents of this “scale” and “scope” from a president, Kagan mused that “some former presidents” might push back on that argument.
Trump hired his own lawyers in these cases, but the Justice Department is backing him. Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall, who participated in arguments in the congressional subpoena cases on Tuesday, argued that the Supreme Court’s 1997 decision — that Bill Clinton wasn’t immune from a civil lawsuit — helped Trump because the justices said at the time that a president was still entitled to “some special protection.”
Wall argued that a congressional committee had to be more specific about its legislative goals for a subpoena to be valid. Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked what other “investigative body” was required to provide more specific information about the purpose of a subpoena than what the congressional committees gave for subpoenaing Trump’s records; the committees gave different reasons for wanting Trump’s records, including an interest in updating federal ethics laws and investigating foreign influence in the US political process.
Wall cited the Nixon case, saying the prosecutor there had to show “a specific need.” Sotomayor pushed back, noting Nixon’s case involved executive privilege concerns. Wall said that helped Trump’s argument.
“They're targeting the personal life of the president before he was a candidate for office. That raises, granted, somewhat different but deeply troubling and equally problematic constitutional concerns that you will harass—,” Wall argued before he was cut off by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., who was enforcing time limits during the telephone arguments.
Protecting presidents


buzzfeed--2020-05-12--Democrats Want $3 Trillion In New Coronavirus Relief. Republicans Say It’s Too Soon To Do More.

BuzzFeed News has reporters across five continents bringing you trustworthy stories about the impact of the coronavirus .
To help keep this news free , become a member and sign up for our newsletter , Outbreak Today .
WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans rejected a new coronavirus aid bill from House Democrats Tuesday , putting Congress at a standstill that is unlikely to end anytime soon , as 33.5 million Americans have filed for unemployment .
Republicans say it is too soon to tell what , if any , additional relief is needed as the pandemic continues , but there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protect businesses against lawsuits from employees who get sick .
Republicans dismissed the new $ 3 trillion aid bill drafted by Democrats as “ dead on arrival ” Tuesday .
The 1,815-page bill includes another round of up to $ 1,200 direct cash payments to most people , $ 200 billion in “ hazard pay ” for essential workers , and over $ 900 billion for state and local governments .
Republicans called it a messaging bill — a Democratic wish list that was not negotiated and has no chance to pass .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ : liability reforms to shield businesses from lawsuits if their employees contract COVID-19 .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters Tuesday the liability shields are “ so essential ” in reopening the economy .
McConnell said Republicans will insist on doing “ narrowly targeted legislation , ” while Democrats want a broad suite of reforms that include funding for coronavirus testing and tracing , funding to keep the US Postal Service afloat , and billions for food stamps and programs aimed at combating violence against women and supporting victims .
Several Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they do not expect any coronavirus bill to pass anytime soon .
The two parties have not yet come together to work out a deal , and President Donald Trump said last week there is “ no rush ” to pass more coronavirus aid .
Instead , both parties are taking to the media and the public to fight for leverage .
McConnell refused to take a position on specific parts of the Democrat bill , such as more direct payments to Americans or hazard pay for essential workers .
Instead , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parents , saying the protections will be essential for schools and universities to open in the fall .
“ This is not a time for aspirational legislation , this is a time for practical response to the coronavirus pandemic , ” he said .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer wouldn ’ t entertain the question of whether his caucus would accept liability shields in exchange for some Democrat priorities .
“ We have people starving , ” said Schumer .
“ We have people being kicked out of their homes and he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sued because he ’ s let one of his workers be susceptible to COVID ?
Come on.
” Democrats are attempting to compare Trump and McConnell to Herbert Hoover failing to react to the Great Depression .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the coronavirus pandemic “ the biggest catastrophe in our nation ’ s history.
” The House plans to try Friday to pass its bill , which would also extend the $ 600-per-week federal top-up of unemployment insurance benefits through the end of the year .
That program was passed as part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the CARES Act , but is currently set to expire at the end of July .
The bill would also provide $ 75 billion for coronavirus testing and contact tracing , plus $ 3.6 billion to the states to implement safety measures and additional mail-in ballots for the November federal election .
It would establish a $ 75 billion homeowner relief fund that would allow states to help pay housing costs such as mortgage payments and property taxes .
Another $ 75 billion program would help homeowners afford costs such as mortgage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would extend student loan relief to borrowers with federal loans that were left out of the CARES Act and require the Department of Education to make some payments on behalf of borrowers with private student loans .

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans rejected a new coronavirus aid bill from House Democrats Tuesday, putting Congress at a standstill that is unlikely to end anytime soon, as 33.5 million Americans have filed for unemployment. Republicans say it is too soon to tell what, if any, additional relief is needed as the pandemic continues, but there is one key thing they want: to protect businesses against lawsuits from employees who get sick.
Republicans dismissed the new $3 trillion aid bill drafted by Democrats as “dead on arrival” Tuesday. The 1,815-page bill includes another round of up to $1,200 direct cash payments to most people, $200 billion in “hazard pay” for essential workers, and over $900 billion for state and local governments.
Republicans called it a messaging bill — a Democratic wish list that was not negotiated and has no chance to pass. But Republicans have their own legislative wish: liability reforms to shield businesses from lawsuits if their employees contract COVID-19. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters Tuesday the liability shields are “so essential” in reopening the economy.
McConnell said Republicans will insist on doing “narrowly targeted legislation,” while Democrats want a broad suite of reforms that include funding for coronavirus testing and tracing, funding to keep the US Postal Service afloat, and billions for food stamps and programs aimed at combating violence against women and supporting victims.
Several Republican senators said there is no urgency and they do not expect any coronavirus bill to pass anytime soon. The two parties have not yet come together to work out a deal, and President Donald Trump said last week there is “no rush” to pass more coronavirus aid. Instead, both parties are taking to the media and the public to fight for leverage.
McConnell refused to take a position on specific parts of the Democrat bill, such as more direct payments to Americans or hazard pay for essential workers. Instead, he targeted his pitch for liability shields to parents, saying the protections will be essential for schools and universities to open in the fall. “This is not a time for aspirational legislation, this is a time for practical response to the coronavirus pandemic,” he said.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer wouldn’t entertain the question of whether his caucus would accept liability shields in exchange for some Democrat priorities. “We have people starving,” said Schumer. “We have people being kicked out of their homes and he’s worried about a big businessman being sued because he’s let one of his workers be susceptible to COVID? Come on.”
Democrats are attempting to compare Trump and McConnell to Herbert Hoover failing to react to the Great Depression. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called the coronavirus pandemic “the biggest catastrophe in our nation’s history.”
The House plans to try Friday to pass its bill, which would also extend the $600-per-week federal top-up of unemployment insurance benefits through the end of the year. That program was passed as part of the last major coronavirus relief package, the CARES Act, but is currently set to expire at the end of July.
The bill would also provide $75 billion for coronavirus testing and contact tracing, plus $3.6 billion to the states to implement safety measures and additional mail-in ballots for the November federal election. It would establish a $75 billion homeowner relief fund that would allow states to help pay housing costs such as mortgage payments and property taxes. Another $75 billion program would help homeowners afford costs such as mortgage payments and property taxes. And it would extend student loan relief to borrowers with federal loans that were left out of the CARES Act and require the Department of Education to make some payments on behalf of borrowers with private student loans.


buzzfeed--2020-05-12--Anthony Fauci And Rand Paul Had A Tense Exchange During A Coronavirus Hearing

Fauci also warned Paul not be `` cavalier '' in thinking children are `` completely immune '' from the harmful effects of the coronavirus .
In a tense exchange during a Senate hearing on the coronavirus on Tuesday , Republican Sen. Rand Paul told Anthony Fauci , the top US infectious disease official , that he was not the `` end all '' on whether to reopen the country amid the pandemic .
`` As much as I respect you , Dr. Fauci , I don ’ t think you ’ re the end-all , '' Paul told Fauci during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Safely Getting Back to Work and Back to School . ''
`` I don ’ t think you ’ re the one person that gets to make a decision , '' he said .
Paul , who claimed he had immunity and refused to wear a mask in Senate after recovering from COVID-19 , pushed for reopening schools in the fall and criticized public health experts for exercising caution in reopening businesses .
`` We ought to have a little bit of humility in our belief that we know what ’ s best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fauci .
In a sharp retort , Fauci , who has been the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984 , responded : `` I have never made myself out to be the 'end-all ' and only voice in this .
I ’ m a scientist , a physician , and a public health official .
I give advice according to the best scientific evidence .
...
I don ’ t give advice about economic things .
I don ’ t give advice about anything other than public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appearing via video from his home , where he had been self-isolating after coming into contact with an infected White House staffer — also warned Paul not be `` cavalier '' in thinking children were `` completely immune '' from the harmful effects of the virus .
Officials have said at least three children died in New York from an inflammatory illness suspected of being linked to the virus .
During the hearing , Fauci did not definitively say that schools should n't reopen in the fall .
He did say it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assure students hoping to go back to school in the fall that they will have a vaccine or treatment by then .
Paul dismissed the warnings of public health professionals and scientists that there could be a surge as more states in the US are reopening businesses .
`` We 're opening up a lot of economies around the US , and I hope that people who are predicting doom and gloom , and saying , 'Oh , we ca n't do this .
There 's going to be a surge , ' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is n't a surge , ” Paul said .
“ Because I think that ’ s what ’ s going to happen.
” He said that outside of New England , `` We 've had a relatively benign course of this virus nationwide . ''
Paul told Fauci , `` We can listen to your advice , but there are people on the other side saying there ’ s not going to be a surge and that we can safely open the economy and the facts will bear this out . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to the Senate gym while he was awaiting a COVID-19 test result that turned out to be positive .
Last week , Paul defended his decision not to wear a mask while returning to Capitol Hill , claiming that he had `` immunity '' from the coronavirus .
During Tuesday 's hearing , Fauci , echoing other health experts , said that while it is `` very likely '' that people have immunity after getting COVID-19 , there has been no way to `` formally '' prove it .
Paul argued for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a low mortality rate for children in New York .
He said the `` one-size-fits-all strategy '' of no one in the country being allowed to go to school was `` really ridiculous . ''
`` Power needs to be dispersed because people make wrong predictions , '' Paul said .
`` And really the history of this , when we look back , will be of wrong prediction , after wrong prediction , after wrong prediction . ''
He said `` poor and underprivileged children '' who do n't have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will not be able to learn for a full year if kids are kept out of school .
`` I think it ’ s a huge mistake if we don ’ t open the schools in the fall , '' Paul said .
Referring to Paul 's jab at having humility , Fauci responded , `` You used the word — we should be 'humble ' about what we do n't know .
We don ’ t know everything about this virus .
And we really better be very careful , particularly when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more and more we learn , we ’ re seeing things about what this virus can do that we didn ’ t see from the studies in China or Europe . ''
Fauci then referred to the cases of children presenting with COVID-19 , suffering from the “ strange ” inflammatory disease .
`` I think we ’ d better be careful , if we ’ re not cavalier in thinking that children are completely immune to the deleterious effects , '' Fauci said .
`` I am very careful and hopefully humble @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about this disease and that 's why I 'm very reserved in making broad predictions . ''

In a tense exchange during a Senate hearing on the coronavirus on Tuesday, Republican Sen. Rand Paul told Anthony Fauci, the top US infectious disease official, that he was not the "end all" on whether to reopen the country amid the pandemic.
"As much as I respect you, Dr. Fauci, I don’t think you’re the end-all," Paul told Fauci during the hearing, entitled "COVID-19: Safely Getting Back to Work and Back to School."
"I don’t think you’re the one person that gets to make a decision," he said.
Paul, who claimed he had immunity and refused to wear a mask in Senate after recovering from COVID-19, pushed for reopening schools in the fall and criticized public health experts for exercising caution in reopening businesses.
"We ought to have a little bit of humility in our belief that we know what’s best for the economy," he told Fauci.
In a sharp retort, Fauci, who has been the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984, responded: "I have never made myself out to be the 'end-all' and only voice in this. I’m a scientist, a physician, and a public health official. I give advice according to the best scientific evidence. ... I don’t give advice about economic things. I don’t give advice about anything other than public health."
Fauci — who was appearing via video from his home, where he had been self-isolating after coming into contact with an infected White House staffer — also warned Paul not be "cavalier" in thinking children were "completely immune" from the harmful effects of the virus.
Officials have said at least three children died in New York from an inflammatory illness suspected of being linked to the virus.


buzzfeed--2020-05-12--Democrats Are Pleading With The Trump Administration To Update Voting Safety Guidelines During The C

Democrats Are Pleading With The Trump Administration To Update Voting Safety Guidelines During The Coronavirus Pandemic

BuzzFeed News has reporters across five continents bringing you trustworthy stories about the impact of the coronavirus .
To help keep this news free , become a member and sign up for our newsletter , Outbreak Today .
More than two dozen Democratic senators are urging the CDC to update safety guidelines for upcoming elections , saying the primaries this spring were a cautionary tale about the dangers of in-person voting during the coronavirus pandemic .
Wisconsin , in particular , which held its primary in April despite the pandemic , leaving voters in hourslong lines , highlighted the risks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the letter led by Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Sen. Patty Murray of Washington .
“ We have seen the consequences that the lack of preparation and clear safety guidelines can have in Wisconsin , where voters stood in lines that wrapped around blocks wearing home-made masks and garbage bags as personal protective equipment , ” the 27 lawmakers wrote to CDC Director Robert Redfield this week .
“ Reports indicate that health officials have now linked over 50 cases to voters who showed up to the polls on election day as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letter continued , citing a recent article by the Associated Press , arguing the “ CDC should provide comprehensive and up-to-date public health guidance for voting by mail and in-person voting.
” The most recent CDC guidance — which was issued March 27 , about a week before the Wisconsin primary — already lays out many practices the Democrats want : encouraging election administrators to support early voting , promote mail-in voting where it ’ s allowed , require physical distancing , and sanitize polling sites .
Still , Democrats contended , more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ability to adhere to the CDC ’ s physical distancing guidelines in polling locations and election offices , allowing voters and workers to safely handle voting equipment and machines , and the processing of election mail , including absentee ballots , ” said the letter .
“ Additionally , the CDC has warned that a second and even more severe outbreak of COVID-19 [ the disease caused by the novel coronavirus ] could emerge this fall in conjunction with the flu season , potentially affecting the general election in November .
Updated and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help voters safely exercise their right to participate in the democratic process.
” A 2006 CDC report titled the National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza : Implementation Plan sets out various contingencies for a viral outbreak — but not for elections or voting .
The missive aligns with a broader goal of Democrats : highlighting the risk of in-person voting amid the pandemic and advocating for more mail-in ballots .
That clashes with some leading Republicans , particularly President Donald Trump , who has urged his party to “ fight very hard ” to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that there must be alternatives to mail-in voting too .
“ In-person voting is essential for voters with disabilities who need assistive devices in polling locations , voters who need language assistance , and voters who do not have access to mail , ” they told the CDC .
“ Therefore , additional steps should be taken to ensure in-person voting is safe for both voters and election workers .
”

More than two dozen Democratic senators are urging the CDC to update safety guidelines for upcoming elections, saying the primaries this spring were a cautionary tale about the dangers of in-person voting during the coronavirus pandemic.
Wisconsin, in particular, which held its primary in April despite the pandemic, leaving voters in hourslong lines, highlighted the risks of voters contracting the virus, said the letter led by Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Sen. Patty Murray of Washington.
“We have seen the consequences that the lack of preparation and clear safety guidelines can have in Wisconsin, where voters stood in lines that wrapped around blocks wearing home-made masks and garbage bags as personal protective equipment,” the 27 lawmakers wrote to CDC Director Robert Redfield this week.
“Reports indicate that health officials have now linked over 50 cases to voters who showed up to the polls on election day as well as poll workers,” their letter continued, citing a recent article by the Associated Press, arguing the “CDC should provide comprehensive and up-to-date public health guidance for voting by mail and in-person voting.”
The most recent CDC guidance — which was issued March 27, about a week before the Wisconsin primary — already lays out many practices the Democrats want: encouraging election administrators to support early voting, promote mail-in voting where it’s allowed, require physical distancing, and sanitize polling sites.
Still, Democrats contended, more is necessary. “Concerns include the ability to adhere to the CDC’s physical distancing guidelines in polling locations and election offices, allowing voters and workers to safely handle voting equipment and machines, and the processing of election mail, including absentee ballots,” said the letter. “Additionally, the CDC has warned that a second and even more severe outbreak of COVID-19 [the disease caused by the novel coronavirus] could emerge this fall in conjunction with the flu season, potentially affecting the general election in November. Updated and more thorough guidance from the CDC will help voters safely exercise their right to participate in the democratic process.”
A 2006 CDC report titled the National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza: Implementation Plan sets out various contingencies for a viral outbreak — but not for elections or voting.
The missive aligns with a broader goal of Democrats: highlighting the risk of in-person voting amid the pandemic and advocating for more mail-in ballots. That clashes with some leading Republicans, particularly President Donald Trump, who has urged his party to “fight very hard” to stop mail-in elections.
But Democrats note that there must be alternatives to mail-in voting too. “In-person voting is essential for voters with disabilities who need assistive devices in polling locations, voters who need language assistance, and voters who do not have access to mail,” they told the CDC. “Therefore, additional steps should be taken to ensure in-person voting is safe for both voters and election workers.”


buzzfeed--2020-05-12--Dr. Anthony Fauci Said Reopening The Country Early Could Lead To Avoidable "Suffering And Death"

BuzzFeed News has reporters across five continents bringing you trustworthy stories about the impact of the coronavirus .
To help keep this news free , become a member and sign up for our newsletter , Outbreak Today .
Dr. Anthony Fauci , the top US infectious disease official , warned senators on Tuesday that states ending stay-at-home orders to reopen business widely across the country threatened to restart outbreaks of the deadly novel coronavirus .
Fauci , head of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases and a prominent public health figure since the AIDS crisis of the 1990s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guidelines for when it is safe to reopen their economies in a hearing of the US Senate Committee on Health , Education , Labor , and Pensions , entitled `` COVID-19 : Safely Getting Back to Work and Back to School . ''
`` There is a real risk that you will trigger an outbreak that you may not be able to control , which , in fact , paradoxically will set you back , not only leading to some suffering and death that could be avoided , but could even set you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get economic recovery , '' Fauci said .
`` We will almost turn the clock back rather than going forward .
That is my major concern . ''
Fauci gave voice to the fear , widespread among health experts , that increased contact among a population immunologically naive to a deadly infectious disease is a disaster in the making for the US .
As of Tuesday , there have been more than 1.3 million confirmed novel coronavirus cases in the US , causing more than 80,000 COVID-19 deaths .
Widespread stay-at-home orders were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to limit contact between people to blunt the spread of the infectious respiratory disease , but more than 30 states have since reopened businesses or started limited reopening .
On Monday , administration officials said about 300,000 tests for coronavirus were now performed daily in the US , a tally reached in the last week .
Public health experts have estimated that anywhere from 550,000 to 10 million tests would need to be performed daily to create effective monitoring of cases .
Adm. Brett Giroir , a senior HHS official , told lawmakers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 50 million coronavirus tests a month by September , about 1.3 million to 1.6 million tests a day .
Fauci added that assuring students hoping to reenter school in the fall that they will have a vaccine or treatment is `` a bridge too far . ''
A coronavirus vaccine development effort started in early January , days after the virus genome was released , is currently in Phase I trials .
He cautioned that time is needed for the testing required to show the vaccines actually work , and in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be demonstrated that they do n't trigger worse illness .
Still , he described himself as `` cautiously optimistic '' that a vaccine would be available by late fall or early winter , because the federal government is already investing in manufacturing capabilities .
Testing multiple vaccine candidates provides `` multiple shots on goal , '' he said .
`` It is more likely than not '' that we will have a vaccine , Fauci said .
Sen. Patty Murray — who represents the state of Washington , where the first US case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ January — condemned President Donald Trump ’ s calls for states to reopen despite his own administration 's guidelines .
`` President Trump is trying to ignore the facts , and ignore the experts who have been clear we are nowhere close to where we need to be to reopen safely , '' Murray said at the hearing .
Late in the hearing , Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky told Fauci he was not the `` end-all '' in advising the country .
Lauding the Swedish model of few restrictions on businesses , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its neighbors in coronavirus deaths , Paul criticized models that predicted the outbreaks we have seen and called for reopening schools in the fall .
Fauci responded that he only gave public health advice , not economic advice , and cautioned that doctors are seeing a deadly syndrome among children afflicted with the virus .
`` I think we need to be very careful with children , '' Fauci said .
At the end of the hearing , which largely turned to questions directed to the NIAID director , rather than the HHS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ control of approving tests and offering official federal guidance , Fauci clarified that he was not calling for keeping schools closed indefinitely until there is a vaccine .
Rather , he suggested that in regions with adequate testing , few infections , and enough health workers to stop outbreaks from spreading , that opening schools might proceed .
`` Going back to school would be more in the realm of knowing the landscape of infection , '' said Fauci .

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the top US infectious disease official, warned senators on Tuesday that states ending stay-at-home orders to reopen business widely across the country threatened to restart outbreaks of the deadly novel coronavirus.
Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases and a prominent public health figure since the AIDS crisis of the 1990s, warned against states disregarding White House guidelines for when it is safe to reopen their economies in a hearing of the US Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, entitled "COVID-19: Safely Getting Back to Work and Back to School."
"There is a real risk that you will trigger an outbreak that you may not be able to control, which, in fact, paradoxically will set you back, not only leading to some suffering and death that could be avoided, but could even set you back on the road to trying to get economic recovery," Fauci said. "We will almost turn the clock back rather than going forward. That is my major concern."
Fauci gave voice to the fear, widespread among health experts, that increased contact among a population immunologically naive to a deadly infectious disease is a disaster in the making for the US. As of Tuesday, there have been more than 1.3 million confirmed novel coronavirus cases in the US, causing more than 80,000 COVID-19 deaths.
Widespread stay-at-home orders were issued by governors in March and April to limit contact between people to blunt the spread of the infectious respiratory disease, but more than 30 states have since reopened businesses or started limited reopening.
On Monday, administration officials said about 300,000 tests for coronavirus were now performed daily in the US, a tally reached in the last week. Public health experts have estimated that anywhere from 550,000 to 10 million tests would need to be performed daily to create effective monitoring of cases.
Adm. Brett Giroir, a senior HHS official, told lawmakers Tuesday that the US could perform 40 to 50 million coronavirus tests a month by September, about 1.3 million to 1.6 million tests a day.
Fauci added that assuring students hoping to reenter school in the fall that they will have a vaccine or treatment is "a bridge too far." A coronavirus vaccine development effort started in early January, days after the virus genome was released, is currently in Phase I trials.
He cautioned that time is needed for the testing required to show the vaccines actually work, and in the case of coronavirus, it needs to be demonstrated that they don't trigger worse illness. Still, he described himself as "cautiously optimistic" that a vaccine would be available by late fall or early winter, because the federal government is already investing in manufacturing capabilities. Testing multiple vaccine candidates provides "multiple shots on goal," he said. "It is more likely than not" that we will have a vaccine, Fauci said.
Sen. Patty Murray — who represents the state of Washington, where the first US case of the coronavirus was discovered in late January — condemned President Donald Trump’s calls for states to reopen despite his own administration's guidelines.
"President Trump is trying to ignore the facts, and ignore the experts who have been clear we are nowhere close to where we need to be to reopen safely," Murray said at the hearing.
Late in the hearing, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky told Fauci he was not the "end-all" in advising the country. Lauding the Swedish model of few restrictions on businesses, despite the fact that Sweden now leads its neighbors in coronavirus deaths, Paul criticized models that predicted the outbreaks we have seen and called for reopening schools in the fall.
Fauci responded that he only gave public health advice, not economic advice, and cautioned that doctors are seeing a deadly syndrome among children afflicted with the virus. "I think we need to be very careful with children," Fauci said.
At the end of the hearing, which largely turned to questions directed to the NIAID director, rather than the HHS, CDC, and FDA witnesses in control of approving tests and offering official federal guidance, Fauci clarified that he was not calling for keeping schools closed indefinitely until there is a vaccine. Rather, he suggested that in regions with adequate testing, few infections, and enough health workers to stop outbreaks from spreading, that opening schools might proceed.
"Going back to school would be more in the realm of knowing the landscape of infection," said Fauci.


buzzfeed--2020-05-13--Democrats Want $3 Trillion In New Coronavirus Relief. Republicans Say It’s Too Soon To Do More.


buzzfeed--2020-05-13--Hairstylists Want A Beauty Industry Bailout After Struggling To Get Financial Assistance During The

Hairstylists Want A Beauty Industry Bailout After Struggling To Get Financial Assistance During The Pandemic

`` I want to see them considering the beauty industry as a real industry worth saving , '' said Mercedes Ortiz-Olivieri , who owns a salon in Washington DC .
Since closing the California hair salon she runs with her brother almost two months ago , Margeaux Hamrock has found herself in an unfamiliar situation .
With no income or unemployment benefits and minimal government assistance , Hamrock , 31 , has relied on gift certificates and donations from clients and friends to cover her rent , pay the bills , and buy groceries during the coronavirus pandemic .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me , '' Hamrock , co-owner of Salon Wire in Long Beach , told BuzzFeed News .
`` But , at some point , you want that to end as well .
I do n't feel it is the responsibility of my clients to make sure I have a roof over my head by not doing their hair . ''
Now , after struggling to get loans and unemployment benefits to keep themselves and their businesses afloat , the Hamrocks and other personal care workers across the country have come together as part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Beauty Coalition to petition state and federal leaders to bail out the beauty industry as they grapple with the challenges and risks of going back to work .
`` I want to see them considering the beauty industry as a real industry worth saving , '' said Mercedes Ortiz-Olivieri , a salon owner in Washington , DC , and a member of the coalition .
In the weeks since they were forced to stop working , many stylists have had difficulty obtaining loans and unemployment due to their unconventional business models and overwhelmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amid the crisis .
Hamrock said she received the $ 1,200 stimulus check provided to all Americans who make up to $ 75,000 per year under the CARES Act , as well as a $ 1,000 Small Business Administration grant for the salon .
But that 's it .
`` That 's a fraction of one month ’ s overhead , '' said Hamrock , referring to the SBA grant .
Hamrock applied for California 's new pandemic assistance program for business owners and independent contractors like herself who do n't qualify for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money through that yet .
`` I ’ ve applied for , as you can imagine , any possible avenues to get the [ Paycheck Protection Program ( PPP ) loan ] or any of the loans at the low interest rates that the lenders are offering them at , '' she said , `` but ... we haven ’ t either heard back or qualified for any of them . ''
Kate Kent , a salon owner in Milwaukee , applied for PPP , the small business loan program funded by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loan programs .
So far , Kent , 39 , who is self-employed and employs 14 other stylists , has only received a $ 10,000 small business grant that she 's saving to help pay her stylists whenever they reopen , even though that 's a fraction of one month 's payroll .
She questioned whether the PPP program provided much value to salons right now , given that in order for the loans to be forgiven , borrowers need to use 75 % of the money for payroll and keep employees on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just still feels a little bit unclear how we can use those funds appropriately and still have it be forgiven , '' Kent said .
`` To take on a loan with terms that are really unclear and could be potentially really harmful for my business in the future is just really unsettling . ''
Reopening during the pandemic means fewer stylists can work at the same time and serve fewer clients each day .
Salons ' overhead costs will also increase due to the added expense of acquiring masks and other supplies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible .
`` Under these guidelines that people are having to work under , there 's no way you can be nearly as productive as you need to be to even cover your overhead let alone turn a profit so that you can carry on with your life , '' Hamrock said .
In sharing their frustrations with others in the industry , Hamrock and her brother Chris found they were n't alone in feeling nervous about returning to their salons without reliable access to financial assistance to help cover the costs of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So Ortiz-Olivieri , the DC salon owner , organized an April 29 call on Zoom with the Hamrocks and other stylists to talk about ideas about how to reopen in the safest way possible .
`` I realized I was having the same conversation with several different salon owners about safety protocols and business practices , '' said Ortiz-Olivieri , 43 .
`` We do n't want to be in a hurry to open , but we understand that people are being put in positions where they ’ re literally choosing between their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It was on that call that the Hamrocks mentioned that they were working on a petition calling for a government bailout of the industry , causing the conversation to shift to what action they could take collectively to speak up for the industry .
Through those discussions , the Beauty Coalition was born .
As of Wednesday , roughly 16,000 people have signed the petition , which asks for assistance for workers in states that are allowing salons to reopen now and those in jurisdictions where they may not be permitted to go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the workers themselves choose to start working again or not .
Either way , hairstylists and salon owners say they need the government 's help to survive .
`` It 's not that we ’ re standing off not wanting to go back to work , not wanting to do people ’ s hair , '' Hamrock told BuzzFeed News .
`` We are n't looking for a handout .
We work very hard at what we do and we ’ re looking for a bailout . ''
While officials in more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reopen , leaders in other states , such as California and New York , have said it wo n't be safe to resume haircuts , manicures , and other personal services until the number of new COVID-19 cases declines drastically due to the close proximity between clients and workers in these businesses .
In states where salons are expected to be closed for longer , hairstylists say they face months of lost income and could lose their businesses if they ca n't keep up with their rent and other ongoing expenses .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forced to choose between risking our health to feed our families or staying safe and losing our businesses , because the reality of it is most salons can ’ t survive months without income , '' Alyssa Jones , a salon owner in San Diego , told BuzzFeed News .
`` It ’ s just not sustainable to survive without any additional assistance or rent freezes . ''
For workers who feel it 's too soon to open salons but are in states where officials have allowed them to get back to work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a choice to resist .
After petitioning Texas Gov .
Greg Abbott to move personal service providers into the later reopening phases , Beau Bollinger said he may have to open his hair salon in Dallas anyway .
`` I ca n't go to my landlord and say , 'Hey , I ca n't pay rent because we ’ re not allowed to be open . '
Now I have to go to my landlord and say , 'Hey , we can ’ t pay rent because I do n't feel like it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ' and that 's a much different conversation , '' Bollinger , 37 , told BuzzFeed News .
`` What I ’ m trying to do is navigate the best way and the best time to do that so that we do n't lose our business and also so that the health and wellbeing of our staff and our clients are maintained . ''
In addition to financial assistance , Bollinger said he 'd like to see government officials step in to help small business owners and their commercial landlords navigate their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We fail and also the landlords fail because now they do n't have tenants and it 's not like we have a booming economy where people are rushing in to rent new spaces so we ’ ve got to figure out a way that we can create an open dialogue about what works for all the parties involved , '' he said .
Hairstylists who spoke to BuzzFeed News about the bailout said they 're not sure how much money they will need to save their businesses , but said if anything they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more attention by the government to ensure that they can qualify for and access whatever financial assistance is available .
`` It 's really hard to say this is what I would need to survive .
I really do n't know , '' Ortiz-Olivieri said .
`` We would need help covering expenses for PPE and our overhead and our losses because we have to operate at a very reduced volume and capacity . ''
Still , some doubt that government officials will even give the idea any consideration , even though haircuts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by protesters to reopen their local economies .
Last week , a salon owner in Texas was ordered jailed after refusing to temporarily close her business during stay-at-home orders , actions that the judge who sentenced her described as `` selfish . ''
In her response , the owner , Shelley Luther , who was ultimately released after Abbott stepped in , said she was keeping her salon open to feed her family .
In interviews about the situation , Luther admitted that shortly before she was taken into custody she received a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't know how to spend it , given that the stylists who work at her salon are not actually her employees .
Ortiz-Olivieri said it 's easy for people to empathize with someone trying to get back to work to pay their bills , but said some in the industry are making it seem like reopening is the only way forward : `` If people had gotten the assistance that they were supposed to , they would n't be in a hurry to go back to work to pay their bills . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ hairstylists to come together and speak up for their industry , giving them hope that they 'll be stronger on the other side .
`` Although this is a really shitty situation and although it looks a little ugly even for the next several months , I ’ m very confident that through dialogue and through these conversations , through some of the work that the Beauty Coalition is doing ... our industry is going to come out of this better than it was when we went into it , '' Bollinger said @

After petitioning Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to move personal service providers into the later reopening phases, Beau Bollinger said he may have to open his hair salon in Dallas anyway.
"I can't go to my landlord and say, 'Hey, I can't pay rent because we’re not allowed to be open.' Now I have to go to my landlord and say, 'Hey, we can’t pay rent because I don't feel like it's safe for us to be open,' and that's a much different conversation," Bollinger, 37, told BuzzFeed News. "What I’m trying to do is navigate the best way and the best time to do that so that we don't lose our business and also so that the health and wellbeing of our staff and our clients are maintained."
In addition to financial assistance, Bollinger said he'd like to see government officials step in to help small business owners and their commercial landlords navigate their leases during the economic downturn.
"We fail and also the landlords fail because now they don't have tenants and it's not like we have a booming economy where people are rushing in to rent new spaces so we’ve got to figure out a way that we can create an open dialogue about what works for all the parties involved," he said.
Hairstylists who spoke to BuzzFeed News about the bailout said they're not sure how much money they will need to save their businesses, but said if anything they'd like to see their industry get more attention by the government to ensure that they can qualify for and access whatever financial assistance is available.
"It's really hard to say this is what I would need to survive. I really don't know," Ortiz-Olivieri said. "We would need help covering expenses for PPE and our overhead and our losses because we have to operate at a very reduced volume and capacity."
Still, some doubt that government officials will even give the idea any consideration, even though haircuts have been used as a political plea by protesters to reopen their local economies.
Last week, a salon owner in Texas was ordered jailed after refusing to temporarily close her business during stay-at-home orders, actions that the judge who sentenced her described as "selfish." In her response, the owner, Shelley Luther, who was ultimately released after Abbott stepped in, said she was keeping her salon open to feed her family.
In interviews about the situation, Luther admitted that shortly before she was taken into custody she received a PPP loan, but said she didn't know how to spend it, given that the stylists who work at her salon are not actually her employees.
Ortiz-Olivieri said it's easy for people to empathize with someone trying to get back to work to pay their bills, but said some in the industry are making it seem like reopening is the only way forward: "If people had gotten the assistance that they were supposed to, they wouldn't be in a hurry to go back to work to pay their bills."
If anything, the petition has galvanized hairstylists to come together and speak up for their industry, giving them hope that they'll be stronger on the other side.
"Although this is a really shitty situation and although it looks a little ugly even for the next several months, I’m very confident that through dialogue and through these conversations, through some of the work that the Beauty Coalition is doing ... our industry is going to come out of this better than it was when we went into it," Bollinger said.


buzzfeed--2020-05-13--What You Learn When You Read Obituaries

What You Learn When You Read Obituaries

BuzzFeed News has reporters across five continents bringing you trustworthy stories about the impact of the coronavirus .
To help keep this news free , become a member and sign up for our newsletter , Outbreak Today .
When you read about the coronavirus pandemic , there are the large questions about science , health , inequality , the dark statistics , and the way regular life abruptly ended .
When you read the stories about those who have died during the pandemic , the stories become — at the same time — more individualized and expansively larger .
You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ; the church elder with such good taste that ministers in Flint consulted him on their clothes ; the 28-year-old who loved to sing , who was always “ trying to over-sing the choir ” in New Orleans ; the Disney animator who was never on time in her life , who “ loved to have a good time ” ; the woman “ everyone knows ” on her block in Bed-Stuy ; the young therapist who brought a “ real vivaciousness ” to how she approached life and her many friends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his wife had given him ; the father who did one movie night with all the kids , then a second one with each individual child ; the father legendary for “ having the nicest cameras but taking the worst pictures ” ; the retired firefighter who walked Staten Island with his rosary beads , offering prayers to those who might need them ; the retired cop who was one of the NYPD ’ s first black women detectives , who offered on the subject , “ it was just a job ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the collector of thousands of dictionaries who once , when she only had enough money for her next trip , bought the 17th-century book anyway and hitchhiked ; the cab driver who would pick up discarded books , read them , and give them to nursing homes and libraries ; the father “ who , in the positive sense of the word , was a hustler ” ; the stepfather whose ordered , attentive care wasn ’ t just for his family but for friends who started calling when he wasn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employee who texted his wife before his death , “ I can ’ t explain how much I truly love you.
” Almost always , singular details or lines like this stand out , eternally : “ She was exceptional and I am very proud , ” one mother said of her 17-year-old daughter , an elegant description in a horrible tragedy .
Listing details like these is , of course , limiting to each of these people .
Your own life could n't be reduced down to one detail ; if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a eulogy or a Legacy.com post before , you definitely know the challenge of even trying to do it in a few hundred words .
Reading a bunch of those kinds of details , though , in one story about one person feels like looking at a great candid photo from 20 years ago : that feeling of seeing people as they really are — more handsome , more alive , brighter — than perhaps you ( wrongly ) knew at the time , and understanding the way even a gesture frozen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dynamic relationships .
The combined effect is to want to meet and know these people , even if you know they are pure strangers and it is now too late .
I ’ ve read , perhaps , 150 obituaries in the last two months — and in each , those who have died from COVID-19 are revealed to be totally distinct , the unique combination of a thousand different vectors and hues into one irreplaceable person who 's different from the next .
And in these stories and threads , you can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ irreplaceable person through the people who knew them and who are quoted , and the people those people have been hearing from about whoever it is that 's died .
One death is felt by many , in ways that might even be unexpected to them .
In the United States alone , at least 82,000 people have died .
Even if you wanted to , there 'd never be enough time to find everyone and read about them — a hopeless scale thrown into relief by how big people ’ s lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are just so many ways that people can be and wo n't be again .
●

When you read about the coronavirus pandemic, there are the large questions about science, health, inequality, the dark statistics, and the way regular life abruptly ended.
When you read the stories about those who have died during the pandemic, the stories become — at the same time — more individualized and expansively larger.
You read about the most “peaceful person”; the church elder with such good taste that ministers in Flint consulted him on their clothes; the 28-year-old who loved to sing, who was always “trying to over-sing the choir” in New Orleans; the Disney animator who was never on time in her life, who “loved to have a good time”; the woman “everyone knows” on her block in Bed-Stuy; the young therapist who brought a “real vivaciousness” to how she approached life and her many friends; the man who kept every card his wife had given him; the father who did one movie night with all the kids, then a second one with each individual child; the father legendary for “having the nicest cameras but taking the worst pictures”; the retired firefighter who walked Staten Island with his rosary beads, offering prayers to those who might need them; the retired cop who was one of the NYPD’s first black women detectives, who offered on the subject, “it was just a job”; the teacher who loved owls; the collector of thousands of dictionaries who once, when she only had enough money for her next trip, bought the 17th-century book anyway and hitchhiked; the cab driver who would pick up discarded books, read them, and give them to nursing homes and libraries; the father “who, in the positive sense of the word, was a hustler”; the stepfather whose ordered, attentive care wasn’t just for his family but for friends who started calling when he wasn’t checking in anymore; the hospital housekeeping employee who texted his wife before his death, “I can’t explain how much I truly love you.”
Almost always, singular details or lines like this stand out, eternally: “She was exceptional and I am very proud,” one mother said of her 17-year-old daughter, an elegant description in a horrible tragedy.
Listing details like these is, of course, limiting to each of these people. Your own life couldn't be reduced down to one detail; if you've ever tried to capture it all in a eulogy or a Legacy.com post before, you definitely know the challenge of even trying to do it in a few hundred words.
Reading a bunch of those kinds of details, though, in one story about one person feels like looking at a great candid photo from 20 years ago: that feeling of seeing people as they really are — more handsome, more alive, brighter — than perhaps you (wrongly) knew at the time, and understanding the way even a gesture frozen in the frame can explain complex, dynamic relationships. The combined effect is to want to meet and know these people, even if you know they are pure strangers and it is now too late.
I’ve read, perhaps, 150 obituaries in the last two months — and in each, those who have died from COVID-19 are revealed to be totally distinct, the unique combination of a thousand different vectors and hues into one irreplaceable person who's different from the next.
And in these stories and threads, you can always feel the reverberation of that one irreplaceable person through the people who knew them and who are quoted, and the people those people have been hearing from about whoever it is that's died. One death is felt by many, in ways that might even be unexpected to them.
In the United States alone, at least 82,000 people have died. Even if you wanted to, there'd never be enough time to find everyone and read about them — a hopeless scale thrown into relief by how big people’s lives are in each individual story. There are just so many ways that people can be and won't be again. ●


buzzfeed--2020-05-14--As Salons Reopen During The Coronavirus Pandemic, Hairstylists Want A Beauty Industry Bailout


buzzfeed--2020-05-15--Sen. Richard Burr, Who Is Under Investigation For Selling Stocks After A Coronavirus Briefing, Is St

Sen. Richard Burr, Who Is Under Investigation For Selling Stocks After A Coronavirus Briefing, Is Stepping Down From A Key Committee Post

BuzzFeed News has reporters across five continents bringing you trustworthy stories about the impact of the coronavirus .
To help keep this news free , become a member and sign up for our newsletter , Outbreak Today .
WASHINGTON — A powerful Republican senator who is under federal investigation for selling stocks after receiving private briefings on the coronavirus outbreak is stepping down as the leader of the committee that oversees the nation ’ s spy agencies .
North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr , the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee , will leave the position Friday , according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Sen .
Burr contacted me this morning to inform me of his decision to step aside as Chairman of the Intelligence Committee during the pendency of the investigation , ” McConnell said Thursday .
“ We agreed that this decision would be in the best interests of the committee and will be effective at the end of the day tomorrow.
” The announcement comes a day after FBI agents served Burr with a search warrant and seized a cellphone that belonged to him at his DC-area home , the Los Angeles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a significant escalation in the federal probe of Burr ’ s stock activities in the weeks before the coronavirus outbreak decimated US markets .
In February , he unloaded between $ 628,000 and $ 1.72 million in stocks as he was receiving regular private briefings about the virus .
In March , when ProPublica first revealed the stock sales , Burr said he `` relied solely on public news reports '' to guide his stock activity and asked the Senate Ethics Committee to review the issue .
But since then , the Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Commission have been scrutinizing the sales .
Members of Congress are banned from using the non-public information they glean as lawmakers to inform stock transactions .
Burr has served as chair of the committee — which partially oversees the FBI — since 2015 , and has served as a member for more than a decade ( which he will continue to do ) .
He told reporters on Thursday that he didn ’ t want to “ become a distraction to the committee work — a committee that ’ s really , really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I thought this was the best thing to do , ” he said .
Burr isn ’ t the only senator to face scrutiny over recent stock sales .
Georgia Sen. Kelly Loeffler , a Republican who joined the Senate in January , has faced backlash for selling millions in stocks the same day all senators received a private briefing about the coronavirus outbreak .
And like Burr , California Sen. Dianne Feinstein , a former chair of the Intelligence Committee and current member , has been asked to provide information to federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirmed on Thursday .
She reported selling stocks in a biotechnology company in late January , but has said she ’ s “ held all assets in a blind trust of which I have no control.
” “ Senator Feinstein was asked some basic questions by law enforcement about her husband ’ s stock transactions , as I think all offices in the initial story were , ” a spokesperson said in a statement .
“ She was happy to voluntarily answer those questions to set the record straight and provided additional documents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her husband ’ s transactions .
There have been no follow up actions on this issue .
”

WASHINGTON — A powerful Republican senator who is under federal investigation for selling stocks after receiving private briefings on the coronavirus outbreak is stepping down as the leader of the committee that oversees the nation’s spy agencies.
North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr, the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, will leave the position Friday, according to a statement from Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
“Sen. Burr contacted me this morning to inform me of his decision to step aside as Chairman of the Intelligence Committee during the pendency of the investigation,” McConnell said Thursday. “We agreed that this decision would be in the best interests of the committee and will be effective at the end of the day tomorrow.”
The announcement comes a day after FBI agents served Burr with a search warrant and seized a cellphone that belonged to him at his DC-area home, the Los Angeles Times reported.
The search warrant represented a significant escalation in the federal probe of Burr’s stock activities in the weeks before the coronavirus outbreak decimated US markets. In February, he unloaded between $628,000 and $1.72 million in stocks as he was receiving regular private briefings about the virus. In March, when ProPublica first revealed the stock sales, Burr said he "relied solely on public news reports" to guide his stock activity and asked the Senate Ethics Committee to review the issue. But since then, the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission have been scrutinizing the sales. Members of Congress are banned from using the non-public information they glean as lawmakers to inform stock transactions.
Burr has served as chair of the committee — which partially oversees the FBI — since 2015, and has served as a member for more than a decade (which he will continue to do). He told reporters on Thursday that he didn’t want to “become a distraction to the committee work — a committee that’s really, really important to the national security.”
“I thought this was the best thing to do,” he said.
Burr isn’t the only senator to face scrutiny over recent stock sales. Georgia Sen. Kelly Loeffler, a Republican who joined the Senate in January, has faced backlash for selling millions in stocks the same day all senators received a private briefing about the coronavirus outbreak.
And like Burr, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a former chair of the Intelligence Committee and current member, has been asked to provide information to federal agents about stock sales, her office confirmed on Thursday. She reported selling stocks in a biotechnology company in late January, but has said she’s “held all assets in a blind trust of which I have no control.”
“Senator Feinstein was asked some basic questions by law enforcement about her husband’s stock transactions, as I think all offices in the initial story were,” a spokesperson said in a statement. “She was happy to voluntarily answer those questions to set the record straight and provided additional documents to show she had no involvement in her husband’s transactions. There have been no follow up actions on this issue.”


buzzfeed--2020-05-14--A Court Fight Over Whether Trump Can Profit From His Hotel While He's President Is Back On

WASHINGTON — Nearly three years after local officials in Washington , DC , and Maryland first sued to stop President Donald Trump from profiting from his businesses while in office , a federal appeals court on Thursday revived the case .
Last summer , a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit sided with Trump and dismissed the case .
On Thursday , a majority of the full 4th Circuit bench ruled that their colleagues made a mistake in hearing that appeal at all .
Thursday 's decision — spread out over two opinions that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appeal — does n't resolve whether Trump is , in fact , violating what are known as the emoluments clauses of the US Constitution by refusing to divest his financial interests in his companies while in office .
It 's about when an appeals court has authority to hear a case while it 's still pending in a lower court and before there 's a final ruling by a district court judge .
The 4th Circuit also held that federal courts , as a general rule , did have the authority to consider @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violated the Constitution 's prohibition on public officials accepting financial benefits known as `` emoluments . ''
Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote that the fact that the president had to obey the US Constitution did n't mean that his compliance was a special official duty that a court could n't get involved in .
`` Such restraints are positive law , and of course the President must comply with the law .
The duty to do so , however , is not a uniquely official executive duty of the President , for in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even the President — has a duty to obey the law , '' Motz wrote .
`` The duty to obey these particular laws — the Constitution ’ s Emoluments Clauses — flows from the President ’ s status as head of the Executive Branch , but this duty to obey neither constitutes an official executive prerogative nor impedes any official executive function . ''
Justice Department spokesperson Brianna Herlihy said in a statement that the government would ask the US Supreme Court to intervene .
`` We are disappointed in the Fourth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ six dissenting judges noted , this unprecedented suit seeking to enforce the Emoluments Clauses against the President of the United States should have been dismissed , and the court of appeals erred by not even considering the merits of the President ’ s defenses , '' Herlihy said .
Trump is also represented by private lawyers in the case .
His counsel Jay Sekulow said in a statement that they would ask the Supreme Court to intervene , too .
`` We disagree with the decision of the Fourth Circuit .
This case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We will be seeking review at the Supreme Court , '' Sekulow said .
The 4th Circuit 's rulings mean that two of the three lawsuits accusing Trump of violating the emoluments clauses are still active .
Last fall , the 2nd Circuit revived a case raising similar claims in federal court in New York filed by hotel and restaurant owners , as well as the government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington .
Trump has asked the full 2nd Circuit to reconsider that decision , and the court has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The third case , filed by Democrats in Congress , was dismissed by the DC Circuit in February .
The lawmakers who brought that case did n't ask the full court to reconsider that decision — the three-judge panel ruled that they lacked standing to bring it .
Democrats could still ask the Supreme Court to take up the case , but they have n't to date .
DC Attorney General Karl Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh , along with CREW , are arguing that when foreign , state , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hotel in downtown Washington , the president profits and receives a prohibited “ emolument.
” There are two emoluments clauses in the US Constitution that are at issue in DC and Maryland 's case — one that bars public officials from accepting things of value from foreign governments , and one that applies to emoluments from federal , state , and local governments .
The word “ emolument ” is generally defined as a financial benefit , but that definition has been one of the major issues in dispute in all of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 4th Circuit after US District Judge Peter Messitte , who sits in Greenbelt , Maryland , rejected the president 's efforts to get the case dismissed and gave officials in DC and Maryland the green light to demand documents and other evidence from the president and his companies .
A judge 's order denying dismissal of a case at an early stage normally is n't appealable — appeals courts prefer to wait until there 's a final decision on the merits of a case — and Messitte denied Trump 's request to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the 4th Circuit arguing that the case presented extraordinary circumstances that made an appeal appropriate .
Last July , a three-judge panel agreed with Trump , ruling that the case could be appealed .
The panel then dismissed the lawsuit , finding that DC and Maryland lacked standing to file it in the first place .
On Thursday , however , Motz wrote in a 9–6 opinion that the panel got it wrong , and that Trump failed to show that Messitte had gone beyond his legal authority in denying Trump 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the litigation .
Messitte had issued a `` detailed written opinion that applied the correct legal standards , '' Motz wrote , and Trump 's `` vigorous '' disagreement with Messitte 's decision was n't enough to get him to an appeal now .
`` Mere disagreement with the district court , the body that Congress vested with the initial discretion to make that determination , does not constitute evidence that the decision was based on 'whim ' or that the district court usurped judicial power , '' Motz wrote .
Motz wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was `` clear and indisputable '' that the case should be dismissed at this stage of the litigation .
DC and Maryland were pursuing `` novel claims , '' Motz acknowledged , but she wrote that `` reasonable jurists can disagree in good faith on the merits of these claims , '' which meant that the underlying litigation before Messitte should go forward .
The majority of the court rejected Trump 's other argument that the case should be dismissed because it would subject him , as president , to `` intrusive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Constitution 's separation of powers principles .
But Motz wrote that DC and Maryland wanted business records that had nothing to do with Trump 's duties as president .
The court also held that federal courts had the power to review allegations that a president violated the emoluments clauses .
`` The Framers , concerned about the corrosive effect of power and animated by fears of unduly blending government powers , dispersed the authority to enforce the law and the authority to interpret it .
To hold otherwise would mean that the President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what the Constitution means , '' Motz wrote .
`` Allowing the President to be the final arbiter of both the interpretation and enforcement of the law — as the dissents would — would gravely offend separation of powers . ''
Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote in a dissenting opinion that the majority `` had sorely overstepped its proper bounds '' by allowing the case to go forward .
He was joined by Trump 's three appointees to the 4th Circuit — Judges Julius Richardson , A. Marvin Quattlebaum III , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and G. Steven Agee .
`` The majority is using a wholly novel and nakedly political cause of action to pave the path for a litigative assault upon this and future Presidents and for an ascendant judicial supervisory role over Presidential action , '' Wilkinson wrote .
As long as the appeals court was unwilling to dismiss the case , Niemeyer wrote in his own dissenting opinion , `` I can only hope and expect that the Supreme Court will do so under its well-established jurisprudence . ''
The court issued a second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether the 4th Circuit had authority to take up a separate issue on appeal — whether Trump enjoyed `` absolute immunity '' from claims filed against him in his `` individual capacity . ''
DC and Maryland initially sued Trump in his `` official capacity '' as president , but later added claims against him in his `` individual capacity '' after Messitte expressed concern about whether there needed to be both types in a case that involved a president profiting personally because of his position as president .
When Messitte ruled that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gathering evidence on the `` official capacity '' claims , he had n't ruled yet on Trump 's immunity argument on the `` individual capacity '' claims .
Trump argued that Messitte 's order was , in effect , a rejection of the immunity argument , and that gave him the ability to take the case to the appeals court .
Last July , the three-judge panel agreed with Trump .
On Thursday , Motz , again writing for the majority of the court in a 9–6 decision , ruled that the panel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would get to Trump 's arguments , and the fact that seven months had passed while Messitte dealt with other issues in the case was n't proof of `` an unreasonable delay or a desire to needlessly prolong this litigation , '' she wrote .
Niemeyer wrote a dissent that defended the panel 's earlier decision .
He was joined by Quattlebaum and Rushing , two of the court 's Trump appointees , as well as Wilkinson and Agee .
Richardson , also a Trump appointee , wrote that he would agree with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immune '' against being sued as an individual over issues related to his official duties .

WASHINGTON — Nearly three years after local officials in Washington, DC, and Maryland first sued to stop President Donald Trump from profiting from his businesses while in office, a federal appeals court on Thursday revived the case.
Last summer, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit sided with Trump and dismissed the case. On Thursday, a majority of the full 4th Circuit bench ruled that their colleagues made a mistake in hearing that appeal at all.
Thursday's decision — spread out over two opinions that addressed different issues raised by Trump on appeal — doesn't resolve whether Trump is, in fact, violating what are known as the emoluments clauses of the US Constitution by refusing to divest his financial interests in his companies while in office. It's about when an appeals court has authority to hear a case while it's still pending in a lower court and before there's a final ruling by a district court judge.
The 4th Circuit also held that federal courts, as a general rule, did have the authority to consider a case challenging whether a president had violated the Constitution's prohibition on public officials accepting financial benefits known as "emoluments." Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote that the fact that the president had to obey the US Constitution didn't mean that his compliance was a special official duty that a court couldn't get involved in.
"Such restraints are positive law, and of course the President must comply with the law. The duty to do so, however, is not a uniquely official executive duty of the President, for in the United States, every person — even the President — has a duty to obey the law," Motz wrote. "The duty to obey these particular laws — the Constitution’s Emoluments Clauses — flows from the President’s status as head of the Executive Branch, but this duty to obey neither constitutes an official executive prerogative nor impedes any official executive function."
Justice Department spokesperson Brianna Herlihy said in a statement that the government would ask the US Supreme Court to intervene.
"We are disappointed in the Fourth Circuit’s ruling. As the six dissenting judges noted, this unprecedented suit seeking to enforce the Emoluments Clauses against the President of the United States should have been dismissed, and the court of appeals erred by not even considering the merits of the President’s defenses," Herlihy said.
Trump is also represented by private lawyers in the case. His counsel Jay Sekulow said in a statement that they would ask the Supreme Court to intervene, too.
"We disagree with the decision of the Fourth Circuit. This case is another example of Presidential harassment. We will be seeking review at the Supreme Court," Sekulow said.
The 4th Circuit's rulings mean that two of the three lawsuits accusing Trump of violating the emoluments clauses are still active. Last fall, the 2nd Circuit revived a case raising similar claims in federal court in New York filed by hotel and restaurant owners, as well as the government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Trump has asked the full 2nd Circuit to reconsider that decision, and the court hasn't announced what it'll do yet.
The third case, filed by Democrats in Congress, was dismissed by the DC Circuit in February. The lawmakers who brought that case didn't ask the full court to reconsider that decision — the three-judge panel ruled that they lacked standing to bring it. Democrats could still ask the Supreme Court to take up the case, but they haven't to date.
DC Attorney General Karl Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, along with CREW, are arguing that when foreign, state, or local officials patronize the Trump International Hotel in downtown Washington, the president profits and receives a prohibited “emolument.”
There are two emoluments clauses in the US Constitution that are at issue in DC and Maryland's case — one that bars public officials from accepting things of value from foreign governments, and one that applies to emoluments from federal, state, and local governments. The word “emolument” is generally defined as a financial benefit, but that definition has been one of the major issues in dispute in all of the cases against Trump.
Trump appealed to the 4th Circuit after US District Judge Peter Messitte, who sits in Greenbelt, Maryland, rejected the president's efforts to get the case dismissed and gave officials in DC and Maryland the green light to demand documents and other evidence from the president and his companies.
A judge's order denying dismissal of a case at an early stage normally isn't appealable — appeals courts prefer to wait until there's a final decision on the merits of a case — and Messitte denied Trump's request to approve such an appeal. Trump went to the 4th Circuit arguing that the case presented extraordinary circumstances that made an appeal appropriate. Last July, a three-judge panel agreed with Trump, ruling that the case could be appealed. The panel then dismissed the lawsuit, finding that DC and Maryland lacked standing to file it in the first place.
On Thursday, however, Motz wrote in a 9–6 opinion that the panel got it wrong, and that Trump failed to show that Messitte had gone beyond his legal authority in denying Trump's request to approve an appeal midway through the litigation. Messitte had issued a "detailed written opinion that applied the correct legal standards," Motz wrote, and Trump's "vigorous" disagreement with Messitte's decision wasn't enough to get him to an appeal now.
"Mere disagreement with the district court, the body that Congress vested with the initial discretion to make that determination, does not constitute evidence that the decision was based on 'whim' or that the district court usurped judicial power," Motz wrote.
Motz wrote that Trump also failed to show that it was "clear and indisputable" that the case should be dismissed at this stage of the litigation. DC and Maryland were pursuing "novel claims," Motz acknowledged, but she wrote that "reasonable jurists can disagree in good faith on the merits of these claims," which meant that the underlying litigation before Messitte should go forward.
The majority of the court rejected Trump's other argument that the case should be dismissed because it would subject him, as president, to "intrusive" demands for information that violated the Constitution's separation of powers principles. But Motz wrote that DC and Maryland wanted business records that had nothing to do with Trump's duties as president. The court also held that federal courts had the power to review allegations that a president violated the emoluments clauses.
"The Framers, concerned about the corrosive effect of power and animated by fears of unduly blending government powers, dispersed the authority to enforce the law and the authority to interpret it. To hold otherwise would mean that the President alone has the ultimate authority to interpret what the Constitution means," Motz wrote. "Allowing the President to be the final arbiter of both the interpretation and enforcement of the law — as the dissents would — would gravely offend separation of powers."
Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote in a dissenting opinion that the majority "had sorely overstepped its proper bounds" by allowing the case to go forward. He was joined by Trump's three appointees to the 4th Circuit — Judges Julius Richardson, A. Marvin Quattlebaum III, and Allison Rushing — and Judges Paul Niemeyer and G. Steven Agee.
"The majority is using a wholly novel and nakedly political cause of action to pave the path for a litigative assault upon this and future Presidents and for an ascendant judicial supervisory role over Presidential action," Wilkinson wrote.
As long as the appeals court was unwilling to dismiss the case, Niemeyer wrote in his own dissenting opinion, "I can only hope and expect that the Supreme Court will do so under its well-established jurisprudence."
The court issued a second, shorter opinion on Thursday that addressed whether the 4th Circuit had authority to take up a separate issue on appeal — whether Trump enjoyed "absolute immunity" from claims filed against him in his "individual capacity."
DC and Maryland initially sued Trump in his "official capacity" as president, but later added claims against him in his "individual capacity" after Messitte expressed concern about whether there needed to be both types in a case that involved a president profiting personally because of his position as president. When Messitte ruled that DC and Maryland could go ahead with gathering evidence on the "official capacity" claims, he hadn't ruled yet on Trump's immunity argument on the "individual capacity" claims.
Trump argued that Messitte's order was, in effect, a rejection of the immunity argument, and that gave him the ability to take the case to the appeals court. Last July, the three-judge panel agreed with Trump. On Thursday, Motz, again writing for the majority of the court in a 9–6 decision, ruled that the panel was wrong — Messitte had said he would get to Trump's arguments, and the fact that seven months had passed while Messitte dealt with other issues in the case wasn't proof of "an unreasonable delay or a desire to needlessly prolong this litigation," she wrote.
Niemeyer wrote a dissent that defended the panel's earlier decision. He was joined by Quattlebaum and Rushing, two of the court's Trump appointees, as well as Wilkinson and Agee. Richardson, also a Trump appointee, wrote that he would agree with Trump that the president was "absolutely immune" against being sued as an individual over issues related to his official duties.