motherjones--2020-05-01--An Uprising Is Still Possible, Even if We Can’t Meet in the Streets

How do you have a mass revolt without a mob ?
Prof. Frances Fox Piven is the 87-year-old “ intellectual guru of activist progressives ” —so sayeth the New York Times .
Her work , she explained to me , is about “ uprisings that sometimes occur when there ’ s what people call a ‘ crisis , ’ when familiarities of everyday life are knocked askew.
” Now , with millions of Americans refusing to pay rent and “ essential ” workers striking because of the coronavirus and its economic reverberations , her work is more relevant than ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ familiarities have been knocked askew .
So how does an uprising come about when we can not meet in the streets ?
Piven is holed up in a cabin 100 miles north of her New York City apartment , where she spends her time gardening and writing .
I spoke to her about what a mass movement could look like in a moment when the masses are scarcely free to move .
How do you think your work on crisis and uprising speaks to the ability to use this emergency for demand changes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are important .
One is that usually when we think of collective action , of mass movements , we think of people getting together physically .
We think of marchers and crowds and mobs .
And that ’ s exactly what people are afraid to do now—rightfully , reasonably .
But the essences of these uprisings is not the physical gathering of people—that ’ s what happens because in a way the movement is nourishing itself .
That ’ s what people do to identify who they ’ re with and who they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are , how strong they are .
That ’ s an organizing strategy : the crowd , the mob , the march .
What really is important in yielding gains , concessions , victories are transformations—the movement ’ s ability to interrupt , to shut down , to strike , to make institutional life impossible .
In order to do that , they have to enhance their own morale , their own sense of who they are , their own sense of their power .
But it ’ s the strike action—the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nothing about the coronavirus interferes with that capacity , I don ’ t think .
People can still shut things down .
Do you think a rent strike is truly possible right now ?
I think it is possible .
In the first place , people don ’ t have cash .
So it ’ s a kind of natural solution to their immediate dilemma .
In the second place , it is clearly a national emergency—or an international emergency .
People acquire a kind of morale and courage when they see their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bigger than them , and see the cause as having to do not with themselves and their own failure to plan ahead or whatever , but as having to do with the system .
That ’ s what happened in the Great Depression .
That ’ s why we got the mass strikes , the sit-down strikes , which were probably the most effective tactic ever in American history .
It was because people knew it was not their fault .
I just think , for example , about what the consequences would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t have the cash to pay their rent or their mortgage refused and offered a political explanation of that refusal—it would be very disruptive .
And the consequences of that refusal would reverberate throughout the economy .
One of the reasons I like rent strike is that it clearly targets real estate and all the people who bought up the mortgages of homes of people who couldn ’ t pay their mortgages in 2008 economic recession .
So I don ’ t expect strikes by nurses or other health care workers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of strike .
But there are a lot of other kinds of strikes , or other kinds of refusal , that target those who are benefiting from the pandemic .
A lot of rich people are benefiting from the pandemic .
And look at the way in which the Trump administration ’ s interventions to ease the economic blow caused by the pandemic is favoring airline companies , for example .
Or favoring investors .
Instead of favoring the people who can ’ t go to work , or who have big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You ’ ve written before that people often criticize movements instead of situating them into a moment in history .
Can you explain that more ?
We have a tendency , I think , to criticize movements for not making enough demands or not foreseeing the way in which their particular and specific demands mesh with the continuity of the society or the society ’ s institutions .
But the movement doesn ’ t do the whole thing .
It ’ s also the question of just what is possible in the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reasons that I like rent strike—or the main reason I like rent strike—is I see it as something that evades the crippling effect of coronavirus and what it does to the crowd actions which we are familiar with .
But there are other kinds of refusal that could advance the demands of , for example , the Sanders campaign or the Warren campaign .
Think for example about the many people who are affected by health care costs—which obviously now are not the result of somebody not taking care of their health or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
These health care costs are the result of a pandemic .
And under those conditions , I think people could refuse to pay for those health care costs and create a kind of institutional crisis that would lend momentum to a national health insurance or a different national health system reform .
I guess that leads back to the basic question of how you have a mass revolt when you can ’ t be in the streets .
I think the inability of people to use the classical crowd actions of movements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think that people are ingenious and they discover ways of acting collectively .
I think there ’ s also in our experience a lot of collective action that is not recognized as collective because we don ’ t see a crowd , or we don ’ t see a march , or we don ’ t see banners and things that like that .
And we ’ ve got in a way to enhance , rediscover those sorts of collective action .
I was thinking , for example , of a time in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of rash of window breaking of schools in New York City .
It was like a kind of epidemic .
Now , none of that was accompanied by mass demands , mob actions .
It was things that school children did individually .
But they probably did them individually with a sense that they were part of a larger crowd action in a sense .
I do think that it is incumbent that we can ’ t do crowd actions in the classical manner .
But I also think that there are other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collective identity and their collective demands—and especially over the internet and social media .
That refusal to cooperate that you ’ ve spoken about as essential for workers—you ’ re saying that doesn ’ t have to be a typical march or crowd action .
I think that the great untapped reservoir of power—leverage—that ordinary people have is always their ability to refuse to cooperate .
Because society is a system of cooperation .
That ’ s what economies are , too .
And this kind of power , or influence , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They like normal life .
They prefer normal life to the anxiety provoked by what is abnormal or disorderly .
But this is such a period of change and crisis , where the future of American society—of the planet—is at stake .
I think it ’ s a time that people would be ready to act on this tacit power that they have to simply refuse to play their normal role in economic relations , in family relations , in community relations , and in political relations .
And that happens from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when we get our movement moments .
I think everybody has a sense that this is a kind of world-transforming crisis and that we may not recover from it .
Also , that the normal pillars of responsibility and authority and wisdom in our society are not functioning .
All of this encourages people to search those aspects of their own history which reveal this power to shut things down .
And force action from the top , by creating a kind of mass strike , of one kind or another .
You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not just workers .

How do you have a mass revolt without a mob?
Prof. Frances Fox Piven is the 87-year-old “intellectual guru of activist progressives”—so sayeth the New York Times. Her work, she explained to me, is about “uprisings that sometimes occur when there’s what people call a ‘crisis,’ when familiarities of everyday life are knocked askew.” Now, with millions of Americans refusing to pay rent and “essential” workers striking because of the coronavirus and its economic reverberations, her work is more relevant than ever. The crisis is here; the familiarities have been knocked askew. So how does an uprising come about when we cannot meet in the streets?
Piven is holed up in a cabin 100 miles north of her New York City apartment, where she spends her time gardening and writing. I spoke to her about what a mass movement could look like in a moment when the masses are scarcely free to move.
How do you think your work on crisis and uprising speaks to the ability to use this emergency for demand changes?
Two points, I think, are important. One is that usually when we think of collective action, of mass movements, we think of people getting together physically. We think of marchers and crowds and mobs. And that’s exactly what people are afraid to do now—rightfully, reasonably.
But the essences of these uprisings is not the physical gathering of people—that’s what happens because in a way the movement is nourishing itself. That’s what people do to identify who they’re with and who they’re allies with, how big they are, how strong they are. That’s an organizing strategy: the crowd, the mob, the march. What really is important in yielding gains, concessions, victories are transformations—the movement’s ability to interrupt, to shut down, to strike, to make institutional life impossible. In order to do that, they have to enhance their own morale, their own sense of who they are, their own sense of their power. But it’s the strike action—the refusal—that’s important about movements.
Nothing about the coronavirus interferes with that capacity, I don’t think. People can still shut things down.
Do you think a rent strike is truly possible right now?
I think it is possible. In the first place, people don’t have cash. So it’s a kind of natural solution to their immediate dilemma. In the second place, it is clearly a national emergency—or an international emergency. People acquire a kind of morale and courage when they see their own individual troubles as part of something bigger than them, and see the cause as having to do not with themselves and their own failure to plan ahead or whatever, but as having to do with the system. That’s what happened in the Great Depression. That’s why we got the mass strikes, the sit-down strikes, which were probably the most effective tactic ever in American history. It was because people knew it was not their fault.
I just think, for example, about what the consequences would be if all the people who don’t have the cash to pay their rent or their mortgage refused and offered a political explanation of that refusal—it would be very disruptive. And the consequences of that refusal would reverberate throughout the economy.
One of the reasons I like rent strike is that it clearly targets real estate and all the people who bought up the mortgages of homes of people who couldn’t pay their mortgages in 2008 economic recession. So I don’t expect strikes by nurses or other health care workers, and I wouldn’t encourage that kind of strike. But there are a lot of other kinds of strikes, or other kinds of refusal, that target those who are benefiting from the pandemic. A lot of rich people are benefiting from the pandemic. And look at the way in which the Trump administration’s interventions to ease the economic blow caused by the pandemic is favoring airline companies, for example. Or favoring investors. Instead of favoring the people who can’t go to work, or who have big health care costs, or whatever.
You’ve written before that people often criticize movements instead of situating them into a moment in history. Can you explain that more?
We have a tendency, I think, to criticize movements for not making enough demands or not foreseeing the way in which their particular and specific demands mesh with the continuity of the society or the society’s institutions. But the movement doesn’t do the whole thing. It’s also the question of just what is possible in the United States.
Now, one of the reasons that I like rent strike—or the main reason I like rent strike—is I see it as something that evades the crippling effect of coronavirus and what it does to the crowd actions which we are familiar with.
But there are other kinds of refusal that could advance the demands of, for example, the Sanders campaign or the Warren campaign. Think for example about the many people who are affected by health care costs—which obviously now are not the result of somebody not taking care of their health or not quitting smoking or something like that. These health care costs are the result of a pandemic. And under those conditions, I think people could refuse to pay for those health care costs and create a kind of institutional crisis that would lend momentum to a national health insurance or a different national health system reform.
I guess that leads back to the basic question of how you have a mass revolt when you can’t be in the streets.
I think the inability of people to use the classical crowd actions of movements is very important. But I also think that people are ingenious and they discover ways of acting collectively. I think there’s also in our experience a lot of collective action that is not recognized as collective because we don’t see a crowd, or we don’t see a march, or we don’t see banners and things that like that. And we’ve got in a way to enhance, rediscover those sorts of collective action.
I was thinking, for example, of a time in the 1960s when there was a kind of rash of window breaking of schools in New York City. It was like a kind of epidemic. Now, none of that was accompanied by mass demands, mob actions. It was things that school children did individually. But they probably did them individually with a sense that they were part of a larger crowd action in a sense. I do think that it is incumbent that we can’t do crowd actions in the classical manner. But I also think that there are other ways in which people can establish their collective identity and their collective demands—and especially over the internet and social media.
That refusal to cooperate that you’ve spoken about as essential for workers—you’re saying that doesn’t have to be a typical march or crowd action.
I think that the great untapped reservoir of power—leverage—that ordinary people have is always their ability to refuse to cooperate. Because society is a system of cooperation. That’s what economies are, too. And this kind of power, or influence, is not usually exercised. People go along. They like normal life. They prefer normal life to the anxiety provoked by what is abnormal or disorderly. But this is such a period of change and crisis, where the future of American society—of the planet—is at stake. I think it’s a time that people would be ready to act on this tacit power that they have to simply refuse to play their normal role in economic relations, in family relations, in community relations, and in political relations. And that happens from time to time. That’s when we get our movement moments.
I think everybody has a sense that this is a kind of world-transforming crisis and that we may not recover from it. Also, that the normal pillars of responsibility and authority and wisdom in our society are not functioning. All of this encourages people to search those aspects of their own history which reveal this power to shut things down. And force action from the top, by creating a kind of mass strike, of one kind or another. You know, everybody can strike; it’s not just workers.


motherjones--2020-05-01--Justin Trudeau Bans Assault Weapons in Canada

Following the murder of 22 people in Nova Scotia in April—the worst mass shooting in Canadian history—Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced on Friday that the country is banning assault-style weapons .
The ban goes into effect immediately , Trudeau said , meaning licensed firearm owners are no longer allowed to sell , transport , import , or use assault-style weapons in Canada .
The Associated Press reports that the list of banned weapons includes more than 1,500 types and variants of assault weapons , including ones that have been repeatedly used in mass shootings in the US , such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ban , Trudeau referenced the recent murders in Nova Scotia , in which a man in Halifax went on a killing spree on April 18 and 19 , shooting multiple people and setting fires across the province before police shot and killed him .
Twenty two people were killed and three others were injured as a result of the rampage .
“ Canadians need more than thoughts and prayers , ” Trudeau said about the order , echoing a familiar criticism of politicians who offer condolences after a mass shooting but don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Though mass shootings are rare in Canada , Trudeau pointed out that they were , alarmingly , becoming more frequent .
Canada ’ s assault weapons ban comes on the heels of New Zealand passing a similar law last year , after the terrorist attack on two mosques in Christchurch in March of 2019 , in which 51 people were killed .
New Zealand ’ s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern implemented a temporary assault weapons ban in the days after the attack , and the Parliament voted to make it permanent weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zealand ’ s ban took effect , the government implemented a buyback program , so that gun owners could sell their weapons before the ban took effect in December of 2019 .
Though Canada ’ s order is immediate , it comes with a two-year amnesty period for Canadian citizens who already own assault-style firearms to turn in their weapons .
Trudeau explained that there would be legislation passed to provide “ fair compensation ” for citizens who own now-illegal firearms .
“ These weapons were designed for one purpose and one purpose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amount of people in the shortest amount of time , ” Trudeau said .
“ You don ’ t need an AR-15 to bring down a deer .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Following the murder of 22 people in Nova Scotia in April—the worst mass shooting in Canadian history—Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced on Friday that the country is banning assault-style weapons.
The ban goes into effect immediately, Trudeau said, meaning licensed firearm owners are no longer allowed to sell, transport, import, or use assault-style weapons in Canada. The Associated Press reports that the list of banned weapons includes more than 1,500 types and variants of assault weapons, including ones that have been repeatedly used in mass shootings in the US, such as AR-15s.
In his announcement of the ban, Trudeau referenced the recent murders in Nova Scotia, in which a man in Halifax went on a killing spree on April 18 and 19, shooting multiple people and setting fires across the province before police shot and killed him. Twenty two people were killed and three others were injured as a result of the rampage. “Canadians need more than thoughts and prayers,” Trudeau said about the order, echoing a familiar criticism of politicians who offer condolences after a mass shooting but don’t act on strengthening gun control laws.
Though mass shootings are rare in Canada, Trudeau pointed out that they were, alarmingly, becoming more frequent. Canada’s assault weapons ban comes on the heels of New Zealand passing a similar law last year, after the terrorist attack on two mosques in Christchurch in March of 2019, in which 51 people were killed. New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern implemented a temporary assault weapons ban in the days after the attack, and the Parliament voted to make it permanent weeks later. In the months before New Zealand’s ban took effect, the government implemented a buyback program, so that gun owners could sell their weapons before the ban took effect in December of 2019.
Though Canada’s order is immediate, it comes with a two-year amnesty period for Canadian citizens who already own assault-style firearms to turn in their weapons. Trudeau explained that there would be legislation passed to provide “fair compensation” for citizens who own now-illegal firearms.
“These weapons were designed for one purpose and one purpose only — only to kill the largest amount of people in the shortest amount of time,” Trudeau said. “You don’t need an AR-15 to bring down a deer.”


motherjones--2020-04-30--One Thing the Pandemic Hasn’t Stopped: Aggressive Medical Debt Collection

This story was published originally by ProPublica , a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power .
Sign up for ProPublica ’ s Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox as soon as they are published .
Darcel Richardson knows she ’ s fortunate in one sense : She still has her job as a vocational counselor in Baltimore .
But despite that , she won ’ t be able to make her rent payment this month because she ’ s not getting her full salary for a while .
More than $ 400 per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ income—has been siphoned off by Johns Hopkins University for unpaid medical bills at one of its hospitals .
Richardson , 60 , got word of the garnishment from her employer just as the coronavirus pandemic was arriving in full force last month .
“ My job was going to take the money out .
They don ’ t want to get in trouble , ” she said .
“ I spoke with our payroll accountant , and the bottom line was , even though the crisis had begun , they still had to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a moment when hospitals nationwide are being heralded for their role at the front lines of fighting the pandemic , some Americans continue to experience a less favorable side of hospital operations : aggressive collection for unpaid medical bills , even at a time when many of the debtors are seeing their income plunge .
Debt collection is occurring on other fronts as well , over unpaid college and bank loans among others , prompting debates over protecting people ’ s economic stimulus checks from collection agencies or suspending garnishments outright .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treating coronavirus patients brings the health and economic exigencies of the moment into especially stark relief .
In a few cases , hospitals have brought new cases against former patients in recent weeks , such as in Wisconsin , where Froedtert Hospital in Milwaukee filed 46 small-claims lawsuits even after the governor declared a state of emergency on March 12 , and other hospital systems in the state filed dozens more , according to a report by Wisconsin Public Radio and Wisconsin Watch .
Steve Schoof , Froedtert ’ s director of external @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the hospital stopped filing small claims suits on March 18 .
“ Moving forward , ” the statement continued , “ Froedtert Health will no longer be filing small claims suits for medical debt collection .
Unfortunately , there was a miscommunication that resulted in small claims filings after March 18 .
We immediately rectified this miscommunication and dismissed these small claims cases that were filed after March 18.
” More often , though , the collection stems from cases filed months before the pandemic arrived , as the legal process grinds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collection is underway for pre-COVID medical debt , they will continue to do that , ” said Jenifer Bosco , a staff attorney for the National Consumer Law Center .
In Richardson ’ s case , the debt stemmed from a two-day 2018 visit to Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in southeast Baltimore , one of a string of medical visits she has had to make over the years to deal with a knee injury from a fall , a hip injury from a car accident , hernia repairs and back trouble .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which at the time was with the state Division of Correction , but it left a balance of almost $ 1,000 for her to pay .
Richardson , who lives by herself in a modest apartment complex just east of the city , started hearing from a collections lawyer for Hopkins last fall and tried to work out a payment schedule with him , but she couldn ’ t make it work .
“ I just didn ’ t have the money , ” she said .
“ I said to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pay an amount monthly , but when it came time , I just didn ’ t have it .
What can you do when you ’ re caught between a rock and a hard place ?
I prioritize .
I ’ m going to try to pay my rent first , pay for gas and electric , cellphone costs .
And I ’ ve got to eat.
” The court judgment was finally entered against Richardson in Baltimore City District Court in January : $ 923.21 , plus $ 34 in court costs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fees .
The notice of wage garnishment went out on March 6—the day after Maryland Gov .
Larry Hogan announced the state ’ s first three coronavirus cases .
The garnishment was confirmed by Richardson ’ s new employer , the nonprofit drug treatment organization Gaudenzia , on March 16 , the day that Hogan decreed the closure of all bars , restaurants , gyms and movie theaters , and three days after Richardson and her colleagues were barred by safety precautions from providing counseling inside prisons .
She now works at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where social distancing is easier .
Johns Hopkins , by far the largest private-sector employer in the state and the largest beneficiary of billionaire Michael Bloomberg ’ s charitable giving , has long faced scrutiny for its aggressive collection of medical debt , including from the many low-income Baltimore residents it serves , who in theory should be able to qualify for the hospital ’ s charity care programs .
In 2008 , the Baltimore Sun reported that Hopkins and other Maryland nonprofit hospitals had filed more than 32,000 debt-collection suits over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least $ 100 million in judgments .
Last May , a coalition that includes the AFL-CIO and National Nurses United , which has been trying to organize Hopkins nurses , released a report finding that Hopkins had launched 2,400 lawsuits in Maryland courts since 2009 against patients with unpaid bills , increasing from 20 in 2009 to a peak of 535 in 2016 .
In response to the 2019 report , Hopkins officials said they offered considerable free and discounted services , and that “ for patients who choose not to pursue those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to pay , we will make every effort to reach out to them and to accommodate their schedule and needs .
In those rare occasions when a patient who has the ability to pay chooses not to , we follow our state required policies to pursue reimbursement from these patients.
” The cases have slowed in pace but not stopped altogether since the report .
Bayview , one of several hospitals under the Hopkins umbrella , has filed about 60 cases over the past year , according to Maryland court records .
Dozens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , remain open .
Kim Hoppe , vice president for communications for Johns Hopkins Medicine , said in a statement that after looking into the matter , the medical system has become aware of nine garnishments that went into effect in February and March , and that it has now placed a “ hold ” on them .
“ Johns Hopkins remains committed to providing affordable access to all patients in need of our care , regardless of ability to pay , ” Hoppe said .
“ We also make numerous efforts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Typically , patients receive more than a dozen contacts via mail or phone call along with multiple opportunities to file for medical or financial hardship .
At all points in that process , patients are encouraged to speak with financial counselors ; their bills will be forgiven if they can show financial hardship or inability to pay.
” For Cheri Long , aggressive medical debt collection came with less warning than it did for Richardson .
Long , a nurse at an assisted living center in northern West Virginia , had stopped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to pick up some groceries for her kids and some requests for residents at the center : prunes , caramel candies and adult diapers .
When she went to pay with her debit card , the machine told her she had insufficient funds .
She checked the account after leaving the store and found there had been a debit for about $ 900 .
She assumed her account had been hacked and the funds would be restored .
In fact , the bank told her , her account had a hold on it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bank she had not received any notification .
But that night , a card was waiting in her mailbox alerting her that there was a certified letter waiting for her at the post office .
She picked the letter up the next day and rushed to the magistrate court , and she learned that the account had been garnished by West Virginia University Hospitals , the official name for J.W .
Ruby Memorial Hospital , the large nonprofit academic medical center in Morgantown that is the flagship of the WVU Medicine system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by her husband , Seth—after a motorcycle accident seven years ago and after a visit for alcohol rehab after he had started drinking heavily upon losing his coal mining job three years ago .
He had insurance coverage at the time of both hospital stays , even supplemental motorcycle insurance , but the coverage had left a balance of about $ 3,500 .
Seth had gotten work at another mine but lost it again two years ago , leaving the family relying on Cheri ’ s income , about $ 3,000 per month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard , ” she said in an interview .
“ That [ medical bill ] was my last priority .
I didn ’ t think they would do anything over $ 3,500.
” The bank garnishment sent her into a panic .
She was in tears at the courthouse , pleading for someone to help her .
She eventually filed for an “ affidavit for exemption ” through the sheriff , seemingly got the garnishment lifted temporarily and changed her direct deposit to another account to be on the safe side .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ April 3 , her card was declined .
Her account had been zeroed out again despite the exemption , apparently due to a bureaucratic oversight .
She borrowed money for groceries and gas from her co-workers , nursing aides who make minimum wage .
Her father-in-law offered to cover the house payment .
And , on Easter Sunday , she started writing emails—to the governor , to the attorney general .
“ It was a very depressing time , ” she said later .
“ I ’ m out working , busting my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take my money.
” At last , she got help .
The National Consumer Law Center put her in touch with a local legal aid lawyer , Jennifer Wagner with Mountain State Justice .
Wagner filed a lawsuit on behalf of Long , arguing that it was unconstitutional to seize her property when the closure of the court system undermined her ability to seek due process .
On April 15 , Preston County Judge Steven L. Shaffer issued an emergency order halting seizure of both Long ’ s bank account and her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money already taken .
“ Seizure of personal property during the court closure and stay at home order and related state of emergency … violates due process of law , ” he wrote in the order , first reported by the Times West Virginian newspaper .
In a statement , WVU Medicine spokeswoman Angela Knopf said that the system gave guidance to its third-party collection vendors in March to be mindful of the economic impact of the pandemic crisis in seeking repayment , but it did not order them to hold back entirely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to balance our need to liquidate patient balances with the needs of our community , especially during times of disruption , ” read the guidance .
“ Collection calls and letters can continue .
However , please take a soft approach to calls and express the compassion that WVU Medicine has for our community during this difficult time .
We do not want to beat our patients up as they are sequestered in their homes , compounding the stress of the current situation .
We want to be a partner in helping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vendors not to file any new lawsuits for “ at least the next 60 days , ” but it does not explicitly address the garnishing of accounts from cases launched before the crisis .
Wagner , the legal aid lawyer , said she is getting calls from more than a dozen other people in the area facing collection from the hospital and is considering filing a class-action lawsuit over the garnishments .
“ We ’ re contemplating seeking broader relief because of our concerns that they haven ’ t stopped , notwithstanding the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s actually going to dissuade people from seeking medical care during a time when it ’ s really important to seek medical care , and that is really alarming.
” Governors have issued orders temporarily banning wage and bank garnishments in several states , including in Illinois , Massachusetts and Washington .
The Texas Supreme Court has decreed that any new garnishment orders not be served until after May 7 .
Governors or state attorneys general have taken the more limited step of barring the seizure of stimulus checks during bank @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among them California , New York and Ohio .
But this leaves several dozen states where medical debt collection can still carry forward , with or without the ability to seize stimulus checks in the process .
In recent years , revelations of aggressive medical debt collection have been especially prevalent in states that chose not to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act , which has left hospitals with more unreimbursed care than in states that did expand Medicaid .
Kaiser Health News reported on 36,000 lawsuits filed in recent years by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most predating the state ’ s expansion of Medicaid in 2018 , and ProPublica last year reported on 8,300 lawsuits over five years by Methodist Le Bonheur Healthcare in Memphis , where Tennessee lawmakers have refused to expand Medicaid .
That reporting resulted in a pullback by Methodist , which announced that , while not altogether abandoning collection lawsuits , it would expand its financial assistance policy and stop suing its own employees over medical debts .
Meanwhile , though , another Memphis hospital , Baptist Memorial , has kept up aggressive collection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ County court system lists about 20 garnishments for Baptist Memorial debts initiated last month alone , some of them for debts going back more than a decade .
One of the Baptist Memorial targets found out that she was about to have her paycheck garnished for a 13-year-old debt when she received a letter in the mail from a lawyer seeking to represent her in the matter .
“ It ’ s just been very hard , ” said the woman , who asked that her name not be used .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wouldn ’ t work with me .
They ’ re playing hardball.
” A Baptist Memorial spokeswoman said in a written response , “ These are not new cases ; these judgments were made months ago .
You ’ re looking at renewals that were filed in January—well before the first known COVID case was diagnosed in the U.S .
If any of these people lost their jobs , we would stop trying to collect .
If they have other financial issues , they can contact us and we ’ ll work with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for hundreds of patients since the COVID pandemic began.
” Critics of the hospital debt collection say they are aware that hospitals may be more sympathetic creditors at the current moment , when they are strapped by the demands of treating victims of the pandemic , while losing much of their usual business .
Johns Hopkins , for one , announced this week that it was running a $ 100 million deficit , due largely to a dropoff in the elective medical procedures that provide much of its revenue base .
But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nationwide are receiving $ 100 billion in the federal relief packages to help recover some of the costs of the crisis .
And Cecilia Behgam , an AFL-CIO researcher who helped produce the 2019 report on Hopkins , notes that collection on unpaid bills makes up just a tiny sliver of hospital revenue—for a giant institution like Hopkins , typically less than one-tenth of a percent .
“ This is not making a significant difference in the budget of these hospitals , ” she said .
Behgam also noted that in cities such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and garnishments are being brought mostly against exactly the demographic that has been shown to be most vulnerable in the pandemic : lower-income African Americans with underlying health conditions .
“ These are people who are already disproportionately feeling the impact of the epidemic , ” she said .
In Baltimore , Darcel Richardson says she has so far managed to talk the managers of her apartment complex into letting her pay the outstanding balance of her rent once the garnishments stop .
They might even be willing to cancel the usual fees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I am a firm believer in trusting God , ” she said .
“ He ’ ll meet my needs .
So far , he ’ s still kept the roof over my head .
”

This story was published originally by ProPublica, a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for ProPublica’s Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox as soon as they are published.
Darcel Richardson knows she’s fortunate in one sense: She still has her job as a vocational counselor in Baltimore. But despite that, she won’t be able to make her rent payment this month because she’s not getting her full salary for a while. More than $400 per biweekly paycheck—about a quarter of her after-tax income—has been siphoned off by Johns Hopkins University for unpaid medical bills at one of its hospitals.
Richardson, 60, got word of the garnishment from her employer just as the coronavirus pandemic was arriving in full force last month. “My job was going to take the money out. They don’t want to get in trouble,” she said. “I spoke with our payroll accountant, and the bottom line was, even though the crisis had begun, they still had to pay my money to them.”
In a moment when hospitals nationwide are being heralded for their role at the front lines of fighting the pandemic, some Americans continue to experience a less favorable side of hospital operations: aggressive collection for unpaid medical bills, even at a time when many of the debtors are seeing their income plunge. Debt collection is occurring on other fronts as well, over unpaid college and bank loans among others, prompting debates over protecting people’s economic stimulus checks from collection agencies or suspending garnishments outright. But collection by the very hospitals that are treating coronavirus patients brings the health and economic exigencies of the moment into especially stark relief.
In a few cases, hospitals have brought new cases against former patients in recent weeks, such as in Wisconsin, where Froedtert Hospital in Milwaukee filed 46 small-claims lawsuits even after the governor declared a state of emergency on March 12, and other hospital systems in the state filed dozens more, according to a report by Wisconsin Public Radio and Wisconsin Watch. Steve Schoof, Froedtert’s director of external communications, told ProPublica in a statement that the hospital stopped filing small claims suits on March 18. “Moving forward,” the statement continued, “Froedtert Health will no longer be filing small claims suits for medical debt collection. Unfortunately, there was a miscommunication that resulted in small claims filings after March 18. We immediately rectified this miscommunication and dismissed these small claims cases that were filed after March 18.”
More often, though, the collection stems from cases filed months before the pandemic arrived, as the legal process grinds its way forward. “Where debt collection is underway for pre-COVID medical debt, they will continue to do that,” said Jenifer Bosco, a staff attorney for the National Consumer Law Center.
In Richardson’s case, the debt stemmed from a two-day 2018 visit to Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in southeast Baltimore, one of a string of medical visits she has had to make over the years to deal with a knee injury from a fall, a hip injury from a car accident, hernia repairs and back trouble. She had insurance coverage through her job, which at the time was with the state Division of Correction, but it left a balance of almost $1,000 for her to pay. Richardson, who lives by herself in a modest apartment complex just east of the city, started hearing from a collections lawyer for Hopkins last fall and tried to work out a payment schedule with him, but she couldn’t make it work.
“I just didn’t have the money,” she said. “I said to the lawyer, I might be able to pay an amount monthly, but when it came time, I just didn’t have it. What can you do when you’re caught between a rock and a hard place? I prioritize. I’m going to try to pay my rent first, pay for gas and electric, cellphone costs. And I’ve got to eat.”
The court judgment was finally entered against Richardson in Baltimore City District Court in January: $923.21, plus $34 in court costs and $138.49 in attorney’s fees. The notice of wage garnishment went out on March 6—the day after Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan announced the state’s first three coronavirus cases. The garnishment was confirmed by Richardson’s new employer, the nonprofit drug treatment organization Gaudenzia, on March 16, the day that Hogan decreed the closure of all bars, restaurants, gyms and movie theaters, and three days after Richardson and her colleagues were barred by safety precautions from providing counseling inside prisons. She now works at a small treatment center that houses seven women, where social distancing is easier.
Johns Hopkins, by far the largest private-sector employer in the state and the largest beneficiary of billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s charitable giving, has long faced scrutiny for its aggressive collection of medical debt, including from the many low-income Baltimore residents it serves, who in theory should be able to qualify for the hospital’s charity care programs. In 2008, the Baltimore Sun reported that Hopkins and other Maryland nonprofit hospitals had filed more than 32,000 debt-collection suits over the past five years, winning at least $100 million in judgments. Last May, a coalition that includes the AFL-CIO and National Nurses United, which has been trying to organize Hopkins nurses, released a report finding that Hopkins had launched 2,400 lawsuits in Maryland courts since 2009 against patients with unpaid bills, increasing from 20 in 2009 to a peak of 535 in 2016.
In response to the 2019 report, Hopkins officials said they offered considerable free and discounted services, and that “for patients who choose not to pursue those options or who have a demonstrated ability to pay, we will make every effort to reach out to them and to accommodate their schedule and needs. In those rare occasions when a patient who has the ability to pay chooses not to, we follow our state required policies to pursue reimbursement from these patients.”
The cases have slowed in pace but not stopped altogether since the report. Bayview, one of several hospitals under the Hopkins umbrella, has filed about 60 cases over the past year, according to Maryland court records. Dozens of them, including Richardson’s, remain open.
Kim Hoppe, vice president for communications for Johns Hopkins Medicine, said in a statement that after looking into the matter, the medical system has become aware of nine garnishments that went into effect in February and March, and that it has now placed a “hold” on them. “Johns Hopkins remains committed to providing affordable access to all patients in need of our care, regardless of ability to pay,” Hoppe said. “We also make numerous efforts to communicate with patients who have overdue bills. Typically, patients receive more than a dozen contacts via mail or phone call along with multiple opportunities to file for medical or financial hardship. At all points in that process, patients are encouraged to speak with financial counselors; their bills will be forgiven if they can show financial hardship or inability to pay.”
For Cheri Long, aggressive medical debt collection came with less warning than it did for Richardson. Long, a nurse at an assisted living center in northern West Virginia, had stopped by a Dollar General on March 23 to pick up some groceries for her kids and some requests for residents at the center: prunes, caramel candies and adult diapers. When she went to pay with her debit card, the machine told her she had insufficient funds. She checked the account after leaving the store and found there had been a debit for about $900. She assumed her account had been hacked and the funds would be restored. In fact, the bank told her, her account had a hold on it from the magistrate court.
She told the bank she had not received any notification. But that night, a card was waiting in her mailbox alerting her that there was a certified letter waiting for her at the post office. She picked the letter up the next day and rushed to the magistrate court, and she learned that the account had been garnished by West Virginia University Hospitals, the official name for J.W. Ruby Memorial Hospital, the large nonprofit academic medical center in Morgantown that is the flagship of the WVU Medicine system.
The bills were for care received by her husband, Seth—after a motorcycle accident seven years ago and after a visit for alcohol rehab after he had started drinking heavily upon losing his coal mining job three years ago. He had insurance coverage at the time of both hospital stays, even supplemental motorcycle insurance, but the coverage had left a balance of about $3,500. Seth had gotten work at another mine but lost it again two years ago, leaving the family relying on Cheri’s income, about $3,000 per month in take-home pay. “Times are hard,” she said in an interview. “That [medical bill] was my last priority. I didn’t think they would do anything over $3,500.”
The bank garnishment sent her into a panic. She was in tears at the courthouse, pleading for someone to help her. She eventually filed for an “affidavit for exemption” through the sheriff, seemingly got the garnishment lifted temporarily and changed her direct deposit to another account to be on the safe side. But when she went for groceries again on April 3, her card was declined. Her account had been zeroed out again despite the exemption, apparently due to a bureaucratic oversight.
She borrowed money for groceries and gas from her co-workers, nursing aides who make minimum wage. Her father-in-law offered to cover the house payment. And, on Easter Sunday, she started writing emails—to the governor, to the attorney general. “It was a very depressing time,” she said later. “I’m out working, busting my butt, and they’re going to take my money.”
At last, she got help. The National Consumer Law Center put her in touch with a local legal aid lawyer, Jennifer Wagner with Mountain State Justice. Wagner filed a lawsuit on behalf of Long, arguing that it was unconstitutional to seize her property when the closure of the court system undermined her ability to seek due process.
On April 15, Preston County Judge Steven L. Shaffer issued an emergency order halting seizure of both Long’s bank account and her imminent stimulus funds, thereby restoring the money already taken. “Seizure of personal property during the court closure and stay at home order and related state of emergency … violates due process of law,” he wrote in the order, first reported by the Times West Virginian newspaper.
In a statement, WVU Medicine spokeswoman Angela Knopf said that the system gave guidance to its third-party collection vendors in March to be mindful of the economic impact of the pandemic crisis in seeking repayment, but it did not order them to hold back entirely. “At WVU Medicine, we need to balance our need to liquidate patient balances with the needs of our community, especially during times of disruption,” read the guidance. “Collection calls and letters can continue. However, please take a soft approach to calls and express the compassion that WVU Medicine has for our community during this difficult time. We do not want to beat our patients up as they are sequestered in their homes, compounding the stress of the current situation. We want to be a partner in helping them through this.” The guidance instructed vendors not to file any new lawsuits for “at least the next 60 days,” but it does not explicitly address the garnishing of accounts from cases launched before the crisis.
Wagner, the legal aid lawyer, said she is getting calls from more than a dozen other people in the area facing collection from the hospital and is considering filing a class-action lawsuit over the garnishments. “We’re contemplating seeking broader relief because of our concerns that they haven’t stopped, notwithstanding the order,” she said. “It’s actually going to dissuade people from seeking medical care during a time when it’s really important to seek medical care, and that is really alarming.”
Governors have issued orders temporarily banning wage and bank garnishments in several states, including in Illinois, Massachusetts and Washington. The Texas Supreme Court has decreed that any new garnishment orders not be served until after May 7. Governors or state attorneys general have taken the more limited step of barring the seizure of stimulus checks during bank account garnishments in some other states, among them California, New York and Ohio. But this leaves several dozen states where medical debt collection can still carry forward, with or without the ability to seize stimulus checks in the process.
In recent years, revelations of aggressive medical debt collection have been especially prevalent in states that chose not to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, which has left hospitals with more unreimbursed care than in states that did expand Medicaid. Kaiser Health News reported on 36,000 lawsuits filed in recent years by the University of Virginia medical system, most predating the state’s expansion of Medicaid in 2018, and ProPublica last year reported on 8,300 lawsuits over five years by Methodist Le Bonheur Healthcare in Memphis, where Tennessee lawmakers have refused to expand Medicaid. That reporting resulted in a pullback by Methodist, which announced that, while not altogether abandoning collection lawsuits, it would expand its financial assistance policy and stop suing its own employees over medical debts.
Meanwhile, though, another Memphis hospital, Baptist Memorial, has kept up aggressive collection during the economic crisis. The Shelby County court system lists about 20 garnishments for Baptist Memorial debts initiated last month alone, some of them for debts going back more than a decade.
One of the Baptist Memorial targets found out that she was about to have her paycheck garnished for a 13-year-old debt when she received a letter in the mail from a lawyer seeking to represent her in the matter. “It’s just been very hard,” said the woman, who asked that her name not be used. “I had offered a settlement, but they wouldn’t work with me. They’re playing hardball.”
A Baptist Memorial spokeswoman said in a written response, “These are not new cases; these judgments were made months ago. You’re looking at renewals that were filed in January—well before the first known COVID case was diagnosed in the U.S. If any of these people lost their jobs, we would stop trying to collect. If they have other financial issues, they can contact us and we’ll work with them. We have modified payment plans for hundreds of patients since the COVID pandemic began.”
Critics of the hospital debt collection say they are aware that hospitals may be more sympathetic creditors at the current moment, when they are strapped by the demands of treating victims of the pandemic, while losing much of their usual business. Johns Hopkins, for one, announced this week that it was running a $100 million deficit, due largely to a dropoff in the elective medical procedures that provide much of its revenue base.
But the National Consumer Law Center notes that hospitals nationwide are receiving $100 billion in the federal relief packages to help recover some of the costs of the crisis. And Cecilia Behgam, an AFL-CIO researcher who helped produce the 2019 report on Hopkins, notes that collection on unpaid bills makes up just a tiny sliver of hospital revenue—for a giant institution like Hopkins, typically less than one-tenth of a percent. “This is not making a significant difference in the budget of these hospitals,” she said.
Behgam also noted that in cities such as Baltimore and Memphis, the lawsuits and garnishments are being brought mostly against exactly the demographic that has been shown to be most vulnerable in the pandemic: lower-income African Americans with underlying health conditions. “These are people who are already disproportionately feeling the impact of the epidemic,” she said.
In Baltimore, Darcel Richardson says she has so far managed to talk the managers of her apartment complex into letting her pay the outstanding balance of her rent once the garnishments stop. They might even be willing to cancel the usual fees for late payment, she said. “I am a firm believer in trusting God,” she said. “He’ll meet my needs. So far, he’s still kept the roof over my head.”
Wendi C. Thomas contributed reporting.


motherjones--2020-05-02--Donald Trump’s Defense of Michael Flynn and Roger Stone Is a Giant Gaslight

A full-on freakout on the right over the revelation that the FBI planned for the prospect that then-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn would lie in a January 2016 interview , has , inevitably , drawn in political operative Roger Stone .
President Donald Trump on Thursday suggested he may pardon both Flynn and Stone , each of whom was found to have lied to federal investigators about the Trump Russia scandal .
“ What they did to Gen. Flynn , and by the way , to Roger Stone and to others , was a disaster and a disgrace , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this country again , ” Trump said when asked about pardoning Flynn .
Notably , Trump and his backers , by and large , are not saying that Flynn and Stone didn ’ t lie to federal investigators .
Instead they are implying that lying to investigators doesn ’ t matter .
Trump and his backers start with the premise that the Trump-Russia scandal was a “ hoax , ” a claim premised on the failure of special counsel Robert Mueller and congressional Democrats to prove a criminal conspiracy between the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Tump and company say , the investigations into their conduct were unfair , with any resulting perjury the product of overzealous prosecution .
This is Trump ’ s fundamental gaslight .
Flynn and Stone ’ s lies , and those of Trump himself , helped to prevent investigators from learning what really happened with the Trump campaign and Russia in 2016 , benefiting first and foremost Trump , who falsely proclaimed exoneration .
In pardoning Stone and Flynn , the president would reward them for that service , and use the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drown out anyone noting the con .
The argument that Flynn and Stone were railroaded , long popular talking points on the right , got a boost Wednesday , when federal prosecutors in Flynn ’ s case disclosed handwritten notes that Bill Priestap , then the FBI ’ s head of counterintelligence , made prior to FBI agents interviewing Flynn at the White House in January 2016 .
The agents knew that Flynn had spoken in December 2016 to Sergey Kislyak , Russia ’ s ambassador to the US , about sanctions imposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an apparent violation of the Logan Act .
Preistap wrote : “ What ’ s our goal ?
Truth/Admission or to get him to lie , so we can prosecute him or get him fired ?
” While conservative pundits have treated these notes as smoking gun evidence that Flynn was framed , legal experts have noted that the FBI ’ s tactics with Flynn were not unusual .
Federal agents often try to catch targets in situations where they will admit crimes or lie , opening themselves to prosecution .
In a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lying to the FBI agents .
( He also said under oath that he did not believe the FBI entrapped him . )
Flynn ’ s lawyers are trying to switch his plea to not guilty , and are also asking for the case to be thrown out .
The judge overseeing the case has not ruled on those requests .
Trump has also seized on arguments by Stone ’ s lawyers that the self-described dirty trickster was unjustly convicted because the forewoman of the DC jury in social media posts criticized Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this argument .
Stone and Flynn ’ s lies were part of a pattern .
Mueller ’ s report , despite its muddled conclusions , indisputably revealed that the president and his advisers reacted to revelations of the campaign ’ s ties to Russia with epic dishonesty .
Some lies were public : Trump claimed to have no business in Russia .
In fact , at the time his employees were seeking Kremlin help advancing a Trump-branded project there .
Trump campaign spokesperson Hope Hicks said in November 2016 that “ there was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign entity during the campaign.
” Mueller noted more than 100 contacts by campaign with Russia alone .
Along with Stone and Flynn , former Trump personal lawyer Michael Cohen and former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos went to prison for lying to federal agents or lawmakers .
Former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates and campaign chairman Paul Manafort were found to have lied to investigators , among other crimes .
The Justice Department said in February that it was looking into whether Erik Prince , the Blackwater founder and a Trump campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Committee in 2017 testimony .
Reliable Trump boosters like Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-S.C. ) , Rush Limbaugh , and Alan Dershowitz have derided perjury charges as “ process crimes , ” implying these were charges prosecutors brought because they couldn ’ t find anything more serious .
Mueller and his prosecutors , however , have repeatedly said that lies by Trump associates handicapped their efforts .
“ The investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office , and to Congress , about their interactions with Russian-affiliated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote .
“ Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference.
” Trump was no passive observer of this .
He actively encouraged associates to stonewall Mueller and Congress , dangling the prospect of pardons for aides who refused to cooperate .
Mueller ’ s report examined 10 instances in which Trump may have obstructed justice to thwart the probe .
Those include Trump pressuring then-FBI director James Comey to stop investigating Flynn in 2017 .
And one of Trump ’ s lawyers , John Dowd , left Flynn ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump would remain supportive of Flynn if he did not give prosecutors evidence about Trump .
( Dowd denies that this was an explicit offer of a pardon in exchange for silence . )
Trump himself refused to be interviewed by Mueller .
And as Mother Jones has reported , the president appears to have lied in written answers he gave Mueller in which he claimed not to recall communications with Stone in 2016 about WikiLeaks .
Testimony at Stone ’ s trial by Gates and former Trump campaign chairman Steve Bannon revealed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stone about WikiLeaks , and that campaign officials viewed Stone as a conduit to WikiLeaks .
Flynn and Stone ’ s lawyers have argued that because prosecutors have not proved that their clients conspired with Russia , their lies to investigators should be set aside .
“ So much of this case deals with the question : So what ?
” Stone attorney Bruce Rogow said in his concluding remarks at Stone ’ s trial .
Prosecutors and judges in those cases have repeatedly dismissed those claims .
Federal District Court Judge Amy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spoke at length on the impact of Stone ’ s dishonesty , noting he thwarted a key part of the House ’ s Russia investigation .
“ His pride in his own lies are a threat to our most fundamental institutions , ” she said , “ to the very foundation of our democracy.
” “ He was not prosecuted , as some have complained , for standing up for the president , ” Jackson said .
“ He was prosecuted for covering up for the president .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
A full-on freakout on the right over the revelation that the FBI planned for the prospect that then-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn would lie in a January 2016 interview, has, inevitably, drawn in political operative Roger Stone. President Donald Trump on Thursday suggested he may pardon both Flynn and Stone, each of whom was found to have lied to federal investigators about the Trump Russia scandal.
“What they did to Gen. Flynn, and by the way, to Roger Stone and to others, was a disaster and a disgrace, and it should never be allowed to happen in this country again,” Trump said when asked about pardoning Flynn.
Notably, Trump and his backers, by and large, are not saying that Flynn and Stone didn’t lie to federal investigators. Instead they are implying that lying to investigators doesn’t matter.
Trump and his backers start with the premise that the Trump-Russia scandal was a “hoax,” a claim premised on the failure of special counsel Robert Mueller and congressional Democrats to prove a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. As a result, Tump and company say, the investigations into their conduct were unfair, with any resulting perjury the product of overzealous prosecution.
This is Trump’s fundamental gaslight. Flynn and Stone’s lies, and those of Trump himself, helped to prevent investigators from learning what really happened with the Trump campaign and Russia in 2016, benefiting first and foremost Trump, who falsely proclaimed exoneration. In pardoning Stone and Flynn, the president would reward them for that service, and use the pandemic and the volume of his supporters to drown out anyone noting the con.
The argument that Flynn and Stone were railroaded, long popular talking points on the right, got a boost Wednesday, when federal prosecutors in Flynn’s case disclosed handwritten notes that Bill Priestap, then the FBI’s head of counterintelligence, made prior to FBI agents interviewing Flynn at the White House in January 2016. The agents knew that Flynn had spoken in December 2016 to Sergey Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador to the US, about sanctions imposed by President Barack Obama on Russia, an apparent violation of the Logan Act. Preistap wrote: “What’s our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?”
“Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference.”
While conservative pundits have treated these notes as smoking gun evidence that Flynn was framed, legal experts have noted that the FBI’s tactics with Flynn were not unusual. Federal agents often try to catch targets in situations where they will admit crimes or lie, opening themselves to prosecution. In a guilty plea, Flynn admitted to knowingly lying to the FBI agents. (He also said under oath that he did not believe the FBI entrapped him.) Flynn’s lawyers are trying to switch his plea to not guilty, and are also asking for the case to be thrown out. The judge overseeing the case has not ruled on those requests.
Trump has also seized on arguments by Stone’s lawyers that the self-described dirty trickster was unjustly convicted because the forewoman of the DC jury in social media posts criticized Trump; the judge in the case rejected this argument.
Stone and Flynn’s lies were part of a pattern. Mueller’s report, despite its muddled conclusions, indisputably revealed that the president and his advisers reacted to revelations of the campaign’s ties to Russia with epic dishonesty. Some lies were public: Trump claimed to have no business in Russia. In fact, at the time his employees were seeking Kremlin help advancing a Trump-branded project there. Trump campaign spokesperson Hope Hicks said in November 2016 that “there was no communication between the campaign and any foreign entity during the campaign.” Mueller noted more than 100 contacts by campaign with Russia alone.
Along with Stone and Flynn, former Trump personal lawyer Michael Cohen and former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos went to prison for lying to federal agents or lawmakers. Former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates and campaign chairman Paul Manafort were found to have lied to investigators, among other crimes. The Justice Department said in February that it was looking into whether Erik Prince, the Blackwater founder and a Trump campaign adviser, lied to the House Intelligence Committee in 2017 testimony.
Reliable Trump boosters like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Rush Limbaugh, and Alan Dershowitz have derided perjury charges as “process crimes,” implying these were charges prosecutors brought because they couldn’t find anything more serious. Mueller and his prosecutors, however, have repeatedly said that lies by Trump associates handicapped their efforts. “The investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters,” Mueller wrote. “Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference.”
Trump was no passive observer of this. He actively encouraged associates to stonewall Mueller and Congress, dangling the prospect of pardons for aides who refused to cooperate. Mueller’s report examined 10 instances in which Trump may have obstructed justice to thwart the probe. Those include Trump pressuring then-FBI director James Comey to stop investigating Flynn in 2017. And one of Trump’s lawyers, John Dowd, left Flynn’s lawyer a voicemail in late 2017 suggesting Trump would remain supportive of Flynn if he did not give prosecutors evidence about Trump. (Dowd denies that this was an explicit offer of a pardon in exchange for silence.)
Trump himself refused to be interviewed by Mueller. And as Mother Jones has reported, the president appears to have lied in written answers he gave Mueller in which he claimed not to recall communications with Stone in 2016 about WikiLeaks. Testimony at Stone’s trial by Gates and former Trump campaign chairman Steve Bannon revealed that Trump spoke during the campaign with Stone about WikiLeaks, and that campaign officials viewed Stone as a conduit to WikiLeaks.
Flynn and Stone’s lawyers have argued that because prosecutors have not proved that their clients conspired with Russia, their lies to investigators should be set aside. “So much of this case deals with the question: So what?” Stone attorney Bruce Rogow said in his concluding remarks at Stone’s trial. Prosecutors and judges in those cases have repeatedly dismissed those claims.
Federal District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, in sentencing Stone, spoke at length on the impact of Stone’s dishonesty, noting he thwarted a key part of the House’s Russia investigation. “His pride in his own lies are a threat to our most fundamental institutions,” she said, “to the very foundation of our democracy.”
“He was not prosecuted, as some have complained, for standing up for the president,” Jackson said. “He was prosecuted for covering up for the president.”


motherjones--2020-05-02--Biden Denied Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Allegation. Now What?

For weeks , pressure has been building on former Vice President Joe Biden to personally address the allegation leveled against him by Tara Reade , the former Senate staff assistant who says Biden sexually assaulted her when she was working for him 27 years ago .
On Friday , days after a second person came forward to say Reade told her in detail about the alleged assault in the mid-1990s , Biden finally responded .
In an interview with MSNBC ’ s Mika Brzezinski , the presumptive Democratic nominee repeated ten times that the allegations were “ not true ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happened.
” “ From the very beginning , I ’ ve said believing women means taking the woman ’ s claim seriously when she steps forward , and then vet it .
Look into it .
That ’ s true in this case as well , ” Biden told Brzezinski .
“ In the end , in every case , the truth is what matters .
And in this case , the truth is , the claims are false.
” In a separate statement published online , Biden pointed to his extensive policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reade ’ s account contained a “ growing record of inconsistencies , ” and emphasized that none of his former staffers , including supervisors Reade says she complained to about sexual harassment , have said they recall her complaints .
On Friday afternoon , he sent a letter to the secretary of the Senate calling for the release of any documents related to Reade ’ s allegation , but he declined to allow a search of his Senate records stored at the University of Delaware .
Hearing directly from Biden satisfied the growing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and progressive groups for Biden to submit to personal questioning about Reade ’ s allegation .
But it did little to put to rest questions about what truly happened with Reade in 1993—much less what a fair and conclusive process for handling her allegation might look like .
Complicating matters are the political stakes , as the party and the progressive groups it relies on wrestle with their overarching goal : to unseat President Donald Trump , himself accused of sexually assaulting roughly two dozen women .
On Friday , leaders of prominent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ express relief that Biden had finally spoken .
“ Vice President Biden directly addressed the allegations before him head-on today—anyone running for office should do no less in the face of such serious claims , ” said Fatima Goss Graves , president and CEO of the National Women ’ s Law Center .
Alexis McGill Johnson , the acting president and CEO of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund , also praised Biden for addressing the claims “ head on.
” But in interviews with Mother Jones , activists and advocates for sexual assault @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reade even as they grappled with whether to continue to support Biden politically—said that Biden ’ s response failed to sway them , in part because it promoted common misconceptions about sexual misconduct , including the idea that a history of good deeds is evidence that someone did not commit a particular sexual assault .
All the activists were troubled by the statement ’ s heavy references to Biden ’ s work on the Violence Against Women Act , the part of the 1994 crime bill that created federal programs to prevent and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence , stalking , and other kinds of sexual violence .
“ That act has been incredibly important for victims and survivors of gender-based violence , but his role in doing that doesn ’ t mean that he ’ s not capable of causing harm to other people , ” says activist Alyssa Leader , a former victim advocate and rape crisis counselor .
Robyn Swirling , who runs Works In Progress , a nonprofit that helps progressive organizations and campaigns with their internal responses to sexual harassment , said she was frustrated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reade ’ s statements as evidence against her .
The chief inconsistency—that last year , Reade accused Biden of sexual harassment but did not speak of a sexual assault—actually follows a common pattern for survivors , who frequently omit details of their experiences .
“ We tell different people different elements of what has happened , ” Swirling explains , “ because of our relationships to those people , the safety , or the lack of safety we may feel.
” Wagatwe Wanuki , an antirape activist , argues that Biden ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Reade .
“ Essentially , he ’ s saying she ’ s a liar , ” Wanjuki says .
She ’ s concerned Biden ’ s arguments will harm survivors as they are amplified online and in the media .
Leader would like for Biden to step down as a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination .
“ I think that this is a significant enough claim—and the claims that have been made against him in the past are significant enough—that there is reason to think that he is not the best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
On Friday , the New York Times editorial board called for a Democratic National Committee investigation of Biden .
This week , Stanford law professor Michele Dauber , who leads the Enough is Enough Voter Project , demanded that the DNC open an independent investigation into Reade ’ s claims before the Democratic nominating convention in August .
So far , no prominent elected leaders have joined in those calls .
High-profile women Democrats , such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) and former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Biden ’ s own denials .
Even advocates like Swirling , who think Biden must do more , question what ends an investigation would achieve .
“ What are you going to investigate here—by whom , to lead us where ?
” Swirling asks .
Wanjuki , too , is wary , particularly after the FBI ’ s constrained investigation into assault allegations against then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh .
Such an investigation , she says , “ sets a bar that could be easily satisfied but still doesn ’ t get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But , she adds , there ’ s a need for “ some sort of process.
” The difficulty defining an ideal process for handling Reade ’ s allegations stems , in part , from problems with how sexual assault allegations are handled across American institutions—from the criminal justice system , to civil lawsuits , to misconduct investigations in universities and workplaces .
“ When we ’ re talking about what works for survivors , what feels like justice , what promotes healing , there are generally few , if any , good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attorney Alexandra Brodsky .
“ We don ’ t have models of accountability , ” says Heather Marlowe , cofounder of People for the Enforcement of Rape Laws .
“ We live in a culture where the only language of accountability has been , ‘ lock them up and throw away the key . '
” For now , without an investigation , as Biden continues to deny Reade ’ s claims , advocates suggested he could still do more to show that he recognizes the impact her claims , and his response @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shaunna Thomas , executive director of UltraViolet , said Biden should “ own the harm that people have experienced as a result of their behavior , and take meaningful steps to facilitate healing.
” Ana Maria Archila , a co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy whose confrontation with Sen. Jeff Flake ( R-Ariz. ) in a Capitol Hill elevator during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings went viral , said doing so would give Biden a chance to demonstrate growth .
“ As someone seeking to govern the country , he has a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pain of survivors and speak about the reality of our collective experience , ” Archila said .
Swirling suggested Biden could also strive for transparency around his campaign ’ s workplace misconduct guidelines , something that had been a primary unto itself when the 2020 candidates began to announce their runs last year .
Others are calling for a renewed emphasis on policy : The National Women ’ s Law Center ’ s Goss Graves noted in her statement that the presidential race “ has barely touched on the many systemic changes that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Archila and Nomiki Konst , a former Bernie Sanders surrogate who founded Matriarch PAC , a progressive group that backs working-class women running for Congress , both suggested Biden ’ s White House transition team and executive branch nominees be women who have championed economic and reproductive justice .
Both had signed a letter from progressive women leaders encouraging Biden to choose a woman to serve as his vice president , which he has promised to do .
In his statement Friday , Biden said he was “ committed to finishing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outlining policy priorities like addressing online harassment and abuse , and the “ deadly combination ” of guns and domestic violence .
Some prominent Democrats have already voiced concern that making more demands of Biden would play into Trump ’ s hand—his campaign has already seized on the accusations—and that an investigation is just an excuse for the media to generate clicks .
Archila doesn ’ t share that opinion , but she empathizes with those who voice it .
There ’ s a massive conundrum facing Democrats , who have shown a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alleged of wrongdoing—but not consistently , and never facing quite these stakes .
“ There ’ s no question that we have to do whatever we can to unseat him , but , we ’ re stuck in this trap of having to vote for someone whose name is attached to allegations of sexual assault , ” Archila says .
“ It feels morally incoherent , and the thing we have to do is confusing and paralyzing.
” Even as feminist-aligned political organizations grapple with how to respond , they are clear on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be on them to provide all the answers about the path forward .
Responding to Reade , says Thomas , “ is nobody else ’ s responsibility ” but Biden ’ s .
“ Not any other politician , not any of the surrogates , and certainly not groups that work every single day to serve and build power for women.
” “ It seems they ’ re calculating they don ’ t need to woo progressives , but they do need women , ” says Matriarch PAC ’ s Konst , referring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been crucial in delivering both the Democratic majority in the House and Biden ’ s primary victory .
Democrats are hoping to rely on an energized base to organize for Biden this summer and fall , but no one knows whether the thought of doing so for an accused candidate will deflate their motivation .
“ This is where the power of the feminist Democratic organizations lies , ” Konst says .
“ It ’ ll impact who turns out , who ’ s mobilized .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
For weeks, pressure has been building on former Vice President Joe Biden to personally address the allegation leveled against him by Tara Reade, the former Senate staff assistant who says Biden sexually assaulted her when she was working for him 27 years ago. On Friday, days after a second person came forward to say Reade told her in detail about the alleged assault in the mid-1990s, Biden finally responded. In an interview with MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski, the presumptive Democratic nominee repeated ten times that the allegations were “not true” and that the alleged assault “never happened.”
“From the very beginning, I’ve said believing women means taking the woman’s claim seriously when she steps forward, and then vet it. Look into it. That’s true in this case as well,” Biden told Brzezinski. “In the end, in every case, the truth is what matters. And in this case, the truth is, the claims are false.”
In a separate statement published online, Biden pointed to his extensive policy record on sexual violence, stated that Reade’s account contained a “growing record of inconsistencies,” and emphasized that none of his former staffers, including supervisors Reade says she complained to about sexual harassment, have said they recall her complaints. On Friday afternoon, he sent a letter to the secretary of the Senate calling for the release of any documents related to Reade’s allegation, but he declined to allow a search of his Senate records stored at the University of Delaware.
Hearing directly from Biden satisfied the growing desire among women’s advocacy organizations and progressive groups for Biden to submit to personal questioning about Reade’s allegation. But it did little to put to rest questions about what truly happened with Reade in 1993—much less what a fair and conclusive process for handling her allegation might look like. Complicating matters are the political stakes, as the party and the progressive groups it relies on wrestle with their overarching goal: to unseat President Donald Trump, himself accused of sexually assaulting roughly two dozen women.
On Friday, leaders of prominent women’s advocacy groups seemed to express relief that Biden had finally spoken. “Vice President Biden directly addressed the allegations before him head-on today—anyone running for office should do no less in the face of such serious claims,” said Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center. Alexis McGill Johnson, the acting president and CEO of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, also praised Biden for addressing the claims “head on.”
“I think that this is a significant enough claim—and the claims that have been made against him in the past are significant enough—that there is reason to think that he is not the best candidate for the party.”
But in interviews with Mother Jones, activists and advocates for sexual assault survivors—many of whom indicated early support for Reade even as they grappled with whether to continue to support Biden politically—said that Biden’s response failed to sway them, in part because it promoted common misconceptions about sexual misconduct, including the idea that a history of good deeds is evidence that someone did not commit a particular sexual assault.
All the activists were troubled by the statement’s heavy references to Biden’s work on the Violence Against Women Act, the part of the 1994 crime bill that created federal programs to prevent and respond to sexual assault, intimate partner violence, stalking, and other kinds of sexual violence. “That act has been incredibly important for victims and survivors of gender-based violence, but his role in doing that doesn’t mean that he’s not capable of causing harm to other people,” says activist Alyssa Leader, a former victim advocate and rape crisis counselor.
Robyn Swirling, who runs Works In Progress, a nonprofit that helps progressive organizations and campaigns with their internal responses to sexual harassment, said she was frustrated that Biden referenced “inconsistencies” in Reade’s statements as evidence against her. The chief inconsistency—that last year, Reade accused Biden of sexual harassment but did not speak of a sexual assault—actually follows a common pattern for survivors, who frequently omit details of their experiences. “We tell different people different elements of what has happened,” Swirling explains, “because of our relationships to those people, the safety, or the lack of safety we may feel.” Wagatwe Wanuki, an antirape activist, argues that Biden’s denial on Friday amounted to an attack on Reade. “Essentially, he’s saying she’s a liar,” Wanjuki says. She’s concerned Biden’s arguments will harm survivors as they are amplified online and in the media.
Leader would like for Biden to step down as a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. “I think that this is a significant enough claim—and the claims that have been made against him in the past are significant enough—that there is reason to think that he is not the best candidate for the party,” she said. On Friday, the New York Times editorial board called for a Democratic National Committee investigation of Biden. This week, Stanford law professor Michele Dauber, who leads the Enough is Enough Voter Project, demanded that the DNC open an independent investigation into Reade’s claims before the Democratic nominating convention in August.
So far, no prominent elected leaders have joined in those calls. High-profile women Democrats, such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, have issued statements that align closely with Biden’s own denials. Even advocates like Swirling, who think Biden must do more, question what ends an investigation would achieve. “What are you going to investigate here—by whom, to lead us where?” Swirling asks. Wanjuki, too, is wary, particularly after the FBI’s constrained investigation into assault allegations against then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Such an investigation, she says, “sets a bar that could be easily satisfied but still doesn’t get to the heart of the issue.” But, she adds, there’s a need for “some sort of process.”
The difficulty defining an ideal process for handling Reade’s allegations stems, in part, from problems with how sexual assault allegations are handled across American institutions—from the criminal justice system, to civil lawsuits, to misconduct investigations in universities and workplaces. “When we’re talking about what works for survivors, what feels like justice, what promotes healing, there are generally few, if any, good options,” says a civil rights attorney Alexandra Brodsky. “We don’t have models of accountability,” says Heather Marlowe, cofounder of People for the Enforcement of Rape Laws. “We live in a culture where the only language of accountability has been, ‘lock them up and throw away the key.'”
For now, without an investigation, as Biden continues to deny Reade’s claims, advocates suggested he could still do more to show that he recognizes the impact her claims, and his response, have had on survivors nationally. Shaunna Thomas, executive director of UltraViolet, said Biden should “own the harm that people have experienced as a result of their behavior, and take meaningful steps to facilitate healing.” Ana Maria Archila, a co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy whose confrontation with Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) in a Capitol Hill elevator during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings went viral, said doing so would give Biden a chance to demonstrate growth. “As someone seeking to govern the country, he has a responsibility to model how to hold the pain of survivors and speak about the reality of our collective experience,” Archila said.
“There’s no question that we have to do whatever we can to unseat him, but we’re stuck in this trap of having to vote for someone whose name is attached to allegations of sexual assault.”
Swirling suggested Biden could also strive for transparency around his campaign’s workplace misconduct guidelines, something that had been a primary unto itself when the 2020 candidates began to announce their runs last year. Others are calling for a renewed emphasis on policy: The National Women’s Law Center’s Goss Graves noted in her statement that the presidential race “has barely touched on the many systemic changes that will actually be necessary to achieve change.” Archila and Nomiki Konst, a former Bernie Sanders surrogate who founded Matriarch PAC, a progressive group that backs working-class women running for Congress, both suggested Biden’s White House transition team and executive branch nominees be women who have championed economic and reproductive justice. Both had signed a letter from progressive women leaders encouraging Biden to choose a woman to serve as his vice president, which he has promised to do.
In his statement Friday, Biden said he was “committed to finishing the job” he started with VAWA, outlining policy priorities like addressing online harassment and abuse, and the “deadly combination” of guns and domestic violence. Some prominent Democrats have already voiced concern that making more demands of Biden would play into Trump’s hand—his campaign has already seized on the accusations—and that an investigation is just an excuse for the media to generate clicks.
Archila doesn’t share that opinion, but she empathizes with those who voice it. There’s a massive conundrum facing Democrats, who have shown a willingness to purge their party of those alleged of wrongdoing—but not consistently, and never facing quite these stakes. “There’s no question that we have to do whatever we can to unseat him, but we’re stuck in this trap of having to vote for someone whose name is attached to allegations of sexual assault,” Archila says. “It feels morally incoherent, and the thing we have to do is confusing and paralyzing.”
Even as feminist-aligned political organizations grapple with how to respond, they are clear on one point: It shouldn’t be on them to provide all the answers about the path forward. Responding to Reade, says Thomas, “is nobody else’s responsibility” but Biden’s. “Not any other politician, not any of the surrogates, and certainly not groups that work every single day to serve and build power for women.”


motherjones--2020-05-02--Small Businesses Finally Received Government-Backed Loans. Now They’re Afraid to Spend Them.

A fund Congress created to help rescue small businesses initially struggled to deliver relief to hurting firms .
Now that it ’ s been replenished , the strict rules and confusing guidance surrounding the fund ’ s loans has stopped many recipient businesses from spending them , according to a new story from the New York Times .
For weeks , small businesses expressed outrage over the Paycheck Protection Program , which grants forgivable loans to businesses with fewer than 500 employees facing dire economic straits in a pandemic-induced depression .
The initial $ 350 billion Congress set aside for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worth of payroll , rent , and utility expenses—ran out in just two days as bigger , well-connected firms , such as Ruth ’ s Chris Steak House and Potbelly ’ s , hustled to secure large sums .
Many larger businesses , such as Shake Shack and the Los Angeles Lakers , returned their loans amidst the backlash .
Congress added an additional $ 310 billion the program last month , but , as the Times details , the loans haven ’ t been enough to keep businesses solvent and employees on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owns a woodworking company in Brooklyn , told the Times that the federal government made the program “ so hard to use , ” and that it ’ s “ start [ ing ] to feel like a lose-lose situation.
” Much of that stems from terms of the loan : It can be forgiven only if a firm hires back three-quarters of its employees and spends the whole sum within eight weeks of receiving it .
With a sluggish economy with few signs of recovery and some states pushing their shelter-in-place orders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll just have to lay off their employees again after the two months run out .
Business owners are also afraid of not clearly following the rules of the program , which are “ complicated , ambiguous , and evolving , ” says the Times .
The Small Business Association , which administers the loans , has been continuous updating loan guidance beyond the terms laid out in the CARES Act , the legislation that created the program .
“ I don ’ t accidentally want to commit bank fraud , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ donut shop in Guilford , Conn. , told the Times .
The result , the Times concludes , is that “ many of the small businesses that did get loans are sitting on the money , unsure about whether and how to spend it , ” and , in turn , “ compromising the effectiveness of a program meant to help stabilize the country ’ s reeling economy.
” In the piece , business owners say they wish the program allowed them more flexibility to use the money on protective equipment for their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make it more pandemic friendly , or spend the sum closer to the expected reopening dates in their states .

A fund Congress created to help rescue small businesses initially struggled to deliver relief to hurting firms. Now that it’s been replenished, the strict rules and confusing guidance surrounding the fund’s loans has stopped many recipient businesses from spending them, according to a new story from the New York Times.
For weeks, small businesses expressed outrage over the Paycheck Protection Program, which grants forgivable loans to businesses with fewer than 500 employees facing dire economic straits in a pandemic-induced depression. The initial $350 billion Congress set aside for the program—which covers two month’s worth of payroll, rent, and utility expenses—ran out in just two days as bigger, well-connected firms, such as Ruth’s Chris Steak House and Potbelly’s, hustled to secure large sums. Many larger businesses, such as Shake Shack and the Los Angeles Lakers, returned their loans amidst the backlash.
Congress added an additional $310 billion the program last month, but, as the Times details, the loans haven’t been enough to keep businesses solvent and employees on the job. George Evageliou, who owns a woodworking company in Brooklyn, told the Times that the federal government made the program “so hard to use,” and that it’s “start[ing] to feel like a lose-lose situation.” Much of that stems from terms of the loan: It can be forgiven only if a firm hires back three-quarters of its employees and spends the whole sum within eight weeks of receiving it. With a sluggish economy with few signs of recovery and some states pushing their shelter-in-place orders into June, many employers suspect they’ll just have to lay off their employees again after the two months run out.
Business owners are also afraid of not clearly following the rules of the program, which are “complicated, ambiguous, and evolving,” says the Times. The Small Business Association, which administers the loans, has been continuous updating loan guidance beyond the terms laid out in the CARES Act, the legislation that created the program. “I don’t accidentally want to commit bank fraud,” Jodi Burns, the owner of a donut shop in Guilford, Conn., told the Times.
The result, the Times concludes, is that “many of the small businesses that did get loans are sitting on the money, unsure about whether and how to spend it,” and, in turn, “compromising the effectiveness of a program meant to help stabilize the country’s reeling economy.”
In the piece, business owners say they wish the program allowed them more flexibility to use the money on protective equipment for their workers, tweak their business model to make it more pandemic friendly, or spend the sum closer to the expected reopening dates in their states.


motherjones--2020-05-02--Trump Says There Are Plenty of Coronavirus Tests for Senators Returning to Congress. He’s Wrong.

On Saturday morning , President Trump tweeted there would be plenty of coronavirus tests for the US senators set to return to Washington next week .
His statements contradict multiple reports that there isn ’ t enough capacity .
The president tweeted at Dr. Brian P. Monahan , the Capitol ’ s attending physician .
“ There is tremendous CoronaVirus testing capacity in Washington for the Senators returning to Capital [ sic ] Hill on Monday , ” Trump tweeted .
Trump tagged his new chief of staff , former Rep. Mark Meadows ( R-N.C. ) , to “ inform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Capitol ’ s attending physician .
The tweet is a response to multiple reports that Monahan had told top Republican officials he lacked the capacity to proactively test all 100 senators , who are coming to Washington on Monday for the first time since late March .
Monahan said his office had enough supplies to test senators and staffers who appear ill—but not the rest .
Though Trump said that Monahan could use the “ 5 minute Abbott Test , ” the rapid-results kit used at the White House , Monahan says he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to perform that test .
Any tests he conducts won ’ t have results for two days .
The Capitol ’ s meager capacity stands in stark contrast to the resources reportedly available at the White House .
Both Trump and vice president Mike Pence are tested frequently , as are the aides who work closely with them ; tests are also available to anyone who meets with either Trump or Pence .
In his tweet , Trump suggested that the Capitol also had enough tests for the 435 members of the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t because of Crazy [ House Speaker ] Nancy P [ elosi ( D-Calif. ) ] , ” he wrote .
The House had initially been scheduled to return to work on Monday , as well , but a swift bipartisan backlash against traveling as pandemic conditions remain at peak pushed Pelosi to reverse course .
Neither the House nor the Senate can vote on legislation remotely .
The country ’ s limited testing capacity has been the subject of intense criticism .
Experts say that widespread testing is necessary to determine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the virus and whether people can safely resume normal activities .
Other countries , such as Singapore and South Korea , have implemented comprehensive testing programs that have allowed them to isolate the sick and reopen their economies .

On Saturday morning, President Trump tweeted there would be plenty of coronavirus tests for the US senators set to return to Washington next week. His statements contradict multiple reports that there isn’t enough capacity.
The president tweeted at Dr. Brian P. Monahan, the Capitol’s attending physician. “There is tremendous CoronaVirus testing capacity in Washington for the Senators returning to Capital [sic] Hill on Monday,” Trump tweeted. Trump tagged his new chief of staff, former Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), to “inform Dr. Brian P. Monahan,” the Capitol’s attending physician.
There is tremendous CoronaVirus testing capacity in Washington for the Senators returning to Capital Hill on Monday. Likewise the House, which should return but isn’t because of Crazy Nancy P. The 5 minute Abbott Test will be used. Please inform Dr. Brian P. Monahan. @MarkMeadows — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 2, 2020
The tweet is a response to multiple reports that Monahan had told top Republican officials he lacked the capacity to proactively test all 100 senators, who are coming to Washington on Monday for the first time since late March. Monahan said his office had enough supplies to test senators and staffers who appear ill—but not the rest. Though Trump said that Monahan could use the “5 minute Abbott Test,” the rapid-results kit used at the White House, Monahan says he doesn’t have the equipment necessary to perform that test. Any tests he conducts won’t have results for two days.
The Capitol’s meager capacity stands in stark contrast to the resources reportedly available at the White House. Both Trump and vice president Mike Pence are tested frequently, as are the aides who work closely with them; tests are also available to anyone who meets with either Trump or Pence.
In his tweet, Trump suggested that the Capitol also had enough tests for the 435 members of the House, “which should return but isn’t because of Crazy [House Speaker] Nancy P[elosi (D-Calif.)],” he wrote. The House had initially been scheduled to return to work on Monday, as well, but a swift bipartisan backlash against traveling as pandemic conditions remain at peak pushed Pelosi to reverse course. Neither the House nor the Senate can vote on legislation remotely.
The country’s limited testing capacity has been the subject of intense criticism. Experts say that widespread testing is necessary to determine a population’s rate of exposure to the virus and whether people can safely resume normal activities. Other countries, such as Singapore and South Korea, have implemented comprehensive testing programs that have allowed them to isolate the sick and reopen their economies.