motherjones--2020-03-03--Trump Campaign Files BS Lawsuit Against Washington Post on Russia Scandal

Donald Trump ’ s presidential campaign filed an utterly flimsy libel lawsuit against the Washington Post on Monday , demonstrating that it remains committed to using the media as target for Trump in the 2020 race and that Trump is still obsessed with removing the Russia stain on his presidency .
The filing follows a recent Trump tweet in which he reiterated his claim that this newspaper and other major media outfits are “ THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE !
” This lawsuit is similar to the frivolous lawsuit the Trump campaign filed against the New York Times last month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ articles about the Trump-Russia scandal .
The first article— ” Trump Just Invited Another Russian Attack .
Mitch McConnell Is Making One More Likely , ” by Greg Sargent—noted that Trump had recently declared that he would accept help from a foreign power if it decided to intervene in the 2020 election .
That was a fact .
Trump had said so during a recent interview with ABC News ’ George Stephanopoulos .
The article pointed out : Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III ’ s investigation concluded that Russia ’ s “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cybertheft aimed at one major U.S. political party and disinformation warfare designed to divide the country along racial and social lines .
Mueller also concluded that Trump and/or his campaign eagerly encouraged , tried to conspire with , and happily profited off of those efforts .
Yet Mueller did not find sufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy .
That ’ s the offending passage , as far as the Trump campaign is concerned .
The campaign asserts that it was defamatory to state “ that Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded that the Campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ sweeping and systematic ’ attack by Russia against the 2016 United States presidential election.
” And the lawsuit claims that “ the Mueller Report concluded there was no conspiracy between the Campaign and the Russian government , and no United States person intentionally coordinated with Russia ’ s efforts to interfere with the 2016 election.
” This is all complete BS .
The Mueller report did not conclude there was no conspiracy between Trump ’ s 2016 campaign and the Russian attack .
It said , as Sargent dutifully noted , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ establish there was a conspiracy .
That is not the same as declaring no conspiracy ever existed .
So—boom !
—the main factual predicate for the Trump campaign ’ s case vanishes .
Then there ’ s this : The Mueller report does show that the Trump campaign attempted to conspire with Russia while the Kremlin was mounting its assault on American democracy .
It details how Donald Trump Jr. , Paul Manafort , and Jared Kushner took a secret meeting with a Russian emissary whom they were told would bring them dirt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ covert Moscow effort to help Trump ’ s campaign .
They claim no such dirt ever materialized , but this was clearly an effort on the part of the Trump campaign to conspire with Russia .
( Mueller reported that his investigation “ did not establish ” that this contact was illegal . )
Moreover , redacted portions of the Mueller report suggest that Trump and his campaign tried to use Roger Stone , Trump ’ s longtime adviser , as a conduit to WikiLeaks in the summer and fall of 2016 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Kremlin ’ s cyber-thieves .
So—again , boom !
—the Trump campaign was striving to make contact with conspirators involved in the Russian attack .
To recap : Mueller did not conclude there was no conspiracy , and he did show the Trump campaign endeavored to conspire .
Case closed .
The second Post article the lawsuit targets is “ Trump : I Can Win Reelection With Just My Base , ” by Paul Waldman , which was pegged to Trump boasting that he could win reelection without bothering to appeal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Waldman observed : The 2020 election will obviously be distinct in all kinds of ways we can ’ t yet anticipate .
For instance , who knows what sort of aid Russia and North Korea will give to the Trump campaign , now that he has invited them to offer their assistance ?
The Trump campaign contends this was “ false and defamatory ” because there “ has never been any statement by anyone associated with the Campaign or the administration ‘ inviting ’ Russia or North Korea to assist the Campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ linked to the same Stephanopoulos interview in which Trump was asked what he would do if a foreign government—Russia , China , or another—offered him information on a political opponent .
Trump replied , “ It ’ s not an interference , they have information .
I think I ’ d take it.
” He added that “ if I thought there was something wrong , I ’ d go , maybe , to the FBI.
” Yet more boom !
Waldman was right to interpret this as Trump inviting overseas regimes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foes .
Case closed , part two .
And , by the way , both the Post articles cited by the Trump campaign appear in the opinion section , and opinion , in general , has even more protection against libel suits than news reporting .
Is it a legitimate opinion that Trump , with his statement to Stephanopoulos , was essentially inviting foreign governments to intervene ?
Most definitely .
Is it legitimate opinion that the Mueller report shows Trump ’ s campaign trying to conspire ( or collude ) with Russia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ damages in “ the millions of dollars ” —is not based on any real claim .
The aim is to provide Trump and his campaign another red-meat talking point and another basis for a fundraising solicitation .
Look how we are going after the Trump-hating media !
!
!
!
It is a cynical move that is part of Trump ’ s demagogical attempt to undermine the media .
No self-respecting judge would allow this case to go forward .
The campaign ’ s goal is not justice ; it is to create @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington Post !
—to feed Trump ’ s base and to serve Trump ’ s authoritarian crusade and his dangerous demonization of the press .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Donald Trump’s presidential campaign filed an utterly flimsy libel lawsuit against the Washington Post on Monday, demonstrating that it remains committed to using the media as target for Trump in the 2020 race and that Trump is still obsessed with removing the Russia stain on his presidency. The filing follows a recent Trump tweet in which he reiterated his claim that this newspaper and other major media outfits are “THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!”
People are disgusted and embarrassed by the Fake News Media, as headed by the @nytimes, @washingtonpost, @comcast & MSDNC, @ABC, @CBSNews and more. They no longer believe what they see and read, and for good reason. Fake News is, indeed, THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 1, 2020
This lawsuit is similar to the frivolous lawsuit the Trump campaign filed against the New York Times last month. It focuses on two 2019 Post articles about the Trump-Russia scandal. The first article—”Trump Just Invited Another Russian Attack. Mitch McConnell Is Making One More Likely,” by Greg Sargent—noted that Trump had recently declared that he would accept help from a foreign power if it decided to intervene in the 2020 election. That was a fact. Trump had said so during a recent interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos. The article pointed out:
Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation concluded that Russia’s “sweeping and systematic” attack involved massive cybertheft aimed at one major U.S. political party and disinformation warfare designed to divide the country along racial and social lines. Mueller also concluded that Trump and/or his campaign eagerly encouraged, tried to conspire with, and happily profited off of those efforts. Yet Mueller did not find sufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy.
That’s the offending passage, as far as the Trump campaign is concerned. The campaign asserts that it was defamatory to state “that Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded that the Campaign ‘tried to conspire with’ a ‘sweeping and systematic’ attack by Russia against the 2016 United States presidential election.” And the lawsuit claims that “the Mueller Report concluded there was no conspiracy between the Campaign and the Russian government, and no United States person intentionally coordinated with Russia’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 election.”
This is all complete BS.
The Mueller report did not conclude there was no conspiracy between Trump’s 2016 campaign and the Russian attack. It said, as Sargent dutifully noted, that the Mueller investigation found insufficient evidence to establish there was a conspiracy. That is not the same as declaring no conspiracy ever existed. So—boom!—the main factual predicate for the Trump campaign’s case vanishes.
Then there’s this: The Mueller report does show that the Trump campaign attempted to conspire with Russia while the Kremlin was mounting its assault on American democracy. It details how Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner took a secret meeting with a Russian emissary whom they were told would bring them dirt on Hillary Clinton as part of a covert Moscow effort to help Trump’s campaign. They claim no such dirt ever materialized, but this was clearly an effort on the part of the Trump campaign to conspire with Russia. (Mueller reported that his investigation “did not establish” that this contact was illegal.)
Moreover, redacted portions of the Mueller report suggest that Trump and his campaign tried to use Roger Stone, Trump’s longtime adviser, as a conduit to WikiLeaks in the summer and fall of 2016, as WikiLeaks was disseminating Democratic material stolen by the Kremlin’s cyber-thieves. So—again, boom!—the Trump campaign was striving to make contact with conspirators involved in the Russian attack.
To recap: Mueller did not conclude there was no conspiracy, and he did show the Trump campaign endeavored to conspire. Case closed.
The second Post article the lawsuit targets is “Trump: I Can Win Reelection With Just My Base,” by Paul Waldman, which was pegged to Trump boasting that he could win reelection without bothering to appeal to swing voters. In the article, Waldman observed:


motherjones--2020-03-03--Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Says that Bernie Supporters and Warren Supporters Must Unite

The supporters of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders , the two progressive Democratic presidential candidates , have been notoriously unfriendly to one another ever since the candidates ’ icy encounter following a January debate revealed growing cracks in the former allies ’ relationship .
Their disagreement centered on Warren reminding Sanders of comments she says he made about a woman ’ s unelectability against Trump .
Sanders denied the comments and , after the debate was over , Warren was caught on tape accusing Sanders of calling her a liar .
Sanders supporters flooded Warren ’ s twitter replies with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down on their rebukes of so-called “ Bernie Bros. ” The animosity has continued during the weeks preceding the Super Tuesday showdown and has shown no signs of slowing down .
But with the unexpected resurgence of former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s campaign and the coalescing of support from mainstream Democrats around him , Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-N.Y. ) and other progressive elected officials are urging unity among progressives ahead of the Democratic presidential nomination .
The movement started on Monday , when New York ’ s state Sen. Mike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his solidarity with Warren supporters , adding the hashtag # BuildTogether .
Other progressives were quick to join in .
New York state Sen. Alessandra Biaggi chimed in from the Warren camp : And Ocasio-Cortez took the conversation to the national stage : Meanwhile , former 2020 candidates Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar , South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg , and former Texas Rep. Beto O ’ Rourke all endorsed Biden at a campaign event in Texas on Monday night .
As the moderate coalition for the former vice president strengthens , progressives will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emojis and rally around an alternative Democrat .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The supporters of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, the two progressive Democratic presidential candidates, have been notoriously unfriendly to one another ever since the candidates’ icy encounter following a January debate revealed growing cracks in the former allies’ relationship. Their disagreement centered on Warren reminding Sanders of comments she says he made about a woman’s unelectability against Trump. Sanders denied the comments and, after the debate was over, Warren was caught on tape accusing Sanders of calling her a liar. Sanders supporters flooded Warren’s twitter replies with snake emojis, and Warren supporters doubled down on their rebukes of so-called “Bernie Bros.”
The animosity has continued during the weeks preceding the Super Tuesday showdown and has shown no signs of slowing down. But with the unexpected resurgence of former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign and the coalescing of support from mainstream Democrats around him, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and other progressive elected officials are urging unity among progressives ahead of the Democratic presidential nomination.
The movement started on Monday, with a tweet from a national surrogate for Sanders’ campaign.
im a Sanders supporter that builds with Warren supporters. — phillip agnew (@iPhilSomething) March 2, 2020
Then New York’s state Sen. Mike Gianaris, a Sanders supporter, tweeted his solidarity with Warren supporters, adding the hashtag #BuildTogether.
I’m a Bernie supporter who builds with Warren supporters. Let’s do this @Biaggi4NY. #BuildTogether Pass it along — Sen. Mike Gianaris (@SenGianaris) March 2, 2020
Other progressives were quick to join in. New York state Sen. Alessandra Biaggi chimed in from the Warren camp:
I’m a Warren supporter who builds with Bernie supporters. Let’s do this @JuliaCarmel__ 💙 #BuildTogether Pass it on! https://t.co/QdgX6mfFRD — Alessandra Biaggi (@Biaggi4NY) March 2, 2020
And Ocasio-Cortez took the conversation to the national stage:
I’m a Bernie supporter who builds with Warren supporters. It’s how we got a top-to-bottom progressive ballot sweep in NY14. Throughout it all, Alessandra & I do town halls &collect signatures together to get each other on the ballot. We’ve got each other’s back.💜#BuildTogether https://t.co/G0QZVbbcDR — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) March 3, 2020
Meanwhile, former 2020 candidates Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke all endorsed Biden at a campaign event in Texas on Monday night. As the moderate coalition for the former vice president strengthens, progressives will have new urgency to jettison the snake emojis and rally around an alternative Democrat.


motherjones--2020-03-03--Taxpayers Are Likely on the Hook for Eric Trump’s Trip to His Dad’s European Resorts

With the travel industry facing a potentially cataclysmic downturn if the coronavirus continues to spread , the Trump Organization is offering members of its New Jersey golf club a chance to travel to Scotland or Ireland with Eric Trump this summer—likely at great expense to taxpayers who will foot the bill for Secret Service protection for the president ’ s son .
According to an email sent to members of Donald Trump ’ s Bedminster golf club , Eric Trump will lead at least two three-day golfing outings this summer for club members .
The price for each trip—one to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ireland and one to his Turnberry course in Scotland—will cost members $ 6,500 apiece , not including airfare .
That ’ s a lot more than people typically pay to play at the Trump courses .
Perry Golf , a golf tour operator which organizes golfing trips in Ireland and Scotland , is currently advertising 10-day trips to both Doonbeg and Turnberry , as well as a number of other courses , for $ 9,895—a price that includes airfare and seven more days of travel .
Of course , an independent tour doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ride .
Whether or not he is worth the premium for club members , it will cost American taxpayers a significant amount .
Trump ’ s two adult sons have gone on a number of promotional trips for their father ’ s businesses , including leading golf trips to Ireland and Scotland .
The administration has not released the exact cost of providing the Trump boys with Secret Service protection while they try to goose their father ’ s golf business in the British Isles .
But we know the costs for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exorbitant .
For example , on Thursday , Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington released documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests showing that a two-day trip that Eric Trump took in early January 2019 to visit a Trump-branded property in Uruguay cost US taxpayers more than $ 80,786 , just for hotel rooms for his Secret Service detail .
( That doesn ’ t include costs such as their airfare or pay . )
A 2017 trip to Uruguay by Eric Trump cost taxpayers more than $ 97,000 to cover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staff .
In 2017 , Eric and his brother Donald Trump Jr. traveled to Dubai and the Dominican Republic to visit properties branded with their father ’ s name , running up a tab of $ 230,000 for Secret Service rooms .
The Trump Organization did not respond to requests for comment on why its upcoming trips will cost members so much , or whether it has any intention of repaying the costs of Secret Service protection .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
With the travel industry facing a potentially cataclysmic downturn if the coronavirus continues to spread, the Trump Organization is offering members of its New Jersey golf club a chance to travel to Scotland or Ireland with Eric Trump this summer—likely at great expense to taxpayers who will foot the bill for Secret Service protection for the president’s son.
According to an email sent to members of Donald Trump’s Bedminster golf club, Eric Trump will lead at least two three-day golfing outings this summer for club members. The price for each trip—one to Trump’s Doonbeg golf resort in Ireland and one to his Turnberry course in Scotland—will cost members $6,500 apiece, not including airfare. That’s a lot more than people typically pay to play at the Trump courses. Perry Golf, a golf tour operator which organizes golfing trips in Ireland and Scotland, is currently advertising 10-day trips to both Doonbeg and Turnberry, as well as a number of other courses, for $9,895—a price that includes airfare and seven more days of travel.
Of course, an independent tour doesn’t have Eric Trump along for the ride. Whether or not he is worth the premium for club members, it will cost American taxpayers a significant amount. Trump’s two adult sons have gone on a number of promotional trips for their father’s businesses, including leading golf trips to Ireland and Scotland. The administration has not released the exact cost of providing the Trump boys with Secret Service protection while they try to goose their father’s golf business in the British Isles. But we know the costs for similar trips, and they’re exorbitant.
For example, on Thursday, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington released documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests showing that a two-day trip that Eric Trump took in early January 2019 to visit a Trump-branded property in Uruguay cost US taxpayers more than $80,786, just for hotel rooms for his Secret Service detail. (That doesn’t include costs such as their airfare or pay.) A 2017 trip to Uruguay by Eric Trump cost taxpayers more than $97,000 to cover hotel rooms for Secret Service and embassy staff. In 2017, Eric and his brother Donald Trump Jr. traveled to Dubai and the Dominican Republic to visit properties branded with their father’s name, running up a tab of $230,000 for Secret Service rooms.
The Trump Organization did not respond to requests for comment on why its upcoming trips will cost members so much, or whether it has any intention of repaying the costs of Secret Service protection.


motherjones--2020-03-03--How Michael Bloomberg Bought the Gun Control Movement

Twenty first graders had just been killed in their classrooms in Newtown , Connecticut , and Michael Bloomberg wasn ’ t in the mood to pull punches .
During a December 16 , 2012 , appearance on Meet the Press , he criticized President Barack Obama , who , he argued , had failed to keep those children safe from gun violence .
Obama hadn ’ t “ fought hard ” to enact gun restrictions , despite having “ campaigned in 2008 on an assault weapon ban , ” Bloomberg told David Gregory , the show ’ s host .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislation that the president has signed ” had , in fact , relaxed gun laws , granting the right to carry firearms in national parks and on Amtrak .
“ I assume that ’ s to stop the rash of train robberies , ” he snapped .
“ This is ridiculous.
” Whatever you think of Bloomberg ’ s statements , he was certainly speaking from a place of authority .
No other prominent elected official had done as much as the billionaire businessman—who was nearing the end of his third and final @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mayor—to elevate the issue of gun control , which had for years languished in the political backwater .
He ’ d spent the previous six years leading Mayors Against Illegal Guns , a coalition of city executives whose goal was to help law enforcement remove illegally obtained firearms from their communities .
During the 2012 election cycle , he had shelled out millions of dollars backing a handful of candidates who support gun control .
For months , he ’ d been pushing the Obama administration to take action after a shooting that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Colorado , movie theater .
Gregory asked Bloomberg what he ’ d do if he were president .
The mayor didn ’ t hesitate .
He said he ’ d close the so-called “ gun-show loophole ” that allows people to buy firearms without a background check and that he ’ d issue an executive order to ensure that the database used for background checks is kept up to date .
Despite his criticism of Obama just moments earlier—and the fact that assault weapons had been used in both Newtown and Aurora—an assault @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bloomberg ’ s to-do list , either .
By then , Bloomberg ’ s platform had become a well-rehearsed routine .
After years of federal inaction on gun control , Sandy Hook had , in the most tragic circumstances , given him an opportunity to advance the moderate , poll-tested agenda he ’ d been laying the groundwork for .
And that ’ s exactly what he tried to do : In the weeks that followed , Bloomberg and his allies crafted and lobbied hard for an expanded background checks proposal known as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which angered some long-toiling gun control activists but won the Obama administration ’ s backing , was ultimately derailed by a Senate filibuster .
But the effort cemented Bloomberg ’ s status as the de facto kingpin of the gun control movement , vested with authority that would only increase in the years to come .
The story of how Bloomberg elevated himself to such a position is less about guns than about Bloomberg—specifically , his skills as a political tactician .
He seized control of the movement at a time when its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alliances and dispensing enormous sums of money to bend the gun control world to his will .
And the way Bloomberg did it—under circumstances that bear similarities to the 2020 Democratic primary—offers lessons for understanding his current White House bid .
“ The overriding feng shui of Bloomberg ’ s folks is that they [ think they ] are the smartest kids in the room and can do almost anything better than almost anyone else , ” a former senior employee of Mayors Against Illegal Guns says .
“ The gun issue is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how Bloomberg could come to wield such influence , it ’ s important to remember what the gun control movement looked like 14 years ago , before he became one of its top players .
In short : It didn ’ t look like much .
After a Democrat-held Congress passed bills enacting a federal background check system and a 10-year ban on assault weapons in the 1990s , the party lost control of Capitol Hill ; when Al Gore lost the presidency in 2000 , pundits blamed his defeat partly on his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ George W. Bush administration , Congress passed bipartisan legislation to prohibit lawsuits against gun manufacturers and allowed the assault weapons ban to expire .
In 2006 , Democrats regained control of Congress , in part by fielding a slate of candidates touting “ A ” ratings from the National Rifle Association .
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence—then the movement ’ s most important group—was starved for resources after years of dismal fundraising and was forced to lay off a chunk of its staff .
Understanding why Bloomberg embraced the issue when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it also requires Democrats to grapple with an uncomfortable reality : The history of the gun control movement is closely intertwined with the “ tough on crime ” policies that progressives now decry .
The assault weapons ban , after all , had been part of the massive 1994 crime bill that helped exacerbate the era of mass incarceration .
“ The question you asked of any piece of legislation was , ‘ Is law enforcement supportive ?
” recalls Brian Malte , who was a senior official at Brady from 1996 to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recommendation was that you not take up that bill.
” Bloomberg had entered office in 2002 with his own “ tough on crime ” platform and pursued a series of controversial , often discriminatory law enforcement initiatives .
That included the aggressive use of warrantless stop-and-frisk searches in which cops detained civilians—disproportionately people of color—to look for weapons .
The 2003 shooting deaths of two African American police officers had loomed over Bloomberg ’ s reelection campaign , raising greater concerns about how his administration was keeping guns out of the hands of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go to hospital bedsides and waiting rooms to meet with the families of law enforcement officers shot in the line of duty .
According to Everytown for Gun Safety—the successor group to Mayors Against Illegal Guns—Thomas Menino , the late Boston mayor , first approached Bloomberg in 2006 with the idea to convene a group of mayors to “ discuss how to stem the tide of gun violence and how to make their cities safer.
” Around that time , according to multiple sources , Brady president Paul Helmke—a former mayor of Fort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his political brand and fortune to the struggling movement .
Helmke had been working with pollster Mark Penn , now famous for his role in Hillary Clinton ’ s failed 2008 presidential campaign .
Penn ’ s business partner , Doug Schoen , has long been Bloomberg ’ s pollster .
The two had put together a pitch deck proposing a new frame for the gun debate : Illegal guns .
“ It tested better , and it allowed us , Democrats , [ and ] gun control activists to take the high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former Bloomberg aide familiar with the presentation told Mother Jones .
Helmke brought the deck to Bloomberg—who at the time , like Helmke , was a Republican—and asked him to chair and give seed money to a new Brady-backed initiative called Mayors Against Illegal Guns .
This struck Bloomberg as a good idea , one that a former staffer described as both a “ head and heart interest ” for the mayor .
But at the urging of longtime aides like Kevin Sheekey , who now runs his presidential campaign , and John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opted to do it independently of the anemic Brady Campaign .
“ It was , among some people who worked with the mayor , a conscious effort to pick an issue around which he could raise his national profile , ” the former staffer recalls .
“ What the fuck did we need Brady for ?
” So Bloomberg and Menino held a summit at Gracie Mansion , New York ’ s official mayoral residence , in April 2006 with 15 other mayors to begin to chart the organization ’ s course .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ early days said the desire to turn the issue into a political winner for Bloomberg helped drive the strategy .
A spokesperson for Everytown calls this assertion “ entirely false ” and says gun control has “ only recently ” become a political winner .
But opposing the NRA was good politics in mid-2000s New York , and it offered Bloomberg an open platform that Republicans and Democrats alike had refused to occupy .
But building a nationwide campaign would require reining in the mayor himself .
The public record is littered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun-owning Americans and their GOP representatives , such as his 2014 declaration that anyone who wants a gun in their house must be “ pretty stupid.
” “ Any conversation that I was ever involved in where the mayor was present , he tended to be the most aggressive guy in the room , ” a former adviser to the group recalls .
“ He has consistently , over a period of a decade , been walked back by his staff , all of whom were very focused on the fact that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day and needed to be protected.
” So Mayors , as insiders called it , opted for an incremental , data-driven , “ third way–ish ” —in the words of one former aide—approach .
By October 2006 , the group touted 109 member mayors and an agenda filled with universally popular proposals that were small and achievable .
“ It ’ s not ‘ gun control , ’ it ’ s ‘ crime control , ’ ” another former aide recalls of the messaging strategy .
Tightening background check requirements , which had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines , which polled less favorably , were out .
“ The notion of keeping guns out of the wrong hands and regulating access to guns , rather than regulating guns themselves , polled a lot better , ” the former aide says .
Mayors picked its battles carefully—it sat out the fight over the guns-on-Amtrak bill , for example .
But it took just three years for Bloomberg to put up his first “ W ” against the NRA .
In August 2009 , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowed gun owners to carry concealed firearms across state lines , thanks to a massive lobbying push from Bloomberg and his team , relying on full-page newspaper ads , pressure from the group ’ s mayors—which by then numbered 450—and a message that weaponized Republican states ’ rights rhetoric against them .
Money played a tremendous role : By the time the concealed-carry bill was defeated , Bloomberg had poured nearly $ 3 million of his own money into the cause .
The spending would balloon in subsequent years ; Bloomberg gave Everytown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million in 2017 alone and has sunk $ 270 million of his own money into the movement .
The alliances Bloomberg forged with mayors in his group were bolstered by grants awarded to cities so they could hire staff dedicated to cracking down on “ crime guns.
” Mayors Against Illegal Guns also doled out five- and six-figure sums to existing gun control groups and gave seed money to Americans for Responsible Solutions , the group former Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords launched with her husband , Mark Kelly , a year after she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Tucson .
Then there was the election spending : In 2012 , when Bloomberg first bankrolled campaigns against NRA-backed incumbents , he prevailed in four out of seven races .
“ The only real question for us was , ‘ At some point , are we spending so much money there that it ’ s distasteful and looks as though we ’ re trying to buy an election ?
’ ” a former Bloomberg aide says .
The gun violence prevention movement had been relaunched , and the rest of its activists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ They breathed new life into the movement , ” a senior official of another gun control group tells me .
“ The ability to win was the wakeup call of , ‘ Oh , we could actually do this.
’ ” Then came Sandy Hook and the failed push to close the gun show loophole .
The background check legislation that came to be known as Manchin-Toomey had been hammered out in a secret meeting at Manhattan ’ s Odeon restaurant in early 2013 by Feinblatt , Mayor ’ s Against Illegal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a top gun industry lawyer , who had been included in the conversation to help bring Republicans and firearms companies on board .
“ Because Democratic Party leaders had been so against this , there were no staff on the Hill who knew anything about gun policy , ” Arkadi Gerney , who preceded Glaze as Mayors ’ executive director , recalls .
“ That created a void that Bloomberg , especially , could step into.
” Manchin-Toomey would have required a background check for most commercial gun sales , but other private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permitted without a background check .
It also contained a number of sweeteners for the gun industry—such as making it easier to sell and transport certain firearms across state lines—that would have weakened existing gun laws .
That alarmed many gun control activists , but Bloomberg ’ s influence was so strong in Washington that he managed to shut down their attempts to lobby for anything stronger .
“ Sometimes you ’ ll get a heads up on what we ’ re doing , sometimes you won ’ t , ” a former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group recalls a Mayors official telling him at the time .
“ A lot of activists were having meetings on the Hill arguing against [ Manchin-Toomey ’ s ] provisions , but then we ’ d hear it was moving forward , ” an official of another gun control group remembers .
“ They were weakening an existing background checks law , and we had no idea who in the gun violence prevention movement was signing off on this.
” Despite the concessions to the gun industry , a handful of Democratic senators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill .
Some gun control advocates now fault that watered-down measure for weakening the movement .
And they blame , in part , Bloomberg ’ s unwillingness to collaborate .
Bloomberg ’ s presidential campaign did not respond to a request for comment .
Since then , Bloomberg ’ s influence has only grown .
In 2014 , Mayors Against Illegal Guns merged with Moms Demand Action , the grassroots group founded by Shannon Watts , to become Everytown for Gun Safety .
Watts ’ organization was strong in volunteers but weak in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infusion of cash to continue .
And Bloomberg recognized that Watts had built the one thing he could not outright buy himself : A grassroots army committed to the issue .
Dozens of elected officials have found their way into office thanks in part to support from Everytown ’ s money or Moms Demand Action ’ s grassroots network .
And Bloomberg , who is no longer involved in Everytown ’ s day-to-day operations , has personally spent huge sums of money on state and federal races since 2012 .
He bragged about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , saying that of the 40 House seats Democrats flipped in 2018 , “ 21 of those were people that I spent a hundred million dollars to help elect.
” He then appeared to nearly blurt out that he ’ d “ bought ” the new majority , before catching himself .
A number of those lawmakers have endorsed Bloomberg ’ s White House bid , including Lucy McBath , a former Moms Demand Action spokesperson who now represents Georgia ’ s 6th congressional district .
The implications for 2020 are clear .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ deep , long-standing relationships that he built with other elected officials around the country , and Mayors Against Illegal Guns is probably the biggest network for that that was built , ” one former Bloomberg aide says .
Money is also a “ pretty daunting opponent , ” the aide adds , noting how Bloomberg turned a third-rail political issue into a feather in his cap .
“ There are very few issues that can ’ t be turned to your advantage if you have enough money to build the political infrastructure around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also reveals the limits of Bloomberg ’ s abilities .
Over the past 14 years , Bloomberg and his allies have racked up many policy wins in state legislatures but have secured virtually no new gun control laws at the federal level .
We ’ ll soon find out if his $ 500 million presidential campaign will fare any better .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Twenty first graders had just been killed in their classrooms in Newtown, Connecticut, and Michael Bloomberg wasn’t in the mood to pull punches. During a December 16, 2012, appearance on Meet the Press, he criticized President Barack Obama, who, he argued, had failed to keep those children safe from gun violence. Obama hadn’t “fought hard” to enact gun restrictions, despite having “campaigned in 2008 on an assault weapon ban,” Bloomberg told David Gregory, the show’s host. Bloomberg added that “the only gun legislation that the president has signed” had, in fact, relaxed gun laws, granting the right to carry firearms in national parks and on Amtrak. “I assume that’s to stop the rash of train robberies,” he snapped. “This is ridiculous.”
“The overriding feng shui of Bloomberg’s folks is that they [think they] are the smartest kids in the room.”
Whatever you think of Bloomberg’s statements, he was certainly speaking from a place of authority. No other prominent elected official had done as much as the billionaire businessman—who was nearing the end of his third and final term as New York City’s mayor—to elevate the issue of gun control, which had for years languished in the political backwater. He’d spent the previous six years leading Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a coalition of city executives whose goal was to help law enforcement remove illegally obtained firearms from their communities. During the 2012 election cycle, he had shelled out millions of dollars backing a handful of candidates who support gun control. For months, he’d been pushing the Obama administration to take action after a shooting that left 12 dead in an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater.
Gregory asked Bloomberg what he’d do if he were president. The mayor didn’t hesitate. He said he’d close the so-called “gun-show loophole” that allows people to buy firearms without a background check and that he’d issue an executive order to ensure that the database used for background checks is kept up to date. Despite his criticism of Obama just moments earlier—and the fact that assault weapons had been used in both Newtown and Aurora—an assault weapons ban apparently wasn’t on Bloomberg’s to-do list, either.
By then, Bloomberg’s platform had become a well-rehearsed routine. After years of federal inaction on gun control, Sandy Hook had, in the most tragic circumstances, given him an opportunity to advance the moderate, poll-tested agenda he’d been laying the groundwork for. And that’s exactly what he tried to do: In the weeks that followed, Bloomberg and his allies crafted and lobbied hard for an expanded background checks proposal known as the Manchin-Toomey amendment. The bill, which angered some long-toiling gun control activists but won the Obama administration’s backing, was ultimately derailed by a Senate filibuster. But the effort cemented Bloomberg’s status as the de facto kingpin of the gun control movement, vested with authority that would only increase in the years to come.
The story of how Bloomberg elevated himself to such a position is less about guns than about Bloomberg—specifically, his skills as a political tactician. He seized control of the movement at a time when its key players were weak, forging crucial alliances and dispensing enormous sums of money to bend the gun control world to his will. And the way Bloomberg did it—under circumstances that bear similarities to the 2020 Democratic primary—offers lessons for understanding his current White House bid.
“The overriding feng shui of Bloomberg’s folks is that they [think they] are the smartest kids in the room and can do almost anything better than almost anyone else,” a former senior employee of Mayors Against Illegal Guns says. “The gun issue is Exhibit A for them.”
To understand how Bloomberg could come to wield such influence, it’s important to remember what the gun control movement looked like 14 years ago, before he became one of its top players. In short: It didn’t look like much. After a Democrat-held Congress passed bills enacting a federal background check system and a 10-year ban on assault weapons in the 1990s, the party lost control of Capitol Hill; when Al Gore lost the presidency in 2000, pundits blamed his defeat partly on his support for gun control. During the George W. Bush administration, Congress passed bipartisan legislation to prohibit lawsuits against gun manufacturers and allowed the assault weapons ban to expire. In 2006, Democrats regained control of Congress, in part by fielding a slate of candidates touting “A” ratings from the National Rifle Association. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence—then the movement’s most important group—was starved for resources after years of dismal fundraising and was forced to lay off a chunk of its staff.
“What the fuck did we need Brady for?”
Understanding why Bloomberg embraced the issue when so many others were running away from it also requires Democrats to grapple with an uncomfortable reality: The history of the gun control movement is closely intertwined with the “tough on crime” policies that progressives now decry. The assault weapons ban, after all, had been part of the massive 1994 crime bill that helped exacerbate the era of mass incarceration. “The question you asked of any piece of legislation was, ‘Is law enforcement supportive?” recalls Brian Malte, who was a senior official at Brady from 1996 to 2016. “If not, the recommendation was that you not take up that bill.”
Bloomberg had entered office in 2002 with his own “tough on crime” platform and pursued a series of controversial, often discriminatory law enforcement initiatives. That included the aggressive use of warrantless stop-and-frisk searches in which cops detained civilians—disproportionately people of color—to look for weapons. The 2003 shooting deaths of two African American police officers had loomed over Bloomberg’s reelection campaign, raising greater concerns about how his administration was keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. As mayor, Bloomberg would go to hospital bedsides and waiting rooms to meet with the families of law enforcement officers shot in the line of duty.
According to Everytown for Gun Safety—the successor group to Mayors Against Illegal Guns—Thomas Menino, the late Boston mayor, first approached Bloomberg in 2006 with the idea to convene a group of mayors to “discuss how to stem the tide of gun violence and how to make their cities safer.” Around that time, according to multiple sources, Brady president Paul Helmke—a former mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana—also encouraged Bloomberg to lend his political brand and fortune to the struggling movement. Helmke had been working with pollster Mark Penn, now famous for his role in Hillary Clinton’s failed 2008 presidential campaign. Penn’s business partner, Doug Schoen, has long been Bloomberg’s pollster. The two had put together a pitch deck proposing a new frame for the gun debate: Illegal guns.
“It tested better, and it allowed us, Democrats, [and] gun control activists to take the high ground of law enforcement,” a former Bloomberg aide familiar with the presentation told Mother Jones. Helmke brought the deck to Bloomberg—who at the time, like Helmke, was a Republican—and asked him to chair and give seed money to a new Brady-backed initiative called Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
This struck Bloomberg as a good idea, one that a former staffer described as both a “head and heart interest” for the mayor. But at the urging of longtime aides like Kevin Sheekey, who now runs his presidential campaign, and John Feinblatt, who leads Everytown, Bloomberg opted to do it independently of the anemic Brady Campaign. “It was, among some people who worked with the mayor, a conscious effort to pick an issue around which he could raise his national profile,” the former staffer recalls. “What the fuck did we need Brady for?”
So Bloomberg and Menino held a summit at Gracie Mansion, New York’s official mayoral residence, in April 2006 with 15 other mayors to begin to chart the organization’s course.
Sources familiar with Mayors Against Illegal Guns’ early days said the desire to turn the issue into a political winner for Bloomberg helped drive the strategy. A spokesperson for Everytown calls this assertion “entirely false” and says gun control has “only recently” become a political winner. But opposing the NRA was good politics in mid-2000s New York, and it offered Bloomberg an open platform that Republicans and Democrats alike had refused to occupy.
But building a nationwide campaign would require reining in the mayor himself. The public record is littered with Bloomberg statements that would likely alienate gun-owning Americans and their GOP representatives, such as his 2014 declaration that anyone who wants a gun in their house must be “pretty stupid.”
“Any conversation that I was ever involved in where the mayor was present, he tended to be the most aggressive guy in the room,” a former adviser to the group recalls. “He has consistently, over a period of a decade, been walked back by his staff, all of whom were very focused on the fact that they would like him to be president one day and needed to be protected.”
“It’s not ‘gun control,’ it’s ‘crime control.’”
So Mayors, as insiders called it, opted for an incremental, data-driven, “third way–ish”—in the words of one former aide—approach. By October 2006, the group touted 109 member mayors and an agenda filled with universally popular proposals that were small and achievable. “It’s not ‘gun control,’ it’s ‘crime control,’” another former aide recalls of the messaging strategy. Tightening background check requirements, which had nearly 90 percent support, was in. Bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, which polled less favorably, were out. “The notion of keeping guns out of the wrong hands and regulating access to guns, rather than regulating guns themselves, polled a lot better,” the former aide says.
Mayors picked its battles carefully—it sat out the fight over the guns-on-Amtrak bill, for example. But it took just three years for Bloomberg to put up his first “W” against the NRA. In August 2009, the Senate rejected an amendment that would have allowed gun owners to carry concealed firearms across state lines, thanks to a massive lobbying push from Bloomberg and his team, relying on full-page newspaper ads, pressure from the group’s mayors—which by then numbered 450—and a message that weaponized Republican states’ rights rhetoric against them.
Money played a tremendous role: By the time the concealed-carry bill was defeated, Bloomberg had poured nearly $3 million of his own money into the cause. The spending would balloon in subsequent years; Bloomberg gave Everytown for Gun Safety more than $10 million in 2017 alone and has sunk $270 million of his own money into the movement. The alliances Bloomberg forged with mayors in his group were bolstered by grants awarded to cities so they could hire staff dedicated to cracking down on “crime guns.” Mayors Against Illegal Guns also doled out five- and six-figure sums to existing gun control groups and gave seed money to Americans for Responsible Solutions, the group former Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords launched with her husband, Mark Kelly, a year after she was severely wounded in a mass shooting in Tucson.
Then there was the election spending: In 2012, when Bloomberg first bankrolled campaigns against NRA-backed incumbents, he prevailed in four out of seven races. “The only real question for us was, ‘At some point, are we spending so much money there that it’s distasteful and looks as though we’re trying to buy an election?’” a former Bloomberg aide says.
The gun violence prevention movement had been relaunched, and the rest of its activists fell in line—in some cases begrudgingly. “They breathed new life into the movement,” a senior official of another gun control group tells me. “The ability to win was the wakeup call of, ‘Oh, we could actually do this.’”
Then came Sandy Hook and the failed push to close the gun show loophole. The background check legislation that came to be known as Manchin-Toomey had been hammered out in a secret meeting at Manhattan’s Odeon restaurant in early 2013 by Feinblatt, Mayor’s Against Illegal Guns executive director Mark Glaze, and a top gun industry lawyer, who had been included in the conversation to help bring Republicans and firearms companies on board. “Because Democratic Party leaders had been so against this, there were no staff on the Hill who knew anything about gun policy,” Arkadi Gerney, who preceded Glaze as Mayors’ executive director, recalls. “That created a void that Bloomberg, especially, could step into.”
“Sometimes you’ll get a heads up on what we’re doing, sometimes you won’t.”
Manchin-Toomey would have required a background check for most commercial gun sales, but other private sales and transfers would still have been permitted without a background check. It also contained a number of sweeteners for the gun industry—such as making it easier to sell and transport certain firearms across state lines—that would have weakened existing gun laws. That alarmed many gun control activists, but Bloomberg’s influence was so strong in Washington that he managed to shut down their attempts to lobby for anything stronger. “Sometimes you’ll get a heads up on what we’re doing, sometimes you won’t,” a former policy director for a rival gun control group recalls a Mayors official telling him at the time.
“A lot of activists were having meetings on the Hill arguing against [Manchin-Toomey’s] provisions, but then we’d hear it was moving forward,” an official of another gun control group remembers. “They were weakening an existing background checks law, and we had no idea who in the gun violence prevention movement was signing off on this.”
Despite the concessions to the gun industry, a handful of Democratic senators joined nearly every Republican to kill the bill. Some gun control advocates now fault that watered-down measure for weakening the movement. And they blame, in part, Bloomberg’s unwillingness to collaborate. Bloomberg’s presidential campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
Since then, Bloomberg’s influence has only grown. In 2014, Mayors Against Illegal Guns merged with Moms Demand Action, the grassroots group founded by Shannon Watts, to become Everytown for Gun Safety. Watts’ organization was strong in volunteers but weak in infrastructure, and it needed a serious infusion of cash to continue. And Bloomberg recognized that Watts had built the one thing he could not outright buy himself: A grassroots army committed to the issue.
Dozens of elected officials have found their way into office thanks in part to support from Everytown’s money or Moms Demand Action’s grassroots network. And Bloomberg, who is no longer involved in Everytown’s day-to-day operations, has personally spent huge sums of money on state and federal races since 2012. He bragged about this record at a recent Democratic debate, saying that of the 40 House seats Democrats flipped in 2018, “21 of those were people that I spent a hundred million dollars to help elect.” He then appeared to nearly blurt out that he’d “bought” the new majority, before catching himself. A number of those lawmakers have endorsed Bloomberg’s White House bid, including Lucy McBath, a former Moms Demand Action spokesperson who now represents Georgia’s 6th congressional district.
Bloomberg came within a hair's breadth of saying he *bought* the Democratic majority in the House and caught himself as it came out of his mouth pic.twitter.com/DG0keVMo2J — Brandon Wall (@Walldo) February 26, 2020
The implications for 2020 are clear. “The presidential campaign is relying on deep, long-standing relationships that he built with other elected officials around the country, and Mayors Against Illegal Guns is probably the biggest network for that that was built,” one former Bloomberg aide says.
Money is also a “pretty daunting opponent,” the aide adds, noting how Bloomberg turned a third-rail political issue into a feather in his cap. “There are very few issues that can’t be turned to your advantage if you have enough money to build the political infrastructure around them.”
But the rise of Everytown also reveals the limits of Bloomberg’s abilities. Over the past 14 years, Bloomberg and his allies have racked up many policy wins in state legislatures but have secured virtually no new gun control laws at the federal level. We’ll soon find out if his $500 million presidential campaign will fare any better.


motherjones--2020-03-03--Here Are 17 Ways the Trump Administration Bungled Its Coronavirus Response

“ We ’ re very , very ready for this , for anything , ” President Trump said at a White House press briefing on the coronavirus last Wednesday .
Despite the president ’ s reassurance , public health experts warn that our response is already woefully deficient .
With the Trump administration failing to send out enough testing kits and multiple White House officials spreading misinformation about the virus , it ’ s hard not to be concerned about their ability to handle the threat of a global pandemic .
Here are some of the greatest hits of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far : • None In 2018 , the National Security Council ’ s global pandemic director left his ; then his entire team was disbanded by former national security adviser John Bolton .
The Trump administration has yet to refill any of those positions , leaving huge vulnerabilities in our global pandemic preparedness .
• None In press conferences and tweets , Trump has been downplaying the severity of the coronavirus .
In remarks he made on , he claimed that the number of cases was declining in the United States ( the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it will ) ; he claimed that the fatality rate for coronavirus was lower than the flu ( he director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases it will take at least a year • people have been tested for the coronavirus in the United States , compared with in the Ontario province of Canada alone as of March 2 .
Experts blame delays in rolling out the test on account of a in the original test , which has led to an i that the defects had been resolved .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevent an HHS investigation into the delayed national response .
• None The first instance of coronavirus took four days to confirm after a delayed response for requests for disease testing from the CDC , according to medical staff at UC Davis Medical Center in California .
They blamed the center ’ s narrow specifications for distributing coronavirus testing kits ; the organization allegedly took days to approve the medical center ’ s request .
• None Trump isn ’ t the only member of his administration spreading misinformation about the coronavirus .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have contained ” the virus , despite CDC officials warning that the virus is likely to interview Sunday , Vice President and coronavirus head Mike Pence refused to refute Donald Trump Jr. ’ s claim that Democrats wanted the virus to spread and kill Americans .
• None used to fight global pandemics .
The funding support , which went to training local health professionals and bolstering emergency response across 49 countries , was reduced to just 10 nations .
China wasn ’ t included in the revised list .
• None @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tarmac in Japan , the State Department 14 coronavirus-infected Americans to board a pair of flights back to the United States .
The CDC fought back back , arguing that bringing them back—especially considering the planes carried 300 other passengers who ’ d tested negative for the disease—would pose an unnecessary risk and more than double the number of infected in the country .
In the end , the State Department got its way .
• None According to a federal government whistleblower , Department of Health and Human Services personnel have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Asia during the outbreak .
The whistleblower alleged that the HHS workers , without proper training or protective equipment , operated alongside CDC personnel donned in hazmat suits when seeing patients , and potentially exposed themselves to infection .
The whistleblower later indicated that they were as retribution for speaking out .
• None to fly coronavirus patients from a California air base to a FEMA facility on a decommissioned army base in Anniston , Alabama .
The mayor of Anniston , “ shocked by the lack of planning , ” told HHS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical capability to operate as a quarantine zone .
On February 23 , the administration dropped the plans .
Costa Mesa , California , is also fighting federal plans to transport patients to the city .
• None As the crisis unfolded last week , one-third of the coronavirus task force took time off .
The list of CPAC attendees also on the task force included White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney , Homeland Security Secretary Ken Cuccinelli , Larry Kudlow , director of the White House National Economic Council , HHS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adviser Robert O ’ Brien .
Vice President Pence , who heads the task force , told CPAC attendees that the risk of infection “ remains low.
” • None from Trump officials at CPAC and beyond that rumors of the coronavirus have been greatly exaggerated , Cuccinelli indicated during his CPAC speech that the US , despite far fewer cases in Mexico and Canada , where • None of all public government statements on the coronavirus , which now go through his press secretary , Katie Miller .
Because of this move @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Health can no longer share their own research , and a Pence office stamp of approval is required to broadcast independent information .

The coronavirus is a rapidly developing news story, so some of the content in this article might be out of date. Check out our most recent coverage of the coronavirus crisis , and subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.
“We’re very, very ready for this, for anything,” President Trump said at a White House press briefing on the coronavirus last Wednesday. Despite the president’s reassurance, public health experts warn that our response is already woefully deficient. With the Trump administration failing to send out enough testing kits and multiple White House officials spreading misinformation about the virus, it’s hard not to be concerned about their ability to handle the threat of a global pandemic.
Here are some of the greatest hits of the Trump administration’s bungled coronavirus responses—so far:
Trump picked Vice President Mike Pence—well known for allowing an outbreak of HIV to rapidly spread in Indiana during his time as governor—to head the government’s coronavirus task force. As governor, Pence initially refused to allow clean-needle exchange programs, which experts argued were necessary to prevent further outbreaks of HIV. He also spearheaded funding cuts to Planned Parenthood, which led to the closing of the last HIV testing facility in a county at the center of the outbreak.
Last month, in its 2021 budget, $3 billion for global health programs.
In 2018, the National Security Council’s global pandemic director left his post abruptly ; then his entire team was disbanded by former national security adviser John Bolton. The Trump administration has yet to refill any of those positions, leaving huge vulnerabilities in our global pandemic preparedness.
In press conferences and tweets, Trump has been downplaying the severity of the coronavirus. In remarks he made on February 26 , he claimed that the number of cases was declining in the United States (the CDC says it’s highly likely it will continue to spread ); he claimed that the fatality rate for coronavirus was lower than the flu ( it isn’ t ), and a vaccine was coming quickly (t he director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases says it will take at least a year ).
Fewer than 500 people have been tested for the coronavirus in the United States, compared with 13,911 in the UK and 1,126 in the Ontario province of Canada alone as of March 2. Experts blame delays in rolling out the test on account of a faulty component in the original test, which has led to an i nadequate supply of tests nationwide. As of Sunday, an unnamed HHS official told Politico that the defects had been resolved. That hasn’t been enough to prevent an HHS investigation into the delayed national response.
The CDC failed to update testing guidelines to include more people as the disease has spread globally.
The first instance of coronavirus contracted within the United States took four days to confirm after a delayed response for requests for disease testing from the CDC, according to medical staff at UC Davis Medical Center in California. They blamed the center’s narrow specifications for distributing coronavirus testing kits; the organization allegedly took days to approve the medical center’s request.
Trump isn’t the only member of his administration spreading misinformation about the coronavirus. Last Tuesday , Trump’s National Economic Council director, Larry Kudlow, told CNBC “we have contained” the virus, despite CDC officials warning that the virus is likely to continue to spread . In a Meet the Press interview Sunday, Vice President and coronavirus head Mike Pence refused to refute Donald Trump Jr.’s claim that Democrats wanted the virus to spread and kill Americans.
In 2018, the Trump Administration cut 80 percent of CDC funding used to fight global pandemics. The funding support, which went to training local health professionals and bolstering emergency response across 49 countries, was reduced to just 10 nations. China wasn’t included in the revised list.
Last October, the Trump Administration opted to discontinue a Bush-era program expanded under Obama—called “Predict”—that monitored the threat of animal-born diseases to humans, the possible origin point of the novel coronavirus. The program was behind the discovery of more than 1,000 viruses, including an Ebola strain.
During a standoff last week on a tarmac in Japan, the State Department pushed to allow 14 coronavirus-infected Americans to board a pair of flights back to the United States. The CDC fought back back, arguing that bringing them back—especially considering the planes carried 300 other passengers who’d tested negative for the disease—would pose an unnecessary risk and more than double the number of infected in the country. In the end, the State Department got its way.
According to a federal government whistleblower, Department of Health and Human Services personnel have been improperly tending to potentially infected Americans who were in Asia during the outbreak. The whistleblower alleged that the HHS workers, without proper training or protective equipment, operated alongside CDC personnel donned in hazmat suits when seeing patients, and potentially exposed themselves to infection. The whistleblower later indicated that they were unjustly reassigned as retribution for speaking out.
Without clearance from local health centers, federal health officials planned to fly coronavirus patients from a California air base to a FEMA facility on a decommissioned army base in Anniston, Alabama. The mayor of Anniston, “shocked by the lack of planning,” told HHS officials that the FEMA buildings lacked the medical capability to operate as a quarantine zone. On February 23, the administration dropped the plans. Costa Mesa, California, is also fighting federal plans to transport patients to the city.
As the crisis unfolded last week, one-third of the coronavirus task force took time off to speak at the Conservative Political Action Convention . The list of CPAC attendees also on the task force included White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, Homeland Security Secretary Ken Cuccinelli, Larry Kudlow, director of the White House National Economic Council, HHS secretary Alex Azar, and national security adviser Robert O’Brien. Vice President Pence, who heads the task force, told CPAC attendees that the risk of infection “remains low.”
Despite reassurances from Trump officials at CPAC and beyond that rumors of the coronavirus have been greatly exaggerated, Cuccinelli indicated during his CPAC speech that the US might tighten borders as a preventative public health measure , despite far fewer cases in Mexico and Canada, where two and 27 cases have been reported, respectively.
Pence and his office have taken control of all public government statements on the coronavirus, which now go through his press secretary, Katie Miller. Because of this move, the CDC and the National Institutes of Health can no longer share their own research, and a Pence office stamp of approval is required to broadcast independent information.


motherjones--2020-03-03--Former Trump Adviser Explored Business Opportunities With Son of Libyan Warlord

When Khalifa Haftar launched an offensive last spring to oust Libya ’ s internationally recognized government in Tripoli , he sought US support with a simple pitch .
Haftar—a renegade general who controls the eastern part of the country—sold himself as an opponent of a terrorist-backed Tripoli government and as the best hope for stabilizing the war-torn nation .
Within days , President Donald Trump placed a supportive call to Haftar .
But overall , the US administration has remained largely cool to the warlord and his Libyan National Army , a coalition of militias and allied fighters .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked the Justice Department to investigate accusations that Haftar and his forces have committed war crimes .
Haftar has since been sued in US courts by people who say their relatives were tortured or killed by his forces .
( He has generally denied such allegations . )
And questions about his military competence and his reliance on Russian and Sudanese mercenaries have left him short on backers in official Washington .
Haftar , who is a US citizen , does have his supporters , though .
One of the most prominent is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adviser to the 2016 Trump campaign , who for years has spoken favorably about Haftar in public remarks and social media posts .
Phares contends that Haftar is preferable to the current government , which he argues is rife with jihadists .
As Haftar fought to seize control of Tripoli ’ s airports last year , Phares tweeted on April 6 that the United States should not oppose the warlord ’ s offensive .
What Phares has not mentioned while touting Haftar is that Phares has explored business opportunities involving Haftar ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Haftar lives in Northern Virginia and works in real estate .
According to people involved in US-Libya relations , Okba Haftar has also helped his father advance his interests in the United States .
In response to questions from Mother Jones , a representative for Phares acknowledged that Phares has a personal and professional relationship with Okba Haftar .
“ Dr .
Phares is a friend with Mr. Okba Haftar , ” Rebecca Bynum said over email .
Bynum added that the two men “ often discuss regional problems and the Libya situation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk analysis for potential ventures .
They also meet with parties who inquire about ideas and projects in the Middle East , including in Libya.
” She argued , however , that the relationship falls short of an arrangement that would warrant disclosure .
“ Dr .
Phares has no business contract binding him to Okbar Haftar , ” she said .
“ If that should ever change , Dr Phares would certainly disclose it , but that is simply not the case at the present time.
” She also stated that Phares @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Bynum said the two men first met each other in 2017 .
She declined to say if Phares has earned any money through the risk assessments and meetings he has participated in with Okba Haftar , though she said Okba Haftar has paid Phares to translate documents from English into Arabic .
Okba Haftar did not respond to requests for comment .
There ’ s no evidence that Phares ’ relationship with Okba Haftar has impacted Phares ’ public statements about Libya .
Bynum said that Phares ’ positions on the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Middle East , and she noted that Phares has publicly supported Khalifa Haftar ’ s LNA since 2014—three years before he first met Okba Haftar .
But according to Kelly McBride , a media ethics expert at the nonprofit Poynter Institute , Phares seems to have at least “ an appearance of a conflict ” when it comes to his Libya commentary .
Asked whether Phares should have disclosed his connection to Okba Haftar , McBride said in an email , “ I personally believe that when you are presenting yourself as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to your position , it is honorable to reveal any real or perceived conflicts of interest.
” The timing of one potential business opportunity involving Okba Haftar overlapped with Phares ’ public defense of the LNA ’ s 2019 offensive .
On November 21 , 2018 , Neil Livingstone—an anti-terrorism consultant , self-styled international man of intrigue , prolific author , and former Republican gubernatorial candidate in Montana—incorporated a company in Las Vegas called Transglobal Commerce and Construction .
The registration lists Phares and Okba Haftar as directors .
( Haftar ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the documents . )
There is no sign the company ever did any actual work .
It was dissolved on April 19 , 2019 .
The men involved have declined to explain exactly what they hoped the firm would do .
Bynum said that the business was intended to act as a “ consulting company for global commerce ” and that Phares “ agreed to join a board of advisers when and if the company would materialize ” to provide expertise .
But , she noted , the firm “ never materialized.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ potential company incorporation ” was “ done and undone by Mr Livingstone himself.
” Livingstone has a history of for-profit entrepreneurship involving Libya .
In March 2011 , during US-led attacks on Moammar Qaddafi ’ s forces , Livingstone and a group of partners reportedly pushed a plan in which they would help the dictator safely flee the country—if he paid them a massive fee , including $ 10 million up front .
( Livingstone confirmed in an email that he was involved in this effort to arrange Qaddafi ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan never received approval from the Treasury Department ’ s Office of Foreign Assets Control , which was necessary because of sanctions that office had placed on Libya .
As a result , “ nothing ever happened , ” Livingstone said . )
Much of Libya is now under Haftar ’ s control , but Livingstone said Transglobal Commerce and Construction was not formed to do business in that country .
“ It was anticipated that it would begin with a business opportunity in the [ Middle East , ] but there was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Phares has apparently eyed other business involving Okba Haftar .
In the summer of 2018 , Phares helped David Correia , a Florida businessman , contact Okba Haftar to arrange a meeting about doing business in Libya , CNN reported in December .
Correia proposed hiring Phares “ in a possible expertise agreement , ” Bynum told Mother Jones .
She added that such an arrangement “ never materialized.
” ( Last year , Correia , along with two associates of Rudy Giuliani—Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman—was charged by federal prosecutors with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the source of foreign political contributions .
A lawyer representing Correia did not respond to requests for comment . )
Phares ’ calls for the United States to support Khalifa Haftar ’ s LNA date back half-a-decade .
In April 2015 congressional testimony , he noted that he had urged US backing for “ anti-Jihadist forces led by General Khalifa Haftar , ” among other prescriptions for the region .
In March 2017 , he said in a video on Facebook that “ we need to make sure that we have a strong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Army ” and others .
This advocacy gained renewed importance in early April 2019 , when Khalifa Haftar launched his surprise attack intended to quickly seize Tripoli and oust the United Nations-recognized Government of National Accord there .
The effort enjoyed support from the leaders of Egypt , the United Arab Emirates , and Russia .
But the UN , US State Department , and other countries called for Haftar to stand down and agree to peaceful negotiations .
( Efforts by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other European leaders to mediate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Haftar refused to abide by a proposed a ceasefire . )
In an April 17 , 2019 , speech to the Westminster Institute , a think tank outside Washington that focuses on combatting extremism , Phares lamented the international community ’ s refusal drop support for the Government of National Accord and embrace Khalifa Haftar ’ s rebellion .
The Tripoli-based regime , Phares said , is inundated with jihadists and the Muslim Brotherhood , a Sunni Islamist organization founded in Egypt that Phares frequently decries .
Haftar , Phares argued , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been hindered by a lack of UN recognition and by American indecision on who to support in Libya .
On April 19 , reacting to a White House announcement that Trump had placed a supportive phone call to Khalifa Haftar , Phares tweeted that anti-terrorism “ cooperation between the US and the LNA is logical.
” The same day , the company Livingstone incorporated—with Okba Haftar and Phares as directors—was dissolved .
Livingstone did not respond to questions about that timing .
Bynum said Phares had “ no idea when this form was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Bynum noted that Phares ’ “ positions in opposing extremists , including Jihadists , are explicitly set out in his wide literature , ” adding that “ for over three decades , his positions and academic conclusions have been steadily consistent.
” Phares ’ views are indeed consistent .
A Lebanese-born Maronite Christian with a PhD from the University of Miami , he has regularly argued that Islam is expansionist , while condemning a broad swath of Muslim states , political organizations , and institutions as pro-terrorist .
He wrote in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ jihadists within the West pose as civil rights advocates ” and that “ [ a ] lmost all mosques , educational centers , and socioeconomic institutions ” in Arab Muslim communities fall into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists .
Phares sees no need to disclose his relationship with Okba Haftar when he publicly promotes the cause of Khalifa Haftar and the LNA , according to Bynum .
“ Dr Phares has no business interests in Libya ; therefore , the question is irrelevant , ” she wrote .
Still , Phares remains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work in the country that the elder Haftar seeks to rule .
“ Dr .
Phares would consider providing his professional expertise anywhere in the world , ” Bynum noted , “ especially in the countries of his regional expertise…including in Libya , that is , if any projects materialize .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
When Khalifa Haftar launched an offensive last spring to oust Libya’s internationally recognized government in Tripoli, he sought US support with a simple pitch. Haftar—a renegade general who controls the eastern part of the country—sold himself as an opponent of a terrorist-backed Tripoli government and as the best hope for stabilizing the war-torn nation. Within days, President Donald Trump placed a supportive call to Haftar. But overall, the US administration has remained largely cool to the warlord and his Libyan National Army, a coalition of militias and allied fighters. In May, a bipartisan group of lawmakers asked the Justice Department to investigate accusations that Haftar and his forces have committed war crimes. Haftar has since been sued in US courts by people who say their relatives were tortured or killed by his forces. (He has generally denied such allegations.) And questions about his military competence and his reliance on Russian and Sudanese mercenaries have left him short on backers in official Washington.
Haftar, who is a US citizen, does have his supporters, though. One of the most prominent is Walid Phares, a right-wing pundit and adviser to the 2016 Trump campaign, who for years has spoken favorably about Haftar in public remarks and social media posts. Phares contends that Haftar is preferable to the current government, which he argues is rife with jihadists. As Haftar fought to seize control of Tripoli’s airports last year, Phares tweeted on April 6 that the United States should not oppose the warlord’s offensive.
Libya National Army under #Haftar takes the control of one of #Tripoli's airports away from Islamist militias. Enters a suburb. Where do we stand? According to the #Ikhwan–#Qatar lobby, we should stand against Haftar and with the Islamist militias. But should we? Of course not — Walid Phares (@WalidPhares) April 6, 2019
What Phares has not mentioned while touting Haftar is that Phares has explored business opportunities involving Haftar’s son, Okba Haftar. The younger Haftar lives in Northern Virginia and works in real estate. According to people involved in US-Libya relations, Okba Haftar has also helped his father advance his interests in the United States.
In response to questions from Mother Jones, a representative for Phares acknowledged that Phares has a personal and professional relationship with Okba Haftar. “Dr. Phares is a friend with Mr. Okba Haftar,” Rebecca Bynum said over email. Bynum added that the two men “often discuss regional problems and the Libya situation, as well as providing assessments of risk analysis for potential ventures. They also meet with parties who inquire about ideas and projects in the Middle East, including in Libya.” She argued, however, that the relationship falls short of an arrangement that would warrant disclosure. “Dr. Phares has no business contract binding him to Okbar Haftar,” she said. “If that should ever change, Dr Phares would certainly disclose it, but that is simply not the case at the present time.” She also stated that Phares currently has no business interests in Libya.
Bynum said the two men first met each other in 2017. She declined to say if Phares has earned any money through the risk assessments and meetings he has participated in with Okba Haftar, though she said Okba Haftar has paid Phares to translate documents from English into Arabic. Okba Haftar did not respond to requests for comment.
There’s no evidence that Phares’ relationship with Okba Haftar has impacted Phares’ public statements about Libya. Bynum said that Phares’ positions on the country are consistent with his longstanding views on the Middle East, and she noted that Phares has publicly supported Khalifa Haftar’s LNA since 2014—three years before he first met Okba Haftar.
But according to Kelly McBride, a media ethics expert at the nonprofit Poynter Institute, Phares seems to have at least “an appearance of a conflict” when it comes to his Libya commentary. Asked whether Phares should have disclosed his connection to Okba Haftar, McBride said in an email, “I personally believe that when you are presenting yourself as an expert and trying to sway someone to your position, it is honorable to reveal any real or perceived conflicts of interest.”
The timing of one potential business opportunity involving Okba Haftar overlapped with Phares’ public defense of the LNA’s 2019 offensive. On November 21, 2018, Neil Livingstone—an anti-terrorism consultant, self-styled international man of intrigue, prolific author, and former Republican gubernatorial candidate in Montana—incorporated a company in Las Vegas called Transglobal Commerce and Construction. The registration lists Phares and Okba Haftar as directors. (Haftar’s name is spelled “Hifter” in the documents.) There is no sign the company ever did any actual work. It was dissolved on April 19, 2019.
The men involved have declined to explain exactly what they hoped the firm would do. Bynum said that the business was intended to act as a “consulting company for global commerce” and that Phares “agreed to join a board of advisers when and if the company would materialize” to provide expertise. But, she noted, the firm “never materialized.” Bynum said that the registration form for the “potential company incorporation” was “done and undone by Mr Livingstone himself.”
Livingstone has a history of for-profit entrepreneurship involving Libya. In March 2011, during US-led attacks on Moammar Qaddafi’s forces, Livingstone and a group of partners reportedly pushed a plan in which they would help the dictator safely flee the country—if he paid them a massive fee, including $10 million up front. (Livingstone confirmed in an email that he was involved in this effort to arrange Qaddafi’s exit, but he said that the plan never received approval from the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, which was necessary because of sanctions that office had placed on Libya. As a result, “nothing ever happened,” Livingstone said.)
Much of Libya is now under Haftar’s control, but Livingstone said Transglobal Commerce and Construction was not formed to do business in that country. “It was anticipated that it would begin with a business opportunity in the [Middle East,] but there was nothing in Libya,” he wrote.
Phares has apparently eyed other business involving Okba Haftar. In the summer of 2018, Phares helped David Correia, a Florida businessman, contact Okba Haftar to arrange a meeting about doing business in Libya, CNN reported in December. Correia proposed hiring Phares “in a possible expertise agreement,” Bynum told Mother Jones. She added that such an arrangement “never materialized.” (Last year, Correia, along with two associates of Rudy Giuliani—Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman—was charged by federal prosecutors with taking part in a conspiracy to conceal the source of foreign political contributions. A lawyer representing Correia did not respond to requests for comment.)
Phares’ calls for the United States to support Khalifa Haftar’s LNA date back half-a-decade. In April 2015 congressional testimony, he noted that he had urged US backing for “anti-Jihadist forces led by General Khalifa Haftar,” among other prescriptions for the region. In March 2017, he said in a video on Facebook that “we need to make sure that we have a strong partner in Libya—that would be the Libyan National Army” and others. This advocacy gained renewed importance in early April 2019, when Khalifa Haftar launched his surprise attack intended to quickly seize Tripoli and oust the United Nations-recognized Government of National Accord there. The effort enjoyed support from the leaders of Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, and Russia. But the UN, US State Department, and other countries called for Haftar to stand down and agree to peaceful negotiations. (Efforts by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other European leaders to mediate the conflict broke down in January when Haftar refused to abide by a proposed a ceasefire.)
In an April 17, 2019, speech to the Westminster Institute, a think tank outside Washington that focuses on combatting extremism, Phares lamented the international community’s refusal drop support for the Government of National Accord and embrace Khalifa Haftar’s rebellion. The Tripoli-based regime, Phares said, is inundated with jihadists and the Muslim Brotherhood, a Sunni Islamist organization founded in Egypt that Phares frequently decries. Haftar, Phares argued, is “fighting the jihadists” but has been hindered by a lack of UN recognition and by American indecision on who to support in Libya.
On April 19, reacting to a White House announcement that Trump had placed a supportive phone call to Khalifa Haftar, Phares tweeted that anti-terrorism “cooperation between the US and the LNA is logical.” The same day, the company Livingstone incorporated—with Okba Haftar and Phares as directors—was dissolved. Livingstone did not respond to questions about that timing. Bynum said Phares had “no idea when this form was posted nor when it was dissolved online.”
Bynum noted that Phares’ “positions in opposing extremists, including Jihadists, are explicitly set out in his wide literature,” adding that “for over three decades, his positions and academic conclusions have been steadily consistent.”
Phares’ views are indeed consistent. A Lebanese-born Maronite Christian with a PhD from the University of Miami, he has regularly argued that Islam is expansionist, while condemning a broad swath of Muslim states, political organizations, and institutions as pro-terrorist. He wrote in a 2005 book, Future Jihad, that “jihadists within the West pose as civil rights advocates” and that “[a]lmost all mosques, educational centers, and socioeconomic institutions” in Arab Muslim communities fall into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists.
Phares sees no need to disclose his relationship with Okba Haftar when he publicly promotes the cause of Khalifa Haftar and the LNA, according to Bynum. “Dr Phares has no business interests in Libya; therefore, the question is irrelevant,” she wrote.
Still, Phares remains open to the prospect of doing consulting work in the country that the elder Haftar seeks to rule. “Dr. Phares would consider providing his professional expertise anywhere in the world,” Bynum noted, “especially in the countries of his regional expertise…including in Libya, that is, if any projects materialize.”


motherjones--2020-03-03--Staying Safe From Coronavirus Is a Lot Harder If You Live on the Streets

Last week , the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned that incidents of the coronavirus , which causes COVID-19 , would increase in the United States and would likely disrupt daily lives .
To contain the spread , health care experts advise constant hand-washing , avoiding close contact with anyone who is sick , and staying home if you suspect you have symptoms—which include fever and cough .
Of course , for the homeless population , those straightforward guidelines are close to impossible .
“ Unfortunately , we know that people living in crowded , unsanitary conditions are at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diseases , ” Dr. Jeffrey Klausner , a public health and medicine professor at the University of California , Los Angeles , told the Los Angeles Times .
The illness first appeared in China in December .
According to the World Health Organization , more than 87,000 people have contracted the disease , and it has killed about 3,000 people worldwide—including six people in Washington state .
Officials are urging calm .
“ While there is some spread in some communities there is no national spread of COVID-19 at this time , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Disease , said at a press conference on Saturday .
But public health experts are worried about one population that could be especially vulnerable to the disease : people living in encampments or in community shelters .
“ Housing is a public health issue , ” says Dr. Tobie Smith , a public health professor at Georgetown University .
The recommendations for staying safe from coronavirus are simple—if you have a stable place to live .
For unsheltered people , there ’ s no home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unpredictable access to public bathrooms for frequent hand-washing .
Many unhoused people are already sick or have compromised immune systems , putting them at higher risk of death .
Even for those in shelters , avoiding close contact is virtually impossible , as shelters aren ’ t built with quarantine rooms .
For unhoused people , “ the actual recommendations are just not feasible , ” Dr. Smith says .
During the 2003 epidemic of SARS , a similar respiratory virus infected more than 8,000 people and killed 774 worldwide , but only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States ; they all had traveled to a country with infections .
In Toronto , Canada , however , where there were 257 cases , there was growing concern that the homeless population was at risk .
Advocates for unhoused people were not prepared to handle an outbreak : They could not figure out how to effectively communicate the danger to homeless individuals and families ; they lacked supplies for proper disease screening ; and they weren ’ t able to quarantine patients living in shelters .
No homeless people were reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What are the options today for minimizing the risk to unhoused people ?
In Spokane , Washington , city officials are educating shelter workers on strategies for educating those who reside in homeless facilities on how to keep safe .
Local nonprofits are training workers on how to spot people who may be infected .
They ’ re following recommendations from the local health department , which include giving masks to anyone who may show symptoms , but not as preventative measures .
( Coronavirus symptoms are similar to a common cold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homeless outreach workers to decide if an individual needs immediate attention . )
In California , where there were 35 confirmed cases on Monday , the California Department of Health said it is monitoring the situation but has not yet released any specific plans .
An additional concern among public health officials is that an outbreak among homeless populations could lead to further stigmatization of an often marginalized group .
Because homeless people lack access to health care and frequently move around and use public spaces like libraries and mass transit , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example , an op-ed in a Seattle paper called for forcing homeless people into a shelter , lest they use public facilities and spread the illness .
“ This is not a reason to further marginalize these people , ” Dr. Smith says , “ but it shows how having people in our community who are unhoused is a threat in many ways .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Last week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned that incidents of the coronavirus, which causes COVID-19, would increase in the United States and would likely disrupt daily lives. To contain the spread, health care experts advise constant hand-washing, avoiding close contact with anyone who is sick, and staying home if you suspect you have symptoms—which include fever and cough.
Of course, for the homeless population, those straightforward guidelines are close to impossible.
“Unfortunately, we know that people living in crowded, unsanitary conditions are at increased risk for a variety of infectious diseases,” Dr. Jeffrey Klausner, a public health and medicine professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, told the Los Angeles Times. The illness first appeared in China in December. According to the World Health Organization, more than 87,000 people have contracted the disease, and it has killed about 3,000 people worldwide—including six people in Washington state. Officials are urging calm. “While there is some spread in some communities there is no national spread of COVID-19 at this time,” Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Disease, said at a press conference on Saturday. But public health experts are worried about one population that could be especially vulnerable to the disease: people living in encampments or in community shelters.
“Housing is a public health issue,” says Dr. Tobie Smith, a public health professor at Georgetown University. The recommendations for staying safe from coronavirus are simple—if you have a stable place to live. For unsheltered people, there’s no home for self-quarantine, and they have only unpredictable access to public bathrooms for frequent hand-washing. Many unhoused people are already sick or have compromised immune systems, putting them at higher risk of death. Even for those in shelters, avoiding close contact is virtually impossible, as shelters aren’t built with quarantine rooms. For unhoused people, “the actual recommendations are just not feasible,” Dr. Smith says.
For unhoused people, “the actual recommendations are just not feasible.”
During the 2003 epidemic of SARS, a similar respiratory virus infected more than 8,000 people and killed 774 worldwide, but only eight people contracted the virus in the United States; they all had traveled to a country with infections. In Toronto, Canada, however, where there were 257 cases, there was growing concern that the homeless population was at risk. Advocates for unhoused people were not prepared to handle an outbreak: They could not figure out how to effectively communicate the danger to homeless individuals and families; they lacked supplies for proper disease screening; and they weren’t able to quarantine patients living in shelters. No homeless people were reported to have contracted SARS during the outbreak.
What are the options today for minimizing the risk to unhoused people? In Spokane, Washington, city officials are educating shelter workers on strategies for educating those who reside in homeless facilities on how to keep safe. Local nonprofits are training workers on how to spot people who may be infected. They’re following recommendations from the local health department, which include giving masks to anyone who may show symptoms, but not as preventative measures. (Coronavirus symptoms are similar to a common cold, so it can be difficult for homeless outreach workers to decide if an individual needs immediate attention.) In California, where there were 35 confirmed cases on Monday, the California Department of Health said it is monitoring the situation but has not yet released any specific plans.
An additional concern among public health officials is that an outbreak among homeless populations could lead to further stigmatization of an often marginalized group. Because homeless people lack access to health care and frequently move around and use public spaces like libraries and mass transit, the fear-mongering in the media has already begun—for example, an op-ed in a Seattle paper called for forcing homeless people into a shelter, lest they use public facilities and spread the illness. “This is not a reason to further marginalize these people,” Dr. Smith says, “but it shows how having people in our community who are unhoused is a threat in many ways.”