vox--2020-07-31--The TikTok-Trump drama, explained

The TikTok-Trump drama, explained

It looks like the Trump administration is getting tougher on TikTok , the wildly popular social media app that ’ s best known as a place for teens to post short videos , amid mounting national security concerns about the app ’ s relationship with the Chinese government .
According to Bloomberg , President Trump plans to sign an order compelling TikTok ’ s parent company , Chinese-based ByteDance , to sell its US operations .
Some are floating Microsoft as a potential buyer .
Trump ’ s order would reportedly direct ByteDance to divest from the US-based TikTok , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , most likely by selling to another company .
US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin confirmed that the app was under government review on Wednesday , and that a recommendation would come by the end of the week .
A government decision that forces TikTok to sell would be a game changer for the social media industry and would threaten to disrupt the app ’ s extraordinary rise in popularity with its some 80 million users in the US , many of them young .
And for established US social media giants Facebook and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their fiercest new competitor .
For months , Trump and other politicians have raised concerns about TikTok as a potential national security threat , worrying that the company could censor content or access user data at the behest of the Chinese Communist Party .
TikTok has denied taking orders from the Chinese government to moderate content , and said it maintains all of its American user data outside of China , in either the US or Singapore .
But reports last year indicated that TikTok was seemingly censoring content related to the Hong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ topics that are controversial with the Chinese government like Tiananmen Square and Tibetan independence .
These reports have fueled US government suspicions , particularly as China has been expanding its surveillance state in recent years and US-China diplomatic relations have cooled .
Republicans have escalated their attacks on TikTok this summer , with some bipartisan support from Democrats as well .
On Thursday , Sens .
Richard Blumenthal ( D-CT ) and Josh Hawley ( R-MO ) sent a letter to the Justice Department demanding that the agency open an investigation into TikTok @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans ’ civil liberties ” and national security concerns about relationships between these companies and the People ’ s Republic of China .
This followed statements in July from Trump and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , who both said the Trump administration was considering banning TikTok altogether .
While the plan reportedly being considered wouldn ’ t amount to a ban , an order from President Trump would significantly disrupt TikTok ’ s business by forcing its ownership to change hands .
That could have negative consequences beyond the people running @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to jeopardize the success of an app that ’ s had a meteoric rise from a relative underdog to one of the most downloaded apps in the world .
And since TikTok is one of the only recent social media startups to compete with tech giants like Facebook , weakening TikTok could further reinforce what many argue is the monopolistic nature of the US tech economy .
“ While we do not comment on rumors or speculation , we are confident in the long-term success of TikTok , ” a spokesperson for TikTok @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is “ committed to protecting their privacy and safety as we continue working to bring joy to families and meaningful careers to those who create on our platform.
” Here ’ s a breakdown of what ’ s going on and what ’ s expected next .
How this would work You may be asking how Trump can force a company as popular as TikTok to sell off .
The answer is complicated and bureaucratic .
If what ’ s being reported is true , Trump would issue the order for ByteDance to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Foreign Investment in the United States ( CFIUS ) , an interagency committee that reviews foreign acquisitions and investments in US businesses that can threaten national security .
The committee , which is chaired by Mnuchin , has the power to block or reverse mergers and acquisitions involving US and foreign companies .
Increasingly , the agency has been exercising its authority over foreign-owned tech companies operating in the US .
Last year , CFIUS helped block one of the biggest deals in tech history , after Trump followed its recommendations to stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US semiconductor company Qualcomm .
The committee also forced Chinese owners to divest from the dating app Grindr and the health startup PatientsLikeMe .
But as Brookings fellow Geoffrey Gertz has written , tech companies weren ’ t always the target of CFIUS .
In the past , the committee “ tended to focus on companies with military or intelligence connections , ” but more recently , personal data and high-tech intellectual property are of greater concern .
Last year , CFIUS started investigating ByteDance , which had purchased the Chinese-owned lip-sync @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rebranded and launched a similar app in the US under the name TikTok .
When that investigation comes to a close , the committee ’ s recommendations will reportedly lead to Trump ’ s order for ByteDance to sell TikTok or divest its US operations .
It ’ s unclear how CFIUS would enforce a potential unwinding of ByteDance and TikTok , but last year , the committee issued a $ 1 million fine to an undisclosed company for not following through on a mitigation agreement , its first penalty of that kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to order ByteDance to divest in it , that doesn ’ t mean TikTok as we know it will simply shut down in the US .
TikTok is a valuable brand in a lucrative industry .
Instead , the company behind the app will likely change ownership .
If TikTok is compelled to sell its US operations , it needs to find a buyer .
And while tech giants like Facebook or Google might otherwise jump at the chance to buy a fierce rival , the current antitrust scrutiny they face could make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Which is where Microsoft may come in .
Unlike the other major tech companies , Microsoft does not have a major stake in the social media space , which could put regulators at ease , making the deal more likely to get approved .
Then again , Microsoft is a dinosaur by tech company standards , and its involvement could be seen as a kiss of death for TikTok , the ingenue of social media .
But if Microsoft runs it well , TikTok could continue to grow , and with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it might more seriously take on other social media companies , including Facebook .
And Microsoft is by no means the only option — other firms could try to buy TikTok .
It ’ s too soon to say who exactly will end up buying TikTok ’ s US operations .
In the meantime , there are plenty of Clippy jokes to make .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today @

President Trump issued an executive order on Thursday night that will effectively ban any US company or individual from making transactions with ByteDance, the Chinese parent company of the TikTok app, after 45 days.
While this conditional ban on TikTok’s US business operations will likely face serious legal challenges, and it’s unclear how immediately enforceable it is, the order creates a serious challenge for TikTok, a wildly popular video streaming app with some 100 million US users.
For months, Trump and other bipartisan politicians have periodically raised concerns about TikTok as a potential national security threat, worrying that the app’s Chinese parent company could censor content in the US or access American users’ sensitive data at the behest of the Chinese Communist Party.
The executive order states that TikTok “automatically captures vast swaths of information from its users,” and that this “threatens to allow the Chinese Communist Party access to Americans’ personal and proprietary information — potentially allowing China to track the locations of Federal employees and contractors, build dossiers of personal information for blackmail, and conduct corporate espionage.”
The company has vehemently denied these accusations, saying repeatedly that it does not share user data with the Chinese government. But reports last year showed a lack of TikTok content about subjects controversial with the Chinese government — such as videos of the Hong Kong protests. These reports have fueled US government suspicions that the company is influenced by the Chinese government, particularly as China has been expanding its surveillance state in recent years and US-China diplomatic relations have become more strained.
Trump has gone back and forth about how he planned to take action on TikTok. As recently as last Friday, he warned of an eminent executive ban on TikTok. On Monday though, Trump seemed to reverse his stance and said in a White House press briefing that instead of banning it, he would allow a US-based company to purchase the app.
“I don’t mind if — whether it is Microsoft or someone else — a big company, a secure company, a very American company, buys it,” said Trump about TikTok. Trump also warned that TikTok will be “out of business in the United States” by September 15 if the company doesn’t reach a deal to sell by then. Now, the executive order has established a timeline of 45 days from Thursday (which would be September 20) for the sale to happen before TikTok will no longer be able to conduct business in the US.
Related The case for and against banning TikTok
Though TikTok, which is owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, is best known as a place where teens share short, often lighthearted musical videos, it has become the center of geopolitical controversy between the US and China over technological power.
But getting rid of an app used by some 100 million Americans isn’t easy, even if you’re the president. According to a New York Times report on Sunday, after Trump’s advisers convinced him that an executive action to ban TikTok would face severe legal and political consequences, Trump decided he would allow the tech giant Microsoft to continue its previous talks to buy the app, which had reportedly been in the works for weeks. Since Microsoft is a US-based company, the idea is that if Microsoft took control, it would ensure all of TikTok’s user data is stored in the US, secure from the potentially prying eyes of the Chinese government. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella talked to Trump about it over the weekend, according to a Microsoft blog post published on Saturday evening, and has agreed to work out a deal — or not — by September 15.
Do you work at TikTok and have thoughts about what’s going on? Please email Shirin Ghaffary at shirin.ghaffary@protonmail.com to reach her confidentially. Signal number available upon request.
Here’s a rundown of the recent controversy surrounding TikTok and what’s expected to happen next:
TikTok’s political troubles
TikTok has faced intense political scrutiny for months leading up to Trump’s executive order.
Republicans escalated their attacks on TikTok this summer, with some bipartisan support from Democrats as well. Last Thursday, Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Josh Hawley (R-MO) sent a letter to the Justice Department demanding that the agency open an investigation into TikTok and Zoom over reported violations of “Americans’ civil liberties” and national security concerns about relationships between these companies and China. This followed statements in July from Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who both said the Trump administration was considering banning TikTok altogether.
For the past year, it’s been thought that the app has been under government review for national security reasons. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin confirmed this last week, and said he’s expecting the review to conclude soon. The government committee in charge of this review, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), has the power to recommend the president force TikTok to sell to a US company.
Even if Trump can’t enforce a full-on ban, a government decision that forces TikTok’s parent company to sell it off would be a game changer for the social media industry, and would threaten to disrupt the app’s extraordinary popularity. And for established social media giants Facebook and Google, the decision could significantly weaken their fiercest new competitor.
A forced sale of TikTok could have negative consequences beyond the people running TikTok, too. The move threatens to jeopardize the success of an app that’s had a meteoric rise from a relative underdog to one of the most downloaded apps in the world. And since TikTok is one of the only recent social media startups to compete with tech giants like Facebook, weakening TikTok could further concentrate power among a few tech giants in the US.
“While we do not comment on rumors or speculation, we are confident in the long-term success of TikTok,” a spokesperson for TikTok told Recode last Friday, adding the company is “committed to protecting their privacy and safety as we continue working to bring joy to families and meaningful careers to those who create on our platform.”
How a sale would work
You may be asking how Trump can force a company as popular as TikTok to sell itself, or go so far as to try to ban it. The answer is complicated and bureaucratic.
To force a sale, Trump could issue an order for ByteDance to divest from TikTok through CFIUS, an interagency committee that reviews foreign acquisitions and investments in US businesses that can threaten national security. The committee, chaired by Mnuchin, has the power to block or reverse mergers and acquisitions involving US and foreign companies.
Increasingly, the agency has been exercising its authority over foreign-owned tech companies operating in the US. Last year, CFIUS helped block one of the biggest deals in tech history, after Trump followed its recommendations to stop Singapore-based Broadcom from acquiring the US semiconductor company Qualcomm. The committee also forced Chinese owners to divest from the dating app Grindr and the health startup PatientsLikeMe.
But as Brookings Institution fellow Geoffrey Gertz has written, tech companies weren’t always the target of CFIUS. In the past, the committee “tended to focus on companies with military or intelligence connections,” but more recently, personal data and high-tech intellectual property have become a bigger focus for the committee.
Last year, CFIUS started investigating ByteDance, which had purchased the Chinese-owned lip-sync video platform Musical.ly in 2017 and then rebranded and launched a similar app in the US under the name TikTok. When that investigation comes to a close, the committee’s recommendations will reportedly lead to Trump’s order for ByteDance to sell TikTok or divest its US operations.
It’s unclear how CFIUS would enforce a potential unwinding of ByteDance and TikTok, but last year, the committee issued a $1 million fine to an undisclosed company for not following through on a mitigation agreement, its first penalty of that kind. It could also fine TikTok — or Trump could just continue to dangle the threat of banning TikTok altogether, no matter how legally or politically contentious that would be.
In a press briefing on Monday, Trump said that whoever ends up owning TikTok should pay the Treasury department of the US government a “substantial amount of money” as part of the deal. As some have pointed out, including Axios’s Dan Primack, Trump’s comments could be “skating very close to announcing extortion.” It’s not immediately clear how Trump would try to ensure the US government gets a cut of the sale or whether it’s even legal to do that.
What comes next
If Microsoft or another major US company does purchase TikTok, it’s likely that TikTok as we know it would remain largely unchanged.
TikTok is a valuable brand in a lucrative industry with a massive, devoted user base — so for Microsoft, buying TikTok would be an opportunity to seriously compete with other major tech companies like Facebook and Google in the social media space.
Microsoft also has experience when it comes to purchasing already successful companies and allowing them to retain their independence — as it did when it acquired the platform for software developers, GitHub, in 2018, and the video game Minecraft in 2014.
Depending on how Microsoft chooses to run TikTok — if it acquires it — the app could continue to grow, and with the backing of a major US tech company, it might more seriously take on other social media companies, including Facebook. Microsoft isn’t the only potential buyer — other firms could try to buy TikTok or share ownership. Reportedly, Microsoft may invite outside investors to join them in the deal, according to the Wall Street Journal.
It’s too soon to say what impact a sale would have on the app’s popularity and growth. But in the meantime, there are plenty of Clippy jokes to make.
On Monday, a spokesperson for TikTok told Recode in a statement that the company is “committed to continuing to bring joy to families and meaningful careers to those who create on our platform as we build TikTok for the long term. TikTok will be here for many years to come.”
Update, August 6, 9:54 pm ET: This article has been updated to include news of Trump’s executive order against TikTok.
Update, August 3, 3:05 pm ET: This article has been updated to include new comments from President Trump and new reporting about ongoing negotiations between Microsoft and TikTok.


vox--2020-08-01--The TikTok-Trump drama, explained

The TikTok-Trump drama, explained

The Trump administration said it plans to ban TikTok , the wildly popular social media app best known as a place for teens to post short videos , amid mounting national security concerns about the app ’ s relationship with the Chinese government .
On Friday evening , President Donald Trump told reporters on Air Force One , “ as far as TikTok is concerned , we ’ re banning them from the United States , ” saying he would do so using emergency economic powers or an executive order .
It ’ s unclear exactly how Trump plans to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face serious legal and technical challenges .
According to a report earlier on Friday from Bloomberg , Trump was considering signing an order compelling TikTok ’ s parent company , China-based ByteDance , to sell its US operations .
Some were floating Microsoft as a potential buyer .
But on Friday evening , Trump told reporters he was against such a deal — which , according to the Wall Street Journal , has stalled Microsoft ’ s negotiations to purchase TikTok .
US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin confirmed that the app was under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wednesday , and that a recommendation would come by the end of the week .
A government decision that bans TikTok , or forces its parent company to sell it , would be a game changer for the social media industry and would threaten to disrupt the app ’ s extraordinary rise in popularity with its some 80 million users in the US .
And for established US social media giants Facebook and Google , the decision could significantly weaken their fiercest new competitor .
For months , Trump and other politicians have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national security threat , worrying that the company could censor content or access user data at the behest of the Chinese Communist Party .
TikTok has denied taking orders from the Chinese government to moderate content , and said it maintains all of its American user data outside China , in either the US or Singapore .
But reports last year indicated TikTok was seemingly censoring content related to the Hong Kong protests , as well as other topics that are controversial with the Chinese government , like Tiananmen Square and Tibetan independence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suspicions , particularly as China has been expanding its surveillance state in recent years and US-China diplomatic relations have cooled .
Republicans have escalated their attacks on TikTok this summer , with some bipartisan support from Democrats as well .
On Thursday , Sens .
Richard Blumenthal ( D-CT ) and Josh Hawley ( R-MO ) sent a letter to the Justice Department demanding that the agency open an investigation into TikTok and Zoom over reported violations of “ Americans ’ civil liberties ” and national security concerns about relationships between these companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China .
This followed statements in July from Trump and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , who both said the Trump administration was considering banning TikTok altogether .
A forced ban or sale of TikTok could have negative consequences beyond the people running TikTok , too .
The move threatens to jeopardize the success of an app that ’ s had a meteoric rise from a relative underdog to one of the most downloaded apps in the world .
And since TikTok is one of the only recent social media startups to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weakening TikTok could further reinforce what many argue is the monopolistic nature of the US tech economy .
“ While we do not comment on rumors or speculation , we are confident in the long-term success of TikTok , ” a spokesperson for TikTok told Recode , adding the company is “ committed to protecting their privacy and safety as we continue working to bring joy to families and meaningful careers to those who create on our platform.
” Here ’ s a breakdown of what ’ s going on and what ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work You may be asking how Trump can force a company as popular as TikTok to sell off .
The answer is complicated and bureaucratic .
If what ’ s being reported is true , Trump would issue the order for ByteDance to divest from TikTok through the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States ( CFIUS ) , an interagency committee that reviews foreign acquisitions and investments in US businesses that can threaten national security .
The committee , chaired by Mnuchin , has the power to block or reverse mergers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Increasingly , the agency has been exercising its authority over foreign-owned tech companies operating in the US .
Last year , CFIUS helped block one of the biggest deals in tech history , after Trump followed its recommendations to stop Singapore-based Broadcom from acquiring the US semiconductor company Qualcomm .
The committee also forced Chinese owners to divest from the dating app Grindr and the health startup PatientsLikeMe .
But as Brookings Institution fellow Geoffrey Gertz has written , tech companies weren ’ t always the target of CFIUS .
In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focus on companies with military or intelligence connections , ” but more recently , personal data and high-tech intellectual property are of greater concern .
Last year , CFIUS started investigating ByteDance , which had purchased the Chinese-owned lip-sync video platform Musical.ly in 2017 and then rebranded and launched a similar app in the US under the name TikTok .
When that investigation comes to a close , the committee ’ s recommendations will reportedly lead to Trump ’ s order for ByteDance to sell TikTok or divest its US operations .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a potential unwinding of ByteDance and TikTok , but last year , the committee issued a $ 1 million fine to an undisclosed company for not following through on a mitigation agreement , its first penalty of that kind .
What comes next If Trump decides to order ByteDance to divest in it , that doesn ’ t mean TikTok as we know it will simply shut down in the US .
TikTok is a valuable brand in a lucrative industry .
Instead , the company behind the app will likely change ownership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its US operations , it needs to find a buyer .
And while tech giants like Facebook or Google might otherwise jump at the chance to buy a fierce rival , the current antitrust scrutiny they face could make it difficult for them to do so .
Which is where Microsoft may come in .
Unlike the other major tech companies , Microsoft does not have a major stake in the social media space , which could put regulators at ease , making the deal more likely to get approved .
Then again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company standards , and its involvement could be seen as a kiss of death for TikTok , the ingenue of social media .
But if Microsoft runs it well , TikTok could continue to grow , and with the backing of a major US tech company , it might more seriously take on other social media companies , including Facebook .
And Microsoft is by no means the only option — other firms could try to buy TikTok .
It ’ s too soon to say who exactly could end up buying TikTok @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meantime , there are plenty of Clippy jokes to make .
Update August 1 , 3:10 pm PT : This article has been updated to include a statement from President Trump and new reporting about potential government action against TikTok .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .


vox--2020-08-01--Lawmakers still “not close” to a coronavirus stimulus deal, a day after $600 federal relief expired

Congress adjourned for the week on Friday having failed to pass a new coronavirus stimulus bill , as the weekly $ 600 coronavirus unemployment payments 32 million people have come to rely on expired .
With Democrats and Republicans still far apart on stimulus priorities , party leaders returned for talks on Saturday , in which they reportedly made “ progress ” — but are still far from passing ongoing relief .
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows met with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the Capitol for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schumer telling reporters after that meeting , “ We ’ re not close yet .
But it was a productive discussion .
Now each side knows where , where they ’ re at .
And we are going to work very hard to come to an agreement.
” The comments suggest an improvement from earlier in the week ; on Wednesday , Schumer lamented Republicans weren ’ t sure what they wanted : “ We don ’ t even know what their position is .
One senator says one thing .
One senator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ This ’ one day .
[ Then ] the president says , ‘ That ’ .
” The Hill similarly reports confusion between the White House and Senate Republicans about who was taking the lead in negotiations with Democrats .
Those issues have been resolved , Meadows suggested , saying , “ There are still substantial differences , but we did make good progress.
” Chief among those differences is the amount unemployed Americans will receive in federal unemployment insurance ( UI ) benefits : An earlier stimulus bill signed into law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people $ 600 each week in addition to whatever unemployment funds they received from their states .
Republicans have proposed reconfiguring that benefit to be 70 percent of an unemployed person ’ s previous wages ; Democrats want to continue providing the same $ 600 in weekly support .
And as Vox ’ s Li Zhou and Ella Nilsen have reported , “ late Thursday , the White House made a last-ditch attempt at approving a short-term extension of the UI program.
” As the two sides debated , the benefit ran out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week before , a federal moratorium on evictions of people who receive federal housing assistance expired .
“ We ’ re still a long ways apart and I don ’ t want to suggest that a deal is imminent because it is not , ” Meadows said Saturday .
While jobless benefits have received the most attention , negotiators are also working out what level of aid schools will need in order to reopen this fall , food and rent assistance initiatives , aid for small banks , local government funding , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to an accord in some of those areas , particularly education , Mnuchin said Saturday .
“ I would just say that the four of us also agree the education issue is something that ’ s very timely .
Schools are opening and there are schools that want to open that will need more money for social distancing , ” Mnuchin said .
The stimulus package has been stymied by a complicated negotiation period Despite Saturday ’ s progress , the reality is that there is still a vast distance between Democrats ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which was outlined in May ’ s $ 3 trillion HEROES Act ) and the $ 1 trillion bill proposed by Senate Republicans last week .
For instance , $ 1 trillion is the amount Democrats would like to see allocated for cash-strapped state and local governments , while Republicans have proposed no new funding for that purpose .
Over the last several weeks , talks have gotten hung up along political lines , although the divide in opinion as to what more stimulus should look like has not been explicitly partisan : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a number of his key allies , like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — have disagreed about what should be in the bill , with some also citing concerns over its cost .
This disorganization — and that even a united Republican Party would need some Democratic votes to pass a stimulus bill in the Senate — has given Democrats more leverage in their negotiations than they may have otherwise had .
Trump , however , has taken to blaming the delay in passing the package on Pelosi and Schumer , accusing them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ replacement , and using the negotiation period to call for his own reelection this fall .
“ The Do Nothing Democrats are more interested in playing politics than in helping our deserving people .
DRAIN THE SWAMP ON NOVEMBER 3RD !
” Trump wrote on Twitter Friday .
As Zhou and Nilsen have written , at the heart of Republicans and Democrats ’ dispute is a fundamental disagreement about how resilient the economy is .
Republicans were slow to answer Democrats ’ HEROES Act in May because many believed the economy would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 pandemic would be largely under control .
Neither of these things has happened , and now the two parties are struggling to agree on what that means for Americans ’ needs in the immediate future .
The stakes as lawmakers work to find common ground are high .
According to Zhou and Nilsen , federal unemployment assistance during an unprecedented period of job loss may have staunched what would have otherwise been a major increase in poverty levels .
The cash payments have also likely bolstered the economy and staved off additional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to independent studies by researchers at the University of Chicago , the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget , and the Economic Policy Institute .
For now , however , the negotiators plan to adjourn .
According to CNN ’ s Manu Raju , aides will continue working toward a deal on Sunday , with Mnuchin , Meadows , Schumer , and Pelosi trying again for an agreement on Monday .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Congress adjourned for the week on Friday having failed to pass a new coronavirus stimulus bill, as the weekly $600 coronavirus unemployment payments 32 million people have come to rely on expired. With Democrats and Republicans still far apart on stimulus priorities, party leaders returned for talks on Saturday, in which they reportedly made “progress” — but are still far from passing ongoing relief.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows met with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the Capitol for about three hours on Saturday, with Schumer telling reporters after that meeting, “We’re not close yet. But it was a productive discussion. Now each side knows where they’re at. And we are going to work very hard to come to an agreement.”
The comments suggest an improvement from earlier in the week; on Wednesday, Schumer lamented Republicans weren’t sure what they wanted: “We don’t even know what their position is. One senator says one thing. One senator says another. The president says, ‘This’ one day. [Then] the president says, ‘That.’” The Hill similarly reports confusion between the White House and Senate Republicans about who was taking the lead in negotiations with Democrats.
Those issues have been resolved, Meadows suggested, saying, “There are still substantial differences, but we did make good progress.”
Chief among those differences is the amount unemployed Americans will receive in federal unemployment insurance (UI) benefits: An earlier stimulus bill signed into law, the CARES Act, gave unemployed people $600 each week in addition to whatever unemployment funds they received from their states.
Republicans have proposed reconfiguring that benefit to be 70 percent of an unemployed person’s previous wages; Democrats want to continue providing the same $600 in weekly support. And as Vox’s Li Zhou and Ella Nilsen have reported, “late Thursday, the White House made a last-ditch attempt at approving a short-term extension of the UI program.”
As the two sides debated, the benefit ran out; the program expired Friday. A week before, a federal moratorium on evictions of people who receive federal housing assistance expired.
“We’re still a long ways apart and I don’t want to suggest that a deal is imminent because it is not,” Meadows said Saturday.
While jobless benefits have received the most attention, negotiators are also working out what level of aid schools will need in order to reopen this fall, food and rent assistance initiatives, aid for small banks, local government funding, and elections funding.
Lawmakers may be closer to an accord in some of those areas, particularly education, Mnuchin said Saturday.
“I would just say that the four of us also agree the education issue is something that’s very timely. Schools are opening and there are schools that want to open that will need more money for social distancing,” Mnuchin said.
The stimulus package has been stymied by a complicated negotiation period
Despite Saturday’s progress, the reality is that there is still a vast distance between Democrats’ proposal for the next stimulus bill (which was outlined in May’s $3 trillion HEROES Act) and the $1 trillion bill proposed by Senate Republicans last week. For instance, $1 trillion is the amount Democrats would like to see allocated for cash-strapped state and local governments, while Republicans have proposed no new funding for that purpose.
Over the last several weeks, talks have gotten hung up along political lines, although the divide in opinion as to what more stimulus should look like has not been explicitly partisan: Republicans — including President Donald Trump and a number of his key allies, like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — have disagreed about what should be in the bill, with some also citing concerns over its cost.
This disorganization — and that even a united Republican Party would need some Democratic votes to pass a stimulus bill in the Senate — has given Democrats more leverage in their negotiations than they may have otherwise had. Trump, however, has taken to blaming the delay in passing the package on Pelosi and Schumer, accusing them of holding up the bill’s replacement, and using the negotiation period to call for his own reelection this fall.
“The Do Nothing Democrats are more interested in playing politics than in helping our deserving people. DRAIN THE SWAMP ON NOVEMBER 3RD!” Trump wrote on Twitter Friday.
As Zhou and Nilsen have written, at the heart of Republicans’ and Democrats’ dispute is a fundamental disagreement about how resilient the economy is. Republicans were slow to answer Democrats’ HEROES Act in May because many believed the economy would be better by now, and that the Covid-19 pandemic would be largely under control. Neither of these things has happened, and now the two parties are struggling to agree on what that means for Americans’ needs in the immediate future.
The stakes as lawmakers work to find common ground are high. According to Zhou and Nilsen, federal unemployment assistance during an unprecedented period of job loss may have stanched what would have otherwise been a major increase in poverty levels. The cash payments have also likely bolstered the economy and staved off additional job losses by maintaining consumer spending, according to independent studies by researchers at the University of Chicago, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, and the Economic Policy Institute.
For now, however, the negotiators plan to adjourn. According to CNN’s Manu Raju, aides will continue working toward a deal on Sunday, with Mnuchin, Meadows, Schumer, and Pelosi trying again for an agreement on Monday.


vox--2020-08-01--The US ambassador to Brazil reportedly asked Brazilian officials to help Trump’s reelection

The Trump administration has been accused of attempting to pressure another foreign country into helping Trump ’ s reelection prospects , according to a letter from the House Foreign Affairs Committee .
That letter cites Brazilian news articles that report US Ambassador to Brazil Todd Chapman pressured members of Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro ’ s administration to lower ethanol tariffs in order to support President Donald Trump ’ s reelection efforts .
In the letter , Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Rep. Eliot Engel demands Chapman explain an article in which the ambassador is said to have asked for the tariffs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” from the Brazilian government to the Trump reelection campaign .
“ Iowa is the largest ethanol producer in the United States…and could be a key player in Trump ’ s election , ” an article in the Brazilian newspaper O Globo reads , according to the letter .
“ Hence the importance – according to Chapman – for the Bolsonaro government to do the U.S. a favor.
” Beyond the report in O Globo , the New York Times notes , another Brazilian outlet , Estadão , published a similar story based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journalists finding that Chapman had made the request , and was rebuffed by government officials .
Alceu Moreira , a Brazilian congressman , also told the Times that Chapman “ had made repeated references to the electoral calendar during a recent meeting the two had about ethanol.
” Engel has called for Chapman to respond to the reports by August 4 , and for him to provide “ any and all documents referring or related to any discussions ” with Brazilian officials .
If the reports are accurate , the letter states , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violation of the Hatch Act , which prevents federal employees from engaging in certain political activities , such as partisan campaigning for candidates .
A State Department spokesperson said in a statement that Chapman ’ s efforts were part of a policy of pushing for lower tariffs in general , not narrowly focused on supporting an incumbent presidential campaign .
“ Allegations suggesting that Ambassador Chapman has asked Brazilians to support a specific U.S. candidate are false , ” the statement reads .
“ The United States has long been focused on reducing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Foreign interference marred the 2016 election .
Requests for interference led to impeachment .
The reports are also of concern because of how closely they echo the request that led to Trump ’ s impeachment .
Last July , Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to “ do us a favor ” during a phone call in which he asked the leader to look into the business dealings of Hunter Biden , the son of then-candidate , now presumed Democratic nominee Joe Biden .
In that call , Trump appeared to condition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zelensky ’ s willingness to search for information that might be used to discredit Biden .
A congressional investigation into that call revealed the ways the Trump administration used traditional diplomatic channels — most notably the office of the US ambassador to the European Union — to forward that goal .
It isn ’ t clear whether Trump was involved in Chapman ’ s reported pressure campaign about ethanol , but as Vox ’ s Zack Beauchamp wrote during 2019 ’ s impeachment hearings , the testimony of another of Trump ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ European Union Gordon Sondland — showed a willingness on Trump ’ s part “ to use US foreign policy as a tool to cement his own hold on power.
” And that has Trump critics concerned about the Brazilian reports , with Engel warning Chapman in his letter , “ Elections in the United States are for the American people and the American people only to decide.
” In delivering that warning , the letter explicitly links Chapman ’ s reported campaign to the 2016 election , the outcome of which foreign governments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the results of a Senate investigation .
“ Given the events of 2016 , it is all the more important for U.S. ambassadors serving our country abroad to not insert themselves into U.S. elections or encourage foreign government officials from any branch of government to do so , ” the letter reads .
This warning follows intelligence reports that find Russia has actively worked to disrupt November ’ s elections — as well as the Democratic presidential primary .
But politicians and experts have warned that the US is not as prepared as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interference , leaving it vulnerable to meddling attempts not just by adversaries , but by also by Americans who , as Engel writes , “ should know better.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

The Trump administration has been accused of attempting to pressure another foreign country into helping Trump’s reelection prospects, according to a letter from the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
That letter cites Brazilian news articles that report US Ambassador to Brazil Todd Chapman pressured members of Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s administration to lower ethanol tariffs in order to support President Donald Trump’s reelection efforts.
In the letter, Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Rep. Eliot Engel demands Chapman explain an article in which the ambassador is said to have asked for the tariffs to be lowered as a “favor” from the Brazilian government to the Trump reelection campaign.
“Iowa is the largest ethanol producer in the United States ... and could be a key player in Trump’s election,” an article in the Brazilian newspaper O Globo reads, according to the letter. “Hence the importance — according to Chapman — for the Bolsonaro government to do the U.S. a favor.”
Beyond the report in O Globo, the New York Times notes, another Brazilian outlet, Estadão, published a similar story based on its own reporting, with its journalists finding that Chapman had made the request and was rebuffed by government officials.
Alceu Moreira, a Brazilian congressman, also told the Times that Chapman “had made repeated references to the electoral calendar during a recent meeting the two had about ethanol.”
Engel has called for Chapman to respond to the reports by August 4, and for him to provide “any and all documents referring or related to any discussions” with Brazilian officials.
If the reports are accurate, the letter states, Chapman’s actions could be in violation of the Hatch Act, which prevents federal employees from engaging in certain political activities, such as partisan campaigning for candidates.
A State Department spokesperson said in a statement that Chapman’s efforts were part of a policy of pushing for lower tariffs in general, not narrowly focused on supporting an incumbent presidential campaign.
“Allegations suggesting that Ambassador Chapman has asked Brazilians to support a specific U.S. candidate are false,” the statement reads. “The United States has long been focused on reducing tariff barriers and will continue do so.”
Foreign interference marred the 2016 election. Requests for interference led to impeachment.
The reports are also of concern because of how closely they echo the request that led to Trump’s impeachment.
Last July, Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to “do us a favor” during a phone call in which he asked the leader to look into the business dealings of Hunter Biden, the son of then-candidate, now presumed Democratic nominee, Joe Biden. In that call, Trump appeared to condition military aid badly needed by Ukraine on Zelensky’s willingness to search for information that might be used to discredit Biden.
A congressional investigation into that call revealed the ways the Trump administration used traditional diplomatic channels — most notably the office of the US ambassador to the European Union — to forward that goal.
It isn’t clear whether Trump was involved in Chapman’s reported pressure campaign about ethanol, but as Vox’s Zack Beauchamp wrote during 2019’s impeachment hearings, the testimony of another of Trump’s ambassadors — former US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland — showed a willingness on Trump’s part “to use US foreign policy as a tool to cement his own hold on power.”
And that has Trump critics concerned about the Brazilian reports, with Engel warning Chapman in his letter, “Elections in the United States are for the American people and the American people only to decide.”
In delivering that warning, the letter explicitly links Chapman’s reported campaign to the 2016 election, the outcome of which foreign governments repeatedly attempted to sway, according to the results of a Senate investigation.
“Given the events of 2016, it is all the more important for U.S. ambassadors serving our country abroad to not insert themselves into U.S. elections or encourage foreign government officials from any branch of government to do so,” the letter reads.
This warning follows intelligence reports that find Russia has actively worked to disrupt November’s elections — as well as the Democratic presidential primary. But politicians and experts have warned that the US is not as prepared as it ought to be to combat such interference, leaving it vulnerable to meddling attempts not just by adversaries, but also by Americans who, as Engel writes, “should know better.”


vox--2020-08-01--The Boston Marathon bomber’s death sentence has been overturned

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was sentenced to death for his role in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing in 2015 ; Friday , that death sentence was overturned when a federal appeals court ruled that the jury at Tsarnaev ’ s initial trial was not properly screened for bias .
In the ruling , three judges from the First US Circuit Court of Appeals called for a new sentencing trial to decide whether Tsarnaev will be executed or will live out the rest of his life in prison .
That trial could happen in an appeals court , or head directly to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s 182-page ruling found that the judge overseeing the 2015 trial in which Tsarnaev was sentenced to death , George A. O ’ Toole , Jr. , did not take great enough care to ensure fairness during jury selection .
“ A core promise of our criminal justice system is that even the very worst among us deserves to be fairly tried and lawfully punished , ” wrote Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson , who , along with Judge Juan Torruella and Judge William J. Kayatta Jr. , presided over the appeal .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2015 for planting two bombs near the finish line of the race along with his older brother , Tamerlan — then 26 .
The bombing killed three people and injured more than 260 on April 15 , 2013 .
The brothers later killed a police officer , and sparked a massive manhunt through Boston ’ s suburbs in the days afterward .
Neighborhoods were placed under lockdown before Dzhokhar was found hiding under a boat in a backyard in Watertown , Massachusetts , on April 19 , following a gun fight earlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the older Tsarnaev was killed .
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been in maximum security custody ever since .
Tsarnaev ’ s lawyers have consistently argued that he was driven by his older brother ’ s directives , describing Tamerlan as the mastermind and the younger Tsarnaev as less guilty .
In their appeal , Tsarnaev ’ s team also argued the trial should not have been held in Boston , and showed social media posts from two jurors indicating they did not enter the 2015 trial from an impartial perspective .
In their ruling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ given the intensity of the media coverage of the attack and the ensuing hunt for the brothers , the jury selection process required a commensurate level of scrutiny to preclude prejudice .
But , they found , O ’ Toole did not screen prospective jurors for how much they had heard about the case previously .
“ By not having the jurors identify what it was they already thought they knew about the case , the judge made it too difficult for himself and the parties to determine both the nature of any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knew something prejudicial not to be conceded at trial ) and the possible remedies for the taint , ” wrote Thompson .
Torruella authored an additional opinion agreeing with Tsarnaev ’ s lawyers that the trial should not have taken place in Boston .
According to the Associated Press , Tsarnaev ’ s legal team greeted the news with relief — reporting they called the court ’ s ruling a “ straightforward and fair decision ” — while the Boston Globe reported anger from the families of his victims .
“ I just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Patricia Campbell , whose daughter , Krystle , 29 , was killed in the attack .
“ It ’ s just terrible that he ’ s allowed to live his life .
It ’ s unfair .
He didn ’ t wake up one morning and decide to do what he did .
He planned it out .
He did a vicious , ugly thing.
” “ If the government wishes to put someone to death , it must make its case to a fairly selected jury that is provided all relevant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as do we , the extraordinary harm done to the victims of the bombing , ” said Tsarnaev ’ s lawyers .
“ It is now up to the government to determine whether to put the victims and Boston through a second trial , or to allow closure to this terrible tragedy by permitting a sentence of life without the possibility of release.
” Whether Tsarnaev should receive the death penalty has been debated since his first trial In April , 2015 , following an emotional trial that lasted about a month , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including charges for the deaths of Martin Richard , 8 ; Lingzi Lu , 23 ; Krystle Campbell , 29 ; and Sean Collier , an MIT police officer killed by the brothers after they fled the scene of the bombing .
Hundreds of other people were injured , some of whom were maimed or lost limbs .
Over several weeks , jurors debated Tsarnaev ’ s sentence , ultimately recommending death .
On June 24 , 2015 , O ’ Toole , the judge in this first trial , affirmed their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some victims ’ family members called for the death penalty to be taken off the table , fearing that a death sentence — all but guaranteed to trigger a lengthy appeals process — would prolong their suffering .
In a column published in the Boston Globe in 2015 , ahead of Tsarnaev ’ s sentencing , the parents of the youngest victim , 8-year-old Martin Richard , said the prospect of the death penalty would put their “ two remaining children ” through years of anguish .
“ As long as the defendant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no choice but to live a story told on his terms , not ours , ” they wrote .
“ The minute the defendant fades from our newspapers and TV screens is the minute we begin the process of rebuilding our lives and our family.
” While Massachusetts abolished the death penalty in 1984 , the trial was held in federal court , where executions were reinstated in 1988 , and expanded in 1994 .
Federal executions are rare , although the Trump administration has recently begun a push to expand their usage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only been three federal executions : most famously , that of Timothy McVeigh , the architect of the Oklahoma City bombing , which killed 168 people on April 19 , 1995 .
But three federal executions took place over the course of four days in July 2020 , with four more scheduled for August and September .
Now , another trial will determine whether Tsarnaev ’ s name will be added to the schedule of federal executions .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making a contribution to Vox today .

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was sentenced to death for his role in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing in 2015; Friday, that death sentence was overturned when a federal appeals court ruled that the jury at Tsarnaev’s initial trial was not properly screened for bias.
In the ruling, three judges from the First US Circuit Court of Appeals called for a new sentencing trial to decide whether Tsarnaev will be executed or will live out the rest of his life in prison. That trial could happen in an appeals court, or head directly to the US Supreme Court.
The appeals court’s 182-page ruling found that the judge overseeing the 2015 trial in which Tsarnaev was sentenced to death, George A. O’Toole, Jr., did not take great enough care to ensure fairness during jury selection.
“A core promise of our criminal justice system is that even the very worst among us deserves to be fairly tried and lawfully punished,” wrote Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson, who, along with Judge Juan Torruella and Judge William J. Kayatta Jr., presided over the appeal.
Tsarnaev, now 27, was convicted in 2015 for planting two bombs near the finish line of the race along with his older brother, Tamerlan — then 26. The bombing killed three people and injured more than 260 on April 15, 2013.
The brothers later killed a police officer, and sparked a massive manhunt through Boston’s suburbs in the days afterward. Neighborhoods were placed under lockdown before Dzhokhar was found hiding under a boat in a backyard in Watertown, Massachusetts, on April 19, following a gun fight earlier with law enforcement that morning in which the older Tsarnaev was killed. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been in maximum security custody ever since.
Tsarnaev’s lawyers have consistently argued that he was driven by his older brother’s directives, describing Tamerlan as the mastermind and the younger Tsarnaev as less guilty. In their appeal, Tsarnaev’s team also argued the trial should not have been held in Boston, and showed social media posts from two jurors indicating they did not enter the 2015 trial from an impartial perspective.
In their ruling, the First Circuit found that, given the intensity of the media coverage of the attack and the ensuing hunt for the brothers, the jury selection process required a commensurate level of scrutiny to preclude prejudice. But, they found, O’Toole did not screen prospective jurors for how much they had heard about the case previously.
“By not having the jurors identify what it was they already thought they knew about the case, the judge made it too difficult for himself and the parties to determine both the nature of any taint (e.g., whether the juror knew something prejudicial not to be conceded at trial) and the possible remedies for the taint,” wrote Thompson.
Torruella authored an additional opinion agreeing with Tsarnaev’s lawyers that the trial should not have taken place in Boston.
According to the Associated Press, Tsarnaev’s legal team greeted the news with relief — reporting they called the court’s ruling a “straightforward and fair decision” — while the Boston Globe reported anger from the families of his victims.
“I just don’t understand it,” said Patricia Campbell, whose daughter, Krystle, 29, was killed in the attack. “It’s just terrible that he’s allowed to live his life. It’s unfair. He didn’t wake up one morning and decide to do what he did. He planned it out. He did a vicious, ugly thing.”
“If the government wishes to put someone to death, it must make its case to a fairly selected jury that is provided all relevant information. The court rightly acknowledges, as do we, the extraordinary harm done to the victims of the bombing,” said Tsarnaev’s lawyers. “It is now up to the government to determine whether to put the victims and Boston through a second trial, or to allow closure to this terrible tragedy by permitting a sentence of life without the possibility of release.”
Whether Tsarnaev should receive the death penalty has been debated since his first trial
In April, 2015, following an emotional trial that lasted about a month, Tsarnaev was found guilty on 30 counts, including charges for the deaths of Martin Richard, 8; Lingzi Lu, 23; Krystle Campbell, 29; and Sean Collier, an MIT police officer killed by the brothers after they fled the scene of the bombing. Hundreds of other people were injured, some of whom were maimed or lost limbs.
Over several weeks, jurors debated Tsarnaev’s sentence, ultimately recommending death. On June 24, 2015, O’Toole, the judge in this first trial, affirmed their recommendation, sentencing Tsarnaev to death.
Some victims’ family members called for the death penalty to be taken off the table, fearing that a death sentence — all but guaranteed to trigger a lengthy appeals process — would prolong their suffering.
In a column published in the Boston Globe in 2015, ahead of Tsarnaev’s sentencing, the parents of the youngest victim, 8-year-old Martin Richard, said the prospect of the death penalty would put their “two remaining children” through years of anguish.
“As long as the defendant is in the spotlight, we have no choice but to live a story told on his terms, not ours,” they wrote. “The minute the defendant fades from our newspapers and TV screens is the minute we begin the process of rebuilding our lives and our family.”
While Massachusetts abolished the death penalty in 1984, the trial was held in federal court, where executions were reinstated in 1988, and expanded in 1994.
Federal executions are rare, although the Trump administration has recently begun a push to expand their usage. Until this year, there had only been three federal executions: most famously, that of Timothy McVeigh, the architect of the Oklahoma City bombing, which killed 168 people on April 19, 1995.
But three federal executions took place over the course of four days in July 2020, with four more scheduled for August and September. Now, another trial will determine whether Tsarnaev’s name will be added to the schedule of federal executions.


vox--2020-08-01--The Supreme Court just handed Trump a big victory regarding his border wall

The Supreme Court ruled Friday evening , in a 5-4 decision along partisan lines , that President Donald Trump may move forward with his plans to build a multi-billion dollar wall along the US-Mexico border .
The Court ’ s order marks the second time Trump v. Sierra Club has come before the justices , and the Friday decision says as much about the unusual deference this Court gives to Trump as it does about the wall itself .
The case first reached the Court in late July 2019 , after a lower federal court blocked the Trump administration ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Congress appropriated for military pay , training , and similar personnel-related matters to wall construction .
The administration claims it was allowed to do under a statute permitting the Secretary of Defense to transfer military funds “ for higher priority items , based on unforeseen military requirements.
” But , as several lower court judges have pointed out , there ’ s nothing “ unforeseen ” about the circumstances that led Trump to build this wall .
Trump ’ s campaigned on plans to build a border wall since 2015 .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even shut down much of the federal government due to a disagreement over how much money should be appropriated to pay for the wall .
So Congress did not deny Trump much of the funding he sought because it failed to foresee an emergent problem that could only be solved by a border wall .
It was well aware of Trump ’ s case for additional funding for his wall , and it rejected that case .
Nevertheless , in its July 2019 order , the Supreme Court voted almost entirely along party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preventing the transfer of funds .
That order was brief , but the Court did conclude that “ the Government has made a sufficient showing at this stage that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to obtain review of the Acting Secretary ’ s compliance with Section 8005 ” — meaning that the particular plaintiffs who brought this case likely do not have the right to challenge this particular transfer of funds .
In theory , that means that a different party might be able to challenge Trump ’ s decision to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from clear whether a potential party exists that would satisfy this Supreme Court .
The Supreme Court frequently ignores its ordinary procedures to benefit Trump Technically , the Sierra Club litigation remains ongoing .
The July 2019 order merely stayed the lower court ’ s decision blocking transfer of the military funds until after Sierra Club winds its way through the full appeals process .
Friday ’ s order denies a request by the Sierra Club plaintiffs to lift the stay imposed last year .
The difference between last year ’ s order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a partial dissent written by Justice Stephen Breyer in the 2019 iteration of this case .
As Breyer explained , a party seeking a stay of a lower court opinion needs to show more than just a “ fair prospect ” that the Supreme Court will agree with its arguments .
That party also needs to show “ a likelihood that irreparable harm will result from the denial of a stay.
” As Breyer noted in 2019 , “ the Government has represented that , if it is unable to finalize the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funds at issue will be returned to the Treasury.
” Thus , he argued , a limited stay might be justified to prevent this money from being returned .
“ Allowing the Government to finalize the contracts at issue , but not to begin construction , would alleviate the most pressing harm claimed by the Government without risking irreparable harm to ” the plaintiffs .
One year later , however , there ’ s no longer any need for such a limited stay .
As Breyer notes in a dissent to Friday ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apparently finalized its contracts , avoiding the irreparable harm it claimed in first seeking a stay.
” Since there ’ s no longer a likelihood that the government will face irreparable harm in the absence of a a stay , Breyer argues , the stay should lift .
All of this discussion about the procedural posture of the Sierra Club litigation , and the rules governing stays of lower court orders by the Supreme Court , may seem esoteric , but the Court ’ s order in Sierra Club is part of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rarely enforces its own rules governing stays of lower court opinions whenever the Trump administration seeks such a stay .
Indeed , last February , Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused many of her colleagues of “ putting a thumb on the scale in favor of ” the Trump administration whenever that administration seeks relief from a lower court order .
The data bears out Sotomayor ’ s accusation .
According to a November 2019 paper by University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck , the Trump administration is unusually likely to seek stays from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court is unusually likely to grant them .
“ In less than three years , [ Trump ’ s ] Solicitor General has filed at least twenty-one applications for stays in the Supreme Court ( including ten during the October 2018 Term alone ) , ” Vladeck wrote .
By comparison , “ during the sixteen years of the George W. Bush and Obama Administrations , the Solicitor General filed a total of eight such applications — averaging one every other Term.
” Past administrations typically shied away from making such requests because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considered extraordinary relief — the kind that is rarely granted and that parties should be exceedingly reluctant to request .
And yet , the Trump administration has a very high win rate , achieving a full or partial victory in about two-thirds of cases where it seeks to temporarily block a lower court opinion .
As Sotomayor wrote last fall , “ granting a stay pending appeal should be an ‘ extraordinary ’ act .
Unfortunately , it appears the Government has treated this exceptional mechanism as a new normal.
” And the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Friday ’ s Sierra Club order is significant , in other words , not just because it will allow construction of the wall to move forward .
It is also significant because it suggests that the Supreme Court will relax its ordinary procedural rules for the current president .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

The Supreme Court ruled Friday evening, in a 5-4 decision along partisan lines, that President Donald Trump may move forward with his plans to build a multi-billion dollar wall along the US-Mexico border.
The Court’s order marks the second time Trump v. Sierra Club has come before the justices, and the Friday decision says as much about the unusual deference this Court gives to Trump as it does about the wall itself.
The case first reached the Court in late July 2019, after a lower federal court blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to transfer $2.5 billion that Congress appropriated for military pay, training, and similar personnel-related matters to wall construction. The administration claims it was allowed to do under a statute permitting the Secretary of Defense to transfer military funds “for higher priority items, based on unforeseen military requirements.”
But, as several lower court judges have pointed out, there’s nothing “unforeseen” about the circumstances that led Trump to build this wall. Trump’s campaigned on plans to build a border wall since 2015. In late 2018 and early 2019, Trump even shut down much of the federal government due to a disagreement over how much money should be appropriated to pay for the wall.
So Congress did not deny Trump much of the funding he sought because it failed to foresee an emergent problem that could only be solved by a border wall. It was well aware of Trump’s case for additional funding for his wall, and it rejected that case.
Nevertheless, in its July 2019 order, the Supreme Court voted almost entirely along party lines to block a lower court order preventing the transfer of funds. That order was brief, but the Court did conclude that “the Government has made a sufficient showing at this stage that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to obtain review of the Acting Secretary’s compliance with Section 8005” — meaning that the particular plaintiffs who brought this case likely do not have the right to challenge this particular transfer of funds.
In theory, that means that a different party might be able to challenge Trump’s decision to transfer funds — although it is far from clear whether a potential party exists that would satisfy this Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court frequently ignores its ordinary procedures to benefit Trump
Technically, the Sierra Club litigation remains ongoing. The July 2019 order merely stayed the lower court’s decision blocking transfer of the military funds until after Sierra Club winds its way through the full appeals process. Friday’s order denies a request by the Sierra Club plaintiffs to lift the stay imposed last year.
The difference between last year’s order and the one handed down Friday turns on a partial dissent written by Justice Stephen Breyer in the 2019 iteration of this case. As Breyer explained, a party seeking a stay of a lower court opinion needs to show more than just a “fair prospect” that the Supreme Court will agree with its arguments. That party also needs to show “a likelihood that irreparable harm will result from the denial of a stay.”
As Breyer noted in 2019, “the Government has represented that, if it is unable to finalize the contracts by September 30, then the funds at issue will be returned to the Treasury.” Thus, he argued, a limited stay might be justified to prevent this money from being returned. “Allowing the Government to finalize the contracts at issue, but not to begin construction, would alleviate the most pressing harm claimed by the Government without risking irreparable harm to” the plaintiffs.
One year later, however, there’s no longer any need for such a limited stay. As Breyer notes in a dissent to Friday’s order, “the Government has apparently finalized its contracts, avoiding the irreparable harm it claimed in first seeking a stay.” Since there’s no longer a likelihood that the government will face irreparable harm in the absence of a a stay, Breyer argues, the stay should lift.
All of this discussion about the procedural posture of the Sierra Club litigation, and the rules governing stays of lower court orders by the Supreme Court, may seem esoteric, but the Court’s order in Sierra Club is part of a much broader pattern. The Roberts Court rarely enforces its own rules governing stays of lower court opinions whenever the Trump administration seeks such a stay.
Indeed, last February, Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused many of her colleagues of “putting a thumb on the scale in favor of” the Trump administration whenever that administration seeks relief from a lower court order.
The data bears out Sotomayor’s accusation. According to a November 2019 paper by University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck, the Trump administration is unusually likely to seek stays from the Supreme Court, and the Roberts Court is unusually likely to grant them.
“In less than three years, [Trump’s] Solicitor General has filed at least twenty-one applications for stays in the Supreme Court (including ten during the October 2018 Term alone),” Vladeck wrote. By comparison, “during the sixteen years of the George W. Bush and Obama Administrations, the Solicitor General filed a total of eight such applications — averaging one every other Term.”
Past administrations typically shied away from making such requests because a stay from the Supreme Court is considered extraordinary relief — the kind that is rarely granted and that parties should be exceedingly reluctant to request. And yet, the Trump administration has a very high win rate, achieving a full or partial victory in about two-thirds of cases where it seeks to temporarily block a lower court opinion.
As Sotomayor wrote last fall, “granting a stay pending appeal should be an ‘extraordinary’ act. Unfortunately, it appears the Government has treated this exceptional mechanism as a new normal.” And the Court appears to have rewarded this behavior.
Friday’s Sierra Club order is significant, in other words, not just because it will allow construction of the wall to move forward. It is also significant because it suggests that the Supreme Court will relax its ordinary procedural rules for the current president.


vox--2020-08-01--Umbrella Academy season 2’s ending, explained

Spoiler alert : This article deals with the ending of Umbrella Academy ’ s second season .
The only thing predictable about The Umbrella Academy is its unpredictability .
Its first and its newly released second season each left us with more questions than answers , unraveling mysteries and motives ; just when we think we get a handle on everything thrown at us , the show leaves us with a cliffhanger .
Season one gave us that memorable time warp , and season two has a big twist up its sleeve as well .
The second season finale pits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each other , against the Handler and her army of associates .
The Handler is the only thing standing between them and avoiding the apocalypse .
The final battle is also the last thing they need to take care of before possibly returning to their original timeline .
And even then , the Hargreeveses don ’ t even know what that timeline looks like .
Here ’ s what happens at the ending of Umbrella Academy ’ s second season , and the topsy-turvy twists .
There may be more superhumans like the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Hargreeveses take on the Handler ( Kate Walsh ) and Lila ( Ritu Arya ) in what should have been a one-sided affair .
That ’ s until Lila displays powers of her own .
She absorbs Vanya ’ s energy blast , blink-fights just like Five , and rumors Allison into holding her breath .
After seeing Lila ’ s powers in action , the Hargreeveses finally figure it when they ask her what day she was born .
They find out that Lila shares the same birthday as the rest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mothers showing no signs of pregnancy , the Hargreeves children were born on October 1 , 1989 .
Reginald Hargreeves sought them out and adopted them .
But in addition to these seven children , 36 other women had births that day under the same circumstances .
And it seems , because of her powers , Lila was one of them and that ’ s the reason the Handler adopted her and had her parents killed .
Lila time-travels before the siblings can hash it all out , but the mystery is still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how many other superpowered people are around ?
Maybe as many as 36 .
And further , Lila and the Hargreeveses trained extensively — if these superhumans don ’ t have that kind of training , then do their powers put them and the world in danger ?
There ’ s no clear answer , but it seems like future seasons of the show could explore these possibilities .
When the Hargreeveses defeat the Handler and JFK dies , it seems like the timeline is reset and the apocalypse is averted .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and zap to April 2 , 2019 , the day after the apocalypse they have now avoided .
Everything looks normal , but they start to notice a few things awry — including their father , who ’ s acting a bit strange , and a painting of their dead brother Ben .
As they ’ re trying to figure out what ’ s happening , a very much alive Ben ( with bangs ! )
comes down the staircase flanked by a group of shadowed individuals who very closely resemble the Hargreeveses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re at “ the Sparrow Academy.
” It seems as though the Hargreeves kids ’ actions in 1963 — preventing the apocalypse while allowing JFK to die , saving people who were not saved in their original timeline , sent ripple effects throughout their own timeline .
These actions also include meeting and confronting their dad .
And now , in this altered timeline , their dad has raised a new superhero team : the Sparrow Academy .
While we can draw a few conclusions about the team , like that they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ young ( which would make these team members younger than the Hargreeves kids , since they ’ re all born on the same day too ) , the Sparrow Academy has actually barely been introduced in the source comic book .
Their arc , the fourth volume of the comic book , is still being written and doesn ’ t yet have an end date .
But it sure does seem that with the Sparrow Academy , combined with the Lila reveal , the series will be showing us what happened to some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fateful day as the Hargreeves kids .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Spoiler alert: This article deals with the ending of Umbrella Academy’s second season.
The only thing predictable about The Umbrella Academy is its unpredictability. Its first and its newly released second season each left us with more questions than answers, unraveling mysteries and motives; just when we think we get a handle on everything thrown at us, the show leaves us with a cliffhanger.
Season one gave us that memorable time warp, and season two has a big twist up its sleeve as well.
The second season finale pits the Hargreeves kids, after reuniting with each other, against the Handler and her army of associates. The Handler is the only thing standing between them and avoiding the apocalypse. The final battle is also the last thing they need to take care of before possibly returning to their original timeline. And even then, the Hargreeveses don’t even know what that timeline looks like.
Here’s what happens at the ending of Umbrella Academy’s second season, and the topsy-turvy twists.
There may be more superhumans like the Hargreeves kids
In the season finale, the Hargreeveses take on the Handler (Kate Walsh) and Lila (Ritu Arya) in what should have been a one-sided affair. That’s until Lila displays powers of her own. She absorbs Vanya’s energy blast, blink-fights just like Five, and rumors Allison into holding her breath. After seeing Lila’s powers in action, the Hargreeveses finally figure it when they ask her what day she was born.
They find out that Lila shares the same birthday as the rest of the clan.
Despite their separate mothers showing no signs of pregnancy, the Hargreeves children were born on October 1, 1989. Reginald Hargreeves sought them out and adopted them. But in addition to these seven children, 36 other women had births that day under the same circumstances. And it seems, because of her powers, Lila was one of them and that’s the reason the Handler adopted her and had her parents killed.
Lila time-travels before the siblings can hash it all out, but the mystery is still there: If Lila exists, exactly how many other superpowered people are around? Maybe as many as 36. And further, Lila and the Hargreeveses trained extensively — if these superhumans don’t have that kind of training, then do their powers put them and the world in danger?
There’s no clear answer, but it seems like future seasons of the show could explore these possibilities.
Time travel is very complicated
When the Hargreeveses defeat the Handler and JFK dies, it seems like the timeline is reset and the apocalypse is averted. They then time-travel back to their own timeline and zap to April 2, 2019, the day after the apocalypse they have now avoided. Everything looks normal, but they start to notice a few things awry — including their father, who’s acting a bit strange, and a painting of their dead brother Ben.
As they’re trying to figure out what’s happening, a very much alive Ben (with bangs!) comes down the staircase flanked by a group of shadowed individuals who very closely resemble the Hargreeveses. Reginald tells his kids they’re at “the Sparrow Academy.”
It seems as though the Hargreeves kids’ actions in 1963 — preventing the apocalypse while allowing JFK to die, saving people who were not saved in their original timeline, sent ripple effects throughout their own timeline. These actions also include meeting and confronting their dad. And now, in this altered timeline, their dad has raised a new superhero team: the Sparrow Academy.
While we can draw a few conclusions about the team, like that they’re superpowered and Ben looks to be young (which would make these team members younger than the Hargreeves kids, since they’re all born on the same day too), the Sparrow Academy has actually barely been introduced in the source comic book. Their arc, the fourth volume of the comic book, is still being written and doesn’t yet have an end date. But it sure does seem that with the Sparrow Academy, combined with the Lila reveal, the series will be showing us what happened to some of the 36 others born the same fateful day as the Hargreeves kids.


vox--2020-08-02--Polls: Biden and Trump are nearly tied in North Carolina and Georgia

A new poll puts Joe Biden roughly even with President Donald Trump in two Southern swing states , suggesting the presidential race may be a competitive one come autumn .
CBS News polls of registered voters released Sunday show Biden just ahead of Trump in North Carolina , with 48 percent support to the president ’ s 44 percent , and a close race in Georgia , with the presumptive Democratic nominee at 46 percent to Trump ’ s 45 percent .
These leads may be even smaller than they appear , however — the North Carolina poll has a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while the Georgia poll has a margin of error of 3.4 percentage points .
These margins mean Trump could be narrowly ahead in either , or both , states .
Trump won both states by relatively slim margins in 2016 , but the candidates ’ closeness suggests Biden may be , as some national polling suggests , reducing Trump ’ s advantage with white voters — and that a poor federal response to the coronavirus pandemic may play a role in voter sentiments .
Overall , CBS ’ s pollsters found Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Georgia , and 7 percentage points in North Carolina with white voters compared to his 2016 results .
At the same time , Biden is up with white voters from where Hillary Clinton was in 2016 .
The pollsters forecast that , given Biden ’ s wide lead among Black voters , the race will partly depend on how much further Biden can cut into the white vote .
While other polls show he has made inroads among white voters in the upper Midwest — particularly Michigan and Ohio — his gains among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been as strong .
Biden also has a slight edge among female voters in both states , the new polls reveal , and a significant lead among Black voters , while Trump earned slightly more favorable marks for his economic performance .
Voters in both states say Biden would do a better job of handling the coronavirus , although most Republicans say Trump is doing a good job with the pandemic .
North Carolina went for Obama in 2008 , and for Romney and Trump in 2012 and 2016 , but a Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bill Clinton ’ s first run in 1992 .
In both states , Democratic support comes mostly out of large cities , powered largely by Black voters in places like Raleigh and Atlanta .
These polls don ’ t mean Biden will win North Carolina or Georgia in November Polls , as Vox ’ s Li Zhou has explained , are just a snapshot of a moment of time , and this presidential cycle is unusually turbulent , coming amid a pandemic and social unrest .
The political situation in the US could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election , just as it was very different in January .
Voters change their minds ; some who respond to polls end up not voting .
As Zhou has noted , overreliance on polls led Democrats astray in 2016 .
In the last presidential cycle , polls missed all kinds of patterns , leading Democrats to underestimate the strength of Trump ’ s support in key battleground states .
In the postmortem of that election , Democrats found that pollsters failed to account for factors like education in building their pools of respondents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters who cast ballots for Trump at the last minute .
Those mistakes , as well as a tendency to view poll results as static rather than dynamic , led Democrats to overestimate their party ’ s standing in certain states — namely , Michigan , Wisconsin , and Pennsylvania — and divert campaign resources from them , only to be caught off guard by the level of support for Trump ’ s campaign .
Many pollsters have corrected the errors that skewed polls four years ago , but those corrections don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ones CBS conducted in North Carolina and Georgia only show what people in those states are thinking about the candidates right now .
This means there is reason to be cautious about polls that now find Biden ahead and Trump behind in those battleground states , the key state of Florida , and even more traditionally Republican states like Arizona and Texas .
And as the coronavirus pandemic continues to riddle both campaign efforts and voter turnout models with uncertainty — and as communities struggle to implement adequate replacements for in-person voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voter intentions and November ’ s voting patterns may ultimately diverge .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

A new poll puts Joe Biden roughly even with President Donald Trump in two Southern swing states, suggesting the presidential race may be a competitive one come autumn.
CBS News polls of registered voters released Sunday show Biden just ahead of Trump in North Carolina, with 48 percent support to the president’s 44 percent, and a close race in Georgia, with the presumptive Democratic nominee at 46 percent to Trump’s 45 percent.
These leads may be even smaller than they appear, however — the North Carolina poll has a margin of error of 3.9 percentage points, while the Georgia poll has a margin of error of 3.4 percentage points. These margins mean Trump could be narrowly ahead in either, or both, states.
Trump won both states by relatively slim margins in 2016, but the candidates’ closeness suggests Biden may be, as some national polling suggests, reducing Trump’s advantage with white voters — and that a poor federal response to the coronavirus pandemic may play a role in voter sentiments.
Overall, CBS’s pollsters found Trump to be down 12 percentage points in Georgia, and 7 percentage points in North Carolina with white voters compared to his 2016 results.
At the same time, Biden is up with white voters from where Hillary Clinton was in 2016. The pollsters forecast that, given Biden’s wide lead among Black voters, the race will partly depend on how much further Biden can cut into the white vote. While other polls show he has made inroads among white voters in the upper Midwest — particularly Michigan and Ohio — his gains among white residents of Southern states have not been as strong.
Biden also has a slight edge among female voters in both states, the new polls reveal, and a significant lead among Black voters, while Trump earned slightly more favorable marks for his economic performance.
Voters in both states say Biden would do a better job of handling the coronavirus, although most Republicans say Trump is doing a good job with the pandemic.
North Carolina went for Obama in 2008, and for Romney and Trump in 2012 and 2016, but a Democratic presidential candidate has not won Georgia since Bill Clinton’s first run in 1992. In both states, Democratic support comes mostly out of large cities, powered largely by Black voters in places like Raleigh and Atlanta.
These polls don’t mean Biden will win North Carolina or Georgia in November
Polls, as Vox’s Li Zhou has explained, are just a snapshot of a moment of time, and this presidential cycle is unusually turbulent, coming amid a pandemic and social unrest. The political situation in the US could change dramatically in the months before the election, just as it was very different in January.
Voters change their minds; some who respond to polls end up not voting. As Zhou has noted, overreliance on polls led Democrats astray in 2016.
In the last presidential cycle, polls missed all kinds of patterns, leading Democrats to underestimate the strength of Trump’s support in key battleground states.
In the postmortem of that election, Democrats found that pollsters failed to account for factors like education in building their pools of respondents, and did not account for undecided voters who cast ballots for Trump at the last minute.
Those mistakes, as well as a tendency to view poll results as static rather than dynamic, led Democrats to overestimate their party’s standing in certain states — namely, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania — and divert campaign resources from them, only to be caught off guard by the level of support for Trump’s campaign.
Many pollsters have corrected the errors that skewed polls four years ago, but those corrections don’t negate the fact that polls like the ones CBS conducted in North Carolina and Georgia only show what people in those states are thinking about the candidates right now.
This means there is reason to be cautious about polls that now find Biden ahead and Trump behind in those battleground states, the key state of Florida, and even more traditionally Republican states like Arizona and Texas.
And as the coronavirus pandemic continues to riddle both campaign efforts and voter turnout models with uncertainty — and as communities struggle to implement adequate replacements for in-person voting — it is fair to say that voter intentions and November’s voting patterns may ultimately diverge.