theintercept--2020-05-14--As Coronavirus Spreads Behind Bars, Prisons Release Very Few People

spreading like wildfire through U.S. prisons .
As of last week , more than 300 people had died of the virus in state and federal facilities .
More than 20,000 had tested positive — a major undercount , given the lack of large-scale testing .
Yet despite repeated warnings from public health experts that the only way to slow the spread of the virus behind bars is to release people in significant numbers , the U.S. prison population has remained largely unchanged in the middle of the pandemic .
While state governors and the Bureau of Prisons , which runs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public pressure by authorizing the release of select groups of incarcerated people , restrictive criteria and bureaucratic hurdles have meant that those releases , where they have actually happened , have made no significant dent in what continues to be a sprawling mass incarceration apparatus .
Overall , the U.S. prison population has dropped by only 1.6 percent in the first three months of this year , a new report released Thursday by the Vera Institute of Justice shows .
That ’ s a population reduction of about 20,000 people nationwide , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The report , which aggregates data from 44 states and the Bureau of Prisons , notes that as of the end of March , “ none had moved with the urgency required to meet the recommendations of public health officials to reduce incarceration.
” “ A lot of it just comes down to politics , ” Jacob Kang-Brown , a senior research associate at Vera , told The Intercept .
“ The mechanisms for releasing people from prisons are there : Governors often have pretty extensive clemency power that would allow them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you have a whole parole system that ’ s set up to release people from prison .
… But there ’ s no evidence that this is ramping up in a way that ’ s appropriate and responsive to this crisis.
” According to the report , the BOP , which has recorded the second-highest rate of Covid-19 infections and at least 42 deaths , reduced its population by only 0.2 percent , fewer than 400 people .
Most states also recorded population reductions in the low hundreds , with large states like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporting the largest overall drops and Vermont , North Dakota , and Oregon reporting the largest drops relative to their prison population .
Ohio , which has recorded the highest number of Covid-19 infections in prisons and at least 42 deaths among inmates , saw its overall prison population reduced by only 11 people .
And in five states — Idaho , Iowa , South Carolina , West Virginia , and Wyoming — there were more people in prison at the end of March , in the midst of a global pandemic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Overall , however , the U.S. prison population remains on a downward slope .
In 2019 , there were 2.2 percent fewer people in prisons than the previous year , with 437 people in prison for every 100,000 residents , down from 449 per 100,000 the previous year .
The U.S. prison population has dropped by 17.5 percent since its peak in 2007 .
Most states continued to see their incarcerated populations drop , while only a handful — like Nebraska , Idaho , and West Virginia — recorded growing prison populations .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in part the gradual population drop prisons are continuing to see this year : The reduction is due largely to generally declining prison populations , not necessarily active efforts to release people because of Covid-19 .
In fact , while the coronavirus crisis has brought unprecedented pressure on governors to release people incarcerated in their states , it ’ s not clear that the crisis is having any significant impact on the pace of the decline in U.S. incarceration .
“ Prisons are releasing a lot of people into the community , under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” noted Kang-Brown .
“ But we would like to see this happen more now , in light of the pandemic , and happen more broadly than it is , and the data that we collected shows that ’ s just not happening.
” Far Too Few The Vera report is consistent with an analysis published by the Prison Policy Institute earlier this month that found that while some jails had moved to confront the coronavirus crisis by significantly reducing their population , state prisons “ released almost no one.
” That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their detained population by over 15 percent , and that more than one-third had reduced their population by 25 percent .
Most states ’ prison systems , by comparison , had only seen their population drop by a couple of percentage points .
That difference in population reduction is explained in part by the fact that jails , where most people are held in pretrial detention , can see significant population drops as police curb arrests and district attorneys choose not to prosecute certain crimes , as they have in some jurisdictions in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been far more reluctant to release people convicted of crimes .
“ State governors and departments of corrections and parole boards , which have had early release systems that move very , very slowly for far too long , are wary of doing anything that might put them at a political risk right now , ” said Wanda Bertram , a strategist at the Prison Policy Institute .
“ A majority of the people that are inside their state prisons are people that have committed violent offenses , which has traditionally been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” As advocates across the country have lobbied for states to release people from prisons , they have largely focused on the most vulnerable , including the elderly and those with preexisting conditions .
“ States have been taking those demands and they have used them to craft release policies that are incredibly stringent , ” noted Bertram .
“ So we ’ re seeing states set a bar for releases that requires factors like medically vulnerable , close to the end of your sentence , over the age of 50 , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distinction between those convicted of violent and nonviolent crimes is one that has crippled the criminal justice reform movement for years , effectively dividing incarcerated people between those who are deemed worthy of relief and rights , and those who are not .
The coronavirus crisis has not changed that dynamic , with officials making a nonviolent conviction a prerequisite for already narrow eligibility requirements for release .
But excluding those convicted of violent crimes from Covid-19-related relief fundamentally undermines efforts to stop the virus from overwhelming prisons .
“ We reject the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crimes within 90 days of release should be saved from COVID ’ s spread behind bars , ” a coalition of New York advocacy groups wrote in a statement earlier this week , after Gov .
Andrew Cuomo slightly expanded narrow requirements for release in the state .
So far , only 162 people were released from New York prisons , less than 0.5 percent the state ’ s incarcerated population , the group noted .
At least 15 people have died after contracting the virus in New York prisons .
“ Cuomo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to spin his way through the crisis already taking over his prisons through public relations alone , ” the coalition of advocates wrote .
“ Incarcerated New Yorkers previously convicted of violent crimes , especially older people and those who have already served decades in prison were not sentenced to death.
” But even where states are pledging to release limited groups of people , those releases are not happening fast enough .
As The Intercept has reported , New Jersey Gov .
Phil Murphy signed an executive order in early April allowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others convicted of nonviolent offenses .
But weeks later , fewer than 3 percent of those eligible had been released and at least 38 incarcerated people were dead .
In Pennsylvania , Gov .
Tom Wolf granted temporary reprieve for incarcerated people who met a set of criteria .
But while up to 1,800 people were eligible , only 150 had been released a month later .
“ We are seeing states pledge to release a specific number of people , or up to a specific number of people , and that number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ couple thousands , which is still far too little to meaningfully reduce the spread of coronavirus within prisons , ” said Bertram .
“ But even then , those targets are not met .
”

The coronavirus is spreading like wildfire through U.S. prisons. As of last week, more than 300 people had died of the virus in state and federal facilities. More than 20,000 had tested positive — a major undercount, given the lack of large-scale testing. Yet despite repeated warnings from public health experts that the only way to slow the spread of the virus behind bars is to release people in significant numbers, the U.S. prison population has remained largely unchanged in the middle of the pandemic.
While state governors and the Bureau of Prisons, which runs federal facilities, have responded to mounting public pressure by authorizing the release of select groups of incarcerated people, restrictive criteria and bureaucratic hurdles have meant that those releases, where they have actually happened, have made no significant dent in what continues to be a sprawling mass incarceration apparatus.
Overall, the U.S. prison population has dropped by only 1.6 percent in the first three months of this year, a new report released Thursday by the Vera Institute of Justice shows. That’s a population reduction of about 20,000 people nationwide, in a system that incarcerates nearly 1.3 million. The report, which aggregates data from 44 states and the Bureau of Prisons, notes that as of the end of March, “none had moved with the urgency required to meet the recommendations of public health officials to reduce incarceration.”
“A lot of it just comes down to politics,” Jacob Kang-Brown, a senior research associate at Vera, told The Intercept. “The mechanisms for releasing people from prisons are there: Governors often have pretty extensive clemency power that would allow them to release people quickly, and then you have a whole parole system that’s set up to release people from prison. … But there’s no evidence that this is ramping up in a way that’s appropriate and responsive to this crisis.”
According to the report, the BOP, which has recorded the second-highest rate of Covid-19 infections and at least 42 deaths, reduced its population by only 0.2 percent, fewer than 400 people. Most states also recorded population reductions in the low hundreds, with large states like New York, Florida, and California reporting the largest overall drops and Vermont, North Dakota, and Oregon reporting the largest drops relative to their prison population. Ohio, which has recorded the highest number of Covid-19 infections in prisons and at least 42 deaths among inmates, saw its overall prison population reduced by only 11 people. And in five states — Idaho, Iowa, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming — there were more people in prison at the end of March, in the midst of a global pandemic, than at the end of 2019.
Overall, however, the U.S. prison population remains on a downward slope. In 2019, there were 2.2 percent fewer people in prisons than the previous year, with 437 people in prison for every 100,000 residents, down from 449 per 100,000 the previous year. The U.S. prison population has dropped by 17.5 percent since its peak in 2007. Most states continued to see their incarcerated populations drop, while only a handful — like Nebraska, Idaho, and West Virginia — recorded growing prison populations. That overall declining trend is what explains in part the gradual population drop prisons are continuing to see this year: The reduction is due largely to generally declining prison populations, not necessarily active efforts to release people because of Covid-19.
In fact, while the coronavirus crisis has brought unprecedented pressure on governors to release people incarcerated in their states, it’s not clear that the crisis is having any significant impact on the pace of the decline in U.S. incarceration. “Prisons are releasing a lot of people into the community, under normal circumstances, and reducing prison population,” noted Kang-Brown. “But we would like to see this happen more now, in light of the pandemic, and happen more broadly than it is, and the data that we collected shows that’s just not happening.”
Graphic: Soohee Cho/The Intercept
Far Too Few
The Vera report is consistent with an analysis published by the Prison Policy Institute earlier this month that found that while some jails had moved to confront the coronavirus crisis by significantly reducing their population, state prisons “released almost no one.” That analysis showed that most jails had reduced their detained population by over 15 percent, and that more than one-third had reduced their population by 25 percent. Most states’ prison systems, by comparison, had only seen their population drop by a couple of percentage points.
That difference in population reduction is explained in part by the fact that jails, where most people are held in pretrial detention, can see significant population drops as police curb arrests and district attorneys choose not to prosecute certain crimes, as they have in some jurisdictions in response to the current crisis. Officials have been far more reluctant to release people convicted of crimes.
“State governors and departments of corrections and parole boards, which have had early release systems that move very, very slowly for far too long, are wary of doing anything that might put them at a political risk right now,” said Wanda Bertram, a strategist at the Prison Policy Institute. “A majority of the people that are inside their state prisons are people that have committed violent offenses, which has traditionally been the third rail of criminal justice reform.”
Read Our Complete Coverage The Coronavirus Crisis
As advocates across the country have lobbied for states to release people from prisons, they have largely focused on the most vulnerable, including the elderly and those with preexisting conditions. “States have been taking those demands and they have used them to craft release policies that are incredibly stringent,” noted Bertram. “So we’re seeing states set a bar for releases that requires factors like medically vulnerable, close to the end of your sentence, over the age of 50, and you committed a nonviolent crime.”
The distinction between those convicted of violent and nonviolent crimes is one that has crippled the criminal justice reform movement for years, effectively dividing incarcerated people between those who are deemed worthy of relief and rights, and those who are not. The coronavirus crisis has not changed that dynamic, with officials making a nonviolent conviction a prerequisite for already narrow eligibility requirements for release.
But excluding those convicted of violent crimes from Covid-19-related relief fundamentally undermines efforts to stop the virus from overwhelming prisons.
“We reject the notion that only people convicted of non-violent crimes within 90 days of release should be saved from COVID’s spread behind bars,” a coalition of New York advocacy groups wrote in a statement earlier this week, after Gov. Andrew Cuomo slightly expanded narrow requirements for release in the state. So far, only 162 people were released from New York prisons, less than 0.5 percent the state’s incarcerated population, the group noted. At least 15 people have died after contracting the virus in New York prisons.
“Cuomo is ignoring these best practices and hoping to spin his way through the crisis already taking over his prisons through public relations alone,” the coalition of advocates wrote. “Incarcerated New Yorkers previously convicted of violent crimes, especially older people and those who have already served decades in prison were not sentenced to death.”
But even where states are pledging to release limited groups of people, those releases are not happening fast enough. As The Intercept has reported, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy signed an executive order in early April allowing the temporary release of high-risk inmates and others convicted of nonviolent offenses. But weeks later, fewer than 3 percent of those eligible had been released and at least 38 incarcerated people were dead. In Pennsylvania, Gov. Tom Wolf granted temporary reprieve for incarcerated people who met a set of criteria. But while up to 1,800 people were eligible, only 150 had been released a month later.
“We are seeing states pledge to release a specific number of people, or up to a specific number of people, and that number tends to be several hundred to a couple thousands, which is still far too little to meaningfully reduce the spread of coronavirus within prisons,” said Bertram. “But even then, those targets are not met.”


theintercept--2020-05-14--New Documents From the Sham Prosecution of Gen. Michael Flynn Also Reveal Broad Corruption in the Ru

New Documents From the Sham Prosecution of Gen. Michael Flynn Also Reveal Broad Corruption in the Russiagate Investigations

Watch the debut of our latest episode of SYSTEM UPDATE exploring this topic today on the player at the bottom of this article , or on the Intercept ’ s YouTube channel .
President Obama ’ s former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and President Trump ’ s former National Security Advisor , pled guilty on December 1 , 2017 , to a single count of lying to the FBI about two conversations he had with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak while Flynn served as a Trump transition team official ( Flynn was never charged for any matters relating to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As part of the plea deal , Special Counsel Robert Mueller recommended no jail time for Flynn , and the plea agreement also seemingly put an end to threats from the Mueller team to prosecute Flynn ’ s son .
Last Thursday , the Justice Department filed a Motion seeking to dismiss the prosecution of Flynn based , in part , on newly discovered documents revealing that the conduct of the FBI , under the leadership of Director James Comey and his now-disgraced Deputy Andrew McCabe ( who himself was forced to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to agents ) , was improper and motivated by corrupt objectives .
That motion prompted histrionic howls of outrage from the same political officials and their media allies who have spent the last three years pushing maximalist Russiagate conspiracy theories .
But the prosecution of Flynn — for allegedly lying to the FBI when he denied in a January 24 interrogation that he had discussed with Kislyak on December 29 the new sanctions and expulsions imposed on Russia by the Obama administration — was always odd for a number of reasons .
To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questioned Flynn said afterward that they did not believe he was lying ( as CNN reported in February , 2017 : “ the FBI interviewers believed Flynn was cooperative and provided truthful answers .
Although Flynn didn ’ t remember all of what he talked about , they don ’ t believe he was intentionally misleading them , the officials say ” ) .
For that reason , CNN said , “ the FBI is not expected to pursue any charges against ” him .
More importantly , there was no valid reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about his conversations with Kislyak in the first place .
There is nothing remotely untoward or unusual — let alone criminal — about an incoming senior national security official , three weeks away from taking over , reaching out to a counterpart in a foreign government to try to tamp down tensions .
As the Washington Post put it , “ it would not be uncommon for incoming administrations to interface with foreign governments with whom they will soon have to work.
” What newly released documents over the last month reveal is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last three years : the powers of the security state agencies — particularly the FBI , the CIA , the NSA and the DOJ — were systematically abused as part of the 2016 election and then afterward for political rather than legal ends .
While there was obviously deceit and corruption on the part of some Trump officials in lying to Russiagate investigators and otherwise engaging in depressingly common DC lobbyist corruption , there was also massive corruption on the part of the investigators themselves , exploiting and abusing their vast and invasive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , political subterfuge , election manipulation and personal vendettas .
The former category ( corruption by Trump officials ) has received a tidal wave of endless media attention , while the latter ( corruption and abuse of power by those investigating them ) has received almost none .
For numerous reasons , it is vital to fully examine with as much clarity as possible the abuse of power that drove the prosecution of Gen. Flynn .
To begin with , cable and other news outlets that employed former Obama-era intelligence operatives , generals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theory they could find — virtually always without any dissent or even questioning — have barely acknowledged these explosive new documents .
More disturbingly , liberals and Democrats — as part of their movement toward venerating these security state agencies — have completely jettisoned long-standing , core principles about the criminal justice system , including questioning whether lying to the FBI should be a crime at all and recognizing that innocent people are often forced to plead guilty — in order to justify both the Flynn prosecution and the broader Mueller probe .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ deeply into this case is that it reveals one the most dangerous abuses of power a democracy can suffer : the powers of the CIA , FBI and NSA were blatantly and repeatedly abused to manipulate election outcomes and achieve political advantage .
In other words , we know now that these agencies did exactly what Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer warned they would do to Trump when he appeared on Rachel Maddow ’ s MSNBC program shortly before Trump ’ s inauguration :

Watch our latest episode of SYSTEM UPDATE exploring this topic here or on The Intercept’s YouTube channel.
Gen. Michael Flynn, President Obama’s former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, pleaded guilty on December 1, 2017, to a single count of lying to the FBI about two conversations he had with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak while Flynn served as a Trump transition team official (Flynn was never charged for any matters relating to his relationship with the Turkish government). As part of the plea deal, special counsel Robert Mueller recommended no jail time for Flynn, and the plea agreement also seemingly put an end to threats from the Mueller team to prosecute Flynn’s son.
Last Thursday, the Justice Department filed a motion seeking to dismiss the prosecution of Flynn based, in part, on newly discovered documents revealing that the conduct of the FBI, under the leadership of Director James Comey and his now-disgraced Deputy Andrew McCabe (who himself was forced to leave the Bureau after being caught lying to agents), was improper and motivated by corrupt objectives. That motion prompted histrionic howls of outrage from the same political officials and their media allies who have spent the last three years pushing maximalist Russiagate conspiracy theories.
But the prosecution of Flynn — for allegedly lying to the FBI when he denied in a January 24 interrogation that he had discussed with Kislyak on December 29 the new sanctions and expulsions imposed on Russia by the Obama administration — was always odd for a number of reasons. To begin with, the FBI agents who questioned Flynn said afterward that they did not believe he was lying (as CNN reported in February 2017: “the FBI interviewers believed Flynn was cooperative and provided truthful answers. Although Flynn didn’t remember all of what he talked about, they don’t believe he was intentionally misleading them, the officials say”). For that reason, CNN said, “the FBI is not expected to pursue any charges against” him.
More importantly, there was no valid reason for the FBI to have interrogated Flynn about his conversations with Kislyak in the first place. There is nothing remotely untoward or unusual — let alone criminal — about an incoming senior national security official, three weeks away from taking over, reaching out to a counterpart in a foreign government to try to tamp down tensions. As the Washington Post put it, “it would not be uncommon for incoming administrations to interface with foreign governments with whom they will soon have to work.”
What newly released documents over the last month reveal is what has been generally evident for the last three years: The powers of the security state agencies — particularly the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and the DOJ — were systematically abused as part of the 2016 election and then afterward for political rather than legal ends. While there was obviously deceit and corruption on the part of some Trump officials in lying to Russiagate investigators and otherwise engaging in depressingly common D.C. lobbyist corruption, there was also massive corruption on the part of the investigators themselves, exploiting and abusing their vast and invasive investigative and prosecutorial powers for ideological goals, political subterfuge, election manipulation, and personal vendettas. The former category (corruption by Trump officials) has received a tidal wave of endless media attention, while the latter (corruption and abuse of power by those investigating them) has received almost none.
For numerous reasons, it is vital to fully examine with as much clarity as possible the abuse of power that drove the prosecution of Flynn. To begin with, cable and other news outlets that employed former Obama-era intelligence operatives, generals, and prosecutors to disseminate every Russiagate conspiracy theory they could find — virtually always without any dissent or even questioning — have barely acknowledged these explosive new documents.
More disturbingly, liberals and Democrats — as part of their movement toward venerating these security state agencies — have completely jettisoned long-standing, core principles about the criminal justice system, including questioning whether lying to the FBI should be a crime at all and recognizing that innocent people are often forced to plead guilty — in order to justify both the Flynn prosecution and the broader Mueller probe.
But the most critical reason to delve deeply into this case is that it reveals one the most dangerous abuses of power a democracy can suffer: The powers of the CIA, FBI, and NSA were blatantly and repeatedly abused to manipulate election outcomes and achieve political advantage. In other words, we know now that these agencies did exactly what Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer warned they would do to Trump when he appeared on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC program shortly before Trump’s inauguration:
This turned out to be one of the most prescient and important (and creepy) statements of the Trump presidency: from Chuck Schumer to Rachel Maddow – in early January, 2017, before Trump was even inaugurated: pic.twitter.com/TUaYkksILG — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) April 8, 2019
Because U.S. politics is now discussed far more as tests of tribal loyalty (“Whose side are you on?”) than actual ideological or even political beliefs (“Which policies do you favor or oppose?”), it is very difficult to persuade people to separate their personal or political views of Flynn (“Do you like him or not?”) from the question of whether the U.S. government abused its power in gravely dangerous ways to prosecute him.
Flynn is a right-wing, hawkish general whose views on the so-called war on terror are ones utterly anathema to my own beliefs. That does not make his prosecution justified. One’s views of Flynn personally or his politics (or those of the Trump administration generally) should have absolutely no bearing on one’s assessment of the justifiability of what the U.S. government did to him here — any more than one has to like the political views of the detainees at Guantanamo to find their treatment abusive and illegal, or any more than one has to agree with the views of people who are being censured in order to defend their right of free expression.
The ability to distinguish between ideological questions from evidentiary questions is vital for rational discourse to be possible, yet has been all but eliminated at the altar of tribal fealty. That is why evidentiary questions completely devoid of ideological belief — such as whether one found the Russiagate conspiracy theories supported by convincing evidence — have been treated not as evidentiary matters but as tribal ones: to be affiliated with the left (an ideological characterization), one must affirm belief in those conspiracy theories even if one does not find the evidence in support of them actually compelling. The conflation of ideological and evidentiary questions, and the substitution of substantive political debates with tests of tribal loyalty, are indescribably corrosive to our public discourse.
As a result, whether one is now deemed on the right or left has almost nothing to do with actual political beliefs about policy questions and everything to do with one’s willingness to serve the interests of one team or another. With the warped formula in place, U.S. politics has been depoliticized, stripped of any meaningful ideological debates in lieu of mindless team loyalty oaths on non-ideological questions.
Our newest SYSTEM UPDATE episode, debuting today, is devoted to enabling as clear and objective an examination as possible of the abuses that drove the Flynn prosecution — including these critical, newly declassified documents — as well the broader Russiagate investigations of which it was a part. These abuses have received far too little attention from the vast majority of the U.S. media that simply excludes any questioning or dissent of their prevailing narratives about all of these matters.
Notably, we invited several of the cable stars and security state agents who have been pushing these conspiracy theories for years to appear on the program for a civil discussion, but none were willing to do so — because they are so accustomed to being able to spout these theories on MSNBC, CNN, and in newspapers without ever being meaningfully challenged. Regardless of one’s views on these scandals, it is unhealthy in the extreme for any media to insulate themselves from a diversity of views.
As the journalist Aaron Maté demonstrated when he brilliantly challenged The Guardian’s Luke Harding about his bestselling book claiming to prove collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia — one of the few times a Russiagate conspiracy advocate was forced to confront a knowledgeable critic — those claims often cannot survive even minimal critical scrutiny. That’s why media outlets have insulated these conspiracy theory advocates, as well as their audiences, from any dissent or even critical questioning.
Today’s SYSTEM UPDATE episode, which we believe provides the most comprehensive examination to date of these new documents relating to the Flynn prosecution and how this case relates to the broader Russiagate investigative abuses, can be viewed above or on The Intercept’s YouTube channel.


theintercept--2020-05-15--After Mocking Biden for Calling H1N1 Flu “N1H1,” Trump Says 1918 Pandemic Was in 1917

Trump ’ s strange inability to recall the most basic historical fact of the 1918 pandemic , which killed hundreds of thousands of Americans in its first year , including his own grandfather , gets weirder by the day .
But the fact that the nearly 74-year-old president also frequently mangles , mispronounces or badly misreads words himself — and is willing to say things that make no sense to cover his stumbles — makes it bizarre for him to argue that Biden ’ s verbal slip-ups are proof that the former vice president is suffering cognitive decline .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as Trump began his hit on Biden only after he appeared to stumble over his prepared text .
Looking down at the podium as he read the remarks , Trump claimed that the Obama-Biden administration had depleted the national stockpile of masks during the response to the swine flu pandemic in 2009 .
“ Most of the N95 masks were distributed during the… N1… ” Trump read , twice pausing awkwardly as he came to the scientific name for the virus .
He then looked up and apparently ad-libbed , “ … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , right ?
” “ ‘ N1H1 , ’ who says that ?
” Trump asked the audience at what was supposed to be an official presidential event related to the coronavirus crisis but he treated as a de facto campaign rally .
Hearing no response from the dozens of workers gathered in the Allentown warehouse , he answered his own question : “ Sleepy Joe Biden.
” “ Remember ?
” Trump asked the workers , as though referring to a moment they would all be familiar with .
“ He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ‘ Isn ’ t it the other way around ?
’ They said , ‘ Yes , sir , but he said it , so it doesn ’ t make any difference . '
” The president then looked back down at his prepared text and continued reading from the point where he had begun to trip over the name of the virus before catching himself , and pivoting to attack Biden .
“ But during the H1N1 , ” Trump resumed , “ and that ’ s the swine flu — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 09 that was not well handled , at all .
Got very poor marks.
” After claiming that the lack of personal protective equipment in the federal government ’ s national stockpile this year was entirely the fault of the Obama-Biden administration , even though he has been in charge of it for the past three years , Trump boasted that he was now replenishing supplies for the next outbreak .
It was at this point that he once again misstated the date of the flu pandemic that killed his grandfather .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It could have been up to 100 million people were killed in — that was the Spanish flu — 1917 , ” the president told the workers who distribute personal protective equipment to hospitals .
“ Who would have thought this was going to happen ?
That ’ s over 100 years ago.
” While Biden did mistakenly refer to the swine flu virus as “ N1H1″ during a debate in March , the order of the two halves of the term used to describe the virus — referring to subtypes of two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ H ) and neuraminidase ( N ) — is unimportant .
To understand why Trump thought this minor flub was better-known than it is , it helps to know that it has been mentioned five times by Sean Hannity on his Fox News show in the past two months , most recently on Monday , and featured repeatedly in the host ’ s tweets and online columns .
Trump , who is an ardent viewer of that show , even repeated it back to Hannity during an interview with him in late March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ name of the virus at his March 15 debate against Sen. Bernie Sanders , exactly the same mistake was made by Rep. Michael Cloud , a Republican Congressman from Texas who is an ardent Trump supporter , as he questioned Dr. Anthony Fauci at a televised hearing on the government ’ s response to the coronavirus threat .
Cloud ’ s flub has not been mentioned by either Trump or Hannity .
The event in Pennsylvania ’ s Lehigh Valley on Thursday was Trump ’ s second official visit to a business involved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of personal protective equipment in the past two weeks , and like the previous tour of a mask factory in Arizona , was also in a swing state the president is afraid of losing to Biden in November .
Both visits incorporated elements of the president ’ s rallies , including songs from the set list used at his campaign events to hype up the crowd — although in this case , the White House did not repeat the unforced error of blasting “ Live and Let Die ” as it had in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and urged Americans to get back to work despite the mortal threat still posed by the virus .
Both events were also overtly political in other ways .
For instance , while Trump did not attack Biden in Arizona last week , he invited only the state ’ s Republican officials to attend the event at Honeywell ’ s retooled factory making N95 masks outside the airport in Phoenix and shunned Democrats .
In his remarks there , Trump praised Arizona ’ s Republican senator , Martha McSally , as “ somebody that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to her state that she loves so much , ” essentially urging voters to back her in November .
He made no mention of Arizona ’ s Democratic senator , Kyrsten Sinema .
Similarly , Trump praised Arizona ’ s Republican governor , Doug Ducey , but failed to give any credit to the Democratic mayor of Phoenix , Kate Gallego , whose city owns the land the factory is on and had helped to get it up and running .
In Pennsylvania on Thursday , Trump began his remarks by exulting over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lined the road from the airport to the firm , packed closely together , ignoring the state ’ s stay-at-home order and social-distancing guidelines .
He also encouraged defiance of the state ’ s Democratic governor , Tom Wolf .
“ We have to get your governor of Pennsylvania to start opening up a little bit , ” Trump said .
“ You have areas of Pennsylvania that are barely affected , and they have — they want to keep them closed .
Can ’ t do that , ” he told the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what was billed as an official event , Trump also endorsed a Republican candidate for Congress , Sean Parnell , who is running against the Democratic incumbent , Rep. Conor Lamb , in a neighboring Pennsylvania district .
In both states , Trump also invited guests on stage , and on both occasions that included supporters who praised him .
“ It ’ s an honor to share the stage with you , it really is , ” Carol Timm , a safety and training coordinator at the plant in Allentown told Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knows I ’ ve been so excited about your visit.
” In Arizona the week before , he had invited two non-employees , Betty and Jorge Rivas , the owners of a Mexican restaurant who became Fox News stars after getting criticism for attending his rallies , to “ say a few words.
” Those words turned out to be fulsome praise for the president , who had previously tweeted his support for them .
“ I think you ’ re doing a great job , ” Jorge Rivas told him , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an official Trump campaign account .
“ I think we represent a lot of the Latino community that is very proud of the job that you ’ re doing , and I think most of us , all of us , all the Latinos are going to vote for you , ” he added .
Betty Rivas , who was wearing a handmade jacket with Trump ’ s name and the acronym for his campaign slogan “ Keep America Great ” on the back , then added , “ Latinos love Trump !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ blow to the daily coronavirus task force briefings by musing that perhaps his top scientists should investigate the possibility of injecting disinfectants into Covid-19 patients , the president ’ s communications staff , led by his campaign spokesperson turned press secretary , Kayleigh McEnany , has been looking for ways to let him campaign while appearing to be doing his job .
That blurring of the line could have campaign finance implications , since presidents are required by law to reimburse the government from their campaign funds for any travel that is primarily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remains to be seen if Trump is paying for any of his recent tour of the swing states .
In late 2011 , after Trump had flirted with and then thought better of running against President Barack Obama , he sat on the sidelines and heckled Obama for supposedly campaigning too much while in office .
“ All he wants to do is campaign , that ’ s frankly all he ’ s good at , and we ’ re paying for it , ” Trump complained in a 2011 YouTube video that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 .
“ Our country is blowing up around us .
There ’ s unrest all over the place .
It ’ s being incompetently run , and this guy campaigns and we pay for it , ” Trump said of Obama .

Sixty seconds after inviting a captive audience at a medical supply firm in Pennsylvania to laugh at Joe Biden on Thursday for having once referred to the 2009 H1N1 flu as “N1H1,” Donald Trump said that the 1918 flu pandemic happened in 1917. Ten seconds later, he made the same mistake again, which was at least the 40th time he has done so in the past two months, according to White House transcripts.
Trump’s strange inability to recall the most basic historical fact of the 1918 pandemic, which killed hundreds of thousands of Americans in its first year, including his own grandfather, gets weirder by the day. But the fact that the nearly 74-year-old president also frequently mangles, mispronounces or badly misreads words himself — and is willing to say things that make no sense to cover his stumbles — makes it bizarre for him to argue that Biden’s verbal slip-ups are proof that the former vice president is suffering cognitive decline.
That contradiction was on full display on Thursday, as Trump began his hit on Biden only after he appeared to stumble over his prepared text. Looking down at the podium as he read the remarks, Trump claimed that the Obama-Biden administration had depleted the national stockpile of masks during the response to the swine flu pandemic in 2009. “Most of the N95 masks were distributed during the… N1…” Trump read, twice pausing awkwardly as he came to the scientific name for the virus. He then looked up and apparently ad-libbed, “… H1 — now you know who says that, right?”
“‘N1H1,’ who says that?” Trump asked the audience at what was supposed to be an official presidential event related to the coronavirus crisis but he treated as a de facto campaign rally. Hearing no response from the dozens of workers gathered in the Allentown warehouse, he answered his own question: “Sleepy Joe Biden.”
“Remember?” Trump asked the workers, as though referring to a moment they would all be familiar with. “He said ‘the N1H1.’ I said, ‘Isn’t it the other way around?’ They said, ‘Yes, sir, but he said it, so it doesn’t make any difference.'”
The president then looked back down at his prepared text and continued reading from the point where he had begun to trip over the name of the virus before catching himself, and pivoting to attack Biden. “But during the H1N1,” Trump resumed, “and that’s the swine flu — and it was a pandemic in ’09 that was not well handled, at all. Got very poor marks.”
After claiming that the lack of personal protective equipment in the federal government’s national stockpile this year was entirely the fault of the Obama-Biden administration, even though he has been in charge of it for the past three years, Trump boasted that he was now replenishing supplies for the next outbreak. It was at this point that he once again misstated the date of the flu pandemic that killed his grandfather.
“Who would have thought? 1917. It could have been up to 100 million people were killed in — that was the Spanish flu — 1917,” the president told the workers who distribute personal protective equipment to hospitals. “Who would have thought this was going to happen? That’s over 100 years ago.”
While Biden did mistakenly refer to the swine flu virus as “N1H1” during a debate in March, the order of the two halves of the term used to describe the virus — referring to subtypes of two proteins on its surface: hemagglutinin (H) and neuraminidase (N) — is unimportant. To understand why Trump thought this minor flub was better-known than it is, it helps to know that it has been mentioned five times by Sean Hannity on his Fox News show in the past two months, most recently on Monday, and featured repeatedly in the host’s tweets and online columns. Trump, who is an ardent viewer of that show, even repeated it back to Hannity during an interview with him in late March.
Four days before Biden mangled the name of the virus at his March 15 debate against Sen. Bernie Sanders, exactly the same mistake was made by Rep. Michael Cloud, a Republican Congressman from Texas who is an ardent Trump supporter, as he questioned Dr. Anthony Fauci at a televised hearing on the government’s response to the coronavirus threat. Cloud’s flub has not been mentioned by either Trump or Hannity.
The event in Pennsylvania’s Lehigh Valley on Thursday was Trump’s second official visit to a business involved in the effort to ramp up production of personal protective equipment in the past two weeks, and like the previous tour of a mask factory in Arizona, was also in a swing state the president is afraid of losing to Biden in November.
Both visits incorporated elements of the president’s rallies, including songs from the set list used at his campaign events to hype up the crowd — although in this case, the White House did not repeat the unforced error of blasting “Live and Let Die” as it had in Arizona when the president inspected the premises and urged Americans to get back to work despite the mortal threat still posed by the virus.
Both events were also overtly political in other ways. For instance, while Trump did not attack Biden in Arizona last week, he invited only the state’s Republican officials to attend the event at Honeywell’s retooled factory making N95 masks outside the airport in Phoenix and shunned Democrats.
In his remarks there, Trump praised Arizona’s Republican senator, Martha McSally, as “somebody that is bringing tremendous amounts of dollars back to her state that she loves so much,” essentially urging voters to back her in November. He made no mention of Arizona’s Democratic senator, Kyrsten Sinema. Similarly, Trump praised Arizona’s Republican governor, Doug Ducey, but failed to give any credit to the Democratic mayor of Phoenix, Kate Gallego, whose city owns the land the factory is on and had helped to get it up and running.
In Pennsylvania on Thursday, Trump began his remarks by exulting over the thousands of his supporters who had lined the road from the airport to the firm, packed closely together, ignoring the state’s stay-at-home order and social-distancing guidelines. He also encouraged defiance of the state’s Democratic governor, Tom Wolf. “We have to get your governor of Pennsylvania to start opening up a little bit,” Trump said. “You have areas of Pennsylvania that are barely affected, and they have — they want to keep them closed. Can’t do that,” he told the workers.
Further blurring the lines during what was billed as an official event, Trump also endorsed a Republican candidate for Congress, Sean Parnell, who is running against the Democratic incumbent, Rep. Conor Lamb, in a neighboring Pennsylvania district.
In both states, Trump also invited guests on stage, and on both occasions that included supporters who praised him. “It’s an honor to share the stage with you, it really is,” Carol Timm, a safety and training coordinator at the plant in Allentown told Trump on Thursday. “I think everybody knows I’ve been so excited about your visit.”
In Arizona the week before, he had invited two non-employees, Betty and Jorge Rivas, the owners of a Mexican restaurant who became Fox News stars after getting criticism for attending his rallies, to “say a few words.” Those words turned out to be fulsome praise for the president, who had previously tweeted his support for them. “I think you’re doing a great job,” Jorge Rivas told him, in remarks that were quickly shared online by an official Trump campaign account.
Owners of Sammy’s Mexican Restaurant to President @realDonaldTrump: Latinos are going to vote for you because you’re doing a very good job!#LatinosForTrump pic.twitter.com/jFQrk29OUv — Team Trump (Text TRUMP to 88022) (@TeamTrump) May 5, 2020
“I think we represent a lot of the Latino community that is very proud of the job that you’re doing, and I think most of us, all of us, all the Latinos are going to vote for you,” he added.
Betty Rivas, who was wearing a handmade jacket with Trump’s name and the acronym for his campaign slogan “Keep America Great” on the back, then added, “Latinos love Trump!”
Ever since Trump dealt a fatal blow to the daily coronavirus task force briefings by musing that perhaps his top scientists should investigate the possibility of injecting disinfectants into Covid-19 patients, the president’s communications staff, led by his campaign spokesperson turned press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, has been looking for ways to let him campaign while appearing to be doing his job. That blurring of the line could have campaign finance implications, since presidents are required by law to reimburse the government from their campaign funds for any travel that is primarily about getting themselves re-elected, but it remains to be seen if Trump is paying for any of his recent tour of the swing states.
In late 2011, after Trump had flirted with and then thought better of running against President Barack Obama, he sat on the sidelines and heckled Obama for supposedly campaigning too much while in office. “All he wants to do is campaign, that’s frankly all he’s good at, and we’re paying for it,” Trump complained in a 2011 YouTube video that was deleted after his own election in 2016. “Our country is blowing up around us. There’s unrest all over the place. It’s being incompetently run, and this guy campaigns and we pay for it,” Trump said of Obama.
“Why doesn’t he pay for the planes and Air Force One and everything else that takes him to these destinations where he campaigns?” Trump asked then. “This is crazy. What he gets away with is unbelievable. He’s laughing at the American public for being stupid.”


theintercept--2020-05-15--Detainees at a Federal Jail Said Their Coronavirus Symptoms Were Ignored. The Government Is Fighting

Detainees at a Federal Jail Said Their Coronavirus Symptoms Were Ignored. The Government Is Fighting to Keep the Records Secret.

court-ordered oversight at a federal jail in Brooklyn , New York , government lawyers argued in federal hearings in New York this week that widespread complaints of medical neglect and a scathing evaluation by an expert in correctional medicine who toured the facility should not be given credence .
Lawyers representing people in custody at the Metropolitan Detention Center are seeking a preliminary injunction that would force the jail to meet prescribed standards of medical care to protect vulnerable people held inside from the coronavirus , which has been exploding in jails and prisons across the country .
Jail officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argued that the situation is under control .
Some of the evidence presented in court , however , tells a different story .
Incarcerated people ’ s accounts — in the form of sworn declarations and the few fragments of medical requests that have so far been made public through the litigation — suggest that significant numbers of people detained inside MDC have experienced coronavirus symptoms and that their requests for care , in many instances , received no response .
The government , for its part , has worked in court to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complaints secret .
Despite redactions to names and other identifying information , the federal Bureau of Prisons , which runs MDC , has insisted that allowing the public to see anonymized requests for medical care would violate the privacy of people in custody .
Parts of some medical requests were revealed when a lawyer representing incarcerated people read a few out in court hearings this week .
“ I have had a persistent cough that just won ’ t get better , ” wrote one person incarcerated at MDC .
“ I have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Not sure what this is , but I have written you about a week ago about it and I still haven ’ t been seen .
I hope this isn ’ t the virus symptoms.
” In court , federal prosecutors representing jail officials cast doubt on the veracity of the statements made by incarcerated people .
Asked by the judge how he explains all the sick calls in which people said their prior medical calls hadn ’ t received a response , Assistant U.S. Attorney James Cho responded that asking the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re saying is true.
” Jails and prisons are by their nature opaque , and MDC Brooklyn has a particular reputation for attempting to hide humanitarian crises unfolding inside its walls from public view .
However , this week ’ s hearings , effectively a miniature trial , have generated thousands of pages of evidence and witness testimony , shining a light on how a facility with a long record of medical neglect is handling the pandemic .
their lawyers from the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protecting sick and elderly people from the disease , pointing to the fact that no one at the facility has died of Covid-19 , and only five people in custody there have tested positive for the disease to date .
The litigation , however , has revealed that only 15 people at MDC have even been tested for the coronavirus and that far more have formally complained of symptoms .
Jail staff aren ’ t screening people in custody for symptoms nor are they making any effort to track the number of people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most incendiary pieces of evidence is a report to the court of Homer Venters , a medical doctor and the former director of medical services for the New York City jails on Rikers Island .
Venters was hired by the incarcerated petitioners to lead an inspection of MDC and his report , filed April 30 , found “ gross deviations from adherence to correctional standards of care and CDC guidance.
” He warned that “ there may be a significant number of cases of COVID-19 that are undetected.
” The Venters report set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government ’ s part .
The next day , federal prosecutors from the Eastern District of New York filed court papers arguing that the report should be stricken from the public record , because they had expected that their deposition of Venters would be the only record made of his visit .
The judge disagreed , suggesting that the government could hardly complain that it was being supplied with too much evidence .
The same day , the Bureau of Prisons was scrambling to produce its own report to counter Venters .
Nicole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Health Services Division in the bureau ’ s central office , testified that on she got a call from the bureau ’ s deputy director on May 1 , directing her to assemble a team to lead the agency ’ s self-inspection .
When she arrived at MDC with her team the next day , neither the warden nor his regional supervisor knew she was coming , English testified .
Saturdays are usually the Warden ’ s day off , English said , but he was at the jail when she arrived , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his dedication to his work .
“ Allegations made through outside stakeholders were not entirely accurate , ” English concluded in her report , refuting Venters .
“ During the unannounced visit , staff and inmates appeared to have and be properly utilizing PPE and sanitation supplies ; staff morale appeared to be high ; and inmate complaints were minor.
” In a third inspection of the jail , a former jail administrator hired by the Bureau of Prisons toured parts of the facility and interviewed officials about their policies .
He , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its duties admirably .
self-assessments contradict not only the Venters report , but also the words of the people held in custody .
Lawyers for people held at MDC assembled a raft of sworn declarations from people currently inside the jail or recently released from it alleging medical neglect .
The government has resisted demands to turn over all records of requests for medical care made in recent months , but what it has turned over paints a frightening picture .
The requests themselves are under seal , but , in a hearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Emery , Celli , Brinkerhoff & Abadi representing people in custody , read aloud from portions of eight of them , all complaining of Covid-19-related symptoms , many of them suggesting that previous pleas for medical care had been ignored .
“ I have dry cough , dryness and itching on my throat , especially when I ’ m sleeping it gets worse , chest pain and pressure , ” wrote one person .
“ I feel very fatigued and weak , I have sent several sick calls out to medical and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I sent a sick call request to this department at least a month ago and I still haven ’ t gotten a response due to the headaches I have been having , ” wrote a second person .
“ I now have a cold that I can ’ t get rid of .
My main concern is the headaches .
I need to see someone ASAP .
I have been dealing with this issue for a month now , and I still haven ’ t gotten a response.
” A third person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I already brought my medical concern to your attention , but I have not received any response , ” they wrote .
“ Can you please put me in to see the medical department ?
” “ This is going to be my last message , ” another incarcerated person wrote .
“ I have been in pain for 11 days and now I feel like I am getting a fever , and medical hasn ’ t sent me down to check on me and I am now feeling worse than ever and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days and I am in a lot of pain.
” “ I have put in sick call in to no avail , ” wrote another person held in MDC .
“ I am having trouble breathing and getting good oxygen .
I wake up having breathing issues and go to bed with the same .
I had lung surgery in 2006 , my capacity is compromised as it is .
I was referred to psych and not taken seriously by the doc .
I am not a whiner and there is an issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or at the very least well documented that I tried ?
Thanks for your time and consideration.
” call requests cast doubt on the Bureau of Prisons ’ insistence that medical staff make frequent rounds and that Covid-19-related symptoms are evaluated promptly ?
Judge Rachel Kovner asked Cho , the assistant U.S. attorney , on Thursday .
Cho questioned whether the people were telling the truth in their requests for medical care .
“ Is that your response ?
” Kovner asked .
“ That all of these emails , the sick calls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me ’ — that it ’ s not accurate , that that ’ s not what happened ?
” “ The inmates may be complaining , ” Cho said , “ but there ’ s a comparable response from the MDC.
” While the government has pointed to policies and protocols intended to protect people in custody from Covid-19 , it hasn ’ t produced evidence to contradict incarcerated people ’ s claims that those policies aren ’ t actually being carried out .
In his cross-examination of Venters , Cho argued that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reliant on his conversations with incarcerated people and that he had no other evidence that requests for medical attention aren ’ t responded to promptly .
“ You have no knowledge as to whether a health care provider is responsive to call requests , do you ?
” Cho asked .
“ That is the crux of the failure , ” Venters replied .
“ The system is set up to make that unknowable.
” Among the most explosive elements of Venters ’ s report was his contention that MDC is destroying medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to obscure the scope of coronavirus infection at the jail .
Until a recent court order , jail staff were shredding the paper sick call requests that incarcerated people are using during the current lockdown because of the limited access to the computerized medical request system .
Venters suggested that the shredding practice constitutes an unconscionable destruction of medical records .
Without the information on those slips , he noted , there is no record of how long people are waiting for medical care — or of whether the care they eventually get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Especially important during a pandemic , the destruction of that information also leaves jail staff and everyone else in the dark about the spread of coronavirus symptoms .
Lawyers for people in custody at MDC went a step further , arguing in court filings last week that the destruction of these slips , which continued for months after they first filed their lawsuit , constitutes the deliberate destruction of evidence for which the government should be sanctioned .
Faced with the possibility of these consequences , government lawyers reversed themselves in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week ’ s hearing .
They had repeatedly told their opponents and the court that information from paper sick call requests couldn ’ t be turned over because the slips themselves are destroyed , and “ there is no centralized repository of hard copy sick call requests.
” Therefore , there was nothing to be turned over as evidence .
At the outset of the hearing , the government informed the court that it shouldn ’ t be sanctioned because information from the slips actually is preserved in a computer system after all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ astonishment ; if the records do exist , they haven ’ t been turned over .
“ The issue in this case is the discrepancy between the reports of the clients and their reports of symptoms and what the facility says is happening , ” Rosenfeld said .
“ That is the key evidence here and we don ’ t have it.
” Assistant U.S. Attorney Seth Eichenholtz told the court that while the government does have the records , they ’ re not ready to turn them over yet .
“ This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he said .
Kovner directed the Bureau of Prisons to turn over its electronic records as soon as possible .
The judge has yet to rule on the motion for a preliminary injunction .
She asked both parties to consider whether some parts of their dispute might be resolved through mediation .

Seeking to avoid court-ordered oversight at a federal jail in Brooklyn, New York, government lawyers argued in federal hearings in New York this week that widespread complaints of medical neglect and a scathing evaluation by an expert in correctional medicine who toured the facility should not be given credence.
Lawyers representing people in custody at the Metropolitan Detention Center are seeking a preliminary injunction that would force the jail to meet prescribed standards of medical care to protect vulnerable people held inside from the coronavirus, which has been exploding in jails and prisons across the country. Jail officials, on the other hand, have argued that the situation is under control.
Some of the evidence presented in court, however, tells a different story. Incarcerated people’s accounts — in the form of sworn declarations and the few fragments of medical requests that have so far been made public through the litigation — suggest that significant numbers of people detained inside MDC have experienced coronavirus symptoms and that their requests for care, in many instances, received no response.
The government, for its part, has worked in court to keep the incarcerated people’s medical complaints secret. Despite redactions to names and other identifying information, the federal Bureau of Prisons, which runs MDC, has insisted that allowing the public to see anonymized requests for medical care would violate the privacy of people in custody.
Parts of some medical requests were revealed when a lawyer representing incarcerated people read a few out in court hearings this week.
“I have had a persistent cough that just won’t get better,” wrote one person incarcerated at MDC. “I have also been sweating on and off randomly. Not sure what this is, but I have written you about a week ago about it and I still haven’t been seen. I hope this isn’t the virus symptoms.”
“Not sure what this is, but I have written you about a week ago about it and I still haven’t been seen. I hope this isn’t the virus symptoms.”
In court, federal prosecutors representing jail officials cast doubt on the veracity of the statements made by incarcerated people. Asked by the judge how he explains all the sick calls in which people said their prior medical calls hadn’t received a response, Assistant U.S. Attorney James Cho responded that asking the question involves “assuming that what they’re saying is true.”
Jails and prisons are by their nature opaque, and MDC Brooklyn has a particular reputation for attempting to hide humanitarian crises unfolding inside its walls from public view. However, this week’s hearings, effectively a miniature trial, have generated thousands of pages of evidence and witness testimony, shining a light on how a facility with a long record of medical neglect is handling the pandemic.
Jail officials and their lawyers from the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York insisted that they are adequately protecting sick and elderly people from the disease, pointing to the fact that no one at the facility has died of Covid-19, and only five people in custody there have tested positive for the disease to date.
The litigation, however, has revealed that only 15 people at MDC have even been tested for the coronavirus and that far more have formally complained of symptoms. Jail staff aren’t screening people in custody for symptoms nor are they making any effort to track the number of people who complain of symptoms.
Among the most incendiary pieces of evidence is a report to the court of Homer Venters, a medical doctor and the former director of medical services for the New York City jails on Rikers Island. Venters was hired by the incarcerated petitioners to lead an inspection of MDC and his report, filed April 30, found “gross deviations from adherence to correctional standards of care and CDC guidance.” He warned that “there may be a significant number of cases of COVID-19 that are undetected.”
The Venters report set off a flurry of reaction on the government’s part. The next day, federal prosecutors from the Eastern District of New York filed court papers arguing that the report should be stricken from the public record, because they had expected that their deposition of Venters would be the only record made of his visit. The judge disagreed, suggesting that the government could hardly complain that it was being supplied with too much evidence.
The same day, the Bureau of Prisons was scrambling to produce its own report to counter Venters. Nicole English, the assistant director of the Health Services Division in the bureau’s central office, testified that she got a call from the bureau’s deputy director on May 1, directing her to assemble a team to lead the agency’s self-inspection. When she arrived at MDC with her team the next day, neither the warden nor his regional supervisor knew she was coming, English testified. Saturdays are usually the Warden’s day off, English said, but he was at the jail when she arrived, a fact she took as evidence of his dedication to his work.
“Allegations made through outside stakeholders were not entirely accurate,” English concluded in her report, refuting Venters. “During the unannounced visit, staff and inmates appeared to have and be properly utilizing PPE and sanitation supplies; staff morale appeared to be high; and inmate complaints were minor.”
In a third inspection of the jail, a former jail administrator hired by the Bureau of Prisons toured parts of the facility and interviewed officials about their policies. He, too, concluded that MDC was performing its duties admirably.
The government’s reassuring self-assessments contradict not only the Venters report, but also the words of the people held in custody. Lawyers for people held at MDC assembled a raft of sworn declarations from people currently inside the jail or recently released from it alleging medical neglect.
The government has resisted demands to turn over all records of requests for medical care made in recent months, but what it has turned over paints a frightening picture. The requests themselves are under seal, but, in a hearing Thursday, Katie Rosenfeld, a lawyer with Emery, Celli, Brinkerhoff & Abadi representing people in custody, read aloud from portions of eight of them, all complaining of Covid-19-related symptoms, many of them suggesting that previous pleas for medical care had been ignored.
“I have dry cough, dryness and itching on my throat, especially when I’m sleeping it gets worse, chest pain and pressure. I have sent several sick calls out to medical and I haven’t heard back.”
“I have dry cough, dryness and itching on my throat, especially when I’m sleeping it gets worse, chest pain and pressure,” wrote one person. “I feel very fatigued and weak, I have sent several sick calls out to medical and I haven’t heard back.”
“I sent a sick call request to this department at least a month ago and I still haven’t gotten a response due to the headaches I have been having,” wrote a second person. “I now have a cold that I can’t get rid of. My main concern is the headaches. I need to see someone ASAP. I have been dealing with this issue for a month now, and I still haven’t gotten a response.”
A third person wrote about having trouble breathing. “I already brought my medical concern to your attention, but I have not received any response,” they wrote. “Can you please put me in to see the medical department?”
“This is going to be my last message,” another incarcerated person wrote. “I have been in pain for 11 days and now I feel like I am getting a fever, and medical hasn’t sent me down to check on me and I am now feeling worse than ever and we have been locked in for two days and I am in a lot of pain.”
“I have put in sick call in to no avail,” wrote another person held in MDC. “I am having trouble breathing and getting good oxygen. I wake up having breathing issues and go to bed with the same. I had lung surgery in 2006, my capacity is compromised as it is. I was referred to psych and not taken seriously by the doc. I am not a whiner and there is an issue here. Could it please be addressed or at the very least well documented that I tried? Thanks for your time and consideration.”
Don’t these sick call requests cast doubt on the Bureau of Prisons’ insistence that medical staff make frequent rounds and that Covid-19-related symptoms are evaluated promptly? Judge Rachel Kovner asked Cho, the assistant U.S. attorney, on Thursday.
Cho questioned whether the people were telling the truth in their requests for medical care.
“Is that your response?” Kovner asked. “That all of these emails, the sick calls, saying, ‘Please come see me’ — that it’s not accurate, that that’s not what happened?”
“Is that your response? That all of these emails, the sick calls, saying, ‘Please come see me’ — that it’s not accurate, that that’s not what happened?”
“The inmates may be complaining,” Cho said, “but there’s a comparable response from the MDC.”
While the government has pointed to policies and protocols intended to protect people in custody from Covid-19, it hasn’t produced evidence to contradict incarcerated people’s claims that those policies aren’t actually being carried out.
In his cross-examination of Venters, Cho argued that the doctor’s conclusions were overly reliant on his conversations with incarcerated people and that he had no other evidence that requests for medical attention aren’t responded to promptly.
“You have no knowledge as to whether a health care provider is responsive to call requests, do you?” Cho asked.
“That is the crux of the failure,” Venters replied. “The system is set up to make that unknowable.”
Among the most explosive elements of Venters’s report was his contention that MDC is destroying medical records as part of a deliberate effort to obscure the scope of coronavirus infection at the jail. Until a recent court order, jail staff were shredding the paper sick call requests that incarcerated people are using during the current lockdown because of the limited access to the computerized medical request system. Venters suggested that the shredding practice constitutes an unconscionable destruction of medical records. Without the information on those slips, he noted, there is no record of how long people are waiting for medical care — or of whether the care they eventually get is even appropriate to their original complaint. Especially important during a pandemic, the destruction of that information also leaves jail staff and everyone else in the dark about the spread of coronavirus symptoms.
Share Your Coronavirus Story Click here to learn about contacting a reporter securely, or email us at coronavirus@theintercept.com
Lawyers for people in custody at MDC went a step further, arguing in court filings last week that the destruction of these slips, which continued for months after they first filed their lawsuit, constitutes the deliberate destruction of evidence for which the government should be sanctioned.
Faced with the possibility of these consequences, government lawyers reversed themselves in the minutes before opening arguments began in this week’s hearing. They had repeatedly told their opponents and the court that information from paper sick call requests couldn’t be turned over because the slips themselves are destroyed, and “there is no centralized repository of hard copy sick call requests.” Therefore, there was nothing to be turned over as evidence. At the outset of the hearing, the government informed the court that it shouldn’t be sanctioned because information from the slips actually is preserved in a computer system after all.
Lawyers for the incarcerated petitioners expressed astonishment; if the records do exist, they haven’t been turned over.
“The issue in this case is the discrepancy between the reports of the clients and their reports of symptoms and what the facility says is happening,” Rosenfeld said. “That is the key evidence here and we don’t have it.”
Assistant U.S. Attorney Seth Eichenholtz told the court that while the government does have the records, they’re not ready to turn them over yet. “This has kind of been an evolving process,” he said.
Kovner directed the Bureau of Prisons to turn over its electronic records as soon as possible. The judge has yet to rule on the motion for a preliminary injunction. She asked both parties to consider whether some parts of their dispute might be resolved through mediation.


theintercept--2020-05-15--How the House Progressives’ Plan to #PutPeopleFirst Fell Short

last month , it looked like the broader left , both inside Congress and out of it , might be about to get its act together .
Since the dawning of the pandemic , the national response to it had been written in a series of sweeping pieces of legislation with virtually no input from progressives , who had hardly organized themselves enough to even make coherent demands .
Instead of organizing as a bloc to make coordinated demands or threatening to withhold votes , the progressive approach has been to meet with leadership individually with legislative wish lists , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scenes will influence the legislation .
“ I think a lot of members are trying to squeeze in one-on-one conversations here or having their priority known there , ” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said in an interview with The Intercept last week .
That began to change when the Congressional Progressive Caucus had released , in late March , a list of “ bold ” legislative priorities for the next coronavirus rescue package .
By April 9 , they ’ d narrowed that down to key proposals , including a federal paycheck guarantee program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every household for the duration of the crisis , and a nationwide moratorium on evictions and foreclosures — provisions that would apply to everyone , regardless of immigration status .
Outside progressive groups also roused from their slumber .
Starting with the CPC letter , activists negotiated with the quartet of the Squad , the leadership of the CPC , and the leaders of an array of progressive groups to find four demands in common to rally around .
The resulting coalition included more mainstream progressive organizations like MoveOn and the Working Families @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the left , such as Justice Democrats , along with some who straddle the different wings , like Indivisible .
After endless pushing and pulling , they agreed to the same principles CPC had developed for their demands : keeping people on payrolls , providing economic relief , protecting public health by expanding health care , and safeguarding elections .
The coalition launched its push for influence on April 20 under the banner of # PutPeopleFirst , with CPC co-chairs Rep. Pramila Jayapal , D-Wash. , and Rep. Mark Pocan , D-Wis. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Squad , touting the campaign .
The news conference was the first of its kind during the crisis .
Within days , it ran into trouble .
Now , the House is poised to pass the HEROES Act without many of those priorities and with many of those progressive groups confused about what was going on inside Congress .
Some in the progressive caucus and a few moderates are likely to vote no , including Jayapal , but Pelosi has reportedly whipped the votes to pass it .
Despite the public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involved with # PutPeopleFirst , there was never agreement on a real strategy between those on the inside and those on the outside .
On April 23 , Indivisible , with a few other groups , asked Democrats to pledge a no vote on the next coronavirus package if it leaves out their priorities .
The ultimatum bothered some lawmakers in the coalition , who believed they shouldn ’ t be put in the position of voting against desperately needed aid , and that a public pressure campaign should focus on getting a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the CPC ’ s demands .
Ocasio-Cortez had also threatened a no vote on the interim package during the April 20 news conference , which angered and surprised some of her colleagues , who believed they should be winning “ positive support ” instead , according to people familiar with the matter .
Indivisible national policy director Angel Padilla noted that there have been multiple attempts to form coalition structures over the last two months and that they decided to ask Democrats to pledge a no vote because “ it became clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of groups who wanted to do something more aggressive.
” When the pledge failed , the coalition crumbled soon after .
“ Tactics like that don ’ t always succeed , and this one didn ’ t land as hoped , ” Padilla added .
“ With that said , we have a bill that includes more progressive priorities than when we started .
And we need to celebrate those gains while continuing to fight for more.
” On Tuesday afternoon , House Democratic leadership unveiled the new $ 3 trillion coronavirus relief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ next round of stimulus negotiations , and described it in the press as a messaging bill .
Divisions among progressives emerged immediately .
Jayapal confronted Pelosi about her paycheck guarantee bill being left out of the package in an “ intense ” call among Democrats on Tuesday , voicing concerns with the top-down approach to policymaking .
Politico reported that senior Democrats pointed out that “ she had no bill text , no budget score , and no Republicans behind it.
” Despite the bill ’ s failure to include Jayapal ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , signed by a sweeping number of progressive groups , noting that it wasn ’ t perfect , but praising it and urging its passage , pledging to “ mobilize their millions of members ” to pass the bill .
Leaders of the outside progressive groups thought that the CPC was planning to roll over — not an unreasonable assumption after years of watching it happen — but it was a miscalculation and miscommunication .
On Tuesday evening , CPC leaders sent out an official whip notice advising members to respond as “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the Democrats ’ relief bill , according to an internal email .
With the MoveOn statement at hand , House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was able to affirm to her caucus that she had won the support of progressive groups , and she quickly dismissed the CPC request to delay the vote .
She then rewrote the bill , introducing what ’ s known as a manager ’ s amendment , moving it to the right in key areas , including on relief for student debt .
Late Wednesday night , an aide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Omar , sent out a whip question to its more than 90 members , asking how they intend to vote on the rule for the HEROES Act , in addition to the vote on the final passage of the bill , and the proxy voting proposal .
( A vote against the rule would prevent the bill from coming to the floor . )
CPC members do have some leverage that they didn ’ t last time around : Most Republicans are expected to oppose HEROES , unlike with CARES , and Pelosi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time the whip question was sent out , House aides said , there was no real revolt brewing .
Most of the CPC ’ s major legislative priorities — including Jayapal ’ s pet project , a paycheck guarantee program — did not make it into the legislation .
Her paycheck guarantee proposal would “ cover 100 percent of wages for workers earning salaries up to $ 100,000 to ensure that employers keep workers paid and out of the unemployment line , ” according to a summary .
Progressives note that the paycheck @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public and throughout the caucus , even among centrists and more conservative Democrats in the Senate , like Doug Jones of Alabama and Mark Warner of Virginia .
The leadership criticism of Jayapal ’ s legislation that emerged in the press — particularly that it didn ’ t have legislative text yet — grated on its backers .
Democrats have been pretty open about the fact that the HEROES Act is a messaging bill , so the need for accurate legal language or Republican support seemed a convenient excuse .
And ironically , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill text from the Office of Legislative Council , which is responsible for producing legislative language , as the office faces a backlog due to the pandemic and typically prioritizes requests from leadership .
“ Progressives inside and outside of Congress have the power to help shape these bills moving forward but only if we find more ways to work together and have better coordination on strategy , ” said Max Berger , who helped organize the # PutPeopleFirst effort and was previously the director of progressive outreach for Sen. Elizabeth Warren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t understand the point of coming to the table and asking for half a loaf when you know that you ’ re going to have to negotiate from that with Republicans , ” Berger said .
“ And at some point you have to ask yourself if the reason that Pelosi doesn ’ t include more oversight of the bailouts or regular checks to working people is because she just doesn ’ t believe in those things , not because they ’ re politically unhelpful.
” The previous week , Pelosi had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worthy of consideration.
” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer offered similarly empty words at a pen and pad on Tuesday , telling reporters that he and Pelosi “ believe the Jayapal proposal has great merit to it ” and might be considered in future relief bills .
Hoyer pointed to a similar , less comprehensive proposal by Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri for a federal paycheck guarantee program too , which is also backed by fellow Republican Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado .
Leadership bumping progressive priorities down the road is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As much as we want to talk about these progressive priorities , you know , what prevents the same thing where members are consistently told and promised that their priority is going to be put into the next bill ?
” Ocasio-Cortez said .
“ And if it ’ s not going to be in this one , it ’ ll be in the next one , and the next one comes and it can ’ t be in this one , it ’ ll be in the next one.
” Mary Small @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explained it this way in an emailed statement : “ Republicans and Trump have put the country in a terrible place by refusing to advance policy solutions that match the scale of the crisis , so Indivisible and every responsible actor trying to save people ’ s lives have to deal with two things simultaneously : there are great things in the HEROES Act that we support enthusiastically and are ready to defend , and there are still gaps , and we ’ re ready to work with anyone , including the CPC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bill before or during the vote.
” Some progressives also questioned CPC ’ s decision to put all their capital into asking for Jayapal ’ s paycheck guarantee — instead of pushing for bigger monthly checks or dramatically expanding Medicare and Medicaid — when low-wage workers would get less under her bill than under the current , beefed up unemployment benefits .
On Thursday evening , the day before the scheduled vote , WFP , which had signed MoveOn ’ s statement urging passage of the bill , instead joined others in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Groups like Demand Progress and the American Economic Liberties Project , meanwhile , remained consistent in their opposition , urging lawmakers to vote against the HEROES Act because of its “ objectionable ” provisions that benefit the wealthiest Americans .
On Friday , Jayapal came out against the HEROES Act , but apparently lacked the votes to make that an official CPC position , and noted she had not been whipping Democrats against it .
In the end , 14 Democrats voted against the rule to consider the HEROES Act , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the CPC co-chairs and vice-chair , all four members of the Squad , and Reps. Chuy García and Katie Porter .
Independent Rep. Justin Amash also voted no .
With just four flipped “ no ” votes , the HEROES Act would have been blocked from coming to the floor , sending a strong message to the Democratic leadership .
“ While this legislation has some good elements , it ultimately fails to match the scale of this crisis , ” Jayapal said in a statement announcing her no vote .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can not wait .
We must choose differently .
”

For a moment last month, it looked like the broader left, both inside Congress and out of it, might be about to get its act together. Since the dawning of the pandemic, the national response to it had been written in a series of sweeping pieces of legislation with virtually no input from progressives, who had hardly organized themselves enough to even make coherent demands.
Instead of organizing as a bloc to make coordinated demands or threatening to withhold votes, the progressive approach has been to meet with leadership individually with legislative wish lists, with the hope that working behind the scenes will influence the legislation. “I think a lot of members are trying to squeeze in one-on-one conversations here or having their priority known there,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said in an interview with The Intercept last week.
That began to change when the Congressional Progressive Caucus had released, in late March, a list of “bold” legislative priorities for the next coronavirus rescue package. By April 9, they’d narrowed that down to key proposals, including a federal paycheck guarantee program, monthly payments of $2,000 to every household for the duration of the crisis, and a nationwide moratorium on evictions and foreclosures — provisions that would apply to everyone, regardless of immigration status.
Read Our Complete Coverage The Coronavirus Crisis
Outside progressive groups also roused from their slumber. Starting with the CPC letter, activists negotiated with the quartet of the Squad, the leadership of the CPC, and the leaders of an array of progressive groups to find four demands in common to rally around.
The resulting coalition included more mainstream progressive organizations like MoveOn and the Working Families Party, as well as those further to the left, such as Justice Democrats, along with some who straddle the different wings, like Indivisible. After endless pushing and pulling, they agreed to the same principles CPC had developed for their demands: keeping people on payrolls, providing economic relief, protecting public health by expanding health care, and safeguarding elections.
Despite the public display of unity, there was never agreement on a real strategy between those on the inside and those on the outside.
The coalition launched its push for influence on April 20 under the banner of #PutPeopleFirst, with CPC co-chairs Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., and Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., as well as all four members of the Squad, touting the campaign. The news conference was the first of its kind during the crisis.
Within days, it ran into trouble. On Friday evening, the House passed the HEROES Act by a vote of 208 to 199, without many of those priorities and with many of those progressive groups confused about what was going on inside Congress. Fourteen Democrats in the House voted no, with Jayapal the lone member of CPC to vote against the bill.
Despite the public display of unity, according to sources involved with #PutPeopleFirst, there was never agreement on a real strategy between those on the inside and those on the outside. On April 23, Indivisible, with a few other groups, asked Democrats to pledge a no vote on the next coronavirus package if it leaves out their priorities. The ultimatum bothered some lawmakers in the coalition, who believed they shouldn’t be put in the position of voting against desperately needed aid, and that a public pressure campaign should focus on getting a majority of the Democratic caucus on board with the CPC’s demands.
Ocasio-Cortez had also threatened a no vote on the interim package during the April 20 news conference, which angered and surprised some of her colleagues, who believed they should be winning “positive support” instead, according to people familiar with the matter.
Indivisible national policy director Angel Padilla noted that there have been multiple attempts to form coalition structures over the last two months and that they decided to ask Democrats to pledge a no vote because “it became clear to us that there were a lot of groups who wanted to do something more aggressive.”
When the pledge failed, the coalition crumbled soon after. “Tactics like that don’t always succeed, and this one didn’t land as hoped,” Padilla added. “With that said, we have a bill that includes more progressive priorities than when we started. And we need to celebrate those gains while continuing to fight for more.”
On Tuesday afternoon, House Democratic leadership unveiled the new $3 trillion coronavirus relief bill, its opening offer in this next round of stimulus negotiations, and described it in the press as a messaging bill. Divisions among progressives emerged immediately. Jayapal confronted Pelosi about her paycheck guarantee bill being left out of the package in an “intense” call among Democrats on Tuesday, voicing concerns with the top-down approach to policymaking. Politico reported that senior Democrats pointed out that “she had no bill text, no budget score, and no Republicans behind it.” Despite the bill’s failure to include Jayapal’s paycheck guarantee, MoveOn released a statement, signed by a sweeping number of progressive groups, noting that it wasn’t perfect, but praising it and urging its passage, pledging to “mobilize their millions of members” to pass the bill.
Leaders of the outside progressive groups thought that the CPC was planning to roll over — not an unreasonable assumption after years of watching it happen — but it was a miscalculation and miscommunication. On Tuesday evening, CPC leaders sent out an official whip notice advising members to respond as “undecided” to questions about their position on the Democrats’ relief bill, according to an internal email.
With the MoveOn statement at hand, Pelosi was able to affirm to her caucus that she had won the support of progressive groups.
With the MoveOn statement at hand, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was able to affirm to her caucus that she had won the support of progressive groups, and she quickly dismissed the CPC request to delay the vote. She then rewrote the bill, introducing what’s known as a manager’s amendment, moving it to the right in key areas, including on relief for student debt.
Late Wednesday night, an aide to the CPC whip, Rep. Ilhan Omar, sent out a whip question to its more than 90 members, asking how they intend to vote on the rule for the HEROES Act, in addition to the vote on the final passage of the bill, and the proxy voting proposal. (A vote against the rule would prevent the bill from coming to the floor.) CPC members do have some leverage that they didn’t last time around: Most Republicans are expected to oppose HEROES, unlike with CARES, and Pelosi will need progressive votes. At the time the whip question was sent out, House aides said, there was no real revolt brewing.
Most of the CPC’s major legislative priorities — including Jayapal’s pet project, a paycheck guarantee program — did not make it into the legislation. Her paycheck guarantee proposal would “cover 100 percent of wages for workers earning salaries up to $100,000 to ensure that employers keep workers paid and out of the unemployment line,” according to a summary. Progressives note that the paycheck guarantee program enjoys broad support from the public and throughout the caucus, even among centrists and more conservative Democrats in the Senate, like Doug Jones of Alabama and Mark Warner of Virginia.
The leadership criticism of Jayapal’s legislation that emerged in the press — particularly that it didn’t have legislative text yet — grated on its backers. Democrats have been pretty open about the fact that the HEROES Act is a messaging bill, so the need for accurate legal language or Republican support seemed a convenient excuse. And ironically, members have not been able to obtain bill text from the Office of Legislative Council, which is responsible for producing legislative language, as the office faces a backlog due to the pandemic and typically prioritizes requests from leadership.
“I don’t understand the point of coming to the table and asking for half a loaf when you know that you’re going to have to negotiate from that with Republicans.”
“Progressives inside and outside of Congress have the power to help shape these bills moving forward but only if we find more ways to work together and have better coordination on strategy,” said Max Berger, who helped organize the #PutPeopleFirst effort and was previously the director of progressive outreach for Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign.
“I don’t understand the point of coming to the table and asking for half a loaf when you know that you’re going to have to negotiate from that with Republicans,” Berger said. “And at some point you have to ask yourself if the reason that Pelosi doesn’t include more oversight of the bailouts or regular checks to working people is because she just doesn’t believe in those things, not because they’re politically unhelpful.”
The previous week, Pelosi had called Jayapal’s proposal “very worthy of consideration.” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer offered similarly empty words at a pen and pad on Tuesday, telling reporters that he and Pelosi “believe the Jayapal proposal has great merit to it” and might be considered in future relief bills. Hoyer pointed to a similar, less comprehensive proposal by Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri for a federal paycheck guarantee program too, which is also backed by fellow Republican Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado.
Share Your Coronavirus Story Click here to learn about contacting a reporter securely, or email us at coronavirus@theintercept.com
Leadership bumping progressive priorities down the road is a pattern Ocasio-Cortez had warned about. “As much as we want to talk about these progressive priorities, you know, what prevents the same thing where members are consistently told and promised that their priority is going to be put into the next bill?” Ocasio-Cortez said. “And if it’s not going to be in this one, it’ll be in the next one, and the next one comes and it can’t be in this one, it’ll be in the next one.”
Mary Small, Indivisible’s legislative director, explained it this way in an emailed statement: “Republicans and Trump have put the country in a terrible place by refusing to advance policy solutions that match the scale of the crisis, so Indivisible and every responsible actor trying to save people’s lives have to deal with two things simultaneously: there are great things in the HEROES Act that we support enthusiastically and are ready to defend, and there are still gaps, and we’re ready to work with anyone, including the CPC, who has a plan to strengthen the bill before or during the vote.”
Some progressives also questioned CPC’s decision to put all their capital into asking for Jayapal’s paycheck guarantee — instead of pushing for bigger monthly checks or dramatically expanding Medicare and Medicaid — when low-wage workers would get less under her bill than under the current, beefed up unemployment benefits.
On Thursday evening, the day before the scheduled vote, WFP, which had signed MoveOn’s statement urging passage of the bill, instead joined others in calling for Democrats to “press pause.”
Groups like Demand Progress and the American Economic Liberties Project, meanwhile, remained consistent in their opposition, urging lawmakers to vote against the HEROES Act because of its “objectionable” provisions that benefit the wealthiest Americans.
On Friday, Jayapal came out against the HEROES Act, but apparently lacked the votes to make that an official CPC position, and noted she had not been whipping Democrats against it. In the end, 14 Democrats voted against the rule to consider the HEROES Act, including a handful of moderates in swing districts, the CPC co-chairs and vice-chair, all four members of the Squad, and Reps. Chuy García and Katie Porter. Independent Rep. Justin Amash also voted no. With just four flipped “no” votes, the HEROES Act would have been blocked from coming to the floor, sending a strong message to the Democratic leadership. The bill came to the floor later Friday evening, but this time, Jayapal was the only progressive vote against.
“While this legislation has some good elements, it ultimately fails to match the scale of this crisis,” Jayapal said in a statement announcing her no vote. “This is urgent and the American people cannot wait. We must choose differently.”
Update: March 15, 2020, 10:10 p.m.
This story has been updated to reflect the passage of HEROES in the House and the final vote count.