theintercept--2020-03-11--Activists Who Disrupted Biden in Detroit Back Sanders, But Dread Trump Most of All

who disrupted Joe Biden ’ s rally in Detroit on Monday night — chanting “ Hey , hey !
Ho , ho !
Joe Biden has got to go !
” — struck terror in the hearts of some Democrats , who fear that supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders might abandon the party , and electoral politics , if he fails to win its presidential nomination , as seemed likely after Tuesday ’ s contests .
The nightmare for Biden supporters , who are terrified of handing Donald Trump any advantage , would be to see their candidate regularly protested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ managed , in 2016 , to shut down a Trump rally in Chicago .
But a spokesperson for one of the groups that took part in the anti-Biden protest , Sofie Karasek of the Sunrise Movement , told The Intercept that , despite “ the deep anger and frustration young people feel at Vice President Biden ’ s campaign , ” the climate activists are committed to defeating Donald Trump in November no matter who the Democrats nominate .
“ The establishment Vice President Biden has been a part of his entire career @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the climate crisis , and brought our society to the brink of climate catastrophe , which is why so many young people prefer the candidacy of Senator Sanders and his vision for a transformative Green New Deal , ” Karasek wrote in an email .
“ That said , the thing we dread most is four more years of Donald Trump , ” she added , so the activists “ will do everything we can to prevent that.
” The Sunrise Movement endorsed Sanders in January after he won the votes of 76 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warren came second in the ballot with 17.4 percent of the vote .
Biden won just 0.36 percent .
Biden ’ s climate plan — which would invest $ 1.7 trillion for the United States to become carbon neutral by 2050 — was good enough to earn a B+ from Greenpeace , but was scored an F by the Sunrise Movement .
The Sanders climate plan is far more ambitious , investing $ 16.3 trillion for a Green New Deal and aiming to reach net-zero emissions by 2030 .
That earned him an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s endorsement .
“ We know that no matter who the next President is , we will need to turn millions of people into the streets and disrupt business as usual in order to win a Green New Deal , ” the group wrote in its endorsement .
“ But our movement has spoken clearly .
We believe a Bernie Sanders Presidency would provide the best political terrain in which to engage in and ultimately win that struggle for the world we deserve.
” The disruption of Biden ’ s address to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rally — where he was endorsed by two former rivals , Sen. Kamala Harris and Sen. Cory Booker — began when a Sanders supporter in the crowd heckled him for having referred to Jesse Jackson as a “ boy ” in 1984 .
Biden — who points out that he also referred to Gary Hart the same way at the time — asked the heckler if he was “ with Trump.
” As the men with the banners were led away by the police , activists from the Sunrise Movement and other groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevented Biden from resuming his prepared remarks by chanting and waving signs in favor of the Green New Deal and against him .
D ’ atra Jackson , the national director of the Black Youth Project 100 , took part in the protest .
As they filed out of the rally , members of her group held up the movement ’ s “ No on Joe ” fliers , which they handed out in South Carolina last month , in an unsuccessful effort to drain the former vice president ’ s support among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a video clip shared by the Detroit DSA , Symone Sanders , a Biden aide who was press secretary for the Bernie Sanders campaign in 2016 , can be seen trying , and failing , to engage the black activists in dialogue .
“ Honestly I can ’ t believe we actually held a 3min Action at a Presidential Candidate event , ” Jackson tweeted later .
“ We chanted louder .
Disrupted his whole shit .
Made sure he lost momentum .
And left , safely .
It was 3 whole minutes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” On the eve of the Michigan primary , which Biden won handily on Tuesday , Sunrise Movement members took part in a viral TikTok meme , pleading “ Democrats !
Please don ’ t make me vote for Joe Biden !
”

The young activists who disrupted Joe Biden’s rally in Detroit on Monday night — chanting “Hey, hey! Ho, ho! Joe Biden has got to go!” — struck terror in the hearts of some Democrats, who fear that supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders might abandon the party, and electoral politics, if he fails to win its presidential nomination, as seemed likely after Tuesday’s contests.
Video from @danielmarans of @byp100 and @sunrisemvmt protesters chanting against Biden in Detroit on Monday pic.twitter.com/lZSBWoUcbm — Robert Mackey (@RobertMackey) March 11, 2020
The nightmare for Biden supporters, who are terrified of handing Donald Trump any advantage, would be to see their candidate regularly protested by young Sanders supporters, who even managed, in 2016, to shut down a Trump rally in Chicago.
But a spokesperson for one of the groups that took part in the anti-Biden protest, Sofie Karasek of the Sunrise Movement, told The Intercept that, despite “the deep anger and frustration young people feel at Vice President Biden’s campaign,” the climate activists are committed to defeating Donald Trump in November no matter who the Democrats nominate.
“The establishment Vice President Biden has been a part of his entire career has done almost nothing meaningful to combat the climate crisis, and brought our society to the brink of climate catastrophe, which is why so many young people prefer the candidacy of Senator Sanders and his vision for a transformative Green New Deal,” Karasek wrote in an email.
“That said, the thing we dread most is four more years of Donald Trump,” she added, so the activists “will do everything we can to prevent that.”
Last night we and @byp100 held Joe Biden accountable for his failure to embrace a bold climate agenda and for his history of supporting legislation that has hurt workers and vulnerable communities in the states of Michigan. We deserve better. pic.twitter.com/77CJW1NL4n — Sunrise Ann Arbor? (@sunriseannarbor) March 10, 2020
The Sunrise Movement endorsed Sanders in January after he won the votes of 76 percent of its members. Sen. Elizabeth Warren came second in the ballot with 17.4 percent of the vote. Biden won just 0.36 percent.
Biden’s climate plan — which would invest $1.7 trillion for the United States to become carbon neutral by 2050 — was good enough to earn a B+ from Greenpeace, but was scored an F by the Sunrise Movement.
______________
|
| ||||||||||/
| ____
| is the grade Biden
| ||||/ got on his climate
| platform.
|
|___
///// — Sunrise Movement ? (@sunrisemvmt) March 6, 2020
The Sanders climate plan is far more ambitious, investing $16.3 trillion for a Green New Deal and aiming to reach net-zero emissions by 2030. That earned him an A+ from Greenpeace and the Sunrise Movement’s endorsement. “We know that no matter who the next President is, we will need to turn millions of people into the streets and disrupt business as usual in order to win a Green New Deal,” the group wrote in its endorsement. “But our movement has spoken clearly. We believe a Bernie Sanders Presidency would provide the best political terrain in which to engage in and ultimately win that struggle for the world we deserve.”
The disruption of Biden’s address to what was supposed to be a unity rally — where he was endorsed by two former rivals, Sen. Kamala Harris and Sen. Cory Booker — began when a Sanders supporter in the crowd heckled him for having referred to Jesse Jackson as a “boy” in 1984. Biden — who points out that he also referred to Gary Hart the same way at the time — asked the heckler if he was “with Trump.”
Moments later, activists from the Democratic Socialists of America unfurled banners criticizing Biden’s support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA.
Today, organizers with Detroit DSA, @sunrisemvmt and @BYPDetroit held @JoeBiden to account in Detroit for his history of betraying workers and the planet. We deserve so much better than this man. #BidenBetrays #NoJoe pic.twitter.com/LgOHVNTaDI — Detroit DSA ? (@detroitdsa) March 10, 2020
As his supporters cheered to drown out the protesters, Biden appealed for calm. “It’s not a Trump rally,” he said. He then dismissed them with a term that rankles Sanders supporters. “The Bernie Bros are here,” Biden announced.
Protesters disrupt Biden rally in Detroit a short time ago. pic.twitter.com/ZVNBUnaCJr — Mid-Michigan NOW (@midmichigannow) March 10, 2020
As the men with the banners were led away by the police, activists from the Sunrise Movement and other groups, including Black Youth Project 100, prevented Biden from resuming his prepared remarks by chanting and waving signs in favor of the Green New Deal and against him.
D’atra Jackson, the national director of the Black Youth Project 100, took part in the protest.
Highlight of my night:
holding a Black baby girl while chanting, “Hey Hey Ho Ho Joe Biden has gotta Go!” — Abbott Elementary Alum (@MerQueenGangsta) March 10, 2020
As they filed out of the rally, members of her group held up the movement’s “No on Joe” fliers, which they handed out in South Carolina last month, in an unsuccessful effort to drain the former vice president’s support among black voters.
Video from @detroitdsa of Biden rally in Detroit on Monday disrupted by Sanders supporters from @sunrisemvmt and @byp100 chanting: "Hey, hey! Ho, ho! Joe Biden has got to go!" pic.twitter.com/elBQ4iILHZ — Robert Mackey (@RobertMackey) March 11, 2020
Near the end of a video clip shared by the Detroit DSA, Symone Sanders, a Biden aide who was press secretary for the Bernie Sanders campaign in 2016, can be seen trying, and failing, to engage the black activists in dialogue.
“Honestly I can’t believe we actually held a 3min Action at a Presidential Candidate event,” Jackson tweeted later. “We chanted louder. Disrupted his whole shit. Made sure he lost momentum. And left, safely. It was 3 whole minutes! That’s just unheard of.”
On the eve of the Michigan primary, which Biden won handily on Tuesday, Sunrise Movement members took part in a viral TikTok meme, pleading “Democrats! Please don’t make me vote for Joe Biden!”


theintercept--2020-03-11--“The Waters Parted for Joe Biden”

“The Waters Parted for Joe Biden”

the closing of a loop .
In March 1988 , a dramatic upset in Michigan by the Rev .
Jesse Jackson ’ s presidential campaign brought him into a tie with Michael Dukakis , panicking the Democratic establishment and opening a window to a different future for the party .
In March 2016 , Sanders delivered a stunning upset to Hillary Clinton in the Rust Belt state , momentarily resetting the primary .
Eight months later , Donald Trump did the same to Clinton in Michigan , sealing his Electoral College victory .
On Tuesday , Michigan dealt a crushing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign — despite an endorsement on Sunday from Jackson .
The Michigan Secretary of State ’ s office said it would not release official results until midday Wednesday due to a large number of absentee ballots , but several networks called the state for Biden not long after polls closed at 8 p.m. With half the votes counted , Biden sat on a comfortable 14-point lead .
The win for Biden comes after a swing toward the former vice president — what Nate Silver described as “ probably the fastest in the history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being the clear frontrunner on February 23 , the day after the Nevada caucuses , to a stalled candidate on March 1 , the day after South Carolina , to trailing on March 4 , the day after Super Tuesday .
Polls continued to slide away from Sanders over the next week , leading to his eventual loss in Michigan , Mississippi , and Missouri as early returns came in on Tuesday .
The autopsies will begin soon , even as the campaign struggles forward , with Florida , Arizona , Illinois , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week — where two critical House contests will pit insurgent primary challengers Morgan Harper in Columbus , Ohio , and Marie Newman in the suburbs of Chicago , Illinois , against Democratic incumbents .
Those autopsies will look closely at the decisions made in those days between Nevada and this Tuesday by Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren , who also competed in the progressive lane until dropping out after Super Tuesday .
The main question they ’ ll have to answer is why the Sanders campaign was unable to turn out the young @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beat the more moderate opponent , who dominated him among older white suburban voters as well as older black voters .
Biden launched his campaign on April 25 last year , and was immediately the top-polling candidate , starting with a 6-point lead , with Sanders in second place .
By mid-May , Biden had climbed above 40 percent , expanding that lead to 27 points as Sanders fell under 15 percent .
Biden , though , had hit his 2019 peak .
He stumbled repeatedly on the campaign trail and in debates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential opponents openly wondering if Biden was still cognitively up to the challenge of a campaign or the presidency .
He began a precipitous decline , hovering in the high 20s through the rest of the year , before collapsing outright in late January as the Iowa caucuses approached .
He finished fourth there , barely edging out Amy Klobuchar , a pummeling that was made merciful by the party ’ s botching of the vote-counting .
He then won fewer than 25,000 votes in New Hampshire , finishing a disastrous fifth .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vote , he finished second to Sanders , who became the frontrunner for the nomination .
Fewer than one in five Democratic primary voters believed Biden was the most electable candidate , and Sanders expanded his national lead , even overtaking Biden among black voters .
Two days after the Nevada Democratic caucuses , “ 60 Minutes ” aired an interview in which Sanders was pressed on praise he had offered to Fidel Castro for expanding literacy in Cuba , resulting in a dayslong news cycle on Sanders and Castro .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the most force in the week between Nevada and South Carolina .
What if Sanders had managed to persuade Warren to drop out after Nevada and endorse him ?
What if the pair hadn ’ t spent January at each other ’ s throats over a conversation during a private meeting in 2018 ?
Could Sanders have transitioned from insurgent to leader of the party ?
To reverse-engineer Biden ’ s victory and Sanders ’ s defeat , the question comes down to South Carolina .
What could Sanders have done to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden , which led to a 30-point loss there , which flipped the race upside down ?
Most obviously , he could have campaigned and invested there more .
He had spent Wednesday , Thursday , and part of Friday in South Carolina , but then moved to Massachusetts , hoping to topple Warren in her home state and knock her out of the race .
On the day voters went to the polls in South Carolina , Sanders rallied in Boston .
He could have spent more on advertising directly to black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself to the hopes and legacy of former President Barack Obama , rather than highlighting criminal justice reform — a pitch that many black voters understand as pandering .
And , perhaps most importantly , he could have attacked Biden ’ s record .
Biden ’ s collapse in January coincided with a sustained assault by Sanders ’ s staff , eventually joined by Sanders himself , on Biden ’ s abysmal record on Social Security .
Biden historically has not responded to political assaults well , and didn ’ t do so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fight he would have been better off avoiding .
He even lashed out at a CBS News reporter , shouting , “ Why why why why why ?
” in a way that made him look unhinged .
Sanders , instead , defended Biden as a friend , even going so far as to apologize for a surrogate ’ s critical column , declaring , “ It is absolutely not my view that Joe is corrupt in any way.
” After South Carolina , Biden ’ s camp upped the charm offensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg , who dropped out and endorsed Biden , along with former presidential candidate Beto O ’ Rourke .
Meanwhile , Sanders and Warren weren ’ t on speaking terms .
Neither Sanders nor Warren won Massachusetts , and the state instead went to Biden .
Warren dropped out of the race , but instead of endorsing Sanders , her first public interview was devoted to hitting Sanders for online vitriol among his supporters .
An overwhelming majority of her supporters appear to have moved toward Biden rather than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attacking Biden throughout most of the campaign is finishing it with a reputation for stirring up toxic negativity .
“ The waters parted for Joe Biden like no other candidate has ever seen , ” said CNN ’ s chief political analyst , Gloria Borger , describing the wild swing in his direction .
“ It ’ s almost as if he ’ s standing there saying , ‘ What ?
What ?
I ’ m here ?
’ Because he did everything wrong .
He lost a couple times , he came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not have happened , but it did happen to him .
”

It feels like the closing of a loop. In March 1988, a dramatic upset in Michigan by the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s presidential campaign brought him into a tie with Michael Dukakis, panicking the Democratic establishment and opening a window to a different future for the party. In March 2016, Sanders delivered a stunning upset to Hillary Clinton in the Rust Belt state, momentarily resetting the primary. Eight months later, Donald Trump did the same to Clinton in Michigan, sealing his Electoral College victory.
On Tuesday, Michigan dealt a crushing blow to Sanders’s second presidential campaign — despite an endorsement on Sunday from Jackson. The Michigan Secretary of State’s office said it would not release official results until midday Wednesday due to a large number of absentee ballots, but several networks called the state for Biden not long after polls closed at 8 p.m. With half the votes counted, Biden sat on a comfortable 14-point lead.
The win for Biden comes after a swing toward the former vice president — what Nate Silver described as “probably the fastest in the history of the primaries.” Sanders moved from being the clear frontrunner on February 23, the day after the Nevada caucuses, to a stalled candidate on March 1, the day after South Carolina, to trailing on March 4, the day after Super Tuesday. Polls continued to slide away from Sanders over the next week, leading to his eventual loss in Michigan, Mississippi, and Missouri as early returns came in on Tuesday.
The autopsies will begin soon, even as the campaign struggles forward, with Florida, Arizona, Illinois, and Ohio set to vote in a week — where two critical House contests will pit insurgent primary challengers Morgan Harper in Columbus, Ohio, and Marie Newman in the suburbs of Chicago, Illinois, against Democratic incumbents.
Those autopsies will look closely at the decisions made in those days between Nevada and this Tuesday by Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who also competed in the progressive lane until dropping out after Super Tuesday. The main question they’ll have to answer is why the Sanders campaign was unable to turn out the young, working class electorate he needed to beat the more moderate opponent, who dominated him among older white suburban voters as well as older black voters.
2016 vs. 2020: Share of Dem primary/caucus electorate under 30 IA 18% ('16) => 24% ('20)
NH 19% => 13%
NV 18% => 17%
SC 15% => 11%
AL 14% => 10%
MA 19% => 16%
NC 18% => 14%
TN 15% => 11%
TX 20% => 15%
VA 16% => 13%
VT 15% => 11% — Steve Kornacki (@SteveKornacki) March 10, 2020
Biden launched his campaign on April 25 last year, and was immediately the top-polling candidate, starting with a 6-point lead, with Sanders in second place. By mid-May, Biden had climbed above 40 percent, expanding that lead to 27 points as Sanders fell under 15 percent. Biden, though, had hit his 2019 peak. He stumbled repeatedly on the campaign trail and in debates, with mainstream media figures and his presidential opponents openly wondering if Biden was still cognitively up to the challenge of a campaign or the presidency. He began a precipitous decline, hovering in the high 20s through the rest of the year, before collapsing outright in late January as the Iowa caucuses approached. He finished fourth there, barely edging out Amy Klobuchar, a pummeling that was made merciful by the party’s botching of the vote-counting.
He then won fewer than 25,000 votes in New Hampshire, finishing a disastrous fifth. In Nevada, with 20 percent of the vote, he finished second to Sanders, who became the frontrunner for the nomination.
Fewer than one in five Democratic primary voters believed Biden was the most electable candidate, and Sanders expanded his national lead, even overtaking Biden among black voters.
Sanders was feeling good.
I've got news for the Republican establishment. I've got news for the Democratic establishment. They can't stop us. — Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) February 22, 2020
Two days after the Nevada Democratic caucuses, “60 Minutes” aired an interview in which Sanders was pressed on praise he had offered to Fidel Castro for expanding literacy in Cuba, resulting in a dayslong news cycle on Sanders and Castro. If there are what-ifs to ask, they have the most force in the week between Nevada and South Carolina. What if Sanders had managed to persuade Warren to drop out after Nevada and endorse him? What if the pair hadn’t spent January at each other’s throats over a conversation during a private meeting in 2018? Could Sanders have transitioned from insurgent to leader of the party?
To reverse-engineer Biden’s victory and Sanders’s defeat, the question comes down to South Carolina. What could Sanders have done to stave off a Jim Clyburn endorsement of Biden, which led to a 30-point loss there, which flipped the race upside down?
Could Sanders have transitioned from insurgent to leader of the party?
Most obviously, he could have campaigned and invested there more. He had spent Wednesday, Thursday, and part of Friday in South Carolina, but then moved to Massachusetts, hoping to topple Warren in her home state and knock her out of the race. On the day voters went to the polls in South Carolina, Sanders rallied in Boston. He could have spent more on advertising directly to black voters in South Carolina, and linked himself to the hopes and legacy of former President Barack Obama, rather than highlighting criminal justice reform — a pitch that many black voters understand as pandering.
And, perhaps most importantly, he could have attacked Biden’s record. Biden’s collapse in January coincided with a sustained assault by Sanders’s staff, eventually joined by Sanders himself, on Biden’s abysmal record on Social Security. Biden historically has not responded to political assaults well, and didn’t do so in January, repeatedly stepping back into a fight he would have been better off avoiding. He even lashed out at a CBS News reporter, shouting, “Why why why why why?” in a way that made him look unhinged. Sanders, instead, defended Biden as a friend, even going so far as to apologize for a surrogate’s critical column, declaring, “It is absolutely not my view that Joe is corrupt in any way.”
After South Carolina, Biden’s camp upped the charm offensive toward Klobuchar and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who dropped out and endorsed Biden, along with former presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke. Meanwhile, Sanders and Warren weren’t on speaking terms. Neither Sanders nor Warren won Massachusetts, and the state instead went to Biden.
Warren dropped out of the race, but instead of endorsing Sanders, her first public interview was devoted to hitting Sanders for online vitriol among his supporters. An overwhelming majority of her supporters appear to have moved toward Biden rather than Sanders. A candidate who had hesitated attacking Biden throughout most of the campaign is finishing it with a reputation for stirring up toxic negativity.
“The waters parted for Joe Biden like no other candidate has ever seen,” said CNN’s chief political analyst, Gloria Borger, describing the wild swing in his direction. “It’s almost as if he’s standing there saying, ‘What? What? I’m here?’ Because he did everything wrong. He lost a couple times, he came in second or third. This should not have happened, but it did happen to him.”


theintercept--2020-03-13--Big Pharma Prepares to Profit From the Coronavirus

As the new coronavirus spreads illness , death , and catastrophe around the world , virtually no economic sector has been spared from harm .
Yet amid the mayhem from the global pandemic , one industry is not only surviving , it is profiting handsomely .
“ Pharmaceutical companies view Covid-19 as a once-in-a-lifetime business opportunity , ” said Gerald Posner , author of “ Pharma : Greed , Lies , and the Poisoning of America.
” The world needs pharmaceutical products , of course .
For the new coronavirus outbreak , in particular , we need treatments and vaccines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Dozens of companies are now vying to make them .
“ They ’ re all in that race , ” said Posner , who described the potential payoffs for winning the race as huge .
The global crisis “ will potentially be a blockbuster for the industry in terms of sales and profits , ” he said , adding that “ the worse the pandemic gets , the higher their eventual profit.
” The ability to make money off of pharmaceuticals is already uniquely large in the U.S. , which lacks the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ giving drug companies more freedom over setting prices for their products than anywhere else in the world .
During the current crisis , pharmaceutical makers may have even more leeway than usual because of language industry lobbyists inserted into an $ 8.3 billion coronavirus spending package , passed last week , to maximize their profits from the pandemic .
Initially , some lawmakers had tried to ensure that the federal government would limit how much pharmaceutical companies could reap from vaccines and treatments for the new coronavirus that they developed with the use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rep. Jan Schakowsky , D-Ill. , and other House members wrote to Trump pleading that he “ ensure that any vaccine or treatment developed with U.S. taxpayer dollars be accessible , available and affordable , ” a goal they said couldn ’ t be met “ if pharmaceutical corporations are given authority to set prices and determine distribution , putting profit-making interests ahead of health priorities.
” When the coronavirus funding was being negotiated , Schakowsky tried again , writing to Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on March 2 that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to produce and market that vaccine were subsequently handed over to a pharmaceutical manufacturer through an exclusive license with no conditions on pricing or access , allowing the company to charge whatever it would like and essentially selling the vaccine back to the public who paid for its development.
” But many Republicans opposed adding language to the bill that would restrict the industry ’ s ability to profit , arguing that it would stifle research and innovation .
And although Azar , who served as the top lobbyist and head of U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before joining the Trump administration , assured Schakowsky that he shared her concerns , the bill went on to enshrine drug companies ’ ability to set potentially exorbitant prices for vaccines and drugs they develop with taxpayer dollars .
The final aid package not only omitted language that would have limited drug makers ’ intellectual property rights , it specifically prohibited the federal government from taking any action if it has concerns that the treatments or vaccines developed with public funds are priced too high .
“ Those lobbyists deserve a medal from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intellectual property provision , ” said Posner , who added that the language prohibiting the government from responding to price gouging was even worse .
“ To allow them to have this power during a pandemic is outrageous.
” The truth is that profiting off public investment is also business as usual for the pharmaceutical industry .
Since the 1930s , the National Institutes of Health has put some $ 900 billion into research that drug companies then used to patent brand-name medications , according to Posner ’ s calculations .
Every single @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Administration between 2010 and 2016 involved science funded with tax dollars through the NIH , according to the advocacy group Patients for Affordable Drugs .
Taxpayers spent more than $ 100 billion on that research .
Among the drugs that were developed with some public funding and went on to be huge earners for private companies are the HIV drug AZT and the cancer treatment Kymriah , which Novartis now sells for $ 475,000 .
In his book “ Pharma , ” Posner points to another example of private companies making exorbitant profits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The antiviral drug sofosbuvir , which is used to treat hepatitis C , stemmed from key research funded by the National Institutes of Health .
That drug is now owned by Gilead Sciences , which charges $ 1,000 per pill — more than many people with hepatitis C can afford ; Gilead earned $ 44 billion from the drug during its first three years on the market .
“ Wouldn ’ t it be great to have some of the profits from those drugs go back into public research at the NIH ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ profits have funded huge bonuses for drug company executives and aggressive marketing of drugs to consumers .
They have also been used to further boost the profitability of the pharmaceutical sector .
According to calculations by Axios , drug companies make 63 percent of total health care profits in the U.S. That ’ s in part because of the success of their lobbying efforts .
In 2019 , the pharmaceutical industry spent $ 295 million on lobbying , far more than any other sector in the U.S. That ’ s almost twice as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the electronics , manufacturing , and equipment sector — and well more than double what oil and gas companies spent on lobbying .
The industry also spends lavishly on campaign contributions to both Democratic and Republican lawmakers .
Throughout the Democratic primary , Joe Biden has led the pack among recipients of contributions from the health care and pharmaceutical industries .
Big Pharma ’ s spending has positioned the industry well for the current pandemic .
While stock markets have plummeted in reaction to the Trump administration ’ s bungling of the crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a vaccine and other products related to the new SARS-CoV-2 virus have largely been spared .
Stock prices for the biotech company Moderna , which began recruiting participants for a clinical trial of its new candidate for a coronavirus vaccine two weeks ago , have shot up during that time .
On Thursday , a day of general carnage in the stock markets , Eli Lilly ’ s stock also enjoyed a boost after the company announced that it , too , is joining the effort to come up with a therapy for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which is at work on a potential treatment as well , is also thriving .
Gilead ’ s stock price was already up since news that its antiviral drug remdesivir , which was created to treat Ebola , was being given to Covid-19 patients .
Today , after Wall Street Journal reported that the drug had a positive effect on a small number of infected cruise ship passengers , the price went up further .
Several companies , including Johnson & Johnson , DiaSorin Molecular , and QIAGEN have made it clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department of Health and Human Services for efforts related to the pandemic , but it is unclear whether Eli Lilly and Gilead Sciences are using government money for their work on the virus .
To date , HHS has not issued a list of grant recipients .
And according to Reuters , the Trump administration has told top health officials to treat their coronavirus discussions as classified and excluded staffers without security clearances from discussions about the virus .
Former top lobbyists of both Eli Lilly and Gilead now serve on the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as director of U.S. operations for Eli Lilly and lobbied for the company , while Joe Grogan , now serving as director of the Domestic Policy Council , was the top lobbyist for Gilead Sciences .

As the new coronavirus spreads illness, death, and catastrophe around the world, virtually no economic sector has been spared from harm. Yet amid the mayhem from the global pandemic, one industry is not only surviving, it is profiting handsomely.
“Pharmaceutical companies view Covid-19 as a once-in-a-lifetime business opportunity,” said Gerald Posner, author of “Pharma: Greed, Lies, and the Poisoning of America.” The world needs pharmaceutical products, of course. For the new coronavirus outbreak, in particular, we need treatments and vaccines and, in the U.S., tests. Dozens of companies are now vying to make them.
“They’re all in that race,” said Posner, who described the potential payoffs for winning the race as huge. The global crisis “will potentially be a blockbuster for the industry in terms of sales and profits,” he said, adding that “the worse the pandemic gets, the higher their eventual profit.”
The ability to make money off of pharmaceuticals is already uniquely large in the U.S., which lacks the basic price controls other countries have, giving drug companies more freedom over setting prices for their products than anywhere else in the world. During the current crisis, pharmaceutical makers may have even more leeway than usual because of language industry lobbyists inserted into an $8.3 billion coronavirus spending package, passed last week, to maximize their profits from the pandemic.
Initially, some lawmakers had tried to ensure that the federal government would limit how much pharmaceutical companies could reap from vaccines and treatments for the new coronavirus that they developed with the use of public funding. In February, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., and other House members wrote to Trump pleading that he “ensure that any vaccine or treatment developed with U.S. taxpayer dollars be accessible, available and affordable,” a goal they said couldn’t be met “if pharmaceutical corporations are given authority to set prices and determine distribution, putting profit-making interests ahead of health priorities.”
When the coronavirus funding was being negotiated, Schakowsky tried again, writing to Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on March 2 that it would be “unacceptable if the rights to produce and market that vaccine were subsequently handed over to a pharmaceutical manufacturer through an exclusive license with no conditions on pricing or access, allowing the company to charge whatever it would like and essentially selling the vaccine back to the public who paid for its development.”
But many Republicans opposed adding language to the bill that would restrict the industry’s ability to profit, arguing that it would stifle research and innovation. And although Azar, who served as the top lobbyist and head of U.S. operations for the pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly before joining the Trump administration, assured Schakowsky that he shared her concerns, the bill went on to enshrine drug companies’ ability to set potentially exorbitant prices for vaccines and drugs they develop with taxpayer dollars.
The final aid package not only omitted language that would have limited drug makers’ intellectual property rights, it also left out language that had been in an earlier draft that would have allowed the federal government to take any action if it has concerns that the treatments or vaccines developed with public funds are priced too high.
“Those lobbyists deserve a medal from their pharma clients because they killed that intellectual property provision,” said Posner, who added that the omission of language allowing the government to respond to price gouging was even worse. “To allow them to have this power during a pandemic is outrageous.”
The truth is that profiting off public investment is also business as usual for the pharmaceutical industry. Since the 1930s, the National Institutes of Health has put some $900 billion into research that drug companies then used to patent brand-name medications, according to Posner’s calculations. Every single drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration between 2010 and 2016 involved science funded with tax dollars through the NIH, according to the advocacy group Patients for Affordable Drugs. Taxpayers spent more than $100 billion on that research.
Among the drugs that were developed with some public funding and went on to be huge earners for private companies are the HIV drug AZT and the cancer treatment Kymriah, which Novartis now sells for $475,000.
In his book “Pharma,” Posner points to another example of private companies making exorbitant profits from drugs produced with public funding. The antiviral drug sofosbuvir, which is used to treat hepatitis C, stemmed from key research funded by the National Institutes of Health. That drug is now owned by Gilead Sciences, which charges $1,000 per pill — more than many people with hepatitis C can afford; Gilead earned $44 billion from the drug during its first three years on the market.
“Wouldn’t it be great to have some of the profits from those drugs go back into public research at the NIH?” asked Posner.
Instead, the profits have funded huge bonuses for drug company executives and aggressive marketing of drugs to consumers. They have also been used to further boost the profitability of the pharmaceutical sector. According to calculations by Axios, drug companies make 63 percent of total health care profits in the U.S. That’s in part because of the success of their lobbying efforts. In 2019, the pharmaceutical industry spent $295 million on lobbying, far more than any other sector in the U.S. That’s almost twice as much as the next biggest spender — the electronics, manufacturing, and equipment sector — and well more than double what oil and gas companies spent on lobbying. The industry also spends lavishly on campaign contributions to both Democratic and Republican lawmakers. Throughout the Democratic primary, Joe Biden has led the pack among recipients of contributions from the health care and pharmaceutical industries.
Big Pharma’s spending has positioned the industry well for the current pandemic. While stock markets have plummeted in reaction to the Trump administration’s bungling of the crisis, more than 20 companies working on a vaccine and other products related to the new SARS-CoV-2 virus have largely been spared. Stock prices for the biotech company Moderna, which began recruiting participants for a clinical trial of its new candidate for a coronavirus vaccine two weeks ago, have shot up during that time.
On Thursday, a day of general carnage in the stock markets, Eli Lilly’s stock also enjoyed a boost after the company announced that it, too, is joining the effort to come up with a therapy for the new coronavirus. And Gilead Sciences, which is at work on a potential treatment as well, is also thriving. Gilead’s stock price was already up since news that its antiviral drug remdesivir, which was created to treat Ebola, was being given to Covid-19 patients. Today, after Wall Street Journal reported that the drug had a positive effect on a small number of infected cruise ship passengers, the price went up further.
Several companies, including Johnson & Johnson, DiaSorin Molecular, and QIAGEN have made it clear that they are receiving funding from the Department of Health and Human Services for efforts related to the pandemic, but it is unclear whether Eli Lilly and Gilead Sciences are using government money for their work on the virus. To date, HHS has not issued a list of grant recipients. And according to Reuters, the Trump administration has told top health officials to treat their coronavirus discussions as classified and excluded staffers without security clearances from discussions about the virus.
Former top lobbyists of both Eli Lilly and Gilead now serve on the White House Coronavirus Task Force. Azar served as director of U.S. operations for Eli Lilly and lobbied for the company, while Joe Grogan, now serving as director of the Domestic Policy Council, was the top lobbyist for Gilead Sciences.


theintercept--2020-03-13--Trump FEC Nominee With Ties to Thomas Hofeller Bragged About Working on Unconstitutional Texas Gerry

Trump FEC Nominee With Ties to Thomas Hofeller Bragged About Working on Unconstitutional Texas Gerrymander — Then Denied It

Senate Democrats also pressed Trainor , a conservative lawyer who had worked for the Texas secretary of state , on his connections to Thomas Hofeller , a longtime strategist for the Republican National Committee and the architect of racial gerrymanders in states including Florida , Alabama , West Virginia , and Texas .
Many of those plans were found unconstitutional in recent years .
According to files obtained by The Intercept , Trainor also worked with Hofeller between 2011 and 2013 .
Trainor ’ s own resume says he was “ intimately involved ” in Texas ’ s 2003 redistricting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chuck Schumer of New York and Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto , D-Nev. , made during Tuesday ’ s hearing .
Trainor faced criticisms that he was not being forthright about his role as chief of staff to a Texas legislator who co-authored the redistricting bill and worked to push it through .
On Tuesday , the Senate held a confirmation hearing for President Donald Trump ’ s nominee to the Federal Election Commission , James “ Trey ” Trainor .
During the hearing , Trainor denied his role in a 2003 gerrymandering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always been forthcoming about his work with state officials on redistricting cases .
In a 2013 affidavit submitted during a Florida case against the state ’ s 2012 redistricting plan , Hofeller failed to disclose his involvement with individuals working on the redistricting .
The court ruled that GOP consultants ’ documents could be considered in other trials related to the redistricting .
Hofeller , the gerrymandering mastermind , died in 2018 .
A review of thousands of files found on his hard drive showed how Republican mapmakers “ experimented with using race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in these states , ” a strategy that is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment .
In January , Stephanie Hofeller , his daughter , released files saved on his hard drives publicly onto a website called “ The Hofeller Files , ” despite Republican state lawmakers ’ efforts to keep some of those documents from becoming public .
“ I appreciate your testimony here today , ” Cortez Masto said , after pointing out inconsistencies between Trainor ’ s public record and his remarks in the hearings .
“ I do think it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here.
” She suggested that she would oppose his nomination to the FEC .
Cortez Masto , for her part , dove deep into links between Trainor ’ s redistricting work for legislators and the Texas secretary of state ’ s office , where he defended redistricting maps against lawsuits .
The Supreme Court struck down part of Texas ’ s 2003 plan , which Trainor ’ s resume indicates he worked on , in 2006 .
At first , Trainor denied the extent of his role in that work .
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 47 historical FEC nominees have been confirmed by the Senate through a bipartisan process , Sen. Amy Klobuchar , D-Minn. , said Tuesday .
“ Abandoning bipartisan norms and pushing forward a controversial nominee is not the way to do it , ” Klobuchar said , suggesting that a Democratic nominee should be considered simultaneously .
Schumer said the FEC nomination was crucial given the upcoming November presidential election , adding that Trainor ’ s record raises “ significant questions about his fitness to carry out the commission ’ s anti-corruption mandate.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ long career as a conservative political operative , ” Schumer said at Tuesday ’ s hearing .
“ He has worked closely with Thomas Hofeller , notorious for masterminding Republican gerrymandering schemes , to redraw maps that significantly disenfranchise minority voters at the local level .
Mr. Trainor ’ s former law firm described him as being ‘ intimately involved ’ in Texas ’ s 2003 redistricting , which the Supreme Court deemed in violation of the Voting Rights Act .
Mr. Trainor has argued the Voting Rights Act has become a political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Terry P. Lewis in 2014 invalidated the state ’ s congressional redistricting plan , writing that the map selection process “ provided the means by which partisan maps , secretly drawn and submitted by political operatives , could be incorporated into the enacted map with no one in the general public the wiser.
” In other states , links between Hofeller and state officials have come to light in court cases where his redistricting work was challenged .
Senate Rules Committee Chair Roy Blunt , R-Mo.
, asked Trainor if he had worked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and if courts had struck down any maps he ’ d defended .
Trainor said he ’ d worked on three Texas redistricting cases as legal counsel for the Texas secretary of state and that none of the maps he worked on were struck down .
“ I had a client that I represented their interest in , ” Trainor said .
“ And I hope that we would not impute to the lawyer the acts of the client .
But , in all three cases , the courts have upheld the maps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on years later with Hofeller , however , were rejected before they even took effect .
According to files obtained by The Intercept , Trainor worked closely with Hofeller and his partner , Dale Oldham , in the 2011 redistricting of Texas ’ s Nueces County .
At the time , Trainor was an attorney at Beirne , Maynard & Parsons , and Hofeller sent him an invoice for work on the county ’ s redistricting .
Texas ’ s 2011 redistricting maps , including the redrawn Nueces County , were later found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Intercept reported , and reworked maps were the subject of Abbott v. Perez , a Supreme Court case dealing with Texas ’ s redistricting following the 2010 Census .
In 2013 , while still at Beirne , Maynard & Parsons , Trainor also defended Galveston County and Judge Mark Henry in a case challenging the 2011 districts .
According to the files , Hofeller drew several of the county ’ s Justice of the Peace precincts while working for Galveston County legal counsel .
Although the 2011 maps weren ’ t officially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were drawn with intentional racial discrimination .
the Nevada Democrat , had the toughest questions for Trainor , asking him to explain discrepancies between his testimony — that he was not involved as a lawyer in redistricting — and an online resume for the law firm he works at , which boasts of Trainor ’ s role in the redistricting .
Cortez Masto began by raising a 2003 Texas redistricting map that the Supreme Court had ruled violated the Voting Rights Act .
“ My understanding is that you were involved in that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ You coordinated the maps and legal aspects of passage , and Department of Justice preclearance of HB3 ” — a 2003 redistricting bill in the Texas legislature .
“ Is that correct ?
” Trainor responded that it was not correct , explaining that he was a staffer at the time for Texas state Rep. Phil King — the author of the redistricting bill — and not a lawyer , since he was not yet licensed to give legal advice .
Cortez Masto — who would later clarify that not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was King ’ s chief of staff — pressed Trainor on his role in the process .
According to his LinkedIn profile , Trainor was King ’ s chief for more than six years , from December 1998 to July 2005 .
“ Obviously , I worked closely with him to help bring in individuals that he needed advice from to work on the effort , ” Trainor said .
“ I helped to coordinate those type of meetings for him , just like — just like your staff I ’ m sure.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislative districts adopted for the 2002 elections ?
” Cortez Masto said .
“ So I guess I ’ m confused then , ” Cortez Masto said .
She then began to read from his resume , posted online by his former law firm .
“ It says that ‘ Trainor has been intimately involved in Texas redistricting , helping to design the Texas house legislative districts adopted for the 2002 elections .
During the third-called special session of 2003 , he coordinated the maps and legal aspects of passage and Department of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ congressional maps adopted for the 2004 election.
’ ” Then Cortez Masto asked another question : “ So is that statement as part of your resume , which is online for the firm that you worked for , inaccurate ?
” Trainor blamed the text of his online resume on “ some marketing licensed by marketing individuals at the firm.
” He went on , “ I did do coordinating efforts for the individuals who worked on the map .
I spent time working with them , making sure that they had everything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he traveled with King to the Department of Justice for the preclearance meeting .
Cortez Masto parried the denials .
“ First of all , you ’ re chief of staff .
We all have a chief of staff , we know what our chief of staff does , ” she said , gesturing to her colleagues .
“ And for you to come back and say that what was on your resume was inaccurate and that you were not intimately involved , has concerns for me as somebody that I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ”

On Tuesday, the Senate held a confirmation hearing for President Donald Trump’s nominee to the Federal Election Commission, James “Trey” Trainor. During the hearing, Trainor denied his role in a 2003 gerrymandering effort in Texas.
Trainor’s own resume says he was “intimately involved” in Texas’s 2003 redistricting, a point that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York and Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., made during Tuesday’s hearing. Trainor faced criticisms that he was not being forthright about his role as chief of staff to a Texas legislator who co-authored the redistricting bill and worked to push it through.
Senate Democrats also pressed Trainor, a conservative lawyer who had worked for the Texas secretary of state, on his connections to Thomas Hofeller, a longtime strategist for the Republican National Committee and the architect of racial gerrymanders in states including Florida, Alabama, West Virginia, and Texas. Many of those plans were found unconstitutional in recent years. According to files obtained by The Intercept, Trainor also worked with Hofeller between 2011 and 2013.
“Mr. Trainor has a long career as a conservative political operative,” Schumer said at Tuesday’s hearing. “He has worked closely with Thomas Hofeller, notorious for masterminding Republican gerrymandering schemes, to redraw maps that significantly disenfranchise minority voters at the local level. Mr. Trainor’s former law firm described him as being ‘intimately involved’ in Texas’s 2003 redistricting, which the Supreme Court deemed in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Mr. Trainor has argued the Voting Rights Act has become a political tool.”
Schumer said the FEC nomination was crucial given the upcoming November presidential election, adding that Trainor’s record raises “significant questions about his fitness to carry out the commission’s anti-corruption mandate.”
According to the Congressional Research Service, 42 of the 47 historical FEC nominees have been confirmed by the Senate through a bipartisan process, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said Tuesday. “Abandoning bipartisan norms and pushing forward a controversial nominee is not the way to do it,” Klobuchar said, suggesting that a Democratic nominee should be considered simultaneously.
Cortez Masto, for her part, dove deep into links between Trainor’s redistricting work for legislators and the Texas secretary of state’s office, where he defended redistricting maps against lawsuits. The Supreme Court struck down part of Texas’s 2003 plan, which Trainor’s resume indicates he worked on, in 2006. At first, Trainor denied the extent of his role in that work.
“I appreciate your testimony here today,” Cortez Masto said, after pointing out inconsistencies between Trainor’s public record and his remarks in the hearings. “I do think it is doing a disservice to the truth here.” She suggested that she would oppose his nomination to the FEC.
Hofeller, the gerrymandering mastermind, died in 2018. A review of thousands of files found on his hard drive showed how Republican mapmakers “experimented with using race as the primary factor in drawing districts in these states,” a strategy that is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. In January, Stephanie Hofeller, his daughter, released files saved on his hard drives publicly onto a website called “The Hofeller Files,” despite Republican state lawmakers’ efforts to keep some of those documents from becoming public.
During Tuesday’s hearing, Trainor praised Hofeller in response to Democrats’ questions. “God rest his soul,” Trainor said. “He is a well-recognized expert in the field.”
Hofeller has not always been forthcoming about his work with state officials on redistricting cases. In a 2013 affidavit submitted during a Florida case against the state’s 2012 redistricting plan, Hofeller failed to disclose his involvement with individuals working on the redistricting. The court ruled that GOP consultants’ documents could be considered in other trials related to the redistricting.
Trainor praised Hofeller in response to Democrats’ questions. “God rest his soul,” Trainor said. “He is a well-recognized expert in the field.”
Eventually, Florida Circuit Judge Terry P. Lewis in 2014 invalidated the state’s congressional redistricting plan, writing that the map selection process “provided the means by which partisan maps, secretly drawn and submitted by political operatives, could be incorporated into the enacted map with no one in the general public the wiser.” In other states, links between Hofeller and state officials have come to light in court cases where his redistricting work was challenged.
Senate Rules Committee Chair Roy Blunt, R-Mo., asked Trainor if he had worked on or defended any redistricting maps, and if courts had struck down any maps he’d defended. Trainor said he’d worked on three Texas redistricting cases as legal counsel for the Texas secretary of state and that none of the maps he worked on were struck down. “I had a client that I represented their interest in,” Trainor said. “And I hope that we would not impute to the lawyer the acts of the client. But, in all three cases, the courts have upheld the maps I worked on.”
Maps he worked on years later with Hofeller, however, were rejected before they even took effect. According to files obtained by The Intercept, Trainor worked closely with Hofeller and his partner, Dale Oldham, in the 2011 redistricting of Texas’s Nueces County. At the time, Trainor was an attorney at Beirne, Maynard & Parsons, and Hofeller sent him an invoice for work on the county’s redistricting. Texas’s 2011 redistricting maps, including the redrawn Nueces County, were later found to be drawn with discriminatory intent, The Intercept reported, and reworked maps were the subject of Abbott v. Perez, a Supreme Court case dealing with Texas’s redistricting following the 2010 Census.
In 2013, while still at Beirne, Maynard & Parsons, Trainor also defended Galveston County and Judge Mark Henry in a case challenging the 2011 districts. According to the files, Hofeller drew several of the county’s Justice of the Peace precincts while working for Galveston County legal counsel. Although the 2011 maps weren’t officially used, courts eventually found that they were drawn with intentional racial discrimination.
Cortez Masto, the Nevada Democrat, had the toughest questions for Trainor, asking him to explain discrepancies between his testimony — that he was not involved as a lawyer in redistricting — and an online resume for the law firm he works at, which boasts of Trainor’s role in the redistricting.
Cortez Masto began by raising a 2003 Texas redistricting map that the Supreme Court had ruled violated the Voting Rights Act. “My understanding is that you were involved in that plan in 2003,’ she said. “You coordinated the maps and legal aspects of passage, and Department of Justice preclearance of HB3” — a 2003 redistricting bill in the Texas legislature. “Is that correct?”
Trainor responded that it was not correct, explaining that he was a staffer at the time for Texas state Rep. Phil King — the author of the redistricting bill — and not a lawyer, since he was not yet licensed to give legal advice. Cortez Masto — who would later clarify that not only was Trainor a staffer, but he was King’s chief of staff — pressed Trainor on his role in the process. According to his LinkedIn profile, Trainor was King’s chief for more than six years, from December 1998 to July 2005.
“Obviously, I worked closely with him to help bring in individuals that he needed advice from to work on the effort,” Trainor said. “I helped to coordinate those type of meetings for him, just like — just like your staff I’m sure.”
“Did you help design the legislative districts adopted for the 2002 elections?” Cortez Masto said.
“No,” Trainor said.
“You did not?”
“No.”
“So I guess I’m confused then,” Cortez Masto said. She then began to read from his resume, posted online by his former law firm. “It says that ‘Trainor has been intimately involved in Texas redistricting, helping to design the Texas house legislative districts adopted for the 2002 elections. During the third-called special session of 2003, he coordinated the maps and legal aspects of passage and Department of Justice preclearance of HB3, the new congressional maps adopted for the 2004 election.’” Then Cortez Masto asked another question: “So is that statement as part of your resume, which is online for the firm that you worked for, inaccurate?”
Trainor blamed the text of his online resume on “some marketing licensed by marketing individuals at the firm.” He went on, “I did do coordinating efforts for the individuals who worked on the map. I spent time working with them, making sure that they had everything that they needed.” He added that he traveled with King to the Department of Justice for the preclearance meeting.
Cortez Masto parried the denials. “First of all, you’re chief of staff. We all have a chief of staff, we know what our chief of staff does,” she said, gesturing to her colleagues. “And for you to come back and say that what was on your resume was inaccurate and that you were not intimately involved, has concerns for me as somebody that I’m looking to appoint to the FEC.”