theintercept--2020-04-22--Progressive Groups Are Outraged With “Pathetic” Coronavirus Deal. Congressional Democrat

Progressive Groups Are Outraged With “Pathetic” Coronavirus Deal. Congressional Democrats Are Doing Little to Improve It.

outraged with the nearly $ 500 billion interim coronavirus rescue package the Senate passed on Tuesday , urging House Democrats to oppose the “ pathetic ” deal they say doesn ’ t come close to providing the relief vulnerable people need while giving away all Democratic leverage for future legislation .
The “ Phase 3.5 ” bill , which is expected to sail through the House this week , left out almost everything Democratic leaders were advocating for .
There ’ s no additional funding for state and local governments , no expanded food stamp benefits , no hazard pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the U.S .
Postal Service , which have all been basic Democratic priorities .
The lack of progressive opposition in Congress has been especially noteworthy , after members of the Progressive Caucus promised to help make future legislation more comprehensive following the hastily passed Phase 3 bill .
While some progressive advocates argue that Democrats didn ’ t have much leverage on the package to begin with , others note that Democrats control the House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi could have led the party to pass its own bill .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provisions , this bill gives away all Democratic leverage , ” Ezra Levin , co-executive director of Indivisible , said in an emailed statement .
“ We fought so hard to win back the House in 2018 — to make sure that we had a voice in negotiations like this .
So far we ’ ve heard silence from the House .
This bill may be our last chance to get the things we need .
[ Republican Senate Majority Leader ] Mitch McConnell has already said he doesn ’ t want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he does , it won ’ t be for weeks.
” Progressive groups , including the Center for Popular Democracy , Social Security Works , Sunrise , Demand Progress , and People ’ s Action have also come out against the interim package .
Some of the organizations , to varying degrees , are asking House Democrats to vote against it .
With discussions for a potential Phase 4 package heating up now , the advocacy groups are planning a public pressure campaign to get members and Pelosi on board with policy priorities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Meanwhile , Republicans are escalating attacks on Pelosi , blaming her and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , D-N.Y. , for holding up the Phase 3.5 bill and keeping money away from small businesses .
President Donald Trump ’ s reelection campaign released a digital ad targeting Pelosi for showcasing her expensive refrigerator full of fancy ice cream while people around the country are suffering the consequences of the pandemic .
It ’ s possible that Pelosi has been letting the Senate run the show out of fear of being labeled an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats in competitive seats .
, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , D-N.Y. , is the only Democrat in Congress to come out against the interim package , arguing that progressives shouldn ’ t “ bow to the logic that a crumb is better than nothing.
” Ocasio-Cortez is also the only House Democrat known to oppose the previous multitrillion-dollar coronavirus bailout , which passed the chamber on an unrecorded voice vote after just three hours of debate .
The freshman lawmaker ’ s district , which covers some of the most diverse neighborhoods in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the coronavirus outbreak , fueling her rejection of incrementalism .
“ It is insulting to think we can pass such a small amount of money in the context of not knowing when Congress is even going to reconvene , pat ourselves on the back , and then leave town again , ” she said .
Ocasio-Cortez , without criticizing leadership directly , expressed frustration with letting the Senate set the agenda during an Instagram livestream Tuesday night .
She pointed to previous “ messaging bills ” the House had passed — like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — as an example of the “ first thing ” the chamber should have done in response to the pandemic , adding that there ’ s plenty of bold , existing legislation that could have been put to a vote .
For example , Reps. Rashida Tlaib , D-Mich. , and Pramila Jayapal , D-Wash. , introduced the Automatic BOOST to Communities ( ABC ) Act earlier this month to immediately provide recurring cash payments , funded directly from the Treasury by minting two $ 1 trillion coins .
And Rep. Ilhan Omar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cancel rent and mortgage payments during the pandemic .
“ Instead of playing small ball , Congress should immediately pass Rep. Omar ’ s bill to cancel rent and mortgage payments for the duration of the crisis ; Rep. Jayapal ’ s bill to provide emergency health care coverage during the pandemic ; and Reps. Jayapal ’ s and Tlaib ’ s bill to provide $ 2,000 cash assistance to every person , every month , for the duration of the crisis , ” People ’ s Action Director George Goehl said .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ funds for an emergency small business lending program , also includes an additional $ 75 billion for hospitals and $ 25 billion for coronavirus testing — two necessities that have been framed as GOP concessions .
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said the legislation is everything they were expecting .
“ When you look at the package that is going to be passed , it ’ s almost exactly like the one we asked for two weeks ago , or 12 days ago , ” he told reporters on Tuesday .
Progressive Caucus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the next coronavirus response package , including a vote-by-mail requirement for 2020 federal elections , expanded health coverage for all during the pandemic , increased financial relief , and a national moratorium on evictions and foreclosures .
CPC members — with allied progressive groups like MoveOn , United We Dream , and Community Change Action , among others — have been pushing these demands under the banner # PutPeopleFirst .
New polling from Data for Progress found that their four policy planks receive broad bipartisan support .
In a virtual press conference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rep. Mark Pocan , D-Wisc.
, as well as all four members of “ the Squad , ” lawmakers voiced concerns with the interim package and tried to set the stage for their CARES-2 policy demands .
“ We have real concerns about giving away leverage now without getting some of the priorities that we need , ” Jayapal said on Monday .
“ It ’ s going to be very difficult to support a package that doesn ’ t have some of the desperate relief we need for state and local governments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , CPC leaders have not vocally opposed the Phase 3.5 legislation or presented an alternative , believing that their role is to influence the end result of the package .
Yet their demands , like vote-by-mail and extending relief to undocumented immigrants , haven ’ t been seriously considered .
When asked whether the Progressive Caucus would attempt to block the bill , Jayapal replied , “ What you are hearing is the level of concern with what has been proposed.
” Though it ’ s true that Democratic leadership often locks out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of leverage is a problem of its own making , critics say .
One House Democratic aide , who requested anonymity for fear of reprisal , argued that progressives like Jayapal and Pocan help set narratives but need to “ step up ” and organize as a bloc if there ’ s a Phase 4 .
The aide said it would mirror “ a successful tactic we ’ ve seen from the Freedom Caucus time and time again , ” referring to an influential right-wing bloc of Republicans in the House .
Kaniela @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Action ’ s Climate Justice Campaign , has also been frustrated with the “ missed opportunities.
” Then again , he added , a lot of their grassroots members have been focusing on mutual aid .
“ We ’ re busy just trying to find money and give it to people in our community who are dying and going homeless and have been without jobs for almost a month now , ” Ing said .
“ Even the Congressional Progressive Caucus , our members on the Hill , like do they really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Even if we were to move them , if we ’ re not moving like Pelosi and Schumer — and the Republicans are maybe harder to reach — but if we ’ re not moving them what ’ s the point ?
A lot of people are feeling that jadedness .
So they ’ re focusing on fights they know they can win , local- and state-level fights , and mutual aid .
”

Progressive groups are outraged with the nearly $500 billion interim coronavirus rescue package the Senate passed on Tuesday, urging House Democrats to oppose the “pathetic” deal they say doesn’t come close to providing the relief vulnerable people need while giving away all Democratic leverage for future legislation.
The “Phase 3.5” bill, which is expected to sail through the House this week, left out almost everything Democratic leaders were advocating for. There’s no additional funding for state and local governments, no expanded food stamp benefits, no hazard pay for front-line workers, and no money for the U.S. Postal Service, which have all been basic Democratic priorities. The lack of progressive opposition in Congress has been especially noteworthy, after members of the Progressive Caucus promised to help make future legislation more comprehensive following the hastily passed Phase 3 bill.
“Just as importantly as the inadequate policy provisions, this bill gives away all Democratic leverage.”
While some progressive advocates argue that Democrats didn’t have much leverage on the package to begin with, others note that Democrats control the House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi could have led the party to pass its own bill.
“Just as importantly as the inadequate policy provisions, this bill gives away all Democratic leverage,” Ezra Levin, co-executive director of Indivisible, said in an emailed statement. “We fought so hard to win back the House in 2018 — to make sure that we had a voice in negotiations like this. So far we’ve heard silence from the House. This bill may be our last chance to get the things we need. [Republican Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell has already said he doesn’t want to push through another bill, and if he does, it won’t be for weeks.”
Progressive groups, including the Center for Popular Democracy, Social Security Works, Sunrise, Demand Progress, and People’s Action have also come out against the interim package. Some of the organizations, to varying degrees, are asking House Democrats to vote against it.
With discussions for a potential Phase 4 package heating up now, the advocacy groups are planning a public pressure campaign to get members and Pelosi on board with policy priorities that address the scope of the crisis.
Meanwhile, Republicans are escalating attacks on Pelosi, blaming her and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., for holding up the Phase 3.5 bill and keeping money away from small businesses. President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign released a digital ad targeting Pelosi for showcasing her expensive refrigerator full of fancy ice cream while people around the country are suffering the consequences of the pandemic. It’s possible that Pelosi has been letting the Senate run the show out of fear of being labeled an obstructionist or jeopardizing the reelection of moderate Democrats in competitive seats.
So far , Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., is the only Democrat in Congress to come out against the interim package, arguing that progressives shouldn’t “bow to the logic that a crumb is better than nothing.” Ocasio-Cortez is also the only House Democrat known to oppose the previous multitrillion-dollar coronavirus bailout, which passed the chamber on an unrecorded voice vote after just three hours of debate.
The freshman lawmaker’s district, which covers some of the most diverse neighborhoods in the country, has been especially devastated by the coronavirus outbreak, fueling her rejection of incrementalism. “It is insulting to think we can pass such a small amount of money in the context of not knowing when Congress is even going to reconvene, pat ourselves on the back, and then leave town again,” she said.
Ocasio-Cortez, without criticizing leadership directly, expressed frustration with letting the Senate set the agenda during an Instagram livestream Tuesday night. She pointed to previous “messaging bills” the House had passed — like last year’s gun control legislation — as an example of the “first thing” the chamber should have done in response to the pandemic, adding that there’s plenty of bold, existing legislation that could have been put to a vote.
For example, Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., introduced the Automatic BOOST to Communities (ABC) Act earlier this month to immediately provide recurring cash payments, funded directly from the Treasury by minting two $1 trillion coins. And Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., introduced a bill to cancel rent and mortgage payments during the pandemic.
“Instead of playing small ball, Congress should immediately pass Rep. Omar’s bill to cancel rent and mortgage payments for the duration of the crisis; Rep. Jayapal’s bill to provide emergency health care coverage during the pandemic; and Reps. Jayapal’s and Tlaib’s bill to provide $2,000 cash assistance to every person, every month, for the duration of the crisis,” People’s Action Director George Goehl said.
The interim package, which would replenish funds for an emergency small business lending program, also includes an additional $75 billion for hospitals and $25 billion for coronavirus testing — two necessities that have been framed as GOP concessions. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said the legislation is everything they were expecting. “When you look at the package that is going to be passed, it’s almost exactly like the one we asked for two weeks ago, or 12 days ago,” he told reporters on Tuesday.
The Congressional Progressive Caucus released its own list of legislative priorities for the next coronavirus response package, including a vote-by-mail requirement for 2020 federal elections, expanded health coverage for all during the pandemic, increased financial relief, and a national moratorium on evictions and foreclosures. CPC members — with allied progressive groups like MoveOn, United We Dream, and Community Change Action, among others — have been pushing these demands under the banner #PutPeopleFirst. New polling from Data for Progress found that their four policy planks receive broad bipartisan support.
Share Your Coronavirus Story Click here to learn about contacting a reporter securely, or email us at coronavirus@theintercept.com
In a virtual press conference that featured Progressive Caucus co-chairs Jayapal and Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wisc., as well as all four members of “the Squad,” lawmakers voiced concerns with the interim package and tried to set the stage for their CARES-2 policy demands. “We have real concerns about giving away leverage now without getting some of the priorities that we need,” Jayapal said on Monday. “It’s going to be very difficult to support a package that doesn’t have some of the desperate relief we need for state and local governments, for people.”
Despite their rhetoric, CPC leaders have not vocally opposed the Phase 3.5 legislation or presented an alternative, believing that their role is to influence the end result of the package. Yet their demands, like vote-by-mail and extending relief to undocumented immigrants, haven’t been seriously considered. When asked whether the Progressive Caucus would attempt to block the bill, Jayapal replied, “What you are hearing is the level of concern with what has been proposed.”
Though it’s true that Democratic leadership often locks out progressives, the CPC’s lack of leverage is a problem of its own making, critics say. One House Democratic aide, who requested anonymity for fear of reprisal, argued that progressives like Jayapal and Pocan help set narratives but need to “step up” and organize as a bloc if there’s a Phase 4. The aide said it would mirror “a successful tactic we’ve seen from the Freedom Caucus time and time again,” referring to an influential right-wing bloc of Republicans in the House.
Kaniela Ing, the director of People’s Action’s Climate Justice Campaign, has also been frustrated with the “missed opportunities.” Then again, he added, a lot of their grassroots members have been focusing on mutual aid. “We’re busy just trying to find money and give it to people in our community who are dying and going homeless and have been without jobs for almost a month now,” Ing said.
“Even the Congressional Progressive Caucus, our members on the Hill, like do they really have power?” Ing said. “Even if we were to move them, if we’re not moving like Pelosi and Schumer — and the Republicans are maybe harder to reach — but if we’re not moving them what’s the point? A lot of people are feeling that jadedness. So they’re focusing on fights they know they can win, local- and state-level fights, and mutual aid.”


theintercept--2020-04-24--The Food Supply Chain Is Not Yet in Danger — but the Workers Who Keep Us Fed Are

Are we going to run out of food ?
That primal question seemed to be on the minds of many Americans when the gravity of the coronavirus pandemic first became clear .
As society went into lockdown , millions rushed to grocery stores to stock up on whatever they could buy .
Toilet paper was the earliest and most high-profile victim .
But people turned their eyes to the food section as well , clearing out shelves of whatever might be deemed useful in an apocalypse .
If the sight of empty shelves at some grocery stores today gives you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probably rest assured — for now at least .
A shortage of food supplies in the U.S. is unlikely in the foreseeable future .
The local shortages that people have seen so far have been the result of supply chains thrown into confusion by a rapid change in consumption patterns .
Although there could be price fluctuations of certain products , the U.S. still produces more than enough food to provide for its needs .
The pandemic is not going to change that .
Covid-19 , however , is a threat to those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : the underpaid , overexploited workers who harvest , transport , and stock the food that keeps society functioning .
“ The worry in the food supply chain was always about activities that were labor intensive , ” said Ananth Iyer , a professor of operations management at Purdue University , “ and where there weren ’ t proper procedures to protect the people doing the work : produce workers , warehouse employees , transport workers , and store employees.
” While most of the U.S. shelters at home , these essential workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past several weeks , grocery store workers and farm laborers have started contracting and dying from Covid-19 in increasing numbers .
In some places , the disease is already pushing people to a breaking point .
This week , a massive meat-processing plant in Minnesota became the latest to shut down after a Covid-19 outbreak among workers .
Many employers have continued pressing employees to work in unsafe and exploitative conditions , raising the possibility of more illnesses and shutdowns to come .
The economic impact of the pandemic is likely to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic ends .
Shifting consumption patterns means that industries maniacally focused on efficiency will likely slash employment levels .
Among the victims could also be food service workers — presently frozen out of jobs amid the shutdown — who could return to an economy where far fewer people are willing to venture outside to eat .
“ It ’ s estimated that in the United States , 50 to 55 percent of food consumption normally takes place outside the home , at restaurants , fast food outlets , and entertainment venues , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sudden , that came to a complete halt and now the question is whether we will even go back to that .
If we don ’ t , there will be serious adjustments in the restaurant industry affecting the millions of people who work there.
” As is so often the case , a socioeconomic crisis is offering the chance for people with political power to push through policies that they ’ d quietly dreamed of implementing .
The present turmoil in the food supply chain is no different : In the wake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looks ready to place the burden onto its most exploited workers by cutting the wages of migrant farm laborers .
In this , they have a willing ally in the White House .
In the name of supporting farmers , the Trump administration is proposing a new “ wage relief ” program to allow agricultural firms to cut migrant workers ’ salaries to save money during the pandemic .
The proposal has gone largely under the radar while the country reels from news of Covid-19 deaths and job losses .
But it may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looks like when people eventually emerge from quarantine .
“ At the moment the agriculture industry recognizes that the social turmoil caused by the pandemic has created something like a fog of war , in which they can press for lots of things that society normally would have no tolerance for , ” said Ricardo Salvador , director of the food and environment Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists .
“ It ’ s a basic principle of economics that if you successfully cut wages at the lowest rung of the economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ripple effect up through the blue-collar range .
To put it another way , if you depress the wages for the poorest people , you depress wages for everyone.
” Major cities in the U.S. have seen staggering queues in front of food banks , while at the same time , farmers are destroying excess produce , meat , and dairy in other parts of the country .
The shock of the pandemic has suddenly made visible the massive inefficiency and waste that takes place in a highly centralized industrial food system .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ say that it is also showing what does work : local networks of farms that are biodiverse and don ’ t run the risk of crashing all at once when something goes wrong .
“ We ’ re seeing horror stories of farmers throwing milk away and food being destroyed in fields , ” said Raj Patel , a research professor at the University of Texas and author of “ Stuffed and Starved : The Hidden Battle for the World Food System.
” “ But the reality is that these stories are all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Farmers who are part of local networks are not throwing away food ; in fact , they are rushing to keep up with demand.
” Patel went on , “ The pandemic is exposing the big lie of industrial agriculture and its claim that this is the only way to feed the world .
When one big supply chain runs everything , the entire system becomes fragile .
The reality is that smaller and more diverse networks of agriculture are the most resilient.
” We ’ re not going to run out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even though millions could be impoverished to the point where proper nourishment becomes difficult to access .
Nonetheless , even the shoppers with money today to clear out grocery shelves might be in trouble in the future absent serious agricultural reforms .
“ It is important we recognize sooner than later how fragile our food supply system is , ” warned Patel .
“ Because , as climate trends suggest , this will not be the first crisis we face .
”

Are we going to run out of food? That primal question seemed to be on the minds of many Americans when the gravity of the coronavirus pandemic first became clear. As society went into lockdown, millions rushed to grocery stores to stock up on whatever they could buy. Toilet paper was the earliest and most high-profile victim. But people turned their eyes to the food section as well, clearing out shelves of whatever might be deemed useful in an apocalypse.
Read Our Complete Coverage The Coronavirus Crisis
If the sight of empty shelves at some grocery stores today gives you a sense of foreboding, you can probably rest assured — for now at least. A shortage of food supplies in the U.S. is unlikely in the foreseeable future. The local shortages that people have seen so far have been the result of supply chains thrown into confusion by a rapid change in consumption patterns. Although there could be price fluctuations of certain products, the U.S. still produces more than enough food to provide for its needs. The pandemic is not going to change that.
“There weren’t proper procedures to protect the people doing the work: produce workers, warehouse employees, transport workers, and store employees.”
Covid-19, however, is a threat to those people whose invisible labor we rely on: the underpaid, overexploited workers who harvest, transport, and stock the food that keeps society functioning.
“The worry in the food supply chain was always about activities that were labor intensive,” said Ananth Iyer, a professor of operations management at Purdue University, “and where there weren’t proper procedures to protect the people doing the work: produce workers, warehouse employees, transport workers, and store employees.”
While most of the U.S. shelters at home, these essential workers have not been doing well. In the past several weeks, grocery store workers and farm laborers have started contracting and dying from Covid-19 in increasing numbers. In some places, the disease is already pushing people to a breaking point. This week, a massive meat-processing plant in Minnesota became the latest to shut down after a Covid-19 outbreak among workers. Many employers have continued pressing employees to work in unsafe and exploitative conditions, raising the possibility of more illnesses and shutdowns to come.
The economic impact of the pandemic is likely to land hard on these workers when the pandemic ends. Shifting consumption patterns means that industries maniacally focused on efficiency will likely slash employment levels. Among the victims could also be food service workers — presently frozen out of jobs amid the shutdown — who could return to an economy where far fewer people are willing to venture outside to eat.
“It’s estimated that in the United States, 50 to 55 percent of food consumption normally takes place outside the home, at restaurants, fast food outlets, and entertainment venues,” added Iyer. “All of a sudden, that came to a complete halt and now the question is whether we will even go back to that. If we don’t, there will be serious adjustments in the restaurant industry affecting the millions of people who work there.”
As is so often the case, a socioeconomic crisis is offering the chance for people with political power to push through policies that they’d quietly dreamed of implementing. The present turmoil in the food supply chain is no different: In the wake of the pandemic, the agricultural industry looks ready to place the burden onto its most exploited workers by cutting the wages of migrant farm laborers. In this, they have a willing ally in the White House. In the name of supporting farmers, the Trump administration is proposing a new “wage relief” program to allow agricultural firms to cut migrant workers’ salaries to save money during the pandemic.
The proposal has gone largely under the radar while the country reels from news of Covid-19 deaths and job losses. But it may have serious consequences for what American society looks like when people eventually emerge from quarantine.
“At the moment the agriculture industry recognizes that the social turmoil caused by the pandemic has created something like a fog of war, in which they can press for lots of things that society normally would have no tolerance for,” said Ricardo Salvador, director of the food and environment Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists and an expert at the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems, which recently published a communique on the crisis. “It’s a basic principle of economics that if you successfully cut wages at the lowest rung of the economy, it is going to have a ripple effect up through the blue-collar range. To put it another way, if you depress the wages for the poorest people, you depress wages for everyone.”
“The pandemic is exposing the big lie of industrial agriculture and its claim that this is the only way to feed the world.”
Major cities in the U.S. have seen staggering queues in front of food banks, while at the same time, farmers are destroying excess produce, meat, and dairy in other parts of the country. The shock of the pandemic has suddenly made visible the massive inefficiency and waste that takes place in a highly centralized industrial food system.
At the same time, some experts say that it is also showing what does work: local networks of farms that are biodiverse and don’t run the risk of crashing all at once when something goes wrong.
“We’re seeing horror stories of farmers throwing milk away and food being destroyed in fields,” said Raj Patel, a research professor at the University of Texas and author of “Stuffed and Starved: The Hidden Battle for the World Food System.” “But the reality is that these stories are all coming out of industrial supply chains. Farmers who are part of local networks are not throwing away food; in fact, they are rushing to keep up with demand.”
Patel went on, “The pandemic is exposing the big lie of industrial agriculture and its claim that this is the only way to feed the world. When one big supply chain runs everything, the entire system becomes fragile. The reality is that smaller and more diverse networks of agriculture are the most resilient.”
We’re not going to run out of food as a result of Covid-19, even though millions could be impoverished to the point where proper nourishment becomes difficult to access. Nonetheless, even the shoppers with money today to clear out grocery shelves might be in trouble in the future absent serious agricultural reforms.
“It is important we recognize sooner than later how fragile our food supply system is,” warned Patel. “Because, as climate trends suggest, this will not be the first crisis we face.”


theintercept--2020-04-24--Quack-in-Chief Donald Trump Asks If Bleach Injections or Tanning Could Cure Covid-19

tried hard not to betray her feelings , looking down and away from the president , when Donald Trump suggested , during a coronavirus briefing on Thursday , that doctors should “ check ” to see if injecting patients suffering from Covid-19 with bleach or isopropyl alcohol , or exposing them to ultraviolet light , might cure them .
The agony of Doctor Birx , a former Army colonel who serves as the White House coronavirus task force coordinator and often seems at pains not to correct the commander-in-chief , was captured on camera as she sat offstage listening to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spitballing came in response to a presentation by Bill Bryan , a science and technology advisor to the secretary of Homeland Security , who had just described research carried out at the U.S. Army ’ s biosecurity laboratory at Fort Detrick , Md .
showing that the virus can be neutralized on nonporous surfaces by disinfectants or prolonged exposure to sunlight .
Apparently recounting a conversation with Bryan just prior to the briefing , Trump said that he had asked the science advisor if those techniques work so well to clear the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ metal swing sets , why not try them on humans ?
“ So I asked Bill a question , ” Trump told reporters as Bryan took a seat beside Birx .
“ ‘ Supposing we hit the body with a tremendous– whether it ’ s ultra-violet or just very powerful light ? '
” Trump said .
“ And , I think you said , ” the president continued , turning to Bryan , “ that hasn ’ t been checked , and you ’ re going to test it.
” “ And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went on , “ ‘ Supposing you brought the light inside the body , either through the skin , or some other way ?
’ And I think you said you ’ re going to test that too .
Sounds interesting.
” “ We ’ ll get it to the right folks who could , ” Bryan replied .
“ Right , ” Trump said .
“ And then I see the disinfectant , where it knocks it out in a minute , one minute .
Is there a way where we can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
” Trump asked .
It was at this point that Birx , who had been looking up at the president from her seat offstage , dropped her gaze .
“ Almost a cleaning , ” Trump went on , describing his proposed therapy for Covid-19 patients .
“ So it would be interesting to check that , ” Trump said to Bryan .
“ So that , you ’ re going to have to use medical doctors with , ” he added .
“ But it sounds , it sounds interesting to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but the whole concept of the light , the way it kills it in one minute , that ’ s pretty powerful.
” Trump ’ s outlandish display of quackery sent news channels that broadcast his remarks live into a debunking frenzy , as they scrambled to warn viewers not to heed the president ’ s advice by self-medicating , as an Arizona couple did last month when he promoted the antimalarial drug chloroquine , and they ingested a version of it used to kill parasites on tropical fish .
( As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cry about the president ’ s bizarre behavior intensified , his strange remarks on Thursday also inspired a remarkable parody by the comedian Sarah Cooper . )
Later in the briefing , Bryan was forced to clarify to reporters that his lab had never suggested injecting cleaning products into humans and had looked at the effect of sunlight on the virus on nonporous surfaces , not people — not even what Trump described as the “ sort of semi-nonporous surface ” of a person ’ s hand .
When Trump was then asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep suggesting that people would be protected from infection by the coronavirus in warm weather , he raised his new theory again .
“ There ’ s been a rumor that , you know , a very nice rumor , that you go outside in the sun or you have heat and it does have an effect on other viruses , but now we get it from one of the great laboratories of the world , ” the president said .
Turning to Bryan , he added : “ I would like you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see if there ’ s any way that you can apply light and heat to cure.
” “ I say , maybe you can , maybe you can ’ t .
I ’ m not a doctor , ” Trump said , turning back to the reporters .
“ But I ’ m , like , a person that has a good , you know what , ” he added , pointing to his head .
Then , finally , there was nowhere left for the only doctor in the room to hide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heard of that ?
” the president asked Birx .
“ The heat and the light , relative to– certain viruses , yes , but relative to this virus ?
” “ Not as a treatment , ” Birx said .
“ I mean , certainly fever is a good thing , ” she added quickly , searching for some way to avoid reinforcing the idea that the president ’ s musings were entirely stupid .
“ When you have a fever , it helps your body respond .
But not as , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ light… ” she added , trailing off .
“ I think it ’ s a great thing to look at , ” Trump said , embracing his role as quack-in-chief .
Pressed by Philip Rucker of The Washington Post on whether he should really by sharing rumors with anxious citizens tuning into the briefing to get updates on the public health emergency , Trump suddenly pretended that his own ideas had somehow come from Bryan .
“ It ’ s just a suggestion , from a brilliant lab , by a very , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the president said , gesturing at Bryan .
“ He ’ s talking about sun , he ’ s talking about heat , ” Trump said .
“ I ’ m just here to present ideas , because we want ideas to get rid of this thing.
” The president ’ s bizarre musings were quickly rejected by doctors who advised viewers of the briefing to not , under any circumstances , ingest or inject themselves with bleach or isopropyl alcohol to ward off the coronavirus .
“ The idea of introducing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the body — isopropyl alcohol , disinfectants , I mean those are things we always worry that kids swallow accidentally , or people who are intentionally trying to hurt themselves… UV light inside the body ?
” Dr. Esther Choo , an emergency room physician in Portland , Oregon , told MSNBC .
“ It ’ s just this stream of consciousness based on… probably on this underlying concept that many viruses have a seasonal component to them , ” she added .
“ But to jump from there to the idea that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m actually worried about what people will do with UV lights and creating burns on their mucosal surfaces.
” Other experts have pointed out that the kind of ultraviolet rays used in disinfection are not safe for use on people ’ s skin , while the sort of UV light used in consumer products , like the tanning beds the president is fond of , do not kill viruses .
Trump ’ s speculation about the possible disinfecting of human bodies came three days after the Centers for Disease Control reported that calls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ingestion of cleaning and disinfectant products were already up 20 percent in March .
The president ’ s brainstorm was also debunked by medical experts on CNN and described as “ poppycock ” by the network ’ s Chris Cuomo , who has recently recovered from Covid-19 .
One day earlier , Cuomo ’ s wife , the wellness blogger Crisitina Cuomo , revealed that she has been fighting the disease herself by adding half a cup of Clorox to her bath water , “ to combat the radiation and metals in my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Friday , the British company that makes Lysol issued a statement saying they have been fielding questions as to “ whether internal administration of disinfectants may be appropriate for investigation or use as a treatment for coronavirus ( SARS-CoV-2 ) .
” “ As a global leader in health and hygiene products , ” the company said , “ we must be clear that under no circumstance should our disinfectant products be administered into the human body ( through injection , ingestion or any other route ) .
”

Dr. Deborah Birx tried hard not to betray her feelings, looking down and away from the president, when Donald Trump suggested, during a coronavirus briefing on Thursday, that doctors should “check” to see if injecting patients suffering from Covid-19 with bleach or isopropyl alcohol, or exposing them to ultraviolet light, might cure them.
The agony of Doctor Birx, a former Army colonel who serves as the White House coronavirus task force coordinator and often seems at pains not to correct the commander-in-chief, was captured on camera as she sat offstage listening to the president.
Here is Dr. Birx's reaction when President Trump asks his science advisor to study using UV light on the human body and injecting disinfectant to fight the coronavirus. pic.twitter.com/MVno5X7JMA — Daniel Lewis (@Daniel_Lewis3) April 24, 2020
The president’s spitballing came in response to a presentation by Bill Bryan, a science and technology advisor to the secretary of Homeland Security, who had just described research carried out at the U.S. Army’s biosecurity laboratory at Fort Detrick, Md. showing that the virus can be neutralized on nonporous surfaces by disinfectants or prolonged exposure to sunlight.
Apparently recounting a conversation with Bryan just prior to the briefing, Trump said that he had asked the science advisor if those techniques work so well to clear the virus from nonporous surfaces, like doorhandles or metal swing sets, why not try them on humans?
“So I asked Bill a question,” Trump told reporters as Bryan took a seat beside Birx. “‘Supposing we hit the body with a tremendous– whether it’s ultra-violet or just very powerful light?'” Trump said. “And, I think you said,” the president continued, turning to Bryan, “that hasn’t been checked, and you’re going to test it.”
“And then I said,” the president went on, “‘Supposing you brought the light inside the body, either through the skin, or some other way?’ And I think you said you’re going to test that too. Sounds interesting.”
“We’ll get it to the right folks who could,” Bryan replied.
“Right,” Trump said. “And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute, one minute. Is there a way where we can do something like that, by injection?” Trump asked. It was at this point that Birx, who had been looking up at the president from her seat offstage, dropped her gaze.
“Almost a cleaning,” Trump went on, describing his proposed therapy for Covid-19 patients. “So it would be interesting to check that,” Trump said to Bryan. “So that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with,” he added. “But it sounds, it sounds interesting to me. So we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute, that’s pretty powerful.”
Trump’s outlandish display of quackery sent news channels that broadcast his remarks live into a debunking frenzy, as they scrambled to warn viewers not to heed the president’s advice by self-medicating, as an Arizona couple did last month when he promoted the antimalarial drug chloroquine, and they ingested a version of it used to kill parasites on tropical fish.
As the debate over whether to laugh or cry about the president’s bizarre behavior intensified, his strange remarks on Thursday also inspired a remarkable parody by the comedian Sarah Cooper, who lip-synced to the actual audio of the president’s comments.
By Friday afternoon, the intensity of the global ridicule had become too intense for even Trump to ignore. He responded by pretending, when Weijia Jiang of CBS News asked him to clarify his “provocative” proposal for injections of disinfectants, that the whole thing had just been an elaborate in-joke — on the media and, it seems, the entire rest of the human race.
“I was asking a question sarcastically to reporters like you just to see what would happen,” Trump lied, absurdly. When Trump insisted that his suggestion had been made “in the form of a very sarcastic question to the reporters,” one of them noted that he had, in fact, been “asking your medical experts to look into it — were you being sarcastic with them?”
Reporter: Could you clarify your comments on injections of disinfectants?
Trump: I was asking the question sarcastically to reporters like you just to see what would happen…
Reporter: But you were asking your medical experts to look into it pic.twitter.com/T0hzizjgpN — Acyn (@Acyn) April 24, 2020
It seems not to have occurred to Trump, as he was formulating this excuse, that making false statements about medical science from the White House in the midst of a briefing on a global pandemic that has now killed 50,000 Americans might not put him in a positive light.
He then lied again about what had transpired on live television and internet streams just hours earlier, by claiming that he had only asked that experts “look into whether or not sun and disinfectant on the hands” was effective. That was unclearly untrue, since those points have already been studied. Still the president plowed on with his lie. “Bill is going back to check that in the laboratory,” he said.
When Jeff Mason of Reuters asked Trump to clarify that he was not encouraging Americans to inject bleach, the president scoffed at the suggestion. “No, of course not,” the president said. “Interior-wise, it was said sarcastically.”
Trump: "Interior-wise, it was said sarcastically. It was put in the form of a question to a group of extraordinarily hostile people namely the fake news media… You know the way it was asked, I was looking at you." Reporter: "I wasn't there yesterday." Trump: "I know. I know." pic.twitter.com/4npSamEoyN — The Hill (@thehill) April 24, 2020
“You know the way it was asked, I was looking at you,” Trump added, overplaying his hand. “Sir, I wasn’t there yesterday,” Mason replied.
“You were looking at Dr. Birx,” Jiang noted. “I was looking at Bill, I was looking at the doctor, I was looking at some of the reporters. I don’t know if you were there? Were you there? I don’t think you were there.”
“I was there and I watched you ask her,” Jiang replied, as the dialogue descended into farce. “You were there,” Trump said. “If you were there, I never forget.”
When Trump showed up for the daily briefing later on Friday, he started so abruptly that none of the news channels caught the beginning of his prepared remarks. Less than 22 minutes later, he retreated from the room without taking a single question for the first time. “Mr. President, is now the time for sarcasm?” one reporter asked as he fled.
In the second half of Thursday’s briefing, Bryan had been forced to clarify to reporters that his lab had never suggested injecting cleaning products into humans and had looked at the effect of sunlight on the virus on nonporous surfaces, not people — not even what Trump described as the “sort of semi-nonporous surface” of a person’s hand.
When Trump was then asked if it was responsible for him to keep suggesting that people would be protected from infection by the coronavirus in warm weather, he raised his new theory again. “There’s been a rumor that, you know, a very nice rumor, that you go outside in the sun or you have heat and it does have an effect on other viruses, but now we get it from one of the great laboratories of the world,” the president said. Turning to Bryan, he added: “I would like you to speak to the medical doctors to see if there’s any way that you can apply light and heat to cure.”
Trump said on Thursday he wants doctors "to see if there’s any way that you can apply light and heat to cure" Covid-19. Then he put Dr. Deborah Birx on the spot, asking if she had heard of any such treatments. She tried hard to not make him seem stupid. pic.twitter.com/RaoKqM2EiO — Robert Mackey (@RobertMackey) April 24, 2020
“I say, maybe you can, maybe you can’t. I’m not a doctor,” Trump said, turning back to the reporters. “But I’m, like, a person that has a good, you know what,” he added, pointing to his head. Then, finally, there was nowhere left for the only doctor in the room to hide.
“Deborah, have you ever heard of that?” the president asked Birx. “The heat and the light, relative to– certain viruses, yes, but relative to this virus?”
“Not as a treatment,” Birx said. “I mean, certainly fever is a good thing,” she added quickly, searching for some way to avoid reinforcing the idea that the president’s musings were entirely stupid. “When you have a fever, it helps your body respond. But not as, I’ve not seen heat or light…” she added, trailing off. “I think it’s a great thing to look at,” Trump said, embracing his role as quack-in-chief.
Pressed by Philip Rucker of The Washington Post on whether he should really be sharing rumors with anxious citizens tuning into the briefing to get updates on the public health emergency, Trump suddenly pretended that his own ideas had somehow come from Bryan. “It’s just a suggestion, from a brilliant lab, by a very, very smart, perhaps brilliant man,” the president said, gesturing at Bryan. “He’s talking about sun, he’s talking about heat,” Trump said. “I’m just here to present ideas, because we want ideas to get rid of this thing.”
The president’s bizarre musings were quickly rejected by doctors who advised viewers of the briefing to not, under any circumstances, ingest or inject themselves with bleach or isopropyl alcohol to ward off the coronavirus.
“The idea of introducing something that is a known toxin into the body — isopropyl alcohol, disinfectants, I mean those are things we always worry that kids swallow accidentally, or people who are intentionally trying to hurt themselves… UV light inside the body?” Dr. Esther Choo, an emergency room physician in Portland, Oregon, told MSNBC. “It’s just this stream of consciousness based on… probably on this underlying concept that many viruses have a seasonal component to them,” she added. “But to jump from there to the idea that sunlight is the cure, I’m actually worried about what people will do with UV lights and creating burns on their mucosal surfaces.”
Other experts have pointed out that the kind of ultraviolet rays used in disinfection are not safe for use on people’s skin, while the sort of UV light used in consumer products, like the tanning beds the president is fond of, do not kill viruses.
Trump’s speculation about the possible disinfecting of human bodies came three days after the Centers for Disease Control reported that calls to poison centers related to exposure or ingestion of cleaning and disinfectant products were already up 20 percent in March.
The president’s brainstorm was also debunked by medical experts on CNN and described as “poppycock” by the network’s Chris Cuomo, who has recently recovered from Covid-19. One day earlier, Cuomo’s wife, the wellness blogger Cristina Cuomo, revealed that she has been fighting the disease herself by adding half a cup of Clorox to her bath water, “to combat the radiation and metals in my system and oxygenate it.”
Early on Friday, the British company that makes Lysol issued a statement saying they have been fielding questions as to “whether internal administration of disinfectants may be appropriate for investigation or use as a treatment for coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2).”
“As a global leader in health and hygiene products,” the company said, “we must be clear that under no circumstance should our disinfectant products be administered into the human body (through injection, ingestion or any other route).”
On Fox News on Friday afternoon, Dr. Birx cast the president’s remarks as part of his not-at-all-alarming process of “digesting” information by thinking out loud.
Dr. Birx defends the President: When he gets new information, he likes to talk that through out loud and really have that dialogue and so that’s what dialogue he was having. I think he just saw the information at the time immediately.. and he was still digesting that information pic.twitter.com/3XrNvs8UjX — Acyn (@Acyn) April 24, 2020
Last Updated: Friday, April 24, 6:26 p.m. EDT
This article was updated to report that the president of the United States now claims that he was just kidding on Thursday when he asked medical and scientific experts to check out his idea that injecting disinfectant products into the human body might cure Covid-19, and that he took no questions at all at Friday’s briefing.


theintercept--2020-04-24--New Evidence Supporting Credibility of Tara Reade’s Allegation Against Joe Biden Emerges

of evidence has emerged buttressing the credibility of Tara Reade ’ s claim that she told her mother about allegations of sexual harassment and assault related to her former boss , then-Sen. Joe Biden .
Biden , through a spokesperson , has denied the allegations .
Reade has claimed to various media outlets , including The Intercept , that she told her mother , a close friend , and her brother about both the harassment and , to varying degrees of detail , the assault at the time .
Her brother , Collin Moulton , and her friend , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirmed that they heard about the allegations from Reade at the time .
Reade ’ s mother died in 2016 , but both her brother and friend also confirmed Reade had told her mother , and that her mother , a longtime feminist and activist , urged her to go to the police .
In interviews with The Intercept , Reade also mentioned that her mother had made a phone call to “ Larry King Live ” on CNN , during which she made reference to her daughter ’ s experience on Capitol @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her mother called in asking for advice after Reade , then in her 20s , left Biden ’ s office .
“ I remember it being an anonymous call and her saying my daughter was sexually harassed and retaliated against and fired , where can she go for help ?
I was mortified , ” Reade told me .
Reade couldn ’ t remember the date or the year of the phone call , and King didn ’ t include the names of callers on his show .
I was unable to find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an interview with Katie Halper , the podcast host who first aired Reade ’ s allegation .
After the podcast aired , a listener managed to find the call and sent it to The Intercept .
On August 11 , 1993 , King aired a program titled , “ Washington : The Cruelest City on Earth ?
” Toward the end of the program , he introduces a caller dialing in from San Luis Obispo , California .
Congressional records list August 1993 as Reade ’ s last month of employment with Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to property records , Reade ’ s mother , Jeanette Altimus , was living in San Luis Obispo County .
Here is the transcript of the beginning of the call : CALLER : Yes , hello .
I ’ m wondering what a staffer would do besides go to the press in Washington ?
My daughter has just left there , after working for a prominent senator , and could not get through with her problems at all , and the only thing she could have done was go to the press @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it out of respect for him .
KING : In other words , she had a story to tell but , out of respect for the person she worked for , she didn ’ t tell it ?
King ’ s panel of guests offered no suggestions , and instead the conversation veered into a discussion of whether any of the men on set would leak damaging personal information about a rival to the press .
Reade , after being read the transcript of the call , said that it gelled with her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the video was surfaced , confirmed it is her mother ’ s voice on the call .
“ Aww , I have not heard my mom ’ s voice in awhile , ” she said .
There are several notable things about the emergence of the call .
On the one hand , the caller does not specifically mention “ sexual harassment ” or retaliation , as Reade had recalled .
On the other hand , the reference to being unable to “ get through with her problems ” aligns with Reade ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Biden ’ s office and got nowhere , and the reference to going to the press makes clear that the caller is talking about more than just generic problems at the office .
The problems , she makes clear , would damage the senator if exposed .
Reade ’ s inability to remember the exact date of the alleged assault , or its precise location , or the precise location of the office where she picked up the form needed to file a complaint , has been used by skeptics to suggest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emergence of the call shows is that even if Reade ’ s memory is off on timing or details , the substance of her claims — in this case , that her mother called Larry King and discussed her situation — can still be true .
The call also calls into question the credibility of Biden ’ s denial .
Reade said that she filed a complaint about Biden ’ s harassment with Marianne Baker , effectively the office manager in the Biden office .
The Biden campaign released a statement from Baker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any other employee had ever complained about improper behavior .
“ In all my years working for Senator Biden , I never once witnessed , or heard of , or received , any reports of inappropriate conduct , period — not from Ms. Reade , not from anyone , ” Baker said in the campaign ’ s statement .
“ These clearly false allegations are in complete contradiction to both the inner workings of our Senate office and to the man I know and worked so closely with for almost two decades.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true , Reade would have had to have lied to her friend , brother , and mother about having complained to Biden ’ s office .
There is no obvious reason Reade would make up a story to those closest to her about the Senate office not taking Biden ’ s harassment seriously , while at the same time resisting pressure to go to the press .
Reade has said that the complaint she filed was related to the harassment she said she faced , and did not address the assault .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office , and if it still exists , is with Biden ’ s papers at the University of Delaware .
The school recently told reporter Rich McHugh that the papers are sealed until two years after Biden leaves public life .
The harassment Reade first went public with last year involves stroking her neck and running his fingers through the curls in her hair , as well as asking her to effectively serve as a cocktail waitress at an event .
Reade ’ s assault allegation , which became public last month , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1993 .
She said that she was sent by her manager to bring a gym bag to Biden , and they met in a hallway of the Russell Senate Office Building , in a tucked away corner .
Before she knew it , he pressed her up against the wall , forcibly kissed her , and put a hand each up her blouse and skirt , penetrating her with his fingers .
She had what she recalls now as an “ absurd ” thought .
“ I remember thinking , where ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken it in his hand , but all of a sudden it wasn ’ t in his hands and his hands were where they weren ’ t supposed to be , ” she said .
Reade said that her impression was that Biden believed he had consent , and was surprised at the rejection , but that she had done nothing to give him that impression .
“ There was no flirtation , he had no consent .
He was by my ears when he said , ‘ Do you wan na go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him off and he stepped back , looking surprised , she recalled , and flashing a huge smile .
“ ‘ Come on , man , ’ ” she said he told her .
“ ‘ I heard you liked me.
’ ” “ He had that smile he gets , but his eyes were not smiling , ” she said .
“ You ’ re fine , ” she recalled he said , grabbing her by her shoulders .
As he walked away , he pointed back , “ You ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 , 6:55 p.m .
The piece has been updated to add video that surfaced of the caller on the Larry King show , and Reade ’ s confirmation to The Intercept that the voice on the call was her mother ’ s .

A new piece of evidence has emerged buttressing the credibility of Tara Reade’s claim that she told her mother about allegations of sexual harassment and assault related to her former boss, then-Sen. Joe Biden. Biden, through a spokesperson, has denied the allegations. Reade has claimed to various media outlets, including The Intercept, that she told her mother, a close friend, and her brother about both the harassment and, to varying degrees of detail, the assault at the time. Her brother, Collin Moulton, and her friend, who has asked to remain anonymous, both confirmed that they heard about the allegations from Reade at the time. Reade’s mother died in 2016, but both her brother and friend also confirmed Reade had told her mother, and that her mother, a longtime feminist and activist, urged her to go to the police.
In interviews with The Intercept, Reade also mentioned that her mother had made a phone call to “Larry King Live” on CNN, during which she made reference to her daughter’s experience on Capitol Hill. Reade told The Intercept that her mother called in asking for advice after Reade, then in her 20s, left Biden’s office. “I remember it being an anonymous call and her saying my daughter was sexually harassed and retaliated against and fired, where can she go for help? I was mortified,” Reade told me.
Reade couldn’t remember the date or the year of the phone call, and King didn’t include the names of callers on his show. I was unable to find the call, but mentioned it in an interview with Katie Halper, the podcast host who first aired Reade’s allegation. After the podcast aired, a listener managed to find the call and sent it to The Intercept.
On August 11, 1993, King aired a program titled, “Washington: The Cruelest City on Earth?” Toward the end of the program, he introduces a caller dialing in from San Luis Obispo, California. Congressional records list August 1993 as Reade’s last month of employment with Biden’s Senate office, and, according to property records, Reade’s mother, Jeanette Altimus, was living in San Luis Obispo County. Here is the transcript of the beginning of the call:
KING: San Luis Obispo, California, hello. CALLER: Yes, hello. I’m wondering what a staffer would do besides go to the press in Washington? My daughter has just left there, after working for a prominent senator, and could not get through with her problems at all, and the only thing she could have done was go to the press, and she chose not to do it out of respect for him. KING: In other words, she had a story to tell but, out of respect for the person she worked for, she didn’t tell it? CALLER: That’s true.
King’s panel of guests offered no suggestions, and instead the conversation veered into a discussion of whether any of the men on set would leak damaging personal information about a rival to the press.
Reade, after being read the transcript of the call, said that it gelled with her memory of it, and, after the video was surfaced, confirmed it is her mother’s voice on the call. “Aww, I have not heard my mom’s voice in awhile,” she said.
There are several notable things about the emergence of the call. On the one hand, the caller does not specifically mention “sexual harassment” or retaliation, as Reade had recalled. On the other hand, the reference to being unable to “get through with her problems” aligns with Reade’s claim that she complained to superiors in Biden’s office and got nowhere, and the reference to going to the press makes clear that the caller is talking about more than just generic problems at the office. The problems, she makes clear, would damage the senator if exposed.
Reade’s inability to remember the exact date of the alleged assault, or its precise location, or the precise location of the office where she picked up the form needed to file a complaint, has been used by skeptics to suggest the allegation is fabricated. What the emergence of the call shows is that even if Reade’s memory is off on timing or details, the substance of her claims — in this case, that her mother called Larry King and discussed her situation — can still be true.
The call also calls into question the credibility of Biden’s denial. Reade said that she filed a complaint about Biden’s harassment with Marianne Baker, effectively the office manager in the Biden office. The Biden campaign released a statement from Baker, which said that neither Reade nor any other employee had ever complained about improper behavior. “In all my years working for Senator Biden, I never once witnessed, or heard of, or received, any reports of inappropriate conduct, period — not from Ms. Reade, not from anyone,” Baker said in the campaign’s statement. “These clearly false allegations are in complete contradiction to both the inner workings of our Senate office and to the man I know and worked so closely with for almost two decades.”
For Baker’s statement to be true, Reade would have had to have lied to her friend, brother, and mother about having complained to Biden’s office. There is no obvious reason Reade would make up a story to those closest to her about the Senate office not taking Biden’s harassment seriously, while at the same time resisting pressure to go to the press.
Reade has said that the complaint she filed was related to the harassment she said she faced, and did not address the assault. The complaint was left with Biden’s office, and if it still exists, is with Biden’s papers at the University of Delaware. The school recently told reporter Rich McHugh that the papers are sealed until two years after Biden leaves public life.
And @UDelaware — which houses the collection of Joe Biden's senatorial papers — just confirmed to me that the papers "will remain closed to the public until two years after Mr. Biden retires from public life." — Rich McHugh (@RichMcHugh) April 21, 2020
The harassment Reade first went public with last year involves stroking her neck and running his fingers through the curls in her hair, as well as asking her to effectively serve as a cocktail waitress at an event.
Reade’s assault allegation, which became public last month, involves an interaction in the spring of 1993. She said that she was sent by her manager to bring a gym bag to Biden, and they met in a hallway of the Russell Senate Office Building, in a tucked away corner. Before she knew it, he pressed her up against the wall, forcibly kissed her, and put a hand each up her blouse and skirt, penetrating her with his fingers. She had what she recalls now as an “absurd” thought. “I remember thinking, where’s the gym bag? Because he had taken it in his hand, but all of a sudden it wasn’t in his hands and his hands were where they weren’t supposed to be,” she said.
Reade said that her impression was that Biden believed he had consent, and was surprised at the rejection, but that she had done nothing to give him that impression. “There was no flirtation, he had no consent. He was by my ears when he said, ‘Do you wanna go somewhere else?’” She pushed him off and he stepped back, looking surprised, she recalled, and flashing a huge smile.
“‘Come on, man,’” she said he told her. “‘I heard you liked me.’”
“He had that smile he gets, but his eyes were not smiling,” she said.
“You’re fine,” she recalled he said, grabbing her by her shoulders. As he walked away, he pointed back, “You’re fine.”
Update: April 24, 2020, 6:55 p.m.
The piece has been updated to add video that surfaced of the caller on the Larry King show, and Reade’s confirmation to The Intercept that the voice on the call was her mother’s.


theintercept--2020-04-24--Brazil Justice Minister Resigns Over Bolsonaro’s Interference in Investigations — and Impeachm

Brazil Justice Minister Resigns Over Bolsonaro’s Interference in Investigations — and Impeachment Talk Ramps Up

slept Friday morning , far-right Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro fired the Federal Police Director Maurício Valeixo , bringing to a head a long-simmering battle with Justice Minister Sergio Moro .
Moro , in turn , promptly resigned — in a new , major episode of deepening chaos in Brazilian politics .
The official notice firing the Federal Police head bears Moro ’ s digital signature , but in a press conference Friday morning , the outgoing justice minister claimed that he was not informed of the move and did not sign the document .
This and other revelations made by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if the Brazilian body politic can muster the political will to support such a drastic measure .
Members of Congress are already gathering signatures for a congressional inquiry into Moro ’ s allegations .
In his press conference , Moro suggested that Bolsonaro removed Valeixo because the president opposed investigations being conducted by the Federal Police .
“ He was concerned about investigations underway in the Federal Supreme Court and that a change would also be opportune at the Federal Police , ” Moro said of Bolsonaro ’ s thinking .
Moro @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a reasonable justification for firing Valeixo , but added that he nonetheless searched for “ an alternative solution , to avoid a political crisis during a pandemic.
” In the end , Moro said , “ I understood that I could not set aside my commitment to the rule of law.
” Notably , the Federal Police are conducting several investigations that could impact Bolsonaro , his politician sons , and several members of their inner circle .
Moro loomed large over Brazilian politics during the past several years , even before he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as justice minister .
He was the judge at the center of the influential Operation Car Wash anti-corruption investigation that put former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in prison , removing the popular politician from the 2018 presidential election and clearing the way for Bolsonaro ’ s victory .
When he entered government , Moro was among the most popular political figures in the country and was seen as an important ally for Bolsonaro , but also as a potential rival in the 2022 elections .
The ex-judge ’ s standing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Intercept began publishing an explosive series , in English and Portuguese , on malfeasance and potential illegal actions by Moro and Car Wash prosecutors .
As a result of the series , Lula was eventually released from prison .
Though the fate of Valeixo had been a source of long-simmering tension between Moro and Bolsonaro , the clash heated up in recent days .
Last August , Bolsonaro threatened to oust Valeixo , whom Moro had handpicked for the post , but eventually relented after Moro had threatened to resign , provoking an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bolsonaro made clear to aides that he was looking to fire Valeixo , and Moro restated his threat to resign .
By Thursday evening , it appeared that Bolsonaro had again backed off , but then the notoriously capricious president made the move , prompting Moro to quit .
The Federal Police and Supreme Court are conducting multiple investigations that threaten Bolsonaro and his politician sons directly , as well as key allies in their orbit .
A Federal Police investigation into fake news attacks directed at the Supreme Court recently began looking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pro-Bolsonaro online messaging operation run by the president ’ s son , Rio City Council Member Carlos Bolsonaro .
The Public Prosecutor ’ s Office requested on Monday that the Supreme Court investigate whether a rally in Brasília last Sunday violated national security laws .
The demonstration was held in opposition to quarantine measures and called for a military coup and the forced shutdown of Congress .
Bolsonaro spoke at the rally , and some of his allies in Congress reportedly helped organize it .
Sen. Flávio Bolsonaro , the president ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for an alleged money-laundering scheme and has repeatedly appealed to the Supreme Court to halt the investigation on technicalities .
The case connects him directly to a gangster who was a key suspect in the assassination of Rio City Council Member Marielle Franco .
( The gangster was killed in a police raid on his hideout in February , after months on the run . )
Last August , Bolsonaro removed the financial oversight agency that first identified the suspicious transactions from Moro ’ s portfolio .
And the list of police and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allies doesn ’ t end there .
The various investigations have led to calls for more dramatic actions against the government .
Vladimir Aras , an influential member of the Public Prosecutor ’ s Office — who worked closely with Car Wash investigators for years and was briefly a member of the task force — tweeted , “ The facts narrated by [ Moro ] are very serious .
There were reports of forgery , obstruction of justice and crimes of responsibility ” — referring to the standard for impeachable offenses , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” in the U.S. Aras added that the allegations must be investigated by the Public Prosecutor and Congress .
Fernando Haddad , the presidential candidate from Lula ’ s Workers ’ Party who lost to Bolsonaro in 2018 , echoed these concerns , but called on government ministers to quit and force Bolsonaro to resign , rather than drag the country through a drawn-out impeachment process .
And former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso also called for Bolsonaro ’ s resignation .
Last Thursday , Bolsonaro fired Health Minister Henrique Mandetta , who had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denialism of the risks of the coronavirus crisis , which undermined Brazil ’ s early response strategy .
The health system in multiple Brazilian states are currently in collapse , with long lines for intensive care beds in hospitals and mass graves being dug for the victims .
The new health minister focused his messaging on the path to reopening the economy and easing quarantine regulations , which are already being relaxed in multiple states and had nonetheless been poorly enforced nationwide .
Bolsonaro is also at odds with the other most influential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Paulo Guedes .
Guedes , a hard-right former adviser to Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet , opposed government spending to ease the financial crisis and insisted that Brazil must continue to enact neoliberal reforms that would cut public spending , regulation , and taxes .
Guedes chafed this week at the announcement of a new plan to spend $ 37.7 billion over five years in public works .
The project was endorsed by the increasingly powerful cohort of former military leaders that occupy the majority of important positions in the administration .
Guedes did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the package .
In response that night , a Bolsonaro-aligned media outlet used three minutes of prime time television to attack Guedes , saying that he “ lost relevance in the government during the fight against Covid-19.
” Meanwhile , the Brazilian stock market is down 38 percent from an all-time high in January , and foreign investors are pulling their money out of Brazil at the fastest rate in all of Latin America .
When Bolsonaro came into office , his political support emanated from three key groups of power brokers : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Workers ’ Party and were represented by Moro ; oligarchs and international capital , who put their faith in Guedes ’ s reform agenda ; and the military elite , who long distrusted Bolsonaro , a retired Army captain , but saw him as a vehicle to quickly secure political power democratically .
Bolsonaro ’ s natural base is the far right : extremists who are vocal online , but have never before had much influence in national politics .
The president ’ s public approval rating plummeted since the onset @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been jumping ship .
With Moro gone and Guedes on the ropes , the far-right extremists can not keep the government afloat and the military — most influentially represented in the administration by presidential chief of staff Gen. Walter Braga Netto — has filled the vacuum of leadership , despite the generals ’ own serious misgivings about Bolsonaro ’ s erratic behavior .
Whether or not the far-right Bolsonaristas get the military coup that many of them are out in the streets demanding , for the time being it would appear that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Brazil .
Even if Bolsonaro is impeached — a subject that is increasingly discussed in Brazil lately — Bolsonaro ’ s replacement would effectively implement de facto military rule through constitutional means .
Impeachment would result in Vice President Hamilton Mourão , a retired general and proud admirer of the military dictatorship that ruled the country from 1964 to 1985 , would take power — an option that even some on the left are wearily looking at as the lesser of two evils .

As the country slept Friday morning, far-right Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro fired the Federal Police Director Maurício Valeixo, bringing to a head a long-simmering battle with Justice Minister Sergio Moro. Moro, in turn, promptly resigned — in a new, major episode of deepening chaos in Brazilian politics.
The official notice firing the Federal Police head bears Moro’s digital signature, but in a press conference Friday morning, the outgoing justice minister claimed that he was not informed of the move and did not sign the document. This and other revelations made by Moro could serve as grounds for impeachment, if the Brazilian body politic can muster the political will to support such a drastic measure. Members of Congress are already gathering signatures for a congressional inquiry into Moro’s allegations.
“I understood that I could not set aside my commitment to the rule of law.”
In his press conference, Moro suggested that Bolsonaro removed Valeixo because the president opposed investigations being conducted by the Federal Police. “He was concerned about investigations underway in the Federal Supreme Court and that a change would also be opportune at the Federal Police,” Moro said of Bolsonaro’s thinking. Moro said Bolsonaro’s concerns were not a reasonable justification for firing Valeixo, but added that he nonetheless searched for “an alternative solution, to avoid a political crisis during a pandemic.” In the end, Moro said, “I understood that I could not set aside my commitment to the rule of law.”
Notably, the Federal Police are conducting several investigations that could impact Bolsonaro, his politician sons, and several members of their inner circle.
Moro loomed large over Brazilian politics during the past several years, even before he accepted Bolsonaro’s offer to serve as justice minister. He was the judge at the center of the influential Operation Car Wash anti-corruption investigation that put former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in prison, removing the popular politician from the 2018 presidential election and clearing the way for Bolsonaro’s victory.
When he entered government, Moro was among the most popular political figures in the country and was seen as an important ally for Bolsonaro, but also as a potential rival in the 2022 elections. The ex-judge’s standing, however, was seriously weakened after The Intercept began publishing an explosive series, in English and Portuguese, on malfeasance and potential illegal actions by Moro and Car Wash prosecutors. As a result of the series, Lula was eventually released from prison.
Though the fate of Valeixo had been a source of long-simmering tension between Moro and Bolsonaro, the clash heated up in recent days. Last August, Bolsonaro threatened to oust Valeixo, whom Moro had handpicked for the post, but eventually relented after Moro had threatened to resign, provoking an institutional crisis. In recent days, Bolsonaro made clear to aides that he was looking to fire Valeixo, and Moro restated his threat to resign. By Thursday evening, it appeared that Bolsonaro had again backed off, but then the notoriously capricious president made the move, prompting Moro to quit.
Investigations Into Bolsonaro and Sons
The Federal Police and Supreme Court are conducting multiple investigations that threaten Bolsonaro and his politician sons directly, as well as key allies in their orbit. A Federal Police investigation into fake news attacks directed at the Supreme Court recently began looking into the so-called Office of Hate, a pro-Bolsonaro online messaging operation run by the president’s son, Rio City Council Member Carlos Bolsonaro.
The Public Prosecutor’s Office requested on Monday that the Supreme Court investigate whether a rally in Brasília last Sunday violated national security laws. The demonstration was held in opposition to quarantine measures and called for a military coup and the forced shutdown of Congress. Bolsonaro spoke at the rally, and some of his allies in Congress reportedly helped organize it.
Sen. Flávio Bolsonaro, the president’s son, is also under investigation for an alleged money-laundering scheme and has repeatedly appealed to the Supreme Court to halt the investigation on technicalities. The case connects him directly to a gangster who was a key suspect in the assassination of Rio City Council Member Marielle Franco. (The gangster was killed in a police raid on his hideout in February, after months on the run.) Last August, Bolsonaro removed the financial oversight agency that first identified the suspicious transactions from Moro’s portfolio.
And the list of police and judicial probes into the Bolsonaros and their allies doesn’t end there. The various investigations have led to calls for more dramatic actions against the government.
Vladimir Aras, an influential member of the Public Prosecutor’s Office — who worked closely with Car Wash investigators for years and was briefly a member of the task force — tweeted, “The facts narrated by [Moro] are very serious. There were reports of forgery, obstruction of justice and crimes of responsibility” — referring to the standard for impeachable offenses, the equivalent of “high crimes and misdemeanors” in the U.S. Aras added that the allegations must be investigated by the Public Prosecutor and Congress.
Fernando Haddad, the presidential candidate from Lula’s Workers’ Party who lost to Bolsonaro in 2018, echoed these concerns, but called on government ministers to quit and force Bolsonaro to resign, rather than drag the country through a drawn-out impeachment process. And former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso also called for Bolsonaro’s resignation.
Political Crisis During a Pandemic
Last Thursday, Bolsonaro fired Health Minister Henrique Mandetta, who had publicly opposed the president’s overt denialism of the risks of the coronavirus crisis, which undermined Brazil’s early response strategy. The health system in multiple Brazilian states are currently in collapse, with long lines for intensive care beds in hospitals and mass graves being dug for the victims. The new health minister focused his messaging on the path to reopening the economy and easing quarantine regulations, which are already being relaxed in multiple states and had nonetheless been poorly enforced nationwide.
Bolsonaro is also at odds with the other most influential member of his cabinet, Finance Minster Paulo Guedes. Guedes, a hard-right former adviser to Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, opposed government spending to ease the financial crisis and insisted that Brazil must continue to enact neoliberal reforms that would cut public spending, regulation, and taxes.
Guedes chafed this week at the announcement of a new plan to spend $37.7 billion over five years in public works. The project was endorsed by the increasingly powerful cohort of former military leaders that occupy the majority of important positions in the administration. Guedes did not attend the press conference to announce the package. In response that night, a Bolsonaro-aligned media outlet used three minutes of prime time television to attack Guedes, saying that he “lost relevance in the government during the fight against Covid-19.” Meanwhile, the Brazilian stock market is down 38 percent from an all-time high in January, and foreign investors are pulling their money out of Brazil at the fastest rate in all of Latin America.
When Bolsonaro came into office, his political support emanated from three key groups of power brokers: the center-right, who fiercely opposed Lula’s Workers’ Party and were represented by Moro; oligarchs and international capital, who put their faith in Guedes’s reform agenda; and the military elite, who long distrusted Bolsonaro, a retired Army captain, but saw him as a vehicle to quickly secure political power democratically. Bolsonaro’s natural base is the far right: extremists who are vocal online, but have never before had much influence in national politics.
The president’s public approval rating plummeted since the onset of the coronavirus crisis and key allies have been jumping ship. With Moro gone and Guedes on the ropes, the far-right extremists cannot keep the government afloat and the military — most influentially represented in the administration by presidential chief of staff Gen. Walter Braga Netto — has filled the vacuum of leadership, despite the generals’ own serious misgivings about Bolsonaro’s erratic behavior.
Whether or not the far-right Bolsonaristas get the military coup that many of them are out in the streets demanding, for the time being it would appear that the military is now calling the shots in Brazil.
Even if Bolsonaro is impeached — a subject that is increasingly discussed in Brazil lately — Bolsonaro’s replacement would effectively implement de facto military rule through constitutional means. Impeachment would result in Vice President Hamilton Mourão, a retired general and proud admirer of the military dictatorship that ruled the country from 1964 to 1985, would take power — an option that even some on the left are wearily looking at as the lesser of two evils.


theintercept--2020-04-24--Small Business Rescue Money Flowing to Major Trump Donors, Disclosures Show

to President Donald Trump ’ s presidential reelection campaign have won coveted loans from the Paycheck Protection Program , the new government effort to provide a lifeline to small businesses under duress because of the coronavirus pandemic .
The loans , which are converted to grants if payroll is maintained and other , sometimes unclear , conditions are met , have been out of reach for tens of thousands of small business owners , many of whom have faced delays and denials .
But PPP loans have been swiftly approved for a number of corporations whose executives have donated heavily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Exchange Commission records show .
The largest known recipient of small business rescue money has been a set of luxury hotels run by Archie Bennett and his son Monty Bennett .
The pair have obtained over $ 59 million in PPP funds for Ashford Hospitality Trust and Braemar Hotels & Resorts , holding companies used to own and manage a range of hotels , including the Ritz-Carlton in St. Thomas .
The companies were eligible for PPP loans because the program was intentionally designed to benefit large franchise owners of restaurants and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ location employs 500 people or less .
The father and son are also megadonors who have given nearly half a million dollars to Trump since 2016 and over $ 1.3 million to GOP politicians and groups in recent years .
The company , disclosures show , also sought professional influence .
Just days after the passage of the CARES Act , the sweeping bailout law that enabled the PPP program , the Ashford Hospitality Trust signed a lobbying contract with Jeffrey Miller , a lobbyist and fundraiser who has raised $ 1,494,000 for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went to work attempting to influence the Small Business Administration and Congress on behalf of his client , records show , to obtain a share of the bailout money .
They weren ’ t the only ones with a financial inside track to the Trump administration .
Continental Materials Corp. , a construction equipment product company , received $ 5.4 million in PPP loans .
The firm is owned by the family of Ronald Gidwitz , who has donated $ 50,000 to Trump and over $ 109,000 to the Republican National Committee in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ founder and CEO of the shipping and tracking start-up EasyPost , gave $ 105,600 to Trump last year , utilizing a joint fundraising PAC .
Streebin ’ s company obtained “ a few million dollars in a PPP loan , ” according to an account in the Wall Street Journal .
Nikola Motor Company , a startup that develops electric trucks , received $ 4.1 million in PPP loans .
The company is run by Trevor Milton , a billionaire Trump donor .
The hotel company owned by Gordon Sondland , the hotel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s inauguration , and later received an ambassadorship from the president , received PPP loans .
Hallador Energy , an Indiana-based coal company , obtained $ 10 million in PPP funding .
The company currently employs Scott Pruitt , Trump ’ s former EPA administrator , as a lobbyist , the Washington Post reported .
Phunware , a Texas-based technology firm employed by the Trump campaign to develop applications to track the locations of voters , received $ 2.8 million in PPP loans .
The Intercept has previously reported on Phunware @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the coronavirus pandemic .
has been mired in controversy since it was launched .
Though the program , originally funded with $ 349 billion through the CARES Act , was publicized as aid to struggling small companies , it ended up benefiting large companies — and ran out of money in just two weeks .
Many large banks reportedly gave preference to wealthy customers .
JPMorgan Chase , for instance , awarded nearly every high-income private banking customer a PPP loan who applied , while only 6 percent of the 300,000 retail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to receive a loan .
Surveys from the National Federation of Independent Business show that only 20 percent of small businesses that applied received a PPP loan .
Data on loans analyzed by Reveal and New York Daily News suggests other inequities .
Over half of the businesses that applied for the loans in Republican-leaning states such as North Dakota and Nebraska received approval .
In Democratic-leaning states hard hit by the crisis , such as California and New York , the rates are 15 and 18 percent respectively .
Large PPP loans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with access to other forms of credit have received negative attention in recent days .
Shake Shack , for instance , has promised to return its $ 10 million PPP loan , while Ruth ’ s Chris Steak House has pledged to return the $ 20 million the company received from the program .
On Thursday , the House of Representatives passed renewed funding for the PPP program , injecting the program with another $ 321 billion .
Given the dozens of lobbying firms that have recently registered clients seeking SBA relief , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tranche of funding will last much longer than the first .

Major donors to President Donald Trump’s presidential reelection campaign have won coveted loans from the Paycheck Protection Program, the new government effort to provide a lifeline to small businesses under duress because of the coronavirus pandemic.
The loans, which are converted to grants if payroll is maintained and other, sometimes unclear, conditions are met, have been out of reach for tens of thousands of small business owners, many of whom have faced delays and denials. But PPP loans have been swiftly approved for a number of corporations whose executives have donated heavily to Trump’s campaign, Securities and Exchange Commission records show.
The largest known recipient of small business rescue money has been a set of luxury hotels run by Archie Bennett and his son Monty Bennett. The pair have obtained over $59 million in PPP funds for Ashford Hospitality Trust and Braemar Hotels & Resorts, holding companies used to own and manage a range of hotels, including the Ritz-Carlton in St. Thomas. The companies were eligible for PPP loans because the program was intentionally designed to benefit large franchise owners of restaurants and hotels operators, as long as each location employs 500 people or less.
Read Our Complete Coverage The Coronavirus Crisis
The father and son are also megadonors who have given nearly half a million dollars to Trump since 2016 and over $1.3 million to GOP politicians and groups in recent years. The company, disclosures show, also sought professional influence.
Just days after the passage of the CARES Act, the sweeping bailout law that enabled the PPP program, the Ashford Hospitality Trust signed a lobbying contract with Jeffrey Miller, a lobbyist and fundraiser who has raised $1,494,000 for Trump’s 2020 reelection. Miller went to work attempting to influence the Small Business Administration and Congress on behalf of his client, records show, to obtain a share of the bailout money.
They weren’t the only ones with a financial inside track to the Trump administration.
Continental Materials Corp., a construction equipment product company, received $5.4 million in PPP loans. The firm is owned by the family of Ronald Gidwitz, who has donated $50,000 to Trump and over $109,000 to the Republican National Committee in recent years.
Jarrett Streebin, the founder and CEO of the shipping and tracking start-up EasyPost, gave $105,600 to Trump last year, utilizing a joint fundraising PAC. Streebin’s company obtained “a few million dollars in a PPP loan,” according to an account in the Wall Street Journal.
Nikola Motor Company, a startup that develops electric trucks, received $4.1 million in PPP loans. The company is run by Trevor Milton, a billionaire Trump donor. The hotel company owned by Gordon Sondland, the hotel magnate who donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration, and later received an ambassadorship from the president, received PPP loans.
Hallador Energy, an Indiana-based coal company, obtained $10 million in PPP funding. The company currently employs Scott Pruitt, Trump’s former EPA administrator, as a lobbyist, the Washington Post reported. Phunware, a Texas-based technology firm employed by the Trump campaign to develop applications to track the locations of voters, received $2.8 million in PPP loans. The Intercept has previously reported on Phunware’s aspirations to develop location tracking for the coronavirus pandemic.
The PPP program has been mired in controversy since it was launched. Though the program, originally funded with $349 billion through the CARES Act, was publicized as aid to struggling small companies, it ended up benefiting large companies — and ran out of money in just two weeks.
Many large banks reportedly gave preference to wealthy customers. JPMorgan Chase, for instance, awarded nearly every high-income private banking customer a PPP loan who applied, while only 6 percent of the 300,000 retail small business customers who applied were able to receive a loan. Surveys from the National Federation of Independent Business show that only 20 percent of small businesses that applied received a PPP loan.
Share Your Coronavirus Story Click here to learn about contacting a reporter securely, or email us at coronavirus@theintercept.com
Data on loans analyzed by Reveal and New York Daily News suggests other inequities. Over half of the businesses that applied for the loans in Republican-leaning states such as North Dakota and Nebraska received approval. In Democratic-leaning states hard hit by the crisis, such as California and New York, the rates are 15 and 18 percent respectively.
Large PPP loans approved for major, publicly traded companies with access to other forms of credit have received negative attention in recent days. Shake Shack, for instance, has promised to return its $10 million PPP loan, while Ruth’s Chris Steak House has pledged to return the $20 million the company received from the program.
On Thursday, the House of Representatives passed renewed funding for the PPP program, injecting the program with another $321 billion. Given the dozens of lobbying firms that have recently registered clients seeking SBA relief, it’s unclear whether the next tranche of funding will last much longer than the first.