newsweek--2020-12-03--Supreme Court to Determine Fate of Religious Schools | Opinion

Kentucky is now ground zero in the seemingly endless struggle to protect religious liberty from government overreach during the COVID-19 pandemic .
Earlier this year , in Tabernacle Baptist Church v. Beshear , First Liberty Institute successfully challenged Governor Andy Beshear 's order prohibiting in-person religious services across Kentucky .
This time , religious schools must be defended from the governor 's unconstitutional actions .
Recently , Governor Beshear ordered all `` public and private elementary , middle , and high schools , '' including private religious schools , to cease in-person instruction through the end of the year .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as theaters , weddings , bowling alleys , gambling parlors and offices to continue in person with some restrictions .
Preschools , universities and colleges are even permitted to hold in-person instruction .
Government shutting down religious schools ' ability to teach their faith is a serious matter .
Under Governor Beshear 's orders , Kentuckians can catch a matinee at the movie theater , tour a distillery , work out at the gym , bet at a gambling parlor or go shopping , but they are not free to send their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parents with a 4-year old and a 6-year old can send their younger child to preschool or daycare for eight or more hours every day , but the older child must stay home .
This means that a religious school with a preschool and elementary school is simultaneously open and closed , with zero government rationale .
Our client , Danville Christian Academy , collaborated with several doctors and local health officials to implement protocols that ensure the health and safety of its community .
Consequently , we joined Kentucky attorney general Daniel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's order on behalf of the people of Kentucky .
On November 25 , the district court agreed with us , granting an injunction stopping the governor `` from enforcing the prohibition on in-person instruction with respect to any religious private school in Kentucky that adheres to applicable social distancing and hygiene guidelines . ''
In his insistence on closing religious schools , Governor Beshear filed an emergency appeal and a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit stayed the district court 's injunction , which had protected the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court of the United States to protect religious schools from Governor Beshear 's order .
It is now up to the nine Justices to protect religious liberty in Kentucky and send a clear message to the rest of the nation that our God-given rights are still protected , even in a crisis and especially from such irrational and discriminatory government orders as the one in Kentucky .
There is no pandemic exception to the Constitution .
This is the time when our courts are needed—without them the citizens of this country will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order closing K-12 private religious schools is patently unconstitutional .
Just last week , the Supreme Court provided injunctive relief from New York governor Andrew Cuomo 's unconstitutional order limiting in-person services in houses of worship .
Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted in his concurrence , `` judicial deference in an emergency or a crisis does not mean wholesale judicial abdication , especially when important questions of religious discrimination , racial discrimination , free speech , or the like are raised . ''
Moreover , in his concurrence , Justice Neil Gorsuch unambiguously reminded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Constitution is still the ultimate authority in this country : `` Government is not free to disregard the First Amendment in times of crisis .
At a minimum , that Amendment prohibits government officials from treating religious exercises worse than comparable secular activities , unless they are pursuing a compelling interest and using the least restrictive means available .
Yet recently , during the COVID pandemic , certain States seem to have ignored these long-settled principles . ''
Governor Beshear 's actions have placed Kentucky in the ignominious category of those `` certain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general Cameron is working diligently with us to defend our most cherished liberties and for which our clients , all Kentuckians and freedom-loving Americans everywhere should be grateful .
The First Amendment protects the fundamental rights of both parents and religious houses of worship to impart their religious faith and teaching to their children .
Government interference in these most fundamental rights is serious , and the government has a steep burden of proof to justify itself .
But as Justice Gorsuch noted , `` In far too many places , for far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fallen on deaf ears . ''
Governor Beshear 's order fails the First Amendment 's test for government action which burdens religious liberty .
Irrational and discriminatory government orders do not override our most fundamental rights .
Now , the Justices have another opportunity to make sure our first freedom has n't `` taken a holiday during this pandemic . ''
Kelly Shackelford is President , CEO , and Chief Counsel for First Liberty Institute , a non-profit law firm dedicated to defending religious freedom for all .
Learn more at FirstLiberty.org .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the writer 's own .

Kentucky is now ground zero in the seemingly endless struggle to protect religious liberty from government overreach during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Earlier this year, in Tabernacle Baptist Church v. Beshear, First Liberty Institute successfully challenged Governor Andy Beshear's order prohibiting in-person religious services across Kentucky. This time, religious schools must be defended from the governor's unconstitutional actions.
Recently, Governor Beshear ordered all "public and private elementary, middle, and high schools," including private religious schools, to cease in-person instruction through the end of the year. He did this while allowing other activities such as theaters, weddings, bowling alleys, gambling parlors and offices to continue in person with some restrictions. Preschools, universities and colleges are even permitted to hold in-person instruction. Government shutting down religious schools' ability to teach their faith is a serious matter.
Under Governor Beshear's orders, Kentuckians can catch a matinee at the movie theater, tour a distillery, work out at the gym, bet at a gambling parlor or go shopping, but they are not free to send their students to a religious school. Kentucky parents with a 4-year old and a 6-year old can send their younger child to preschool or daycare for eight or more hours every day, but the older child must stay home. This means that a religious school with a preschool and elementary school is simultaneously open and closed, with zero government rationale.
Our client, Danville Christian Academy, collaborated with several doctors and local health officials to implement protocols that ensure the health and safety of its community. Consequently, we joined Kentucky attorney general Daniel Cameron in a lawsuit challenging the governor's order on behalf of the people of Kentucky.
On November 25, the district court agreed with us, granting an injunction stopping the governor "from enforcing the prohibition on in-person instruction with respect to any religious private school in Kentucky that adheres to applicable social distancing and hygiene guidelines." In his insistence on closing religious schools, Governor Beshear filed an emergency appeal and a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit stayed the district court's injunction, which had protected the schools. We have now asked the Supreme Court of the United States to protect religious schools from Governor Beshear's order.
It is now up to the nine Justices to protect religious liberty in Kentucky and send a clear message to the rest of the nation that our God-given rights are still protected, even in a crisis and especially from such irrational and discriminatory government orders as the one in Kentucky. There is no pandemic exception to the Constitution. This is the time when our courts are needed—without them the citizens of this country will have no protection.
The outside of the Supreme Court of the United States is seen as it begins hearing arguments from California v. Texas about the legality of the Affordable Care Act on November 10, 2020 in Washington, D.C. Samuel Corum/Getty
Governor Beshear's order closing K-12 private religious schools is patently unconstitutional. Just last week, the Supreme Court provided injunctive relief from New York governor Andrew Cuomo's unconstitutional order limiting in-person services in houses of worship.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted in his concurrence, "judicial deference in an emergency or a crisis does not mean wholesale judicial abdication, especially when important questions of religious discrimination, racial discrimination, free speech, or the like are raised."
Moreover, in his concurrence, Justice Neil Gorsuch unambiguously reminded elected officials across the nation that the Constitution is still the ultimate authority in this country: "Government is not free to disregard the First Amendment in times of crisis. At a minimum, that Amendment prohibits government officials from treating religious exercises worse than comparable secular activities, unless they are pursuing a compelling interest and using the least restrictive means available. Yet recently, during the COVID pandemic, certain States seem to have ignored these long-settled principles."
Governor Beshear's actions have placed Kentucky in the ignominious category of those "certain States." Thankfully, Kentucky attorney general Cameron is working diligently with us to defend our most cherished liberties and for which our clients, all Kentuckians and freedom-loving Americans everywhere should be grateful.
The First Amendment protects the fundamental rights of both parents and religious houses of worship to impart their religious faith and teaching to their children. Government interference in these most fundamental rights is serious, and the government has a steep burden of proof to justify itself. But as Justice Gorsuch noted, "In far too many places, for far too long, our first freedom has fallen on deaf ears."
Governor Beshear's order fails the First Amendment's test for government action which burdens religious liberty. Irrational and discriminatory government orders do not override our most fundamental rights. Now, the Justices have another opportunity to make sure our first freedom hasn't "taken a holiday during this pandemic."
Kelly Shackelford is President, CEO, and Chief Counsel for First Liberty Institute, a non-profit law firm dedicated to defending religious freedom for all. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.


newsweek--2020-12-03--Third Monolith Appears atop Pine Mountain, California after Mystery Objects in Utah and Romania Remo

Third Monolith Appears atop Pine Mountain, California after Mystery Objects in Utah and Romania Removed

Another mysterious metal monolith has appeared , this time in California , just days after similar structures were discovered in Utah and Romania .
The reflective obelisk was found at the top of Pine Mountain in Atascadero , San Luis Obispo County .
The monolith was discovered by walkers this week , with photos of the three-sided , 10-foot tall piece of stainless steel shared on social media .
NewsChannel 12 , the CBS station for Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties , reported that the structure was located at the summit of a two-mile hike in Stadium Park @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the third metal monolith in what has become a global mystery with few clues .
The vacuum of information led some to ponder whether the structure is evidence of aliens at work , while more cynical observers suggested it was more likely to be a marketing stunt .
On November 18 , sheep herders discovered the first of the metal monoliths in the Utah desert .
Just over a week later , the structure disappeared , replaced with a smaller pyramid and surrounded by rocks .
The Bureau of Land Management ( BLM @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said it had received `` credible reports '' the structure had been removed `` by an unknown party . ''
One person who visited the location said it was neither magnetic or solid and described it as sounding `` like a cardboard box '' when he knocked on it .
Days later , a 13ft silver structure was spotted on Batca Doamnei Hill in the Romanian city of Piatra Neamt , with a second sighting leading some to question whether the monoliths were a marketing stunt .
The local mayor , Andrei Carabelea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : `` There is no reason to panic for those who think there is still life in the universe .
`` My guess is that some alien , cheeky and terrible teenagers left home with their parents ' UFO and started planting metal monoliths around the world .
First in Utah and then at Piatra Neamt .
I am honored that they chose our city .
`` Beyond the conspiracy theories that can be tempting , I 'd like to see this randomness as further proof that our city is special .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only . ''
But days later , that too had been taken .
`` The 2.8 metre ( 9ft ) tall structure disappeared overnight as quietly as it was erected last week , '' local journalist Robert Iosub told Reuters .
`` An unidentified person , apparently a bad local welder , made it ... now all that remains is just a small hole covered by rocky soil . ''

Another mysterious metal monolith has appeared, this time in California, just days after similar structures were discovered in Utah and Romania.
The reflective obelisk was found at the top of Pine Mountain in Atascadero, San Luis Obispo County.
The monolith was discovered by walkers this week, with photos of the three-sided, 10-foot tall piece of stainless steel shared on social media.
NewsChannel 12, the CBS station for Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties, reported that the structure was located at the summit of a two-mile hike in Stadium Park.
The Carrizo Plain National Monument in San Luis Obispo County, California. A third monolith was found nearby this week. George Rose/Getty Images
The latest discovery in California is the third metal monolith in what has become a global mystery with few clues. The vacuum of information led some to ponder whether the structure is evidence of aliens at work, while more cynical observers suggested it was more likely to be a marketing stunt.
🚨 🚨 BREAKING NEWS 🚨 🚨
There is currently a monolith at the top of Pine Mountain in Atascadero!!
(Photos by @Atownreporter) pic.twitter.com/0vPhEWYkeY — Connor Allen (@ConnorCAllen) December 2, 2020
On November 18, sheep herders discovered the first of the metal monoliths in the Utah desert. Just over a week later, the structure disappeared, replaced with a smaller pyramid and surrounded by rocks.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which administers the area, said it had received "credible reports" the structure had been removed "by an unknown party."
One person who visited the location said it was neither magnetic or solid and described it as sounding "like a cardboard box" when he knocked on it.
Days later, a 13ft silver structure was spotted on Batca Doamnei Hill in the Romanian city of Piatra Neamt, with a second sighting leading some to question whether the monoliths were a marketing stunt.
The local mayor, Andrei Carabelea, said in a statement on Facebook: "There is no reason to panic for those who think there is still life in the universe.
"My guess is that some alien, cheeky and terrible teenagers left home with their parents' UFO and started planting metal monoliths around the world. First in Utah and then at Piatra Neamt. I am honored that they chose our city.
"Beyond the conspiracy theories that can be tempting, I'd like to see this randomness as further proof that our city is special. For the earthlings and (maybe) not only."
But days later, that too had been taken. "The 2.8 metre (9ft) tall structure disappeared overnight as quietly as it was erected last week," local journalist Robert Iosub told Reuters.
"An unidentified person, apparently a bad local welder, made it ... now all that remains is just a small hole covered by rocky soil."
Newsweek contacted officials in Atascadero for comment.


newsweek--2020-12-03--'Law & Order SVU': When Is Chris Meloni Returning as Elliot Stabler?

Law & Order : Special Victims Unit ( SVU ) announced that this season would see Elliot Stabler ( played by Chris Meloni ) return for a crossover that would launch a new NBC spin-off led by the agent titled Law & Order : Organized Crime .
Originally scheduled for September 2020 , the coronavirus led to Organized Crime being delayed , meaning that Stabler 's return to SVU has also been put off .
However , it could be coming very soon .
On December 2 , SVU showrunner Warren Leight released a screenshot from a Zoom read-through of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members like Mariska Hargitay and Ice-T , the image featured Meloni , hiding in plain sight in a very green shirt .
If the cast is doing a read-through of the Stabler episode , that seems to suggest that they will be filming it very soon , and based on previous time scales , we can have a guess at when the episode will air .
Per Leight 's Twitter , meetings about the first episode of Law & Order : SVU Season 22 began at the start of September , with filming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ airing on NBC on November 12 .
As such , a rough time frame for the Stabler episode might suggest that filming will start in mid-December , and then air in February .
However , the show 's Christmas break could push the episode , and by extension the launch of Organized Crime , into the spring of 2021 , most likely March .
In a preview of what is to come in early 2021 on SVU , Entertainment Tonight confirmed that Organized Crime ( and the Stabler SVU crossover ) would air @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its January line-up , Organized Crime was conspicuously absent from the Thursday night schedule , where it was meant to air right after SVU at 10 p.m .
ET / 9 p.m. CT .
In its place was Deadline , which is presumably keeping the slot warm until Organized Crime is ready to air .
When that will be , however , is not announced , though if it is to air in 2021 it will have to be while SVU is still running , in order for the show to transition from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SVU guest spot .
This means that fans are guaranteed to see the show before May unless there is a major production delay .
There have been some difficulties behind the scenes already .
In October , showrunner Matt Olmstead left the series citing creative differences , which led to Organized Crime being taken off the fall schedule .
Then , in June , the show lost writer Craig Gore after he was fired for a Facebook post where he threatened to `` light motherf******s up '' after there were reports of looting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Special Victims Unit Season 22 airs Thursdays at 9 p.m .
ET / 8 p.m. CT on NBC .

Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (SVU) announced that this season would see Elliot Stabler (played by Chris Meloni) return for a crossover that would launch a new NBC spin-off led by the agent titled Law & Order: Organized Crime. Originally scheduled for September 2020, the coronavirus led to Organized Crime being delayed, meaning that Stabler's return to SVU has also been put off.
However, it could be coming very soon. On December 2, SVU showrunner Warren Leight released a screenshot from a Zoom read-through of an upcoming episode. Alongside regular cast members like Mariska Hargitay and Ice-T, the image featured Meloni, hiding in plain sight in a very green shirt.
If the cast is doing a read-through of the Stabler episode, that seems to suggest that they will be filming it very soon, and based on previous time scales, we can have a guess at when the episode will air.
Per Leight's Twitter, meetings about the first episode of Law & Order: SVU Season 22 began at the start of September, with filming beginning on September 14 and the episode airing on NBC on November 12.
As such, a rough time frame for the Stabler episode might suggest that filming will start in mid-December, and then air in February. However, the show's Christmas break could push the episode, and by extension the launch of Organized Crime, into the spring of 2021, most likely March. In a preview of what is to come in early 2021 on SVU, Entertainment Tonight confirmed that Organized Crime (and the Stabler SVU crossover) would air in the spring.
Mariska Hargitay and Christopher Meloni will be reunited on an upcoming episode of 'Law & Order: Special Victims Unit' NBC
When NBC announced its January line-up, Organized Crime was conspicuously absent from the Thursday night schedule, where it was meant to air right after SVU at 10 p.m. ET / 9 p.m. CT. In its place was Deadline, which is presumably keeping the slot warm until Organized Crime is ready to air.
When that will be, however, is not announced, though if it is to air in 2021 it will have to be while SVU is still running, in order for the show to transition from one to the other with Meloni's SVU guest spot. This means that fans are guaranteed to see the show before May unless there is a major production delay.
There have been some difficulties behind the scenes already. In October, showrunner Matt Olmstead left the series citing creative differences, which led to Organized Crime being taken off the fall schedule. Then, in June, the show lost writer Craig Gore after he was fired for a Facebook post where he threatened to "light motherf******s up" after there were reports of looting in Los Angeles.
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit Season 22 airs Thursdays at 9 p.m. ET / 8 p.m. CT on NBC.


newsweek--2020-12-03--England to Ban Animal Exports for Slaughter in European First

Britain will become the first European country to ban the export of live animals for fattening and slaughter , British Environment Secretary George Eustice will announce .
The Department for Environment , Food and Rural Affairs ( DEFRA ) said this announcement was part of a wider strategy to improve Britain 's position on animal welfare and to cement it as a world leader .
Around 6,400 animals were exported to Europe for slaughter in 2018 , the most recent data on record .
Globally , around two billion live animals are exported around the world , according to data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Organization , with live pigs from Poland to Denmark , chickens from the Netherlands to Thailand and sheep from Australia to Qatar some of the largest volume exports .
In 2018 , the United States exported about $ 872 million worth of live animals of all species , according to the Farm Journal , primarily to Mexico and Canada but Brazil , South Korea and China were all in the top five .
This includes animals for slaughter , breeding and any other purpose .
The European Union ( EU ) has a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a European Commission statement says : `` live animals are traded or imported every day in the European Union . ''
Now the U.K. has left the EU and is coming to the end of a transition agreement , officials are looking to differentiate policy between them .
The ban , if and when it came into force , would be considered a Brexit success by animal rights campaigners .
`` Live animals commonly have to endure excessively long journeys during exports , causing distress and injury , '' DEFRA said .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to these journeys , but leaving the EU has enabled the UK government to pursue these plans . ''
This announcement begins an eight-week consultation in England and Wales and , according to Eustice , marks `` a major step forward in delivering on our manifesto commitment to end live exports for slaughter .
Now that we have left the EU , we have an opportunity to end this unnecessary practice .
We want to ensure that animals are spared stress prior to slaughter . ''
It is expected that this process will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` The [ Scottish ] government is committed to the highest possible welfare standards for animals and to ensuring that , where it is necessary , livestock in Scotland are transported humanely and with respect and dignity , '' Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said in 2019 .
`` We recognize that there are complexities , and we certainly recognize the concerns around transportation ; our position is that , ideally , the process of quality meat production should take place close to where animals are born and reared .
We are also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways of rearing more male dairy calves productively and profitably instead of exporting them . ''
In Northern Ireland , it is likely that it will follow EU laws on live animals because of the well-documented difficulties with the border on the island of Ireland .
The export of poultry in England and Wales will also continue , DEFRA says , with tens of millions of chicks exported a year for breeding purposes .
It was worth £139m to the U.K. economy in 2018 .
Chris Sherwood , CEO for the Royal Society @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( RSPCA ) , said : `` We welcome plans to end live exports and look forward to seeing this happen as the RSPCA has campaigned on this issue for more than 50 years .
`` There is absolutely no reasonable justification to subject an animal to an unnecessarily stressful journey abroad simply for them to be fattened for slaughter .
Ending live exports for slaughter and further fattening would be a landmark achievement for animal welfare . ''
There are signs that other countries might follow if Britain 's policy is successful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where breeding heifers were not allowed to be exported to Morocco and officials in the Netherlands have asked the Agriculture and Fishery Council to look at animal welfare regulations .

Britain will become the first European country to ban the export of live animals for fattening and slaughter, British Environment Secretary George Eustice will announce.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) said this announcement was part of a wider strategy to improve Britain's position on animal welfare and to cement it as a world leader. Around 6,400 animals were exported to Europe for slaughter in 2018, the most recent data on record.
Globally, around two billion live animals are exported around the world, according to data from The UN's Food and Agricultural Organization, with live pigs from Poland to Denmark, chickens from the Netherlands to Thailand and sheep from Australia to Qatar some of the largest volume exports.
In 2018, the United States exported about $872 million worth of live animals of all species, according to the Farm Journal, primarily to Mexico and Canada but Brazil, South Korea and China were all in the top five. This includes animals for slaughter, breeding and any other purpose.
The European Union (EU) has a number of animal health requirements but, a European Commission statement says: "live animals are traded or imported every day in the European Union." Now the U.K. has left the EU and is coming to the end of a transition agreement, officials are looking to differentiate policy between them. The ban, if and when it came into force, would be considered a Brexit success by animal rights campaigners.
"Live animals commonly have to endure excessively long journeys during exports, causing distress and injury," DEFRA said. "Previously, EU rules prevented any changes to these journeys, but leaving the EU has enabled the UK government to pursue these plans."
This announcement begins an eight-week consultation in England and Wales and, according to Eustice, marks "a major step forward in delivering on our manifesto commitment to end live exports for slaughter. Now that we have left the EU, we have an opportunity to end this unnecessary practice. We want to ensure that animals are spared stress prior to slaughter."
It is expected that this process will then lead to discussions in Scotland.
"The [Scottish] government is committed to the highest possible welfare standards for animals and to ensuring that, where it is necessary, livestock in Scotland are transported humanely and with respect and dignity," Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said in 2019. "We recognize that there are complexities, and we certainly recognize the concerns around transportation; our position is that, ideally, the process of quality meat production should take place close to where animals are born and reared. We are also working with the farming sector to explore ways of rearing more male dairy calves productively and profitably instead of exporting them."
In Northern Ireland, it is likely that it will follow EU laws on live animals because of the well-documented difficulties with the border on the island of Ireland.
The UK sold £1.3bn of dairy products to the EU in 2019 and Brexit threatens that but farmers hope this trade will continue while live animal export is phased out Dan Kitwood/Getty
The export of poultry in England and Wales will also continue, DEFRA says, with tens of millions of chicks exported a year for breeding purposes. It was worth £139m to the U.K. economy in 2018.
Chris Sherwood, CEO for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), said: "We welcome plans to end live exports and look forward to seeing this happen as the RSPCA has campaigned on this issue for more than 50 years.
"There is absolutely no reasonable justification to subject an animal to an unnecessarily stressful journey abroad simply for them to be fattened for slaughter. Ending live exports for slaughter and further fattening would be a landmark achievement for animal welfare."
There are signs that other countries might follow if Britain's policy is successful. There have been cases in Germany, where breeding heifers were not allowed to be exported to Morocco and officials in the Netherlands have asked the Agriculture and Fishery Council to look at animal welfare regulations.


newsweek--2020-12-03--With Americans Unconvinced Stimulus is Coming, Bipartisan Bill Gains Ground

Americans have long been unconvinced that further stimulus action will happen imminently , though a bipartisan bill detailing a compromised plan on relief looks to be gaining support in Congress .
Before the election , people did not think such support would be signed off ahead of November 3 .
They were right .
Since then polling , has indicated a lack of hope in the country that one will come this year—or at all .
Of 6,229 U.S. adults asked by YouGov on December 2 , a quarter said they think Congress will pass a bill for another stimulus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than a fifth , 22 percent , said they do not think Congress will ever pass one .
This compares to seven percent who believe it will be in the next two weeks , 11 percent in the next month and 15 percent in January 2021 .
This comes despite other polling having indicated a desire among the public for stimulus and bipartisan backing for it .
Among lawmakers , there is support across the aisle for further relief but the topline spend and specific aspects of such action have led to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than eight months since the CARES Act was signed by President Donald Trump .
Democrats have since pitched the HEROES Act and an updated version of it , both of which passed in the House but faced resistance in the GOP-led Senate .
Proposals made in the upper chamber have also failed to gain traction , from skinny bills pitched by Republican leaders to a previous bipartisan bill .
A fresh bipartisan bill worth $ 908 billion was unveiled this week and appears to be gaining more support than the one previous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-NY ) have both backed the new bipartisan proposal in `` the spirit of compromise . ''
President-elect Joe Biden has also offered it his support .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , though , suggested the proposal was a waste of time when asked about it .
He insisted the focus should be on what the president will sign .
McConnell remains focused on wanting a targeted bill which would be worth around $ 500 billion , with plans of his own having emerged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would sign his proposals .
Despite this , House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer ( D-MD ) suggested he believes there could be agreement on a deal in the `` next few days , '' describing hopes these could respond to the `` major crises at least in the short term . ''
Newsweek has contacted the lawmakers mentioned above for comment .

Americans have long been unconvinced that further stimulus action will happen imminently, though a bipartisan compromise plan on relief looks to be gaining support in Congress.
Before the election, people did not think such support would be signed off ahead of November 3. They were right.
Since then polling, has indicated a lack of hope in the country that one will come this year—or at all.
Of 6,229 U.S. adults asked by YouGov on December 2, a quarter said they think Congress will pass a bill for another stimulus package but after January 2021.
Just more than a fifth, 22 percent, said they do not think Congress will ever pass one.
This compares to seven percent who believe it will be in the next two weeks, 11 percent in the next month and 15 percent in January 2021.
This comes despite other polling having indicated a desire among the public for stimulus and bipartisan backing for it.
Among lawmakers, there is support across the aisle for further relief but the topline spend and specific aspects of such action have led to a prolonged stalemate.
A person wearing a protective face mask inside a gift shop in Midtown as the city moved into Phase 3 of re-opening after restrictions imposed to curb the coronavirus pandemic on July 14, in New York City. The pandemic has posed economic turmoil for individuals and businesses across the United States. Noam Galai/Getty Images
It has been more than eight months since the CARES Act was signed by President Donald Trump. Democrats have since pitched the HEROES Act and an updated version of it, both of which passed in the House but faced resistance in the GOP-led Senate.
Proposals made in the upper chamber have also failed to gain traction, from skinny bills pitched by Republican leaders to a previous bipartisan bill.
A fresh bipartisan bill worth $908 billion was unveiled this week and appears to be gaining more support than the one previous.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) have both backed the new bipartisan proposals as being a basis for negotiations, a spokesperson for Schumer told Newsweek. They do not support the bill as is
The pair said this was in "the spirit of compromise."
"While we made a new offer to Leader McConnell and Leader McCarthy on Monday, in the spirit of compromise we believe the bipartisan framework introduced by Senators yesterday should be used as the basis for immediate bipartisan, bicameral negotiations," a statement from the pair said.
"Of course, we and others will offer improvements, but the need to act is immediate and we believe that with good-faith negotiations we could come to an agreement."
President-elect Joe Biden has also offered it his support.
Read more Donald Trump Has Lost More than 200,000 Twitter Followers since Election Donald Trump Has Lost More than 200,000 Twitter Followers since Election
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, though, suggested the proposal was a waste of time when asked about it. He insisted the focus should be on what the president will sign.
McConnell remains focused on wanting a targeted bill which would be worth around $500 billion, with plans of his own having emerged. It has been indicated the president would sign his proposals.
Despite this, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) suggested he believes there could be agreement on a deal in the "next few days," describing hopes these could respond to the "major crises at least in the short term."
Newsweek has contacted the lawmakers mentioned above for comment.
This article has been updated with further comment from Pelosi and Schumer, with comments from Schumer's spokesperson clarifying their stance.


newsweek--2020-12-03--SCOTUS Sends a Message: Respect Religious Freedom, Even in a Pandemic | Opinion

Critics of the U.S. Supreme Court 's Thanksgiving Eve decision on religious freedom claim that , as Chief Justice John Roberts said in his dissent , the decision was n't strictly necessary .
The two cases that were decided together—Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo and Agudath Israel of America v. Cuomo—were moot by the time the High Court handed down its injunction barring New York governor Andrew Cuomo from limiting access to churches and synagogues in certain areas of New York City in an effort to stem the spread of the novel coronavirus .
The state had already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in some places of worship at 25 persons and at only 10 in others .
But the Court 's ruling granting extraordinary relief to the two religious organizations was n't just necessary .
It was long overdue .
After almost a year of state governments being given carte blanche authority by the courts to enact emergency rules during the COVID crisis , it was time to remind governors like Cuomo that the Constitution , and specifically the First Amendment , had n't been repealed .
As Justice Neil Gorsuch stated in his concurrence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disregard the First Amendment in a crisis . ''
The Court 's action was a turning point in a struggle that has been going on since March .
Faced with an unprecedented public health emergency , cities and states handed down a deluge of often arbitrary regulations that aimed , at least initially , to `` flatten the curve '' of the contagion and ensure hospitals were not overwhelmed with sick and dying patients .
But as the pandemic continued to spread , with the atmosphere of fear spreading as fast as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gov .
Cuomo—whose credibility was called into question following his decision to order nursing homes to admit COVID-positive patients , a fatal mistake that led to thousands of deaths—to issue rules ignoring the Constitution increased .
The vast majority of Americans were willing to accept short-term sacrifices if it meant saving lives , especially when it came to the most vulnerable sectors of the population like the elderly .
But almost from the beginning of the crisis , the arbitrary nature of many of the regulations—which allowed some large stores to operate while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hackles of many citizens .
Protests in June exposed the political motivation behind the lockdown rules .
The same governments that were sending cops to shut down churches and synagogues , allegedly for violating rules prohibiting mass gatherings , turned a blind eye to the Black Lives Matter demonstrations—both the `` mostly peaceful '' versions and the riots and looting—that followed the death of George Floyd .
They even encouraged those who gathered closely packed in the tens of thousands .
This hypocrisy was repeated in the fall when Americans poured into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden 's electoral victory over Donald Trump without interference from the mayors and governors who excoriated those who protested rules limiting the right of businesses to operate or churches and synagogues to open .
Equally dismaying was the utter contempt for constitutional rights that some state officials expressed openly .
In an interview with Gov .
Phil Murphy of New Jersey , Fox News 's Tucker Carlson asked about a case in which 15 men were arrested in that state 's Ocean County for violating a stay-at-home order .
Carlson reminded Murphy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as you well know , protects Americans ' rights—enshrines their right to practice their religion as they see fit and to congregate together to assemble peacefully .
By what authority did you nullify the Bill of Rights in issuing this order ?
How do you have the power to do that ? ''
Murphy 's answer was telling .
`` That 's above my pay grade , Tucker , '' the governor responded .
`` I was n't thinking of the Bill of Rights when we did this . ''
While Murphy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the virus and the need to respect science and for citizens to practice social distancing , he refused to speak to the issue of rights .
As far as he was concerned , the discussion of constitutional rights in an emergency was solely the obsession of libertarian nutcases .
Nor was Murphy alone .
The Supreme Court agreed with that approach in July when it was asked to decide Calvary Chapel v. Sisolak .
In this case a local church challenged the decision of Nevada governor Steve Sisolak to impose strict attendance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ casinos to operate largely unhindered .
How could it be constitutional to curtail religious freedom while protecting casinos ?
The answer the Court gave was to essentially validate Murphy 's blithe answer to Carlson .
The majority in the 5-4 vote ( in which Roberts joined the Court 's four liberals ) was to say that courts should defer to the judgment of governors in emergencies like the one the nation now faced .
As Justice Samuel Alito , one of the dissenters in that case , stated in a speech last month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has provided the country with a `` constitutional stress test . ''
He worried that under the circumstances , `` religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored right . ''
The justice specified that he was n't `` diminishing the severity of the virus 's threat to public health '' or even `` saying anything '' about whether lockdown rules were `` good public policy '' —though the recurrence of the virus once they are lifted undermines the case for their efficacy .
But he pointed out that `` the pandemic has resulted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' and that this had happened `` by executive fiat rather than legislation . ''
The unchecked growth of the administrative state and the rule of unaccountable `` experts '' long precede the appearance of the coronavirus .
But what Americans have experienced in 2020 is a sweeping away of legal norms that can not be countenanced even in the midst of a crisis .
As Alito said , treating the right to religious freedom as being at least as important as that of a casino to operate should n't have been a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If you look in the Constitution , he added , `` you will see the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment which protects religious liberty , you will not find a craps clause or a blackjack clause or a slot machine clause . ''
The answer is the tragic death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her swift replacement by President Donald Trump and a Republican Senate with Justice Amy Coney Barrett .
Even with Roberts performing his by now familiar role of voting with the liberals to forestall media criticism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appointees—Gorsuch , Brett Kavanaugh and Barrett—joined Alito and Clarence Thomas to create a majority that sought to restore the First Amendment to its former status as the indomitable source of our first freedoms .
Cuomo 's own words proved the discriminatory nature of the orders this new majority found unconstitutional .
In comments aired on CNN , the governor made it clear that the only reason the lines of his clusters were drawn was to target ultra-Orthodox Jews .
While the notion that the ultra-Orthodox are unique in flouting coronavirus regulations is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community regards its right to continue its religious way of life—which centers on regular synagogue attendance , faith-based education and community gatherings to celebrate life cycle events and holidays—as non-negotiable .
While many Americans have prized the perception of safety in a pandemic above their freedom and treated religious observance as expendable ( for example , almost all non-Orthodox synagogues have remained closed since March with most resorting to services broadcast via Zoom or YouTube , an option that violates Orthodox restrictions on the use of technology on the Sabbath and holidays ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't justify giving up a lifestyle rooted in faith .
Doing what is necessary to save lives is a principle enshrined in Jewish religious law as well as common sense .
But the ultra-Orthodox—who were ably represented in this case by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty—like their Catholic neighbors who also sued to lift restrictions on their churches , think their right to live as they choose needs to be defended .
They believe that being forced to give up communal prayer and gatherings even when masks are worn and social distancing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but also a threat to their identity and rights .
As in the Nevada case , the question was not whether states can take action to save lives in a public health emergency .
Rather , it was whether politicians , emboldened by the conceit that fear of the pandemic gives them unlimited power , can exercise authority in a way that discriminates against faith groups .
That has happened across the nation as houses of worship—considered essential by people of faith but not by the secular—have been shut down as a host @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowed to stay open .
Power-drunk politicians like Cuomo had seemingly erased the Constitution and used the pandemic to justify otherwise indefensible attacks on the right to free exercise of religion .
But as Gorsuch wrote , `` while the pandemic poses many grave challenges , there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches , synagogues , and mosques . ''
The Court 's ruling wo n't halt all governmental actions to deal with the emergency .
But it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are doing is necessary—something Cuomo did n't even bother trying to do—and not to downgrade religious freedom to a second-tier entitlement .
The challenge to Cuomo should be considered a landmark moment in constitutional law that halted the government 's drift away from the First Amendment .
Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS.org , a senior contributor to The Federalist and a columnist for the New York Post .
Follow him on Twitter at : @ jonathans_tobin .
The views expressed in this article are the writer 's own @

Critics of the U.S. Supreme Court's Thanksgiving Eve decision on religious freedom claim that, as Chief Justice John Roberts said in his dissent, the decision wasn't strictly necessary. The two cases that were decided together—Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo and Agudath Israel of America v. Cuomo—were moot by the time the High Court handed down its injunction barring New York governor Andrew Cuomo from limiting access to churches and synagogues in certain areas of New York City in an effort to stem the spread of the novel coronavirus. The state had already backed down on its rules capping attendance in some places of worship at 25 persons and at only 10 in others.
But the Court's ruling granting extraordinary relief to the two religious organizations wasn't just necessary. It was long overdue.
After almost a year of state governments being given carte blanche authority by the courts to enact emergency rules during the COVID crisis, it was time to remind governors like Cuomo that the Constitution, and specifically the First Amendment, hadn't been repealed.
As Justice Neil Gorsuch stated in his concurrence, "Government is not free to disregard the First Amendment in a crisis."
The Court's action was a turning point in a struggle that has been going on since March. Faced with an unprecedented public health emergency, cities and states handed down a deluge of often arbitrary regulations that aimed, at least initially, to "flatten the curve" of the contagion and ensure hospitals were not overwhelmed with sick and dying patients. But as the pandemic continued to spread, with the atmosphere of fear spreading as fast as the virus, the willingness of people like Gov. Cuomo—whose credibility was called into question following his decision to order nursing homes to admit COVID-positive patients, a fatal mistake that led to thousands of deaths—to issue rules ignoring the Constitution increased.
The vast majority of Americans were willing to accept short-term sacrifices if it meant saving lives, especially when it came to the most vulnerable sectors of the population like the elderly. But almost from the beginning of the crisis, the arbitrary nature of many of the regulations—which allowed some large stores to operate while putting many mom-and-pop stores out of business—raised the hackles of many citizens.
Protests in June exposed the political motivation behind the lockdown rules. The same governments that were sending cops to shut down churches and synagogues, allegedly for violating rules prohibiting mass gatherings, turned a blind eye to the Black Lives Matter demonstrations—both the "mostly peaceful" versions and the riots and looting—that followed the death of George Floyd. They even encouraged those who gathered closely packed in the tens of thousands. This hypocrisy was repeated in the fall when Americans poured into the streets of large cities to celebrate Joe Biden's electoral victory over Donald Trump without interference from the mayors and governors who excoriated those who protested rules limiting the right of businesses to operate or churches and synagogues to open.
Equally dismaying was the utter contempt for constitutional rights that some state officials expressed openly.
In an interview with Gov. Phil Murphy of New Jersey, Fox News's Tucker Carlson asked about a case in which 15 men were arrested in that state's Ocean County for violating a stay-at-home order. Carlson reminded Murphy that, "The Bill of Rights, as you well know, protects Americans' rights—enshrines their right to practice their religion as they see fit and to congregate together to assemble peacefully. By what authority did you nullify the Bill of Rights in issuing this order? How do you have the power to do that?"
Murphy's answer was telling. "That's above my pay grade, Tucker," the governor responded. "I wasn't thinking of the Bill of Rights when we did this." While Murphy went on to talk about the danger of the virus and the need to respect science and for citizens to practice social distancing, he refused to speak to the issue of rights. As far as he was concerned, the discussion of constitutional rights in an emergency was solely the obsession of libertarian nutcases.
Nor was Murphy alone. The Supreme Court agreed with that approach in July when it was asked to decide Calvary Chapel v. Sisolak. In this case a local church challenged the decision of Nevada governor Steve Sisolak to impose strict attendance limits on houses of worship while allowing casinos to operate largely unhindered. How could it be constitutional to curtail religious freedom while protecting casinos?
The answer the Court gave was to essentially validate Murphy's blithe answer to Carlson. The majority in the 5-4 vote (in which Roberts joined the Court's four liberals) was to say that courts should defer to the judgment of governors in emergencies like the one the nation now faced.
The United States Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Trump v. New York on November 30, 2020 in Washington, D.C. Chip Somodevilla/Getty
As Justice Samuel Alito, one of the dissenters in that case, stated in a speech last month to the Federalist Society, the pandemic has provided the country with a "constitutional stress test." He worried that under the circumstances, "religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored right."
The justice specified that he wasn't "diminishing the severity of the virus's threat to public health" or even "saying anything" about whether lockdown rules were "good public policy"—though the recurrence of the virus once they are lifted undermines the case for their efficacy. But he pointed out that "the pandemic has resulted in previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty" and that this had happened "by executive fiat rather than legislation." The unchecked growth of the administrative state and the rule of unaccountable "experts" long precede the appearance of the coronavirus. But what Americans have experienced in 2020 is a sweeping away of legal norms that cannot be countenanced even in the midst of a crisis.
As Alito said, treating the right to religious freedom as being at least as important as that of a casino to operate shouldn't have been a "tough call" in Calvary Chapel. If you look in the Constitution, he added, "you will see the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment which protects religious liberty, you will not find a craps clause or a blackjack clause or a slot machine clause."
What changed since July?
The answer is the tragic death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her swift replacement by President Donald Trump and a Republican Senate with Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Even with Roberts performing his by now familiar role of voting with the liberals to forestall media criticism of the Court, Trump's three appointees—Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Barrett—joined Alito and Clarence Thomas to create a majority that sought to restore the First Amendment to its former status as the indomitable source of our first freedoms.
Cuomo's own words proved the discriminatory nature of the orders this new majority found unconstitutional. In comments aired on CNN, the governor made it clear that the only reason the lines of his clusters were drawn was to target ultra-Orthodox Jews.
While the notion that the ultra-Orthodox are unique in flouting coronavirus regulations is a canard, it is true that this community regards its right to continue its religious way of life—which centers on regular synagogue attendance, faith-based education and community gatherings to celebrate life cycle events and holidays—as non-negotiable. While many Americans have prized the perception of safety in a pandemic above their freedom and treated religious observance as expendable (for example, almost all non-Orthodox synagogues have remained closed since March with most resorting to services broadcast via Zoom or YouTube, an option that violates Orthodox restrictions on the use of technology on the Sabbath and holidays), the ultra-Orthodox believe the pandemic doesn't justify giving up a lifestyle rooted in faith.
Doing what is necessary to save lives is a principle enshrined in Jewish religious law as well as common sense. But the ultra-Orthodox—who were ably represented in this case by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty—like their Catholic neighbors who also sued to lift restrictions on their churches, think their right to live as they choose needs to be defended. They believe that being forced to give up communal prayer and gatherings even when masks are worn and social distancing is observed is not just an inconvenience but also a threat to their identity and rights.
As in the Nevada case, the question was not whether states can take action to save lives in a public health emergency. Rather, it was whether politicians, emboldened by the conceit that fear of the pandemic gives them unlimited power, can exercise authority in a way that discriminates against faith groups. That has happened across the nation as houses of worship—considered essential by people of faith but not by the secular—have been shut down as a host of non-religious businesses and institutions have been allowed to stay open.
Power-drunk politicians like Cuomo had seemingly erased the Constitution and used the pandemic to justify otherwise indefensible attacks on the right to free exercise of religion. But as Gorsuch wrote, "while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues, and mosques."
The Court's ruling won't halt all governmental actions to deal with the emergency. But it does require politicians to prove that what they are doing is necessary—something Cuomo didn't even bother trying to do—and not to downgrade religious freedom to a second-tier entitlement.
The challenge to Cuomo should be considered a landmark moment in constitutional law that halted the government's drift away from the First Amendment.
Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS.org, a senior contributor to The Federalist and a columnist for the New York Post. Follow him on Twitter at: @jonathans_tobin.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.


newsweek--2020-12-03--Ghislaine Maxwell to Seek Bail in Private Hearing—Despite Flight Risk Warning

Ghislaine Maxwell wants to apply for bail in her Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking case—in a private hearing where victims would not be allowed , prosecutors say .
The British socialite is expected to ask Judge Alison Nathan to free her from the Metropolitan Detention Center ( MDC ) in Brooklyn as she awaits trial in July next year .
The move comes after prosecutors previously warned she is an `` extreme '' flight risk following evidence she hid out in a `` remote '' New Hampshire house with her cell phone wrapped in foil .
CNBC quoted a court filing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` renewed application for bail '' and asking for `` sealing and for an in camera hearing . ''
`` In camera '' would mean the public , journalists and victims were all excluded while lawyers in the case discuss the issues with the judge .
Prosecutor Maurene Comey told a Manhattan Federal Court in a letter quoted by Bloomberg : `` The government sees no reason for an entire hearing to be conducted without the opportunity for the public or the victims in this case to observe . ''
She added : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a statutory right to be present and heard at any proceeding regarding the defendant 's 'release ' ... the government would object to any proceeding addressing aspects of a renewed bail application that was conducted entirely in camera . ''
News of Maxwell 's intention to pursue the application comes after her lawyer wrote to Judge Nathan to protest her jail conditions .
In the letter , seen by Newsweek , Bobbi Sternheim wrote : `` The government highlights what Ms. Maxwell is permitted but not what she is denied : equal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` Ms. Maxwell has spent the entirety of her pretrial detention in de facto solitary confinement under the most restrictive conditions where she is excessively and invasively searched and is monitored 24 hours per day .
`` In addition to camera surveillance in her cell , a supplemental camera follows her movement when she is permitted to leave her isolation cell and is focused on Ms. Maxwell and counsel during in-person legal visits .
`` And despite non-stop in-cell camera surveillance , Ms Maxwell 's sleep is disrupted every 15-minutes when she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether she is breathing . ''
Maxwell was arrested in July and charged with a six-count indictment including trafficking offences allegedly committed between 1994 and 1997 .
In a July filing reported by The Guardian , prosecutors said Maxwell `` tried to flee '' when the F.B.I .
arrived at her `` remote home '' and pointed to a `` cellphone wrapped in tin foil '' as evidence she tried to `` evade detection . ''
The filing described her as an `` extreme risk of flight . ''
The charges relate to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ publicly named , and there is an additional perjury charge related to a deposition given by Maxwell in a 2016 libel case .
The lawsuit was brought by Virginia Guiffre , who claims she was made to have sex with Prince Andrew in London , New York and Epstein 's private island when she was 17 .
Maxwell denies six counts , which include conspiracy to entice minors , and enticement of a minor , to travel to engage in illegal sex acts ; conspiracy to transport minors , and transportation of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminal sexual activity , and two of perjury .

Ghislaine Maxwell wants to apply for bail in her Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking case—in a private hearing where victims would not be allowed, prosecutors say.
The British socialite is expected to ask Judge Alison Nathan to free her from the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Brooklyn as she awaits trial in July next year.
The move comes after prosecutors previously warned she is an "extreme" flight risk following evidence she hid out in a "remote" New Hampshire house with her cell phone wrapped in foil.
CNBC quoted a court filing by prosecutors indicating she will make a "renewed application for bail" and asking for "sealing and for an in camera hearing."
"In camera" would mean the public, journalists and victims were all excluded while lawyers in the case discuss the issues with the judge.
Ghislaine Maxwell attends The Daily Beast's Innovators Summit: Reboot America! at Mardi Gras World East on October 21, 2010 in New Orleans, Louisiana. She is awaiting trial on Jeffrey Epstein-related trafficking and perjury charges. Erika Goldring/Getty
Prosecutor Maurene Comey told a Manhattan Federal Court in a letter quoted by Bloomberg: "The government sees no reason for an entire hearing to be conducted without the opportunity for the public or the victims in this case to observe."
She added: "Indeed, given that crime victims have a statutory right to be present and heard at any proceeding regarding the defendant's 'release' ... the government would object to any proceeding addressing aspects of a renewed bail application that was conducted entirely in camera."
News of Maxwell's intention to pursue the application comes after her lawyer wrote to Judge Nathan to protest her jail conditions.
In the letter, seen by Newsweek, Bobbi Sternheim wrote: "The government highlights what Ms. Maxwell is permitted but not what she is denied: equal treatment accorded other inmates in general population.
"Ms. Maxwell has spent the entirety of her pretrial detention in de facto solitary confinement under the most restrictive conditions where she is excessively and invasively searched and is monitored 24 hours per day.
Read more Prince Andrew Plans Return to Public Role Despite Jeffrey Epstein Scandal Prince Andrew Plans Return to Public Role Despite Jeffrey Epstein Scandal
"In addition to camera surveillance in her cell, a supplemental camera follows her movement when she is permitted to leave her isolation cell and is focused on Ms. Maxwell and counsel during in-person legal visits.
"And despite non-stop in-cell camera surveillance, Ms Maxwell's sleep is disrupted every 15-minutes when she is awakened by a flashlight to ascertain whether she is breathing."
Maxwell was arrested in July and charged with a six-count indictment including trafficking offences allegedly committed between 1994 and 1997.
In a July filing reported by The Guardian, prosecutors said Maxwell "tried to flee" when the F.B.I. arrived at her "remote home" and pointed to a "cellphone wrapped in tin foil" as evidence she tried to "evade detection."
The filing described her as an "extreme risk of flight."
The charges relate to three victims, who have not been publicly named, and there is an additional perjury charge related to a deposition given by Maxwell in a 2016 libel case.
The lawsuit was brought by Virginia Guiffre, who claims she was made to have sex with Prince Andrew in London, New York and Epstein's private island when she was 17.
Maxwell denies six counts, which include conspiracy to entice minors, and enticement of a minor, to travel to engage in illegal sex acts; conspiracy to transport minors, and transportation of a minor, with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, and two of perjury.


newsweek--2020-12-03--Alexis Sharkey's Friends Say She Was 'Scared for Her Life' Prior to Death

The friends of the late Instagram influencer Alexis Sharkey have spoken about their concerns for her shortly before her death , saying that they believe she was murdered .
26-year-old Sharkey was found dead on the side of the road Saturday near I-10 , about 17 miles west of downtown Houston .
She was formally identified on Monday .
Lauren Breaux , Ally Cale and Courtney Ehninger , all friends of Sharkey , have spoken about how she was fearful for her life leading up to her death .
`` We do n't know what happened .
We obviously have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ murdered , absolutely , '' Breaux told ABC13 .
`` I 'm going to be honest , she confided in me about how worried she was for her safety when we went to Marfa , Texas , almost a month ago .
We were sitting down at dinner and she lost it .
We walked back to our hotel room and she confided in me that night in things .
I looked at her [ and thought ] , 'She 's petrified .
This girl is scared for her life . '
'' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say who or what Sharkey was so fearful of .
Her mother also thinks Sharkey 's death was `` absolutely foul play . ''
`` The way in which she was found—my child would never do that to herself , '' Stacey Robinault told KPRC , a Houston news station .
`` That does n't even make sense .
That is absolutely foul play . ''
She continued .
`` There is nothing to me that suggests that this was an accident , '' she said .
`` And there 's nothing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than that this was done to her .
And I believe that in my mother 's gut . ''
Alexis ' husband Tom Sharkey has received death threats following the news of his wife 's passing .
`` It 's horrible .
People are talking tons of crap .
I 'm getting death threats and stuff , '' he told ABC7 Eyewitness News reporter Steve Campion .
`` None of that bothers me .
What bothers me is that world and everybody in it focuses on all of the stuff that does n't @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finding my wife .
Everybody was still looking for her , and I located her Sunday morning in the coroner 's office .
They could n't ID my wife .
They did n't know who she was .
She was just there . ''
Tom disputed claims that the marriage was on the rocks , telling ABC13 : `` She was n't happy .
She was stressed .
I would cuddle her to try to make her strong .
She was an amazing woman .
Sir , my wife was an amazing woman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always other sides to everything .
I was the one holding her , cuddling her , and building her back up .
I do n't need to set the record straight .
I 'll let it play out the way it is .
I know what my life was with my wife . ''

The friends of the late Instagram influencer Alexis Sharkey have spoken about their concerns for her shortly before her death, saying that they believe she was murdered.
26-year-old Sharkey was found dead on the side of the road Saturday near I-10, about 17 miles west of downtown Houston. She was formally identified on Monday.
Lauren Breaux, Ally Cale and Courtney Ehninger, all friends of Sharkey, have spoken about how she was fearful for her life leading up to her death.
"We don't know what happened. We obviously have had ideas. We believe she was murdered, absolutely," Breaux told ABC13.
"I'm going to be honest, she confided in me about how worried she was for her safety when we went to Marfa, Texas, almost a month ago. We were sitting down at dinner and she lost it. We walked back to our hotel room and she confided in me that night in things. I looked at her [and thought], 'She's petrified. This girl is scared for her life.'"
When asked, the friends did not say who or what Sharkey was so fearful of.
Alexis Sharkey on May 26 via Instagram account @alexissharkey. Instagram @alexissharkey
Her mother also thinks Sharkey's death was "absolutely foul play."
"The way in which she was found—my child would never do that to herself," Stacey Robinault told KPRC, a Houston news station. "That doesn't even make sense. That is absolutely foul play."
She continued. "There is nothing to me that suggests that this was an accident," she said. "And there's nothing to me that suggests anything else, other than that this was done to her. And I believe that in my mother's gut."
Alexis' husband Tom Sharkey has received death threats following the news of his wife's passing.
"It's horrible. People are talking tons of crap. I'm getting death threats and stuff," he told ABC7 Eyewitness News reporter Steve Campion.
"None of that bothers me. What bothers me is that world and everybody in it focuses on all of the stuff that doesn't matter ... should have been focused on finding my wife. Everybody was still looking for her, and I located her Sunday morning in the coroner's office. They couldn't ID my wife. They didn't know who she was. She was just there."
Tom disputed claims that the marriage was on the rocks, telling ABC13: "She wasn't happy. She was stressed. I would cuddle her to try to make her strong. She was an amazing woman. Sir, my wife was an amazing woman. She really was. There's always other sides to everything. I was the one holding her, cuddling her, and building her back up. I don't need to set the record straight. I'll let it play out the way it is. I know what my life was with my wife."


newsweek--2020-12-03--U.S. 'Shouldn't Treat Everyone as a Spy,' China Says Amid Espionage Crackdown

Washington `` should n't treat everyone as a spy , '' China 's foreign ministry said Thursday , after senior U.S. security officials revealed that more than 1,000 Chinese researchers had fled the country amid a Justice Department crackdown on espionage activity .
John Demers , chief of the DOJ 's National Security Division , said the U.S. government has managed to disrupt `` a significant amount of malign Chinese activity '' in the past two to three years .
`` In the eyes of some , there is only hatred , division and confrontation , '' Chinese foreign ministry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regular press briefing .
`` The U.S. should n't treat everyone as a spy . ''
At a virtual summit hosted by the Aspen Institute think tank on Wednesday , Demers said the latest DOJ clampdown began in the summer with the arrest of `` five or six '' Chinese researchers , who had failed to disclose their affiliations with China 's People 's Liberation Army when applying for visas to the U.S. Demers called it the `` tip of the iceberg '' as the government stepped up its efforts to disrupt Chinese @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There was `` no question '' that the research students had been instructed by Beijing to hide their military affiliations , Demers said , noting that the department 's work involved dozens of interviews and ultimately led to the closure of the Chinese consulate in Houston .
`` More than 1,000 PLA-affiliated Chinese researchers left the country '' in the interim , Demers said at the event , which he attended alongside the government 's head of national counterintelligence , William Evanina .
Only China had the `` resources and ability and will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activity the Justice Department was witnessing , he added .
Hua called the accusations `` ridiculous '' and suggested Washington lacked confidence in itself .
She said `` extreme anti-China forces '' in the U.S. government were guilty of `` ideological bias '' and `` political repression . ''
There were also attempts to end civilian cultural exchanges between China and the U.S. , she added .
In the same Aspen Institute session , Evanina , who is head of the U.S. National Counterintelligence and Security Center , backed Demers ' report on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 're all coming here at the behest of the Chinese government . ''
Chinese operatives were already targeting members of the incoming Biden administration , Evanina said .
He also spoke of passing on U.S. intelligence on Chinese espionage activity to NATO partners in Europe .
After the Trump administration labeled state-owned Chinese news organizations as `` foreign missions '' in February , Beijing responded by expelling journalists from The New York Times , The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal .
In the summer , the U.S. government added to its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state broadcaster CCTV , as well as Communist Party newspapers People 's Daily and Global Times .
China Daily , which is circulated in English in the U.S. , was among the first round of news organizations classified a security risk in February .
In an editorial on Wednesday , the newspaper called U.S. policy a `` resurgence of McCarthyism . ''
On the same day , the State Department imposed new visa restrictions on more than 90 million CCP members and their immediate families .
According to The New York Times , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only be granted 30-day , single-entry visitor visas in a move likely to affect some 270 million people .

Washington "shouldn't treat everyone as a spy," China's foreign ministry said Thursday, after senior U.S. security officials revealed that more than 1,000 Chinese researchers had fled the country amid a Justice Department crackdown on espionage activity.
John Demers, chief of the DOJ's National Security Division, said the U.S. government has managed to disrupt "a significant amount of malign Chinese activity" in the past two to three years.
"In the eyes of some, there is only hatred, division and confrontation," Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying told reporters at a regular press briefing. "The U.S. shouldn't treat everyone as a spy."
At a virtual summit hosted by the Aspen Institute think tank on Wednesday, Demers said the latest DOJ clampdown began in the summer with the arrest of "five or six" Chinese researchers, who had failed to disclose their affiliations with China's People's Liberation Army when applying for visas to the U.S.
Demers called it the "tip of the iceberg" as the government stepped up its efforts to disrupt Chinese economic and political espionage in America.
There was "no question" that the research students had been instructed by Beijing to hide their military affiliations, Demers said, noting that the department's work involved dozens of interviews and ultimately led to the closure of the Chinese consulate in Houston.
"More than 1,000 PLA-affiliated Chinese researchers left the country" in the interim, Demers said at the event, which he attended alongside the government's head of national counterintelligence, William Evanina.
Only China had the "resources and ability and will" to conduct the scale of malign activity the Justice Department was witnessing, he added.
Hua called the accusations "ridiculous" and suggested Washington lacked confidence in itself.
She said "extreme anti-China forces" in the U.S. government were guilty of "ideological bias" and "political repression." There were also attempts to end civilian cultural exchanges between China and the U.S., she added.
In the same Aspen Institute session, Evanina, who is head of the U.S. National Counterintelligence and Security Center, backed Demers' report on PLA-affiliated researchers, saying: "They're all coming here at the behest of the Chinese government."
Chinese operatives were already targeting members of the incoming Biden administration, Evanina said. He also spoke of passing on U.S. intelligence on Chinese espionage activity to NATO partners in Europe.
Read more China Blasts Trump's 'Political Repression' Over U.S. Visa Restrictions China Blasts Trump's 'Political Repression' Over U.S. Visa Restrictions
After the Trump administration labeled state-owned Chinese news organizations as "foreign missions" in February, Beijing responded by expelling journalists from The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal.
In the summer, the U.S. government added to its list, including the likes of Chinese state broadcaster CCTV, as well as Communist Party newspapers People's Daily and Global Times.
China Daily, which is circulated in English in the U.S., was among the first round of news organizations classified a security risk in February.
In an editorial on Wednesday, the newspaper called U.S. policy a "resurgence of McCarthyism."
On the same day, the State Department imposed new visa restrictions on more than 90 million CCP members and their immediate families.
According to The New York Times, Chinese citizens with party affiliations will now only be granted 30-day, single-entry visitor visas in a move likely to affect some 270 million people.


newsweek--2020-12-03--Republicans and Trump Campaign Raise $200 Million as President Continues Evidence-Free Claims of Ele

Republicans and Trump Campaign Raise $200 Million as President Continues Evidence-Free Claims of Election Fraud

President Donald Trump has inspired more than $ 200 million in donations while promoting unsubstantiated claims of massive voter fraud in the aftermath of his loss to President-elect Joe Biden .
The Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee ( RNC ) said Thursday that they , along with several other Trump-associated groups , had raised $ 207.5 million in the month since Election Day .
When fundraising figures from the weeks leading up to the election are included , from October 15 onwards , the total balloons to a massive $ 495 million .
`` These tremendous fundraising numbers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ source of energy for the Republican Party , and that his supporters are dedicated to fighting for the rightful , legal outcome of the 2020 general election , '' Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien said in a statement .
`` It also positions President Trump to continue leading the fight to clean up our corrupt elections process in so many areas around the country , and to build on gains from the 2020 elections so we can take back the House and build on our Senate majority in 2022 , '' Stepien added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on efforts to overturn the results of the election while promoting evidence-free claims that what appears to be a decisive Biden victory was actually a Trump win that was `` stolen '' from him .
Legal efforts by the campaign and allies have been repeatedly failed to pass muster in court , while Trump has continued to promote conspiracy theories and debunked voter fraud claims on social media .
Although pro-Trump conspiracy theories almost certainly boosted donations to the RNC after the president 's loss , allowing baseless claims to flourish could easily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Powell and Lin Wood held a press conference on Wednesday urging Georgia Trump supporters to protest the election outcome by boycotting January 5 runoff elections that will determine which party controls the U.S. Senate .
If Democrats win both runoffs , they will have full control of Congress , with Vice President-elect Kamala Harris holding the power to break 50-50 ties in the Senate .
Polls released Thursday showed incumbent GOP Senators David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler are both trailing their Democratic Challengers , Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock , although the contests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ November meant that both presidential candidates received massive numbers of votes nationally , with Trump setting the high mark for votes won by a sitting president .
However , Biden received over 7 million more votes than Trump , winning by far the most votes of any candidate in U.S. history with a total exceeding 81.2 million , according to the Cook Political Report 's National Popular Vote Tracker .
In the Electoral College , where 270 votes determine the winner of the presidency , Biden won 306 votes to the president 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Trump achieved over former Secretary of State Hillary four years earlier .
Trump described his 2016 win as a `` massive landslide victory '' before results were certified , although he was trailing and eventually lost the popular vote by 2.9 million .
Newsweek reached out to the Trump campaign for comment .

President Donald Trump has inspired more than $200 million in donations while promoting unsubstantiated claims of massive voter fraud in the aftermath of his loss to President-elect Joe Biden.
The Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee (RNC) said Thursday that they, along with several other Trump-associated groups, had raised $207.5 million in the month since Election Day. When fundraising figures from the weeks leading up to the election are included, from October 15 onwards, the total balloons to a massive $495 million.
"These tremendous fundraising numbers show President Trump remains the leader and source of energy for the Republican Party, and that his supporters are dedicated to fighting for the rightful, legal outcome of the 2020 general election," Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien said in a statement.
"It also positions President Trump to continue leading the fight to clean up our corrupt elections process in so many areas around the country, and to build on gains from the 2020 elections so we can take back the House and build on our Senate majority in 2022," Stepien added.
Post-election fundraising campaigns have often focused on efforts to overturn the results of the election while promoting evidence-free claims that what appears to be a decisive Biden victory was actually a Trump win that was "stolen" from him. Legal efforts by the campaign and allies have been repeatedly failed to pass muster in court, while Trump has continued to promote conspiracy theories and debunked voter fraud claims on social media.
President Donald Trump waves during a visit to Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Virginia on November 27, 2020. Tasos Katopodis/Getty
Although pro-Trump conspiracy theories almost certainly boosted donations to the RNC after the president's loss, allowing baseless claims to flourish could easily backfire on Republicans. Pro-Trump lawyers Sidney Powell and Lin Wood held a press conference on Wednesday urging Georgia Trump supporters to protest the election outcome by boycotting January 5 runoff elections that will determine which party controls the U.S. Senate.
If Democrats win both runoffs, they will have full control of Congress, with Vice President-elect Kamala Harris holding the power to break 50-50 ties in the Senate. Polls released Thursday showed incumbent GOP Senators David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler are both trailing their Democratic Challengers, Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock, although the contests remain tight.
Record high turnout in November meant that both presidential candidates received massive numbers of votes nationally, with Trump setting the high mark for votes won by a sitting president. However, Biden received over 7 million more votes than Trump, winning by far the most votes of any candidate in U.S. history with a total exceeding 81.2 million, according to the Cook Political Report's National Popular Vote Tracker.
In the Electoral College, where 270 votes determine the winner of the presidency, Biden won 306 votes to the president's 232, the same margin of victory that Trump achieved over former Secretary of State Hillary four years earlier. Trump described his 2016 win as a "massive landslide victory" before results were certified, although he was trailing and eventually lost the popular vote by 2.9 million.
Newsweek reached out to the Trump campaign for comment.


newsweek--2020-12-03--Biden's Mask Plea Stirs Outrage Among Trump Supporters as COVID Cases Top 14 Million

After President-elect Joe Biden announced on Thursday that he would encourage Americans to wear face masks for 100 consecutive days in order to curb the spread of COVID-19 , some individuals who do not believe in the efficiency of masks criticized Biden 's proposal .
Biden , who is projected to be inaugurated as U.S. president in January , has often claimed that the wearing of face masks could help prevent the transmission of the coronavirus .
However , some individuals have expressed the opinion that mask-wearing impinges upon their civil rights .
Biden appeared to be offering a compromise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` The first day I 'm inaugurated to say I 'm going to ask the public for 100 days to mask , '' Biden said in an interview broadcast Thursday on CNN .
`` Just 100 days to mask , not forever .
One hundred days . ''
`` And I think we 'll see a significant reduction if we occur that , if that occurs with vaccinations and masking to drive down the numbers considerably , '' Biden added .
Biden 's statement came as the U.S. passed 14 million positive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ December 3 , 14,535,196 cases of the coronavirus had been recorded in the U.S. with 282,829 fatalities attributable to the virus .
Biden 's suggestion did not sit well with some conservatives who tweeted their disagreement with the 100-day long mask mandate .
`` Joe Biden asks everyone in America to wear a mask for his first 100 days like most people have n't been wearing them FOR THE PAST SIX MONTHS , '' tweeted Daily Caller reporter Scott Morefield .
`` Just more proof that face masks are a religious cult at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` No amount of data will ever change the minds of these fanatics . ''
`` Biden says he will ask Americans to wear face masks during the first 100 days of his administration , '' tweeted author and radio host Todd Starnes .
`` I 'm not sure that 's enough to stifle the stench of his leftist , America-Last agenda . ''
`` WE WILL NOT COMPLY ! ''
tweeted Georgia Congresswoman-elect Majorie Taylor Greene .
`` Where it started : '15 days to slow the spread ' '' tweeted reporter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schaffer .
`` How it 's going : 'just 100 days to mask .
Not forever ' '' .
`` utterly pathetic : Biden wants mask-wearing for `` first 100 days '' - @ CNN , '' tweeted British political commentator Steve Hilton .
`` what `` science '' or `` data '' is 100 days based on ?
none it 's pure BS , plucked out of thin air by some PR idiot '' '' everything Biden says about the virus is for politics , not public health , '' Hilton added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Newsweek reached out to Biden 's transition team for comment .
President Donald Trump , who has often been seen without a face mask , has implied that Biden 's propensity for wearing face masks was unnecessary .
`` I do n't wear masks like him , '' Trump said during the first presidential debate in September .
`` Every time you see him , he 's got a mask .
He could be speaking 200 feet away and he shows up with the biggest mask I 've ever seen . ''

President-elect Joe Biden's plea for Americans to wear masks for 100 days was met with anger and defiance from supporters of President Donald Trump, underscoring the challenge of fighting a politicized pandemic in a deeply divided nation.
As cases of COVID-19 surged past 14 million, Biden's opponents flooded social media with posts that questioned the science behind the mask appeal and other government responses that have wrecked the economy and constrained civil liberties.
Most experts recommend mask wearing and social distancing among a number of effective ways to control the spread of the virus that by December 3, had infected 14,535,196 people in the United States and killed 282,829, the most anywhere in the world.
"The first day I'm inaugurated to say I'm going to ask the public for 100 days to mask," Biden said in an interview broadcast Thursday on CNN. "Just 100 days to mask, not forever. One hundred days."
"And I think we'll see a significant reduction if we occur that, if that occurs with vaccinations and masking to drive down the numbers considerably," Biden added.
Biden's suggestion did not sit well with some conservatives who tweeted their disagreement with the 100-day long mask mandate.
"Joe Biden asks everyone in America to wear a mask for his first 100 days like most people haven't been wearing them FOR THE PAST SIX MONTHS," tweeted Daily Caller reporter Scott Morefield.
"Just more proof that face masks are a religious cult at this point," Morefield added. "No amount of data will ever change the minds of these fanatics."
Joe Biden asks everyone in America to wear a mask for his first 100 days like most people haven't been wearing them FOR THE PAST SIX MONTHS.
Just more proof that face masks are a religious cult at this point. No amount of data will ever change the minds of these fanatics. — Scott Morefield (@SKMorefield) December 4, 2020
"Biden says he will ask Americans to wear face masks during the first 100 days of his administration," tweeted author and radio host Todd Starnes. "I'm not sure that's enough to stifle the stench of his leftist, America-Last agenda."
Biden says he will ask Americans to wear face masks during the first 100 days of his administration. I'm not sure that's enough to stifle the stench of his leftist, America-Last agenda. — toddstarnes (@toddstarnes) December 4, 2020
"WE WILL NOT COMPLY!" tweeted Georgia Congresswoman-elect Majorie Taylor Greene.
WE WILL NOT COMPLY! https://t.co/6WAdbwQAb8 — Marjorie Taylor Greene 🇺🇸 (@mtgreenee) December 4, 2020
President-elect Joe Biden's Thursday statement that he would ask Americans to wear masks for 100 days after he takes over the presidency was criticized on social media by some who disagreed with the idea. Alex Wong/Getty
"Where it started: '15 days to slow the spread'" tweeted reporter for the conservative Blaze television network Elijah Schaffer. "How it's going: 'just 100 days to mask. Not forever'".
Where it started: “15 days to slow the spread”
How it’s going: “just 100 days to mask. Not forever” https://t.co/c0WPMXf66t — ELIJAH SCHAFFER (@ElijahSchaffer) December 3, 2020
"utterly pathetic: Biden wants mask-wearing for "first 100 days" - @CNN," tweeted British political commentator Steve Hilton. "what "science" or "data" is 100 days based on? none it's pure BS, plucked out of thin air by some PR idiot"
"everything Biden says about the virus is for politics, not public health," Hilton added. "he has zero credibility"
utterly pathetic: Biden wants mask-wearing for "first 100 days" - @CNN
what "science" or "data" is 100 days based on? none
it's pure BS, plucked out of thin air by some PR idiot
everything Biden says about the virus is for politics, not public health. he has zero credibility — steve hilton (@SteveHiltonx) December 3, 2020
Newsweek reached out to Biden's transition team for comment.
President Donald Trump, who has often been seen without a face mask, has implied that Biden's propensity for wearing face masks was unnecessary.
"I don't wear masks like him," Trump said during the first presidential debate in September. "Every time you see him, he's got a mask. He could be speaking 200 feet away and he shows up with the biggest mask I've ever seen."
Because of the current increase in positive COVID-19 cases, some states have declared plans to put more safety protocols in place. California Governor Gavin Newsom announced that the 5 regions of his state would be placed under a stay-at-home order for three weeks if bed availability in intensive care units within the regions fell below a 15 percent capacity. "This is the most challenging moment since the beginning of this pandemic," Newsom said in a Thursday news conference.
In the state of Florida, where more than 1 million positive cases of COVID-19 have been reported, Governor Ron DeSantis has declined to enact a statewide mask mandate. "I'm opposed to mandates, period," DeSantis said during a Monday briefing. "I don't think they work."


newsweek--2020-12-03--Defense Bill Released Without Section 230 Repeal, Despite Trump's Threats to Veto

Bipartisan lawmakers are moving forward with a version of the National Defense Authorization Act ( NDAA ) that does not include a repeal of key protections for tech companies , despite President Donald Trump 's threat to veto a bill without the provision .
A final draft of the NDAA revealed on Thursday does not include a repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 , a law that allows tech companies to engage in good-faith moderation of third party content online while shielding them from legal liabilities related to the content .
Prior to Trump threatening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demand for a repeal of the unrelated provision is not met , the president and his allies had repeatedly called for Section 230 to be repealed , alleging that it allows social media platforms to discriminate against conservatives .
Twitter and Facebook have censored or labelled posts by Trump for spreading false or misleading information this year , notably including those focused on the president 's evidence-free claims that mail-in ballots are rife with fraud .
`` If the very dangerous & unfair Section 230 is not completely terminated as part of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I will be forced to unequivocally VETO the Bill when sent to the very beautiful Resolute desk , '' Trump tweeted on Tuesday .
The $ 740 billion bill , a version of which has been passed for each of the past 59 years , largely contains routine funding authorizations for programs that allow the military to function .
In addition to potential national security implications , blocking the bill would also halt pay raises for military service members , along with provisions to protect service members and their families from COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress indicated that they would move forward with legislation that does not include a Section 230 repeal , with some prominent Republicans pushing back on the president 's demands .
`` First of all , 230 has nothing to do with the military , '' Sen. Jim Inhofe ( R-Okla. ) , chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee , told reporters .
`` I agree with his sentiments .
We ought to do away with 230 , but you ca n't do it in this bill .
That 's not a part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Republican pushback with anger while doubling down on his demands on Thursday , shortly before the bipartisan legislation was officially unveiled .
`` Looks like certain Republican Senators are getting cold feet with respect to the termination of Big Tech 's Section 230 , a National Security and Election Integrity MUST , '' Trump tweeted .
`` For years , all talk , no action .
Termination must be put in Defense Bill !
!
! ''
The bill also includes a provision establishing a commission `` concerning the removal of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and paraphernalia that honor or commemorate the Confederate States of America '' within three years .
Trump previously threatened to veto any version of the bill that dismantles tributes to the Confederacy , despite the provision having the support of military leadership and lawmakers of both parties .
If the NDAA is passed and then vetoed by Trump , Congress could potentially override the president 's veto .
Newsweek reached out to the White House for comment .

Bipartisan lawmakers are moving forward with a version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that does not include a repeal of key protections for tech companies, despite President Donald Trump's threat to veto a bill without the provision.
A final draft of the NDAA revealed on Thursday does not include a repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, a law that allows tech companies to engage in good-faith moderation of third party content online while shielding them from legal liabilities related to the content.
Prior to Trump threatening to veto the defense bill if his demand for a repeal of the unrelated provision is not met, the president and his allies had repeatedly called for Section 230 to be repealed, alleging that it allows social media platforms to discriminate against conservatives.
Twitter and Facebook have censored or labelled posts by Trump for spreading false or misleading information this year, notably including those focused on the president's evidence-free claims that mail-in ballots are rife with fraud.
"If the very dangerous & unfair Section 230 is not completely terminated as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), I will be forced to unequivocally VETO the Bill when sent to the very beautiful Resolute desk," Trump tweeted on Tuesday.
President Donald Trump speaks during an event in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C. on December 3, 2020. Doug Mills - Pool/Getty
The $740 billion bill, a version of which has been passed for each of the past 59 years, largely contains routine funding authorizations for programs that allow the military to function. In addition to potential national security implications, blocking the bill would also halt pay raises for military service members, along with provisions to protect service members and their families from COVID-19.
On Wednesday, bipartisan leaders in Congress indicated that they would move forward with legislation that does not include a Section 230 repeal, with some prominent Republicans pushing back on the president's demands.
"First of all, 230 has nothing to do with the military," Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told reporters. "I agree with his sentiments. We ought to do away with 230, but you can't do it in this bill. That's not a part of the bill."
Trump reacted to the Republican pushback with anger while doubling down on his demands on Thursday, shortly before the bipartisan legislation was officially unveiled.
"Looks like certain Republican Senators are getting cold feet with respect to the termination of Big Tech's Section 230, a National Security and Election Integrity MUST," Trump tweeted. "For years, all talk, no action. Termination must be put in Defense Bill!!!"
The bill also includes a provision establishing a commission "concerning the removal of names, symbols, displays, monuments, and paraphernalia that honor or commemorate the Confederate States of America" within three years.
Trump previously threatened to veto any version of the bill that dismantles tributes to the Confederacy, despite the provision having the support of military leadership and lawmakers of both parties.
If the NDAA is passed and then vetoed by Trump, Congress could potentially override the president's veto.
Newsweek reached out to the White House for comment.