June 18, 2020

'Dark Money' Is Funding The 2020 Election Challenge — And Could Challenge 2024

 


A contractor works to recount ballots from the 2020 general election in Phoenix, Ariz., on May 1. The Maricopa County ballot recount comes after two election audits found no evidence of widespread fraud in Arizona.

Courtney Pedroza/Getty Images

President Biden was sworn into office more than six months ago, but officials in Maricopa County, Ariz., are still searching for evidence that Biden's victory in their state was based on massive voter fraud — even after multiple audits found no issues.

New Yorker writer Jane Mayer says the Arizona audit is an unprecedented undertaking, with potentially explosive consequences for American democracy.

Mayer notes that although the audit appears to be the work of local extremists, it's actually being funded by sophisticated national organizations, whose boards of directors include some of the country's wealthiest and highest-profile conservatives.

"The 2020 election is long since over in most people's minds, and settled and decided," Mayer says. "But these groups are doubling down in the money they're putting into and the effort they're putting into trying to push the idea of fraud — potentially in order to challenge the 2022 midterms, and the 2024 election."

Mayer writes about what she calls the "dark money" behind the challenges to Biden's victory in her latest article, "The Big Money Behind the Big Lie." She says a well-funded national movement has been exploiting Trump's false claims of widespread fraud in order to promote alterations in the way that ballots are cast and counted in 49 states. And, she adds, 18 states have already passed new voting laws in the past six months, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

Mayer notes that while some of the challenges are coming from extremist groups, established conservative organizations — including the Heritage Foundation and ALEC — are also getting involved.

"Organizations that we have come to think of as pillars of the conservative movement ... [are] throwing their efforts behind a very anti-democratic movement here that is scaring even some Republican election officials, and is also scaring election law experts," she says. "They are really going all-in on this Trump lie."


Interview Highlights

On the 2020 election audit in Maricopa County, Ariz., which is still ongoing

I think that some of the people who are carrying out this audit, you have to understand, are hardcore conspiracy theorists. And they're setting out to prove that Trump really won. And Maricopa County is not just like any old little county in America. It's the largest county in Arizona, and it's the majority of votes for Arizona — it's 2.1 million votes. So if they could move 10,000 votes and say 10,000 were fraudulent, they may be able to say that Trump did win. I think more likely ... they're laying the groundwork to challenge American elections in the future, and the one there in 2020. They're spreading distrust.

On the push to allow state legislatures to select electors

Since the 19th century, the states have allowed the popular vote to determine which electors were elected, and then cast their ballots and pick the president. It's an indirect form of direct democracy. What's being talked about now and experimented with in Arizona is the idea that the state legislatures themselves would pick the electors. ...

Now, this is a radical doctrine, but it's being promoted by lawyers on the right, and nonprofit groups that are heavily funded on the right. And it is being truly experimented with in Arizona, where there was a piece of legislation that was a bill proposed to do exactly that — to allow the state legislature in Arizona to overturn a presidential election and decide itself where the electors should cast their ballots and for whom.

On the state of voting rights legislation

In 18 states now, legislation has been passed that cracks down on voting rights in various ways. So there's certainly been an effort to limit things like mail-in voting and same-day voting and make registration more difficult. There were bills introduced in 49 states. So I think you'll see another wave of that kind of legislation. And you may also see more of this argument being made, that is this kind of radical independent legislature doctrine argument that's being made by legal organizations on the right, that argues that the legislatures have the right to intercede and even overrule the popular vote if there's been something wrong with the election, if they can argue that there's been fraud.

On discovering the source of the audit in Arizona

I went out to Arizona to take a look at this audit, and what I discovered was it's not taking place in a vacuum. And it's actually not just an Arizona thing. It's being funded by out-of-state interests, deep-pocketed people who are allies of Donald Trump — that's specifically the audit — and it's taking place against a backdrop of this spreading belief that voter fraud is rife in America and that elections can't be trusted. And that is being spread by national groups, some of them quite well-known and established in Republican circles. And so I kept sort of peeling back the onion to try to figure out, Where is this coming from? And the picture began to clarify that actually there's a money stream and an awful lot of it is coming from one single huge foundation in Milwaukee, Wis., which is funding all of these other groups that are pushing the idea that voter fraud is a serious problem in America, and that we can't trust our elections. And that one huge foundation is the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation in Milwaukee, Wis.

The Bradley family — these two brothers that founded this company, the Alan Bradley Company — they defined the far-right fringe. They were dedicated anti-communist zealots who feared that the United States government was run by communists. And they were fringe figures politically, but they were extraordinarily rich by the time they died. And their fortune has funded this far-right foundation.

On Cleta Mitchell, who is on the board of the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation

People may not know Cleta Mitchell's name, or they may not have known it until news stories broke right at the beginning of this year that there was a lawyer on the call with Trump — it was a conference call to Georgia election officials. And Trump was basically berating them, saying, I just need to have 11,780 more votes because that will make me win in Georgia. Just find the votes. And it sounded as if they were just trying to overturn the election in Georgia.

And on that call was a lawyer named Cleta Mitchell. And it turns out Cleta Mitchell is fundamental to this movement to argue that voter fraud is rampant in America, and that Georgia's election was a fraud, and that Trump really won it. And she's been deeply involved in these issues, at least as far back as 2012. And she is on the board of the Bradley Foundation, where they have $850 million in their treasury to spend on all kinds of issues, including this.

On Public Interest Legal Foundation, also founded by the Bradley Foundation. Cleta Mitchell is its chair.

That group is based in Indiana and it litigates all over the country, accusing people and election officials of voter fraud. If you take a close look at it, what you can see is there's just a short leap from accusing people of voter fraud to then arguing that an election should be nullified. And this is where it gets really radical. Among the directors of the Public Interest Legal Foundation is, for instance, a lawyer named John Eastman who was one of the speakers at Trump's rally on Jan. 6. And at that rally, he argued that people needed to challenge the election returns and stop the certification of the vote on Jan. 6. As we all know, that just preceded by a couple hours, the crowd charging the capital, ransacking it and trying to stop the certification. So you can see the connections between a huge foundation on the right, the Bradley Foundation, which funds the Public Interest Legal Foundation, whose director spoke at the Jan. 6 rally, and tried to overturn that election, or at least stop it, halt it at that moment. And the money flows from one to the other, and the same characters are involved.

 

Supreme Court blocks Trump’s bid to end DACA, a win for undocumented ‘dreamers’

Dormant Transgender Rights Cases See New Life in Supreme Court ...
WASHINGTON POST

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to dismantle the program protecting undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children, a reprieve for nearly 650,000 recipients known as “dreamers.”
The 5-to-4 decision, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., stunned President Trump, who said in a tweet that it and a ruling earlier this week that federal law protects LGBTQ workers were “shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives.”Roberts was in the majority in both cases, and Thursday’s ruling showed once again the pivotal role he now plays at the center of the court.

His low-key ruling was technical — the administration had not provided proper legal justification, he said, for ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program implemented by President Barack Obama eight years ago. It allows qualified enrollees to work, study and remain in the United States on a renewable permit.  Roberts has at times joined the court’s liberal members — as happened Thursday — to make clear for the president that his administration does not make the rules.
DACA Ruling Shows John Roberts Doesn't Trust Donald Trump - Bloomberg
Roberts wrote: 
“The dispute before the court is not whether DHS may rescind DACA. All parties agree that it may. The dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the agency followed in doing so,” he wrote in an opinion joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
He added: “We address only whether the [Department of Homeland Security] complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action. Here the agency failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients. That dual failure raises doubts about whether the agency appreciated the scope of its discretion or exercised that discretion in a reasonable manner.”
That goes well beyond whether hundreds of thousands of people would remain protected from deportation, Roberts wrote.
“Since 2012, DACA recipients have enrolled in degree programs, embarked on careers, started businesses, purchased homes, and even married and had children, all in reliance” on the DACA program, Roberts wrote, quoting from briefs in the case.
“The consequences of the rescission, [advocates] emphasize, would ‘radiate outward’ to DACA recipients’ families, including their 200,000 U.S.-citizen children, to the schools where DACA recipients study and teach, and to the employers who have invested time and money in training them.
. . . In addition, excluding DACA recipients from the lawful labor force may, they tell us, result in the loss of $215 billion in economic activity and an associated $60 billion in federal tax revenue over the next ten years.”

While the program does not provide a direct path to citizenship, it provides a temporary status that shields them from deportation and allows them to work. The status lasts for two years and can be renewed.

Technically, the Trump administration could restart the process and provide the justification the court’s majority said was required. But the process is long, and there is no evidence Congress would want to pass legislation that would end the program.

In fact, it is quite popular with the public. A Pew Research survey conducted this month found that 74 percent of Americans favored granting permanent legal status to immigrants who came illegally to the United States when they were children, while 24 percent opposed.
A 57 percent majority of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents expressed support, as did 89 percent of Democrats. Other polls have found similar results.


June 17, 2020

2020 Electoral Map Ratings: Biden Has Edge Over Trump, With 5 Months To Go


NPR 2020 Election Map Ratings

Biden Has Edge Over Trump

NPR

President Trump is in a political hole and has a lot of ground to make up over the next five months if he hopes to win another term, an NPR analysis of the Electoral College map finds.

Given his handling of the coronavirus and protests over racism and police brutality in the first six months of this year, Trump has slipped in many of the key swing states he won in 2016, such as Michigan, which now appears to lean toward former Vice President Joe Biden. The percentage of people disapproving of the job Trump is doing is at near-record highs for his presidency, and the intensity of the opposition is higher than for any past president.

To win the presidency, a candidate needs 270 electoral votes, a majority of the 538 electoral votes available across the 50 states and Washington, D.C. Most states are not very competitive. Their demographics and partisan voting histories make them likely to go to the same party they've broken for in recent elections, such as heavily Democratic California and heavily Republican Oklahoma.
In this presidential election, our analysis finds just 16 states are competitive, in addition to two electoral votes in states that award some by individual congressional districts — that they either only lean toward one candidate or are pure toss-ups. Just eight states and one of the congressional districts are considered pure toss-ups.

Viewed another way: About 45% of the U.S. population lives in the lean and toss-up states that will determine the presidential election, and less than a quarter of Americans live in the most competitive toss-up states.

Biden starts with a 238 to 186 advantage over Trump, when including states that lean in either candidate's direction or that they're likely to win. But Biden is no shoo-in. The analysis finds he's still 32 electoral votes short of the 270 he would need, and the Democrat needs to peel off key states Trump won in 2016 to get over the line.

  • Likely Republican or likely Democratic: states that appear firmly behind one candidate and are not expected to be heavily contested.

  • Lean Republican or lean Democratic: states that appear to favor one candidate but remain competitive. Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden holds a roundtable on reopening the economy with community leaders at the Enterprise Center in Philadelphia on Thursday.
The "lean" states

Five states currently lean toward Biden for 53 electoral votes, including Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico and Virginia. Three states — Texas, Georgia and Iowa, plus one electoral vote in the Omaha area of Nebraska — lean toward Trump, for 61 electoral votes.

Of the states leaning toward Biden, Clinton won all of them except Michigan. Trump won Michigan by just over 10,000 votes, or 0.2 percentage points. Since that victory, Democrat Gretchen Whitmer won the governorship, and Trump's approval rating in the state has been upside down. His net approval rating in the state has declined by 18 points since he was inaugurated.

Minnesota was also surprisingly close in 2016, voting for Clinton by less than 2 percentage points. The Trump campaign, which has few expansion options, is targeting it, but Biden has led there. Now, one wonders how George Floyd's killing at the hands of Minneapolis police will affect the vote there, especially given that majorities of Americans say Trump has made tensions worse since Floyd's death.
  • Texas and Georgia are two historically red states that Democrats see as targets because of demographic changes. They may not be ripe for this election, but Trump will have to spend resources in both places. After all, Trump won Georgia by only 5 points and Texas by 9 points, which was less than the margin in Iowa, a state Obama won twice.

  • Speaking of Iowa, Trump's trade war seems to have put Iowa back on the map. His approval rating is upside down there, too — 46% approve, 51% disapprove as of February, down a net of 14 points since he was inaugurated. Trump got about 801,000 votes in Iowa in 2016. But Obama won 21,000 more than that in 2012, so the votes are potentially there for a Democrat. Still, Trump winning here by 10 points gives him a lot of cushion.
  •  
  • Toss-up: the most competitive states that either Trump or Biden has a good chance to win.
  • the toss-ups
Why are these states toss-ups?

FloridaThis has been perennially one of the closest states in presidential elections. Trump won it by just 1.2 percentage points in 2016. In the 2018 Democratic wave year, Republicans won the governorship and the U.S. Senate race. In 11 polls in Florida since the beginning of the year, Biden led in eight, and Biden and Trump tied in two. The president hasn't led in one since March. Plus, he has seen a softening with support from older voters in national polls.

PennsylvaniaTrump won it by 0.7 percentage points, or about 44,000 votes. Registered Democratic voters outnumber Republicans in the state by about 814,000, but that advantage is down from November of 2016 when it was 916,000. Biden has had a narrow polling advantage in the state: Out of eight polls this year, he has led in six and was tied in one.

Ohio: An oldie but a goody back on the battleground map. This very well may move into the "lean Trump" category before all is said and done, given its demographic shift to be older and whiter over the years. Trump won Ohio by 8 points in 2016, but in the past year, Biden has led in four of five polls, including a 2-point lead in a Fox News poll released earlier this month. The bottom line is that this is a state Trump should win, so if this trend continues, frankly, it's bad news for the president elsewhere.

North Carolina: This is another state where the scales should at least tip toward Trump given its history of voting Republican in every presidential election since 1980, except 2008. But the demographic shift in the highly educated Research Triangle, in particular, has brought in a diverse group of new voters, shifting the electorate to the left. Trump, though, won the state by almost 4 points, and about 120,000 more voters supported Democrat Roy Cooper for governor in 2016 than voted for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, who lost by about 170,000 votes to Trump. Biden may need to win over the voters who went for Cooper and more to have a chance against Trump in North Carolina.

Arizona: Arizona might be the most fascinating toss-up. Trump won it by about 3.5 percentage points in 2016, closer than many thought it would be, since the state had not voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1996. Ever since 2016, Democrats have done well here. Kyrsten Sinema became Arizona's first woman elected to the Senate — and first Democrat in 30 years — with her 2018 victory. Democrats could see an up-ballot effect in 2020 with a strong candidate in astronaut Mark Kelly on the ballot for the Senate, holding significant leads in polls far beyond Biden's showing. Getting out the Latino vote is key here — a demographic group that makes up 32% of the state, but were only 15% of voters in 2016. Organizing in Arizona isn't as hard as other states, because three-quarters of the vote comes from two counties — Maricopa (including Phoenix) and Pima (including Tucson).

Wisconsin: Part of the old "Blue Wall" that came crumbling down on Democrats in 2016, Wisconsin is a state that Trump won by fewer than 23,000 votes after Barack Obama won it twice. But Trump's approval rating is 11 points underwater in the state now and hasn't risen above 44% in more than three years. Biden has led in nine of 11 polls in Wisconsin since the beginning of the year, trailed in just one and was tied once. But Wisconsin polling was notoriously wrong in 2016. Trump didn't lead in a single poll there in 2016 and Clinton was up an average of 6 points before losing.

Nevada: Clinton won Nevada by just 2 points, which starts it in the toss-up category. But it may slightly lean toward Biden, because Democrats have proved they can organize well in the state, and Nevadans are used to voting for Democrats up and down the ballot. Every statewide elected official, except the secretary of state, is a Democrat; both U.S. senators are, as are three of the state's four members of Congress; and Democrats control the state legislature. Biden maintains a poll lead larger than Clinton held, and active Democratic voters outnumber Republicans in the state by more than 83,000. That is slightly narrower than January 2017, however, and Republicans hope that's a positive trend in their direction.

New HampshireThis was the closest state by raw votes in the 2016 election — only about 2,700 votes separated Clinton and Trump. New Hampshire is another state that, at this point, might be a slight lean toward Biden. The entire state's congressional delegation is Democratic, though it has a Republican governor. Biden leads in the polls by an average of almost 5 points.

Maine's 2nd DistrictTrump won the one electoral vote in the mostly rural, white 2nd Congressional District of Maine by 10 percentage points. But in 2018, Democrat Jared Golden won this House seat by a point, and Obama won here twice.
 
 
 
 

June 16, 2020


Supreme Court Decision Gives Landmark Protections to LGBT Workers

VOX
  • On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a major civil rights decision, ruling 6-3 that LGBTQ individuals are protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [NYT / Adam Liptak]
  •  
  • The act prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” and Monday’s ruling affirms that those protections extend to an employee’s sexual orientation or gender identity. [Vox / Ian Millhiser]
  •  
  • The decision is a big deal: As Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern tweeted, it is “by a mile, the biggest legal victory transgender Americans have won in the history of the nation.” [Twitter / Mark Joseph Stern]
  •  
  • Justice Neil Gorsuch, a conservative Trump appointee, joined the liberal wing of the Court along with Chief Justice John Roberts, leaving justices Kavanaugh, Alito, and Thomas in the minority. Gorsuch also wrote the decision. [Politico / Josh Gerstein and Rebecca Rainey]
  • Joseph Fons walks back and forth in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday after the court ruled to prevent LGBTQ employees from getting fired for their orientation or gender identity. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
  • The Court combined three cases in Monday’s Bostock v. Clayton County decision. In addition to Bostock, the ruling also addresses Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC. [Daily Beast / Jay Michaelson]
  •  
  • Aimee Stephens, the plaintiff in Harris Funeral Homes, sued her former employer after she was fired in 2013 for telling her boss that she planned to transition to female. Stephens died last month of kidney failure, but her case, the first major trans rights case to be heard before the Supreme Court, will impact the lives of millions of trans people in the US. [Vox / Katelyn Burns]
  •  
  • In addition to issuing a decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, the Court turned down several potential cases on Monday. Justices decided against accepting 10 different cases relating to the Second Amendment. [CNN / Jamie Ehrlich]
  •  
  • They also rebuffed Trump’s Justice Department, which had requested that the Court consider its appeal regarding a sanctuary law in California. Previously, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law, which prohibits local law enforcement from informing federal agents when immigrants are set to be released from prison. [NBC News / Pete Williams]

It’s a sea change in legal protections for gay rights, one that matches up with public opinion.

A June CBS News poll found that 82 percent of Americans say that gay, lesbian and bisexual people should be protected under civil rights law, including 71 percent of Republicans. Approval of same-sex marriage and gay rights has grown rapidly in America over the past decade.
  • Image

Former city council candidate arrested after man is shot at New Mexico protest with militia group


Police in Albuquerque on Tuesday announced they had arrested a former city council candidate who they say shot and wounded a man at a protest that grew contentious as demonstrators clashed with a militia group.
The Monday night episode — which erupted after a crowd tried to tear down a monument to Spanish conquistador Juan de Oñate — appeared to reflect a phenomenon that federal and state officials have long warned about: Protests over racial injustice, such as the ones currently roiling American cities, can draw a medley of fringe actors or groups with their own ideological agendas.


In the hours leading up to the violence Monday, protesters faced off with members of an armed group that calls itself the New Mexico Civil Guard and counterprotesters toting “All lives matter” signs. Several members of the armed group told The Washington Post they were worried that tearing down the statue would beget widespread destruction of property.

The members said they did not know the alleged shooter or the victim and cast themselves as attempting to prevent violence from erupting at a tense scene. But state officials denounced their presence, which they said was meant to intimidate protesters.

“The heavily armed individuals who flaunted themselves at the protest, calling themselves a ‘civil guard,’ were there for one reason: To menace protesters, to present an unsanctioned show of unregulated force,” New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) said in a statement.

Experts say contact tracing is the best tool we've got until there’s a vaccine.

“Contact tracing failed to stanch the first wave of coronavirus infections, and today’s far more extensive undertaking will require 100,000 or more trained tracers to delve into strangers’ personal lives and persuade even some without symptoms to stay home. Health departments in many of the worst-affected communities are way behind in hiring and training those people. The effort may also be hobbled by the long-standing distrust among minorities of public health officials, as well as worries about promising new technologies that pit privacy against the public good," Frances Stead Sellers and Ben Guarino report. "Still, as states relax restrictions, public health experts say wide-scale contact tracing is the price that must be paid to reopen safely without reverting to the blanket shutdowns that put nearly 40 million Americans out of work. Time is of the essence, they say, taking advantage of the drop in cases resulting from the shutdowns. … Across the country, the efforts to ramp up are vast and varied. The University of California at San Francisco has been tapped by the state to create a Pandemic Workforce Training Academy that will train as many as 3,000 people for the state’s 58 county health departments … In Rhode Island, Gov. Gina Raimondo (D) unveiled a free voluntary app that health officials hope will prove more reliable than people’s memories in re-creating their recent contacts.”

 

Today's coronavirus snapshot, as of 11 am ET Monday:

  • 2,094,205 confirmed US cases (7,944,236 worldwide)
  • 115,732 confirmed US deaths (434,060 worldwide)
  • 23,535,104 tests conducted in the US (71,535 tests per million people)
—Dylan
The news from America's emerging Covid-19 hot spots did not get any better over the weekend. Florida hit a record high in new cases on Saturday. Texas just missed doing the same, but the direction in that state and several others is clear: Cases are going up.

An ICU nurse in Arizona warned their wards are filling up with "the sickest patients I've ever taken care of," according to this Facebook post shared by Reuters reporter Yahaira Jacquez. "I barely see my family because I'm scared to give it to them."

Current Covid-19 hospitalizations in the state topped 1,400 on Saturday, nearly doubled from a month ago. More coronavirus patients are in the ICU there than ever before. Arkansas, Texas, and North Carolina also saw new highs in Covid-19 hospitalizations over the weekend. Red flags have been raised all over the country.

Vox's Brian Resnick explained:
People should think about Covid-19 risk in four dimensions: distance to other people, environment, activity, and time spent together. More distance is better, outdoors is safer than indoors, activities that involve lots of exhaling (like singing or shouting) are more dangerous than quieter ones, and a longer time spent with others is more dangerous than a shorter time.

Perhaps a helpful way to think about the risk is this: Imagine everyone is smoking, as Ed Yong suggested in the Atlantic, and you’d like to avoid inhaling as much smoke as possible. In a cramped indoor space, that smoke is going to get dense and heavy fast. If the windows are open, some of that smoke will blow away. If fewer people are in the space, less smoke will accumulate, and it might not waft over to you if you’re standing far enough away. But spend a lot of time in an enclosed space with those people, and the smoke grows denser.

The denser the smoke, the more likely it is to affect you. It’s the same with this virus: The more of it you inhale, the more likely you are to get sick.

Americans have done a good job of social distancing so far: according to a recent AP/NORC poll, 90 percent of people say they are wearing masks, as of early June, up from 78 percent in early April.
But while most people are also still avoiding crowded places and contact with high-risk people, adherence to those preventive measures is starting to dip a bit, according to the survey. That is worrisome. We have to stay vigilant.

That doesn't mean eternal lockdown. It's simply unrealistic to shut down society for six months or a year and, besides, there is of course a real and measurable cost to people's financial and physical health. But the tradeoff for some resumption of normal life should be tolerating a few impositions in order to protect ourselves and others.

The evidence is pretty persuasive that wearing masks reduces Covid-19's spread, as Lois Parsley covered for Vox. As Vox's German Lopez and Amanda Northrop reported, we should start thinking about our behavior in terms of harm reduction. Hanging at home with your housemates is, of course, the safest option. But outdoor activities can also be thought of as a moderate risk, especially with some easy precautions like wearing a mask and washing your hands.

The government can of course do more to make reopening safer. It can increase funding for contact tracing, it can be cautious in relaxing its social distancing guidance, it could even provide more money to help reduce the financial pain of the crisis and relieve some of the urgency about reopening.
States and the feds could also do more to protect older people in nursing homes, where so many lives have already been lost due to a poor response. Despite the federal government's promises to send more protective gear to those facilities, the workers at nursing homes report much of what they have received from the feds is unusable, according to a new Wall Street Journal report. That needs to be fixed.

But we can't depend on the government entirely. Reopening is upon us, and it's the responsibility of each person to do what we can, for our sake and everyone's, to be safe and prevent Covid-19 from growing out of control. The early signs are troubling. There is no time to waste.

June 15, 2020

Trump’s Halting Walk Down Ramp Raises New Health Questions./ NYC Crowding


https://youtu.be/zlAjosYNOIM

The president also appeared to have trouble raising a glass of water to his mouth during a speech at West Point a day before he turned 74, the oldest a president has been in his first term.



NY TIMES

President Trump faced new questions about his health on Sunday, after videos emerged of him gingerly walking down a ramp at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and having trouble bringing a glass of water to his mouth during a speech there.

Mr. Trump — who turned 74 on Sunday, the oldest a U.S. president has been in his first term — was recorded hesitantly descending the ramp one step at a time after he delivered an address to graduating cadets at the New York-based academy on Saturday. The academy’s superintendent, Lt. Gen. Darryl A. Williams, walked alongside him. Mr. Trump sped up slightly for the final three steps, as he got to the bottom.

Another video circulated of Mr. Trump taking a sip of water from a glass tucked inside his lectern on the dais at West Point. Mr. Trump held the glass with his right hand and brought it to his mouth, but appeared to momentarily have trouble lifting his arm farther. He used his left hand to push the bottom of the glass so that it reached his lips.

Mr. Trump posted defensively on Twitter late Saturday night about the video circulating of his walk, and offered a description that did not match the visuals
.
“The ramp that I descended after my West Point Commencement speech was very long & steep, had no handrail and, most importantly, was very slippery,” Mr. Trump wrote. “The last thing I was going to do is ‘fall’ for the Fake News to have fun with. Final ten feet I ran down to level ground. Momentum!”

There was no evidence that the ramp was slippery, and the skies were clear during the ceremony.
The videos again raised questions about the health of Mr. Trump, whose advisers have never fully explained his abrupt visit to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in November, saying at the time only that it was intended to get a jump on his annual physical.

The White House doctor released a memo this month that summarized Mr. Trump’s yearly checkup, but provided little information beyond blood pressure (normal) and a description of his course of hydroxychloroquine as a prophylactic after the president was exposed to two staff members who tested positive for the coronavirus. The summary was not the customary report released in the past by Mr. Trump and other presidents after a physical.

The president has frequently tried to raise questions about the health and mental fitness of his rivals, while growing indignant when his own is questioned.

New Yorkers day drink in on a Manhattan street, many without masks.

Cuomo Reminds New Yorkers (And Cops) Masks Are Not Chin Guards

Governor Andrew Cuomo put Manhattan and the Hamptons on blast for getting the most complaints for businesses not following reopening rules, and then warned of localized rollbacks of the reopening should the COVID-19 infection rate spike.

"This is a question of violating the law. Not just feel guilty. You're violating the law, alright?" Cuomo said during a press briefing on Sunday in Albany. "This is a very serious situation, and I want to make sure that everybody knows the consequences here. A bar or restaurant that is violating these rules can lose their liquor license."

Cuomo said there have been 25,000 complaints statewide about businesses, particularly bars and restaurants, being out of compliance with the phased reopening plan. In Manhattan's East Village, revelers were seen drinking in close proximity to others, many without masks, on Saturday.
"We have never received more complaints in a shorter period of time," Cuomo said.
Large gatherings with little social distancing or mask-wearing is likely to spur an increase in an uptick of coronavirus spread, Cuomo warned. Without proper enforcement by local governments, there's a possibility the state would intervene and "repause" localized areas.State Liquor Authority officials were inspecting bars and restaurants for violations. Cuomo also reminded New Yorkers they weren't allowed to drink on the street due to open container laws and that not wearing a mask is currently a legal violation.

As the widespread protests against police violence and systemic racism continue, Cuomo said local police need to wear masks too—NYPD officers assigned to demonstrations and other locations have been frequently observed without face coverings. "Police department: Your job is to enforce the law. Why don't you follow the law?" Cuomo said.

June 14, 2020

Atlanta Cop Shoots and Kills Inebriated Man Who Resisted Arrest and Fled With Officer's Taser. Death is Ruled a Homicide. Officer Fired

NEW YORK

On Friday night in Atlanta, a 27-year-old black man named Rayshard Brooks was shot and killed by Atlanta police in what Mayor Keisha Bottoms called an unjustified use of deadly force. Brooks’s death, which comes after weeks of nationwide unrest sparked by the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police, quickly led to protests — as well as the resignation of Atlanta police chief Erika Shields. Garrett Rolfe, the officer who killed Brooks, has been fired and may face murder charges, Fulton County district attorney Paul Howard said on Sunday. Also on Sunday, the Fulton County Medical Examiner’s Office ruled that Brooks’s death was a homicide.

What happened?

Shortly after 10:30 p.m. on Friday night, two Atlanta police officers, Devin Brosnan and Garrett Rolfe — who are both white — responded to a complaint that a man, later identified as 27-year-old Rayshard Brooks, was asleep in his car and obstructing other vehicles in the drive-through lane of a Wendy’s restaurant on University Avenue in southwest Atlanta. According to the Georgia Bureau of Investigations, which is investigating the shooting, the officers gave Brooks a sobriety test, which he allegedly failed. The GBI says that when the officers then went to arrest Brooks, he “resisted and a struggle ensued,” prompting one of the officers to deploy their Tasers. Brooks was able to obtain the Taser before trying to run away, according to the GBI, and then “officers pursued Brooks on foot and during the chase, Brooks turned and pointed the Taser at the officer. The officer fired his weapon, striking Brooks.”

Brooks was taken to the hospital, but died following surgery.
The New York Times has done an exhaustive analysis of the available footage of the event — which includes bodycam footage from the officers, dashcam footage from the officers’ vehicles, bystander videos, and surveillance-camera footage from the Wendy’s.

According to those videos, Officer Brosnan was the first to respond, arriving at 10:42 p.m., at which point he wakes up Brooks in his car and has him pull into a nearby parking space, at one point almost suggesting that Brooks just take a nap. Per the Times, “Officer Brosnan appears to be unsure whether he should let Mr. Brooks sleep in the car or should take further action. At 10:49 p.m., he contacts police dispatch and requests another police officer.”

Officer Rolfe, a more experienced officer, arrives six minutes later and after speaking with Brosnan begins to question Brooks, who is calm, friendly, and compliant with the officers. Rolfe administers a field sobriety test on Brooks, who eventually admits he has been drinking, but says he isn’t too drunk to drive.

Brooks also asks Rolfe if he can just lock up his car and walk to his sister’s home, which he says is nearby, and that his daughter is there, and that they had just celebrated her birthday. Rolfe, in what appears to be an attempt to get Brooks to admit he is too drunk to drive, asks him why he wants to go home. “I don’t want to be in violation of anybody,” Brooks responds.

When Rolfe asks Brooks if he can give him a breath test, Brooks responds, “I don’t want to refuse anything,” and soon agrees to the test. The two officers and Brooks have been talking for nearly 30 minutes, peacefully, by the point Rolfe gets the result of the breath test and at 11:23 p.m. tells Brooks he “has had too much drink to be driving,” and goes to handcuff him. Brooks seems compliant at first, then tries to break free of the officers, who then try to tackle him to the ground.

cell-phone video of the incident recorded by a bystander shows Brooks and the two officers scuffling on the ground. Rolfe tells Brooks to stop fighting and warns him that he is going to get Tased. “Mr. Rolfe, come on man. Mr. Rolfe,” Brooks says. Officer Brosnan has unholstered his Taser and Brooks gets ahold of it during the scuffle, breaks free, stands up, and punches Rolfe. Brooks does not try to use the Taser. Rolfe fires his Taser at Brooks — who then begins to run away with Brosnan’s Taser still in his hand. Rolfe follows close behind, continuing to try to use his Taser to stun Brooks.
What happens next was captured in a disturbing video recorded by a Wendy’s surveillance camera. Brooks can be seen running across the parking lot with Rolfe close behind. Without stopping running, Brooks half turns around and points the Taser toward Rolfe and fires it.
Rolfe then drops his Taser and unholsters his handgun, firing three times at Brooks as he runs away. Brooks then falls to the ground. All of this happened in the space of about a minute since the officers began trying to arrest Brooks.
The GBI says it will hand over whatever it uncovers in its investigation of the shooting to Fulton County district attorney Paul Howard, who said Saturday that his office “has already launched an intense, independent investigation of the incident.” On Sunday, Howard condemned the shooting.
“[Brooks] did not seem to present any kind of threat to anyone, and so the fact that it would escalate to his death just seems unreasonable … it just seems like this is not the kind of conversation and incident that should have led to someone’s death.” Howard commented in an interview with CNN.     Per CNN’s report:
Howard, the district attorney, said the possible charges could include murder, felony murder or involuntary manslaughter.
“Specifically, (the question is if) Officer Rolfe, whether or not he felt that Mr. Brooks, at the time, presented imminent harm of death or some serious physical injury. Or the alternative is whether or not he fired the shot simply to capture him or some other reason,” Howard said. “If that shot was fired for some reason other than to save that officer’s life or to prevent injury to him or others, then that shooting is not justified under the law.”

Rayshard Brooks was a father to three daughters and a step-son

What we know about Rayshard Brooks, and what his family has had to say

Brooks, 27, lived in Atlanta and leaves behind a wife, three daughters — ages 1, 2, and 8 — and a 13-year-old stepson. According to a lawyer for the family, L. Chris Stewart, Brooks worked at a Mexican restaurant. It was Brooks’s 8-year-old daughter’s birthday on Saturday, Steward said, and on Friday, Brooks had taken her out to eat, to an arcade, and to get her nails done. He was going to take her skating on Saturday.

Brooks’s wife, Tomika Miller, spoke to CBS News on Monday. “Right now I’m still not processing the fact that my husband’s not coming home ever,” she said, explaining that she had already cried over what the family of George Floyd has gone through — and couldn’t believe she was now going through the same thing herself.