LISTEN TO ARTICLE 6:19 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Share Tweet Post Email\nHospitals are threatening to fire health-care workers who publicize their working conditions during the coronavirus pandemic -- and have in some cases followed through .\nMing Lin , an emergency room physician in Washington state , said he was told Friday he was out of a job because he ’ d given an interview to a newspaper about a Facebook post detailing what he believed to be inadequate protective equipment and testing . In Chicago , a nurse was fired after emailing colleagues that she wanted to wear a more protective mask while on duty . In New York , the NYU Langone Health system has warned employees they could be terminated if they talk to the media without authorization .\n“ Hospitals are muzzling nurses and other health-care workers in an attempt to preserve their image , ” said Ruth Schubert , a spokeswoman for the Washington State Nurses Association . “ It is outrageous . ”\nHospitals have traditionally had strict media guidelines to protect patient privacy , urging staff to talk with journalists only through official public relations offices . But the pandemic has ushered in a new era , Schubert said .\nHealth-care workers “ must have the ability to tell the public what is really going on inside the facilities where they are caring for Covid-19 patients , ” she said .\nOne reason is to prepare other nurses and doctors for the looming onslaught of cases and encourage donations of much-needed equipment , particularly the personal protective equipment or PPE that protects them from being infected and in turn infecting other patients as well as their families when they go home .\nIn China , one of the earliest alarms about the mysterious new illness was raised by a doctor in an online chatroom in late December . He was reprimanded and forced to sign a police statement that the post was illegal . He later contracted the disease from a patient and died .\nIt ’ s hard to come to grips with the fact that # WhenCoronaVirusIsOver some of us in healthcare will not be standing . And to think that is partially due to a lack of # PPE is infuriating . # GetMePPE pic.twitter.com/id5rrHoQFH — Joseph Sakran ( @ JosephSakran ) March 29 , 2020\n“ It is good and appropriate for health-care workers to be able to express their own fears and concerns , especially when expressing that might get them better protection , ” said Glenn Cohen , faculty director of Harvard Law School ’ s bioethics center . It ’ s likely hospitals are trying to limit reputational damage because “ when health-care workers say they are not being protected , the public gets very upset at the hospital system . ”\nDoctors are a famously independent profession , where individual medical judgment on what ’ s best for the patient is prized over administrative dictates . That ’ s reared its head during the Covid-19 outbreak , with many physicians , nurses and other health-care workers taking to social media to express deep concerns about the lack of protective gear or much-needed patient-care equipment like respirators . Some posts have gone viral and are being shared hundreds of thousands of times , often tagged with # GetMePPE . Privacy laws prohibit disclosing specific patient information , but they don ’ t bar discussing general working conditions .\nAfter examining a hypoxic woman in her 50s with no medical problems who likely has COVID , I had to clean my single-use face shield that I ’ ve worn the past three days with disinfectant used to clean hospital beds since we ran out of sanitizing wipes # GetMePPE pic.twitter.com/85xQcmc1dN — Ayrenne Adams , MD MPH ( @ AyrenneAdamsMD ) March 28 , 2020\nNYU Langone Health employees received a notice Friday from Kathy Lewis , executive vice president of communications , saying that anyone who talked to the media without authorization would be “ subject to disciplinary action , including termination . ”\nJim Mandler , a spokesman for NYU Langone Health , said the policy was to protect patient and staff confidentiality . “ Because information is constantly evolving , it is in the best interest of our staff and the institution that only those with the most updated information are permitted to address these issues with the media . ”\nNew York ’ s Montefiore Health System requires staff get permission before speaking publicly , and sent a reminder in a March 17 newsletter that all media requests “ must be shared and vetted ” by the public relations department .\n“ Associates are not authorized to interact with reporters or speak on behalf of the institution in any capacity , without pre-approval , ” according to the policy , which was seen by ███ News .\nLauri Mazurkiewicz , the Chicago nurse who was fired by Northwestern Memorial Hospital after urging colleagues to wear more protective equipment , has filed a wrongful termination lawsuit .\n“ A lot of hospitals are lying to their workers and saying that simple masks are sufficient and nurses are getting sick and they are dying , ” she said .\nMazurkiewicz , 46 , has asthma and cares for her father , who suffers from a respiratory disease . At 75 , he ’ s in one of the most at-risk groups of dying from the virus . “ I didn ’ t want to get infected because I ’ m not wearing the proper mask and then spread it to my patients and my family , ” she said .\nA Northwestern Memorial Hospital spokesperson declined to comment , citing the lawsuit . The hospital said in an emailed statement that it “ is committed to the safety of our employees . ”\nMy babies are too young to read this now . And they ’ d barely recognize me in my gear . But if they lose me to COVID I want them to know Mommy tried really hard to do her job . # GetMePPE # NYC pic.twitter.com/OMew5G7mjK — Cornelia Griggs ( @ CorneliaLG ) March 29 , 2020\nCharles Prosper , chief executive of PeaceHealth St. Joseph Medical Center ’ s Northwest network where Lin worked in Bellingham , said in an email that Lin was “ publicly critical ” of the hospital ’ s readiness to deal with patients . Lin ’ s contract is through TeamHealth , which said it ’ s seeking to find him new work .\n“ Our oath is to do no harm , ” Lin said . “ I spoke out for patient safety and as a result I got terminated . ”\nNot all hospitals are blocking staff from talking to the press . New York ’ s Mount Sinai has been scheduling media interviews for nurses , physicians and trainees to help the public understand the severity of the crisis , a spokesperson said in an emailed statement . The University of California San Francisco Medical Center has gotten hundreds of such calls and encouraged workers to talk to reporters .\nNisha Mehta is a 38-year radiologist from Charlotte , North Carolina , who runs two Facebook groups for physicians with around 70,000 members . She ’ s fielded numerous requests from health-care workers hoping to get their stories into the public arena .\n“ I ’ m hearing widespread stories from physicians across the country and they are all saying : ‘ We have these stories that we think are important to get out , but we are being told by our hospital systems that we are not allowed to speak to the press , and if we do so there will be extreme consequences , ” she said .\nMany say they get daily emails urging them not to talk to the media under any circumstances . “ The public needs to hear these stories and other physicians need to hear them to be warned against what ’ s coming , ” Mehta said . “ It ’ s so important that everyone understands how bad this is going to get . ”


Cellphone location data suggests that demonstrators at anti-lockdown protests – some of which have been connected with Covid-19 cases – are often traveling hundreds of miles to events , returning to all parts of their states , and even crossing into neighboring ones .\nThe data , provided to ███ by the progressive campaign group the Committee to Protect Medicare , raises the prospect that the protests will play a role in spreading the coronavirus epidemic to areas which have , so far , experienced relatively few infections .\nThe anonymized location data was captured from opt-in cellphone apps , and data scientists at the firm VoteMap used it to determine the movements of devices present at protests in late April and early May in five states : Michigan , Wisconsin , Illinois , Colorado and Florida .\nProtesters descend on Michigan capitol but rain washes away demonstration Read more\nThey then created visualizations that tracked the movements of those devices up to 48 hours after the conclusion of protests . The visualizations only show movements within states , due to the queries analysts made in creating them . But the data scientist Jeremy Fair , executive-vice president of VoteMap , says that many of the devices that are seen to reach state borders are seen to continue across them in the underlying raw data .\nOne visualization shows that in Lansing , Michigan , after a 30 April protest in which armed protesters stormed the capitol building and state police were forced to physically block access to Governor Gretchen Whitmer , devices which had been present at the protest site can be seen returning to all parts of the state , from Detroit to remote towns in the state ’ s north .\nOne device visible in the data traveled to and from Afton , which is over 180 miles from the capital . Others reached , and some crossed , the Indiana border .\nIn the 48 hours following a 19 April “ Operation Gridlock ” protest in Denver , devices reached the borders of neighboring states including Wyoming , Nebraska , Oklahoma , New Mexico and Utah .\nIn Florida on 18 April , devices returned to all parts of the peninsula and up to the Georgia border . In Wisconsin on 24 April , devices returned to smaller towns like Green Bay and Wausau , and the borders of Minnesota and Illinois .\nPlay Video 4:42 Who is driving the US protests against coronavirus lockdown ? – video explainer\nFollowing the initial wave of anti-lockdown protests in April , epidemiologists warned that they could lead to a new surge in cases .\nIn North Carolina in late April , one of the leaders of the state ’ s anti-lockdown protests tested positive for Covid-19 but said she would attend future rallies .\nDr Rob Davidson , executive director of the Committee to Protect Medicare , said that although “ it ’ s hard to draw a straight line between devices , individuals at these protests , and cases ” , the data suggests that the protests may be epidemiologically significant events .\n“ The behavior we ’ re seeing at protests carries a high risk of infection . We can see protesters are going from a highly concentrated event and then dispersing widely , ” he added .\nDavidson , who has run for Congress as a Democrat , said that neither he nor his advocacy group were currently affiliated with the Democratic party . The group is made up of more than 300 “ doctors who are concerned that the healthcare for their patients has become unaffordable ” .\nIn a series of widely shared videos and threads on Twitter , Davidson has criticized Trump , and attempted to dispel what he calls the “ distrust in public health ” which “ Donald Trump has fomented in his movement ” .


World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus attends a news conference on the coronavirus in Geneva , Switzerland , February 24 , 2020 . ( Denis Balibouse/Reuters )\nSince its inception 72 years ago almost to the day , the World Health Organization ( WHO ) has been credited with the eradication of smallpox and the near eradication of other devastating illnesses , including leprosy and river blindness .\nThis record of success makes the current corruption of the organization all the more shameful .\nOn December 30 , Chinese doctor Li Wenliang warned colleagues about the outbreak of an illness resembling severe acute respiratory syndrome ( SARS ) , which sparked a pandemic in 2003 . Public-health officials rely on the acuity of doctors like Li , whose early warnings prevent the spread of deadly diseases . But Chinese authorities didn ’ t reward Li ; they summoned him to the Public Security Bureau in Wuhan on accusations that he had made false statements and disrupted the public order .\nThe Chinese Communist Party ( CCP ) followed up with numerous other arrests , and publicly warned that it would punish anyone spreading “ rumors ” on social media . By mid January , Chinese doctors knew that COVID-19 was spreading between humans , but on January 14 , the WHO stated that there was “ no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus. ” Two weeks later , WHO director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus flew to Beijing for a meeting with Chinese president Xi Jinping , who so impressed Tedros that he lauded Chinese authorities for “ setting a new standard for outbreak control , ” praising their “ openness for sharing information . ”\nDr. Li might have disagreed with that sentiment . Alas , he was never able to voice his objections : He died after contracting COVID-19 .\nWhen the WHO emergency committee discussed whether to declare COVID-19 a public-health emergency on January 23 , international observers had definitively discredited Chinese health data . Yet Tedros relied on those data in arguing against declaring an emergency — over the objections of other committee members . That decision delayed the mobilization of public-health resources around the world . John Mackenzie , a committee member , attributed the delay to “ very poor reporting ” and “ very poor communication ” from the CCP . After finally declaring an emergency on January 30 , Tedros continued to lavish praise on China . As late as February 20 , he argued that Chinese actions were “ slowing the spread [ of coronavirus ] to the rest of the world . ”\nTedros isn ’ t afraid to take on world leaders as a general matter . When President Trump limited travel from China to the U.S. on January 31 — a decision that bought the U.S. precious time — Tedros said it would “ have the effect of increasing fear and stigma , with little public health benefit . ”\nThe record is clear : The WHO has lent its imprimatur to Chinese disinformation and blessed China ’ s slow response to its domestic outbreak , which likely caused a 20-fold increase in cases , according to a University of Southampton study .\nThe Chinese government must believe they have invested very wisely . They backed Tedros ’ s bid to run the WHO in 2017 , seeking to plant an ally in the U.N. leadership . Who was better suited for the role than a leftist political operative with a history of covering up health emergencies ? As one of his first actions at the helm , Tedros assured the Chinese that he would adhere to the “ One China ” policy , barring Taiwanese participation . The Trump administration opposed Tedros ’ s campaign to lead the organization but couldn ’ t surmount China ’ s sway .\nChina ’ s influence over the WHO comes at a bargain price : Beijing only contributes half as much as the U.S. does to the WHO ’ s budget .\nCongress should investigate Chinese influence on the WHO , and the U.S. should use its ample funding of the organization as leverage to demand transparency about its dealings with China . Our continued participation in the WHO should be in play . In its moment of testing , the organization kowtowed to Beijing rather than serve the public interest , and the world paid the price .


The number of Americans filing for unemployment benefits jumped to its highest level in two years for the week ending March 14 , but that was nothing compared to the absolutely historic wave of job losses economists see coming .\nThe state of play : Goldman Sachs predicts that more than 2 million Americans will file for unemployment claims by next week , pointing to `` an unprecedented surge in layoffs this week . ''\nThe upcoming March 15-21 period is expected to see `` the largest increase in initial jobless claims and the highest level on record . ''\nIf Goldman 's economic forecasters are right , the number of Americans filing initial claims for unemployment benefits next week will more than triple the all-time high of 695,000 set in October 1982 , and nearly four times the number seen at the peak of the Great Recession .\nThe numbers are expected to be so bad the Trump administration has asked states to hold off on releasing them before Thursday , according to a Wall Street Journal report , citing an email from a U.S. Labor Department official .\nData : U.S. Employment and Training Administration via Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis ; Chart : Andrew Witherspoon/███\nThe big picture : Thursday 's jobless claims report is likely `` only the tip of the iceberg : These numbers do not account for the surge of new claims from overwhelmed [ unemployment ] websites from coast to coast , '' Andrew Stettner , senior fellow at the Century Foundation and an expert on unemployment , told CBSNews .\nTo wit , New York , home to 463,000 workers in the food and hospitality sector as of 2018 , saw a 17,000 net decline in unemployment filings last week .\nOne level deeper : Based on anecdotes from a wide range of business contacts , Goldman 's economic research team foresees `` an unprecedented decline in revenues across many industries . ''\n`` Consumer spending on sports and entertainment , hotels , restaurants , and public transportation in particular have already dropped dramatically . ''\nAnother perspective : Analysts at Bank of America Global Research expect a slower jobs drip , with the U.S. economy losing 1 million jobs a month .\n`` We expect a total of approximately 3.5 million jobs will be lost , '' BofA strategists said in a note to clients before the release of the Labor Department 's initial jobless claims report .\nThey see the unemployment rate rising to 6.3 % , hitting the leisure & hospitality and retail industries the hardest .\n`` These sectors have a high share of hourly workers - about 80 % for the former and 70 % for the latter . And these workers struggle to work from home . This means they are vulnerable to a reduction in hours worked and likely outright job cuts . ''\nGo deeper : The coronavirus economic pain in the U.S. has begun


The history of the United States has generally been written with the states in a subordinate role or cast in a negative light — but no longer . The story of America ’ s confrontation with the coronavirus pandemic is one in which states and their governors have been dominant .\nAs Washington has stumbled , governors of both parties have acted to fill the void . States have pleaded with Washington for help , and sometimes have gotten it . As often , however , the tensions and disagreements between state leaders and the federal government — especially with President Trump — have come to define the crisis .\nPolitical Reckoning Click previous Click next A series exploring the political dynamics surrounding the coronavirus crisis . Swipe to view more stories .\nAs Trump dallied , governors moved on their own to order their residents to stay at home . When the president threatened to force states to lift those restrictions , governors resisted . When Trump supported protesters demanding that their states be opened up , many governors — though not all — said they would follow federal guidelines to the letter or even go beyond .\nThis display of state power is very much as the Founders intended when they established the nation . Just as they created checks and balances at the national level among the legislative , executive and judicial branches , they also wanted checks and balances between the central government and the states . Over time , the federal government has regularly usurped the broad authority given to the states , often to wipe away problems or correct historical injustices .\nThis spring , the balance of power has been flipped , with states forced to compensate for failings at the national level . Those federal deficiencies reflect an absence of readiness and sometimes a lack of interest and competence on the part of the Trump administration . The deficiencies have been compounded by a president given to issuing conflicting advice , attacking individual governors , and making wildly misleading and outright false statements , as when he suggested that scientists should explore injecting bleach into people to combat the virus .\n“ What I can say is we ’ ve had very little leadership with regard to the coronavirus crisis from the federal government , ” said Illinois Gov . J.B. Pritzker ( D ) . The first-term governor recently reviewed the history of presidential leadership in times of crisis . “ Each of them understood the importance and power that the federal government has to move the country in a single direction toward victory , ” he said . “ I have seen nearly none of that out of this president . ”\nIn contrast to past presidents , Trump has rhetorically claimed vast powers while making clear through his actions that he prefers a system that puts on governors the responsibility for some of the more difficult decisions .\nRobert Chesney , a professor of law at the University of Texas at Austin , argued that rarely has the president claimed more power while doing less with it . “ Some of the most over-the-top claims we ’ ve seen about the relationship between federal power and state power are happening at the same time that the federal government is shockingly inactive in areas it could and should be , ” he said .\nThe U.S. Capitol in Washington on April 27 . As the United States matured , the powers of states were steadily chipped away by Congress and the Supreme Court . ( Matt McClain/The ███ )\nThe word “ federalism ” does not appear in the Constitution , but it was always meant to be an essential component of the new American government established in the late 18th century .\n“ Federalism is the great constitutional compromise , ” said Abbe Gluck , a professor at Yale Law School . “ It ’ s the way that 13 different small republics came together to form a nation . They were skeptical of federal power , so they formed a union with layers , with a lot of authority reserved to the states . ”\n“ In its purest form , federalism is a power-sharing arrangement , ” Michael Leavitt , a former Republican governor of Utah and secretary of health and human services in the administration of President George W. Bush , said in an email .\n“ Today , federalism means , at a minimum , viewing both the states and the federal government as legitimate sources of legal and political authority , but little consensus exists as to what that general principle of multiplicity should mean in practice , ” Alison LaCroix , a professor at the University of Chicago Law School , wrote in an essay published in the Yale Law Journal in 2014 .\nIn ratifying the Constitution , Leavitt said , states agreed to a division of labor in which the national government would have responsibility for roughly two dozen enumerated duties . All other powers were reserved to the states through the 10th Amendment . This was to result in a “ limited , but supreme , national government ” with the states and the federal government there to protect their own powers and prevent either entity from becoming too powerful .\nFederalism allows states the freedom to devise solutions that fit their economic , demographic , cultural and geographical realities — as well as offering the country multiple styles of leadership beyond the presidency . Which is why Justice Louis Brandeis coined the description of the states as “ laboratories of democracy . ”\n“ The downside [ of federalism ] , ” Gluck said , “ is that it can breed enormous inequality across the country . The South ’ s history of racism is the most obvious example . ”\nGluck said those inequities have continued down to the present , being most notable in the decision by a group of more than a dozen mostly Republican-led states not to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act , denying access to health-care coverage to many low-income families .\nZach Stafford adjusts the TV volume at home in Belleville , Ill. , on April 28 as he and his mother , Debra Mize , watch the daily coronavirus briefing by Illinois Gov . J.B. Pritzker ( D ) . ( Jeff Roberson/AP )\nThe disparate responses to the coronavirus have focused attention on this reality . “ The states have drifted into different camps where the nature of their role in the federal system has increasingly differed and the nature of the government we get depends on where we live , ” said Donald F. Kettl , a professor at the University of Texas at Austin and author of “ The Divided States of America : Why Federalism Doesn ’ t Work . ”\nGary Gerstle , a professor of history at Cambridge University in England and author of “ Liberty and Coercion : The Paradox of American Government , ” noted that states started out with broad powers to regulate virtually all activity within their borders .\nStates exercised their authority through what is known as police power — though not to be confused with a definition that focuses only on law and order . Instead , this concept of police power derives from English doctrine and practice . This gave states responsibilities over health , safety , welfare and morals within their boundaries , everything from the regulation of businesses to Sunday blue laws to dealing with disasters and epidemics .\n“ The police power endows the states with an extraordinary authority to act on almost any issue having to do with the people ’ s welfare for the good of the commonwealth , ” Gerstle said . “ If that means overriding individual choice and individual rights , so be it . ”\nAs the nation matured , state powers were steadily chipped away by Congress and the Supreme Court . The vehicle used most frequently by the high court to give Washington ever-greater power was the Constitution ’ s commerce clause — which grants the federal government power to regulate commerce among the states .\nTimes of crisis often enhanced federal power . President Franklin D. Roosevelt ’ s response to the Great Depression resulted in the creation of the modern and more powerful national government . “ The 20th century is the story of the New Deal and the 1930s reshaping everything about federalism , ” LaCroix said in a recent interview . “ The expansion of the federal commerce power keeps continuing . The scope keeps growing . ”\nThe civil rights movement of the 1960s proved to be another watershed moment in giving the federal government greater power over the states . The 1964 Civil Rights Act was the cornerstone of the shift , and when the high court ruled unanimously that the act was constitutional , the justices used the commerce clause , rather than the 14th Amendment , to uphold it .\nThe 1980s and 1990s saw some shift back , as the Rehnquist court sought to prevent continuing erosion . But those changes still left the federal government with significantly more power . “ It turned out to be a lopsided game , ” Leavitt said of the long struggle between Washington and the states . “ States have often been politically anemic in defense of their role . ”\nAt the April 19 daily briefing by the coronavirus task force , Trump shows video of New York Gov . Andrew M. Cuomo ( D ) thanking his administration for its assistance to New York in managing the health crisis . ( Bill O ’ Leary/The ███ )\nStates became more dependent on the federal government and more under Washington ’ s thumb as the price for greater financial support . But governors learned this spring that the existing relationship was inadequate to meet the moment . Because of hesitation by the president , they had to act on their own , and those unilateral decisions put them in the spotlight as well as the hot seat .\nOhio ’ s Mike DeWine ( R ) was the first governor in the nation to close schools . Even earlier , before there were any confirmed cases of covid-19 in his state , he prohibited spectator attendance at a popular annual bodybuilding festival .\nDisregarding a court decision that went against him , DeWine controversially postponed the state ’ s presidential primary on the eve of voting . He had hoped the courts would order the primary delayed , but his strategy of employing a friendly lawsuit to bring about the desired judicial ruling backfired .\n“ We pulled a judge who didn ’ t agree , ” DeWine said . “ It ’ s the luck of the draw . So at that point , I instructed my health director to issue a health order and that ’ s what she did . . . . It was a life-and-death issue . ”\nPritzker was the second governor to order residents to stay at home , acting shortly after California Gov . Gavin Newsom ( D ) and a little ahead of New York Gov . Andrew M. Cuomo ( D ) . Within a 24-hour period , the actions of those three governors put roughly 70 million Americans under orders to stay at home , with only a few exceptions .\nThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “ was issuing guidance , but there was no leadership from Washington , ” Pritzker said . “ Is it hard to do ? Sure . But it ’ s part of the job . That ’ s what leadership is . Leadership is stepping out front and showing people the direction they need to go that they don ’ t necessarily understand or agree with . ”\nCuomo saw his state become the center of the pandemic , with more than 316,000 cases and more than 24,000 deaths . His daily news conferences became must-watch television , with a governor never known for his likability projecting empathy and realism while repeatedly challenging Washington to do more .\nThe briefings provided a contrast with Trump ’ s often-contentious daily sessions in the White House . Responding to Cuomo , Trump argued that New York did not need all it was asking for and that the federal government supplied New York with everything it did need and more .\nMaryland Gov . Larry Hogan ( R ) , left , at an April 22 news conference at Laurel Medical Center in Laurel , Md . ( Salwan Georges/The ███ )\nAs chairman of the National Governors Association , Maryland Gov . Larry Hogan ( R ) has had to delicately navigate the relationship between the White House and his state , and the relationship between Washington and the governors collectively .\nIn his public comments about the relationship , Hogan has chosen his words diplomatically but has not hesitated to chart his own course . He shut down his state early — closing schools almost at the same time as Ohio did — and has made clear his differences with the president when he judged that events required doing so .\n“ The crisis demanded leadership and demanded action , ” he said . “ It wasn ’ t a time to debate federalism and philosophy , arguing about what powers should rest with the federal government or the state or Congress .\nTrump berated governors who criticized him . Governors learned that showing gratitude and praising the president were the price for federal cooperation and aid . Trump was particularly nasty toward Michigan Gov . Gretchen Whitmer ( D ) when she expressed frustration with Washington . He tweeted that Whitmer was “ in way over her head , she doesn ’ t have a clue . ”\nWashington Gov . Jay Inslee ( D ) found himself as the first governor on the front lines when the virus began to savage a nursing home in the Seattle area . In pointed language , he begged for help from Washington . Trump called him “ a snake ” and suggested that Vice President Pence , a former governor of Indiana who chairs the White House coronavirus task force , stop dealing with Inslee .\n“ I hope this makes it into the story , ” Inslee said . “ The vice president has been continually helpful to us . He talks to us regularly . He has tried to ameliorate some of these problems . He has tried to remove some of the organizational underbrush . We have appreciated his efforts on this . ”\nWhy was the relationship so bumpy ? “ Well , to be gracious , part of it is the fog of war , ” Inslee said . “ It ’ s people having to do 50 things in five minutes . . . . But it is no secret that the president did not have the intense focus he needed in the first month of this . ”\nTrump participates in a teleconference with governors from the headquarters of the Federal Emergency Management Agency in Washington on March 19 . ( Evan Vucci/AP )\nGovernors have been in regular contact with the administration . Hogan said there have been nearly a dozen conference calls between the governors and Pence ’ s task force , calls that sometimes include the president .\nThey are freewheeling and helpful , he said . But he acknowledged that there have been “ rough patches ” where things “ went off the rails. ” He attributed that to mixed messaging from the White House and to the extraordinary nature of the pandemic .\n“ There is tension between what the role of the federal government should be and what are the roles of the states , ” he added . “ It ’ s an unprecedented crisis that no one has ever faced before . . . . The federal government was not prepared . States were not prepared . Hospitals were not prepared . Manufacturers were not prepared . ”\nTrump has lacked consistency in describing the federal government ’ s responsibilities . When governors were pleading for medical equipment and supplies weeks ago , Trump encouraged them to act on their own . “ The federal government is not supposed to be out there buying vast amounts of items and then shipping , ” he said . “ You know , we ’ re not a shipping clerk . ”\nJeh Johnson , the secretary of homeland security under President Barack Obama , said Trump had it backward . “ He says he ’ s not a shipping clerk . Well , actually , he ’ s the shipping clerk in chief , ” Johnson said .\nThe lack of preparedness and organization in Washington prompted governors to fend for themselves . Hogan , with the help of his Korean American wife Yumi Hogan , recently acquired 500,000 coronavirus test kits from South Korea . Massachusetts Gov . Charlie Baker ( R ) , frustrated by obstacles thrown up by the federal government , was able to acquire 1.2 million N95 masks from China and had them flown to Boston on the airplane of the New England Patriots .\nThe Ohio company Battelle developed a process to sanitize N95 masks that allowed the masks to be used many times over , but company officials were having difficulty getting approval from the Food and Drug Administration . One Sunday morning , a frustrated DeWine called the White House and left a message on the switchboard , appealing for help . Later that day , the president called back “ and it got moving , ” he said . “ It still had to go through the process , but it compressed the time . ”\nMassachusetts Gov . Charlie Baker ( R ) at Logan Airport on April 2 after a plane owned by the New England Patriots arrived with a shipment of 1.2 million N95 masks from China for use in Massachusetts and New York . ( Jim Davis/Pool/Reuters )\nIllinois ’ Pritzker was asked whether his public criticism of the White House had put his state at a disadvantage in getting supplies . “ Every time I ’ ve been outspoken about something we needed , I ’ ve begun to receive calls from the White House and administration officials to try to help us out , ” he said , adding he still hasn ’ t received everything he ’ s requested .\nTensions and frustrations continue . In March , as complaints about the federal government ’ s response mounted , Trump said , “ I don ’ t take any responsibility at all. ” He blamed others , including the Obama administration , for some of the shortages of tests and equipment .\nMore recently , the president claimed , with no basis in fact , that his “ authority is total ” to deal with the crisis , particularly on the timing for lifting state-ordered restrictions . The next day he backed down , acknowledging to governors in a conference call that the authority to make the decisions was theirs .\nTo Trump ’ s critics , that reversal was seen as another effort on his part to avoid responsibility , should things go wrong . “ His idea of federalism is when it ’ s all going well , it ’ s us . When [ it ] hits the fan , it ’ s you , ” said Michael Nutter , a former Democratic mayor of Philadelphia .\nTesting remains a point of contention . Governors have contradicted the White House repeatedly on the availability of tests , which will be needed in huge numbers as businesses begin to reopen and people leave their homes . “ It was a terrible crisis , ” Hogan said of the shortage of tests . “ It ’ s now better . But it ’ s not even close to where it needs to be . ”\nGovernors have begun to work together through their joint conference calls and by forming regional alliances to coordinate when to lift restrictions . They have sought to project a united front when dealing with the administration . But the debate over the reopening of the economy has created divisions among them .\nGeorgia Gov . Brian Kemp ( R ) is turning his state into a laboratory with his decision to start opening businesses , including barber shops , nail salons , tattoo parlors , movie theaters and restaurants , more rapidly than other states , despite warnings that he is putting people at risk of the virus spreading .\nIf Kemp thought he would earn plaudits from a president who has been eager to restart the economy , he was wrong . Trump , in another whiplash moment , said last week that he took issue with the governor ’ s plan . “ I told the governor very simply that I disagree with his decision , but he has to do what he thinks is right , ” Trump said .\nGovernors have been making hard decisions for weeks , but equally difficult ones lie ahead . Up to now , governors who ordered the most stringent restrictions on their populations won praise and earned higher approval ratings . But the debate over reopening economies has put the trade-offs involved in those decisions at the forefront of a growing debate .\n“ There ’ s the old saying that war ’ s too important to be left to the generals , ” said Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. , a former governor of Indiana and now president of Purdue University . “ Everyone is using the war analogy for this . Then it ’ s too important to be left entirely to the epidemiologists . . . . The trade-off problem is front and center . It took a while , but that ’ s what they ’ re grappling with . ”\nAn image of a wax figure of Trump in the window of Madame Tussauds in Washington on April 28 . ( Matt McClain/The ███ )\nState leaders have exercised their powers often to the fullest , but those powers still are limited . That has focused more attention on , and prompted considerable criticism of , the failure of the administration to exercise the federal government ’ s full powers .\nTrump has complained that the federal stockpiles he inherited were inadequate to meet the pandemic ’ s demands . But Lisa Monaco , White House homeland security adviser under Obama , said those stockpiles were meant only to be a bridge . “ It was always envisioned that [ during a pandemic ] , the federal government would step in and activate the supply chain and manufacturing , ” she said .\nOnly the federal government can use its convening authority and the Defense Production Act to set priorities and make a market for needed resources — and at a scale and a speed that a crisis demands . As Texas law professor Chesney explained , the federal government can compel industries to act in ways no state can do .\n“ [ The president ] can say the United States is purchaser number one , ” Chesney said . “ Let ’ s say the net amount of need is 100 masks . He can say the government will buy 100 masks and here ’ s what we ’ re going to pay for them and we ’ ll take possession on such and such a date . ”\nLeavitt said that in a pandemic , the federal government should focus as well on other things that states can not do , such as stabilizing the economy , marshaling the development and distribution of a vaccine , becoming the clearing house for information and managing relations with other countries .\nHe said Washington also should coordinate among the states and supplement supplies as much as possible , but added that on this issue , no level of government comes off clean . “ Emergency planners at every level have been aware for decades that we didn ’ t have a sufficient supply of ventilators , ” he said . “ There is plenty of blame to go around . ”\nTrump and Louisiana Gov . John Bel Edwards ( D ) meet in the Oval Office on April 29 . ( Doug Mills/Pool/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock )\nStates have seen their own budgets hemorrhaging money because of the crisis , and governors are looking to Washington for financial relief . “ As a governor , what you ’ re always hoping for from this kind of disaster is that you make all the decisions and have the feds pay for it , ” said former New Jersey governor Chris Christie ( R ) . “ I ’ ve told the White House this . You can print money and they can ’ t . ”\nBut Christie said this shouldn ’ t mean a blank check for the states . “ Governors have to be held to account for also making some sacrifices and cutting spending in other areas that are not directly related to support for the covid-19 crisis , ” he added . “ Governors can not be left with no hard choices . ”\nHow this crisis will reshape relations between the states and the federal government already is on the minds of governors and others , who see it as a moment that could revive states in the public ’ s mind . States have formed regional groups , and some governors say that they are more likely to take steps to prepare and protect their states against a future pandemic , rather than just counting on Washington to be ready .\nJanet Napolitano , a former governor of Arizona and secretary of homeland security in the Obama administration , said the relationship between Washington and the states in times of crisis should be like a smoothly running automobile . “ The four wheels of a car need to spin in the same direction at the same time , ” she said , something no one thinks has been the case in this battle .\nDaniels said the pandemic has shown the vibrancy of federalism but nonetheless could end as another crisis that enlarges the federal government . “ This [ virus ] thing does not manifest itself in the same way everywhere , and that ’ s an argument for a strong federal system and federal assistance that doesn ’ t try to proscribe every detail and constrain local responsiveness , ” he said .\n“ On the other side , ” he added , “ as people have been observing , wars have tended to centralize power and lead to bigger central government that never quite goes back to the size it was . ”\nHogan said this was no time for second-guessing the decisions that have been and are being made . In the meantime , he said , one thing seems clear : “ In the biggest crisis of our lifetimes , governors were on the front lines and taking charge . States had to make decisions and use their powers in a way I don ’ t ever remember in my lifetime . ”


Officials with the American Federation of Government Employees ( AFGE ) , the largest federal employee union in the country , said Tuesday that more than 13,000 federal workers at U.S . Citizenship and Immigration Services ( USCIS ) face a possible furlough of at least 30 days .\nNearly three-quarters of the USCIS workforce will be affected by the possible furlough , and notices will reportedly be handed out to USCIS employees between Wednesday and July 3 , The Washington Post reported . The furlough itself is expected to go into effect August 3 .\nUSCIS , which is a part of the Department of Homeland Security , has seen a reduction in operations due to the coronavirus pandemic , as visa and citizenship services have declined sharply . The Trump administration temporarily halted green card applications in April , and cross-border travel is at an all-time low .\nFees , which make up 97 % of the agency ’ s revenue , are projected to fall 60 % through the remainder of the fiscal year , according to Fox News . The agency also told Congress in May that it required a one-time emergency request for funding in order to continue operations normally .\n“ Without congressional intervention , USCIS will need to administratively furlough approximately 13,400 employees , ” a USCIS representative told The Washington Post in an email . ( RELATED : Immigration Offices Closed To The Public , Interviews Canceled Amid Coronavirus Pandemic )\nUSCIS requested an allocation of $ 1.2 billion in congressional funding over two years , and pledged to repay the funds to the U.S. Treasury Departments , CBS News reported . The agency ’ s proposal , however , would also require an additional 10 % surcharge on immigration petitions .\nWithout the appropriate financial support , the potential USCIS furloughs could be as widespread as the federal workforce furloughs that took place in 2013 , when sequestration budget limits forced federal agencies to cut pay from employees .\n“ With a loss of nearly three-fourths of its workforce , work , student and visitor visa petitions , asylum and citizenship/naturalization applications , green cards , and refugee applications will not be processed , ” AFGE President Everett Kelly told the House Homeland Security Committee last week at a hearing .


( CNN ) - Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates set off shock waves in Washington with accounts from his upcoming memoir , in which he unleashes blistering criticism of Congress and his former colleagues in the Obama administration .\nHe also claims the President lost faith in his own Afghanistan policy .\nGates ' comments come in his memoir `` Duty : Memoirs of a Secretary at War , '' which was obtained by CNN but set to be released next week .\nIn the book , Gates writes , `` [ Obama ] eventually lost faith in the troop increase he ordered in Afghanistan , his doubts fed by top White House civilian advisers opposed to the strategy , who continually brought him negative news reports suggesting it was failing . ''\nA Republican appointee of President George W. Bush who stayed on into Obama 's administration , Gates also writes of a pivotal 2011 meeting in which Obama questions the abilities of Gen. David H. Petraeus .\n`` As I sat there , I thought : The president does n't trust his commander , ca n't stand Karzai , does n't believe in his own strategy and does n't consider the war to be his ... For him , it 's all about getting out , '' Gates writes .\nA source familiar with White House thinking on how to respond to Gates ' memoir told CNN that White House officials have been in meetings on the issue and were reaching out to allies to defend the President against the claims .\nThe source said they are being careful not to attack Gates directly , thinking that will backfire .\nOfficials believe Obama 's foreign policy legacy is strong because of his Afghanistan policies and the killing of Osama bin Laden , and that Gates ' accusations do n't hurt with the Democratic base .\nA White House official called attention to two parts of the book that reflect positively on the President . Gates said of Obama 's chief Afghanistan policies , `` I believe Obama was right in each of these decisions . ''\n`` I never doubted Obama 's support for the troops , '' Gates writes . The official , however , did not highlight the rest of the sentence , which says `` only his support for their mission . ''\nA former White House official contested the excerpts saying , `` I thought the President was a close ally of Gates . It 's disappointing , because if Gates had issues you would 've expected him to raise them . When I spoke to Gates about the president he was always effusive . ''\nNational Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said the President `` deeply appreciates Gates ' service '' and is open to differing points of view from his national security team .\n`` Deliberations over our policy on Afghanistan have been widely reported on over the years , and it is well known that the President has been committed to achieving the mission of disrupting , dismantling and defeating al Qaeda , while also ensuring that we have a clear plan for winding down the war , which will end this year , '' Hayden said in response to the comments .\nA senior U.S. military official involved in some of the events described in the book expressed dismay with Gates , telling CNN that if Gates had been in uniform and felt that the President and his staff were deficient , he would have had an obligation to resign . He noted some may feel Gates also had the same obligation given that he signed orders sending troops off to war .\nThis official was directly involved in Afghanistan troop surge discussions . He was adamant the military commanders did not `` game '' the President on the numbers , but they came to realize Obama felt that way .\nRepublican Sen. Jeff Flake tweeted in response to reports of the memoir , criticizing the timing of the former defense secretary 's comments .\nGates was also critical of Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden , recounting a conversation between Obama and Clinton suggesting political motives for their positions on Iraq .\n`` Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [ 2007 ] surge in Iraq has been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary , ” Gates writes . “ The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political . To hear the two of them making these admissions , and in front of me , was as surprising as it was dismaying . ''\nThe former White House official responded , `` President Obama evaluated the merits of the surge but his opposition to it was not political , rather in line with his thought that more of the same was not the right path . ''\nOf Biden , Gates wrote , `` I think he has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades . ”\nHayden said Obama disagrees with Gates ' assessment of Biden and hailed the Vice President as `` one of the leading statesmen of his time . ''\nOne day after Gates book bonanza , a rare peek into Obama-Biden lunch\nFor as scathing as Gates was in describing the Obama administration , the former defense secretary said none of the difficulties he had with the executive branch `` compared with the pain of dealing with Congress , '' a body he describes as phony , self-centered and narrow-minded .\n`` Congress is best viewed from a distance – the farther the better – because up close , it is truly ugly , '' Gates wrote in a piece in the Wall Street Journal , which was adapted from his book .\n`` I saw most of Congress as uncivil , incompetent at fulfilling their basic constitutional responsibilities ( such as timely appropriations ) , micromanagerial , parochial , hypocritical , egotistical , thin-skinned and prone to put self ( and re-election ) before country . ''\nGates opened the piece by writing that in the numerous times he testified before Congress , he found himself `` tempted to stand up , slam the briefing book shut and quit on the spot '' because of the `` rude , insulting , belittling , bullying and all too often highly personal attacks '' one has to endure during congressional testimony .\nHe said if he had done so , he would have told Congress , `` I may be the secretary of defense , but I am also an American citizen , and there is no son of a bitch in the world who can talk to me like that . ''\n`` Members postured and acted as judge , jury and executioner , '' he wrote .\nHis hypothesis as to why so many members `` were in a permanent state of outrage : '' The members must have `` suffered from some sort of mental duress that warranted confinement or at least treatment for anger management . ''\nAnother congressional thorn in Gates ' side brought to light in his opinion editorial is how Congress handled deciding which defense instillations and bases to close during budget tightening .\nGates wrote that `` any defense facility or contract in their district or state , no matter how superfluous or wasteful , was sacrosanct , '' even if the member had `` stridently attacked the Defense Department as inefficient and wasteful . ''\nCritics of the memoir blasted Gates for publishing the critique in the middle of the Obama ’ s second term , saying the more appropriate move would have been to wait until after his former boss leaves the White House in 2016 .\nA source close to Gates noted that he ’ s a historian by nature and wanted to document what went on but did n't want to wait because he believed the content of his book is all still relevant and should be discussed real time , especially issues of war and the troops .\nThe dysfunction in Washington and the way commanders and generals were treated really upset him , the source added .\nGates disagrees that his decision to release the book now is disloyal . In fact , he believes just the opposite and stands by all of it , the source said .\nAs for Gates ’ stinging criticism of Congress , the source said Gates had the most disdain for the House Foreign Affairs Committee , though he didn ’ t give specific names of lawmakers .


President Trump declared Tuesday that a “ new chapter of American greatness is now beginning ” as he made economic revival the centerpiece of his first address to Congress – issuing a clarion call to “ restart the engine of the American economy ” through tax cuts , better trade deals , immigration enforcement and a $ 1 trillion infrastructure program .\nHe also called on Congress to replace what he called the “ imploding ObamaCare disaster ” with legislation that lowers costs and expands access , an ambitious goal for GOP lawmakers still trying to come together on a plan .\nThe president outlined his agenda in an address to a joint session of Congress that lasted roughly an hour and focused largely on priorities at home , more than abroad . He offered a decidedly upbeat vision for the future of the country that stood in contrast to his at-times foreboding inauguration address .\n“ Everything that is broken in our country can be fixed . Every problem can be solved . And every hurting family can find healing , and hope , ” Trump said , urging lawmakers to `` join forces '' to deliver .\nTrump for the most part traded the contentious and punchy tone of the last few weeks for loftier – some might say more presidential – rhetoric . Declaring “ the time for small thinking is over , ” Trump appealed to the country to “ believe , once more , in America . ”\n“ A new chapter of American greatness is now beginning . A new national pride is sweeping across our nation , ” he said . “ And a new surge of optimism is placing impossible dreams firmly within our grasp . ”\nHe described his address as a “ message of unity and strength . ”\nThe generally well-received speech could mark an opportunity for Trump to reset his young presidency after a rocky start in which clashes with the media and staffing controversies at times overshadowed action on the jobs front .\nIn perhaps the most memorable moment of the night , the audience broke out into extended applause as Trump introduced the widow of William `` Ryan '' Owens , the Navy SEAL killed in a raid in Yemen last month . Carryn Owens sobbed as lawmakers gave her a standing ovation and Trump said the raid he participated in yielded vital intelligence . His “ legacy is etched into eternity , ” Trump said .\nIn between the more dramatic moments were a host of policy prescriptions that could have a big impact on discussions in Congress .\nTrump called for a “ national rebuilding , ” urging Congress to pass legislation that produces a $ 1 trillion public-private investment in infrastructure .\nSpeaking to a key campaign promise that has yet to be realized , he said his team is developing “ historic tax reform that will reduce the tax rate on our companies so they can compete and thrive anywhere and with anyone. ” He vowed a “ big , big cut ” including “ massive tax relief for the middle class . ”\nAnd he urged Congress to replace ObamaCare “ with reforms that expand choice , increase access , lower costs , and at the same time , provide better health care . ”\nHe outlined “ principles ” to guide negotiations , including a call for Americans with pre-existing coverage to keep access to care , for states to have “ flexibility ” with Medicaid , and for Americans to be able to buy insurance across state lines .\nCalling education the “ civil rights issue of our time , ” Trump also urged Congress to pass an education bill funding “ school choice . ”\nWhile laying out his agenda , Trump touted his early-administration accomplishments while claiming he inherited many problems .\nAnd as he did during the presidential campaign , he pushed a nationalist message , making big promises for what will happen when America puts its citizens first : “ Dying industries will come roaring back to life . … Crumbling infrastructure will be replaced with new roads , bridges , tunnels , airports and railways gleaming across our very , very beautiful land . … Above all else , we will keep our promises to the American people . ”\nHe said his job is to represent the United States , not the world .\nIn calling to “ restart ” the American jobs engine , Trump said the U.S. must make it “ easier for companies to do business in the United States , and much , much harder for companies to leave our country . ”\nHe also defended his stepped-up deportations and other border security plans , casting his immigration agenda as part of the broader economic plan . By enforcing immigration laws , he said , “ we will raise wages , help the unemployed , save billions and billions of dollars , and make our communities safer for everyone. ” He joined GOP lawmakers seeking reforms to legal immigration – and potentially reopened the broader debate in Congress by saying immigration reform is possible .\nTrump 's first official status report to Congress came amid a fast-paced opening volley of activity at the start of his term : a slew of executive actions , a forthcoming budget proposal and various side-deals with American companies aimed at creating jobs . Trump was eager to highlight those accomplishments , but also faces early challenges : an order suspending refugee and other admissions on hold by the courts , questions about his team ’ s contacts with Russia and a Congress that has not yet moved legislation on key priorities .\nThe biggest task ahead is Republicans ’ drive to repeal and replace ObamaCare . As Trump appealed for a comprehensive package , some in the party have been divided over the plans being privately discussed at the Capitol .\nHouse Speaker Paul Ryan played down divisions ahead of Tuesday ’ s speech . “ This is a plan that we are all working on together , ” he told reporters . “ There aren ’ t rival plans here . ”\nAfter the speech , Ryan applauded Trump for what he called a `` home run . ''\nBut the official Democratic response offered a reminder of the resistance Trump will face on his legislative agenda , particularly on ObamaCare .\nFormer Kentucky Gov . Steve Beshear warned those efforts would strip affordable health insurance from Americans . “ This isn ’ t a game . It ’ s life and death for people , ” he said .


Obama may face some of the same hurdles Reagan and Clinton encountered . | AP Photos Obama 's OFA has Reagan echoes\nPresident Barack Obama ’ s decision to transform his campaign into the freestanding lobbying group “ Organizing for Action ” is groundbreaking in many ways — but the idea of creating an outside organization to put pressure on Capitol Hill dates back at least to Ronald Reagan .\nPresident Bill Clinton even tried to create one 20 years ago . In 1993 , seeking to to marshal grassroots support for his health-care reform effort , his team ’ s first impulse was to set up a standalone entity that could anonymously raise and spend large sums of money on polling , petition drives , phone banks and TV commercials .\nObama ’ s got big plans for OFA , and the group ’ s leaders are heavy on ambition for what they ’ ll be able to do to make the president ’ s agenda on issues like gun control and immigration a reality . But while campaign finance laws have changed over the years , some of the same problems — in both the law and public perception — that hounded previous White House-connected outside influence efforts could lay ahead for Obama . And , so far , neither the White House nor OFA is saying much about how they plan to avoid them .\nBy June 1993 , “ The National Health Care Campaign ” to support Clinton ’ s health plan was up and running with 27 staffers in a downtown Washington office , funded by $ 100,000 in seed money from the Democratic National Committee , according to a Washington Post article at the time . The group ’ s goal : raise up to $ 37 million in large chunks from corporations , unions and wealthy individuals .\nBut the group came under attack over ethical questions about how an entity so closely connected to the White House would seek large sums of money from business interests that could be dramatically affected by health reform .\nAs with Obama ’ s new OFA , the Clinton effort immediately raised questions about what control White House officials would have over the new group ’ s activities and fundraising . Lawyers in the Clinton White House advised that officials could “ pass paper ” to the new organization , but could not coordinate with them , the Post reported .\n“ This is the smelliest ethical thing they ’ ve done so far , ” Glen Bolger , a Republican pollster told Newhouse News at the time . “ If you are a pharmaceutical company and you get a call to contribute , it ’ s kind of hard to say no . ”\nCritics also disputed the Clinton-era group ’ s claim to be independent of the DNC .\n“ We started out as a separate entity and that , itself , became an issue , ” recalled Heather Booth , a top organizer for the National Health Care Campaign . “ Those who didn ’ t want health care reform came after us . … It was such an issue that it was decided that it was easier to move it back into the DNC than to waste energy defending it . ”\nOn the same day as the Post ’ s front-page article , the DNC announced it was reversing course , pulling the plug on the freestanding 501c4 lobbying group , and bringing its work back in house . The effort continued on at the DNC but was ultimately swamped by the insurance industry ’ s “ Harry and Louise ” ad campaign , which eventually spent $ 60 million to defeat Clinton ’ s plan .\n“ We didn ’ t have the money we really needed to do that sort of thing , ” Clinton adviser Harold Ickes told ███ last week . “ I ’ m not sure [ we ] moved one vote . ”\n“ We tried to figure out different ways , figure out some external apparatus or support for health reform , ” recalled Chris Jennings , one of Clinton ’ s top health care policy advisers . “ It was very tough , as I recall . I don ’ t know if it was political or policy or legal or some combination . ”


Federal Lawsuit Against President Trump 's Business Interests Allowed To Proceed\nIn a blow to President Trump , a federal judge says a lawsuit that alleges Trump 's business interests violate the Constitution can proceed .\nFederal District Judge Peter Messitte denied the Department of Justice 's request to dismiss a case brought by the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia . The Emoluments Clause bars any president from personally profiting from his dealings with foreign governments — or even U.S. state governments .\nIt 's the first ruling in federal court to define `` emolument , '' which goes undefined in the U.S. Constitution 's two emoluments clauses .\nMessitte rejected the `` cramped interpretation '' of the term offered by the Justice Department . He wrote that the term applies to `` any profit , gain or advantage '' of value that Trump has gotten from foreign , the federal or domestic governments .\n`` Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the President has been receiving or is potentially able to receive 'emoluments ' from foreign , the federal and state governments in violation of the Constitution , '' wrote Messitte .\nUntil the Trump administration , emoluments have been an obscure part of the Constitution , said John Mikhail , a professor at Georgetown University Law Center , whose research was cited in Messitte 's opinion .\n`` I think it comes as a surprise to many people that there are terms in the Constitution , individual words that at this late date , 230-plus years into the operation of the Constitution , that those have never been authoritatively adjudicated , '' said Mikhail .\nThe judge 's decision clears the way for the Maryland and District of Columbia legal teams to begin the discovery process , which could include requesting sensitive financial information from the president and the Trump Organization .\nThe Justice Department , which represents Trump in this matter , argues the clause is not relevant to Trump 's businesses . `` We continue to maintain that this case should be dismissed , '' said Andy Reuss , a spokesman for the Justice Department .\nIt 's the second victory for Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh and D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine , who were granted legal standing to sue Trump in March . They allege their jurisdictions are economically and financially harmed as political and diplomatic officials shift their business to Trump 's downtown Washington , D.C. , hotel from nearby convention centers owned by those governments .\n`` Today 's historic ruling is a substantial step forward to ensure President Trump stops violating our nation 's original anti-corruption laws , '' said Racine . `` The Constitution is clear : The president ca n't accept money or other benefits from foreign or domestic governments . ''\nAfter opening shortly before the 2016 election , the Trump International Hotel has quickly became a favorite gathering place for the president 's supporters , who frequently hold fundraisers and conferences there . Foreign governments have also held events and put dignitaries up in the hotel .\nThe hotel is housed in the Old Post Office , which is owned by the federal government and leased by the Trump Organization . Legal challenges to the Trump Organization 's lease on the property have not succeeded .


President Obama has chosen Loretta Lynch , the U.S. attorney in Brooklyn , N.Y. , as his nominee to replace outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder -- ending widespread speculation over who might fill Holder 's shoes and teeing up a nomination debate potentially during the lame-duck session .\nThough several Republicans had wanted to wait to consider any successor until the new Congress is seated , the president plans to announce his pick on Saturday .\n`` Ms. Lynch is a strong , independent prosecutor who has twice led one of the most important U.S. Attorney 's offices in the country , '' White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said in a statement . `` She will succeed Eric Holder , whose tenure has been marked by historic gains in the areas of criminal justice reform and civil rights enforcement . ''\nLynch , 55 , is a Harvard Law School graduate and popular prosecutor who is currently serving her second stint as U.S. attorney for Eastern New York , which covers Brooklyn , Queens , Staten Island and Long Island .\nShe was appointed by Obama in 2010 . If confirmed to fill Holder 's post , she would be the first black female attorney general .\nIt was unclear how the nomination will be greeted by Republicans on Capitol Hill , who were often at odds with Holder over the course of his tenure . The party won a majority in the Senate on Tuesday , but will not take control until January .\nIt was also unclear if the Senate might wait on a vote until then .\nSenate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , who presumably will become the majority leader in the next session , issued a statement Friday night urging the Senate to wait until January to vote on the nomination .\n`` Ms. Lynch will receive fair consideration by the Senate , '' he said . `` And her nomination should be considered in the new Congress through regular order . ''\nAnnmarie McAvoy , an attorney and former federal prosecutor who worked directly under Lynch during her first tenure as U.S. Attorney from 1999-2001 , said , “ She ’ s got a good reputation …she ’ s done some great work in her office . She ’ s not one to put her head in the sand . She ’ s hasn ’ t been afraid to go after corruption , things like that , against Republicans and Democrats . ”\nShe described Lynch as well liked , respected and not likely to cause a stir politically . “ I have not heard anything controversial about her – at all , ” McAvoy told Foxnews.com .\n“ When you meet her she is very sweet and she is very personable , she is very bright . She handles herself beautifully , but she doesn ’ t shy away from controversy . ”\nLynch grew up in Durham , North Carolina , the middle of three children . Her mother was a school librarian , her father a Baptist minister .\nAfter Harvard , Lynch served as a federal prosecutor in New York ’ s Eastern District , receiving several key promotions over eight years until President Clinton nominated her as U.S. Attorney in 1998 . After leaving that office in 2001 , Lynch went into private practice specializing in commercial litigation , white collar criminal defense and corporate compliance issues before Obama appointed her in 2010 to return to her current post .\n“ President Barack Obama has chosen a great New Yorker as the country ’ s highest-ranking law enforcement official , ” New York Mayor Bill de Blasio tweeted Friday after news of the nomination .\nIn her time as U.S. Attorney , Lynch has made a name for herself in a number of high-profile convictions , including a thwarted Al Qaeda-sanctioned plot to attack the New York subway system , and pursuing the head of a Mexican drug cartel for 12 murders . She also heads the government ’ s prosecution of Rep. Michael Grimm , R-N.Y. , who has been charged with tax evasion but won re-election Tuesday night .\nThere have been no indications thus far if Lynch ’ s nomination will be as dramatic as other Obama picks .\nSen. Charles Grassley , R-Iowa , who is currently the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- which must approve Obama ’ s nominee -- appeared welcoming in his comments Friday night .\n“ Being selected to serve as our nation ’ s top law enforcement officer is both a tremendous honor and responsibility . As we move forward with the confirmation process , I have every confidence that Ms. Lynch will receive a very fair , but thorough , vetting by the Judiciary Committee , ” he said in a statement. “ I look forward to learning more about her , how she will interact with Congress , and how she proposes to lead the department . ”\nReports throughout the week suggested that Lynch was not an Obama insider so she doesn ’ t bring the baggage carried by other potential administration nominees .\n“ Unlike Eric Holder , who was very close to the president – in a way , too close – she doesn ’ t really have any relationship with President Obama , ” said Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers . “ I think that bodes well for her . ”\nLynch is reportedly close to Holder , however , having served on his Attorney General ’ s Advisory Committee of U.S . Attorneys ( AGAC ) , a 20-member body that provides counsel to Holder on policy .\nSen. Ted Cruz , R-Texas , who sits on the Judiciary Committee , has already indicated that he is unhappy Obama is making the nomination now , instead of during the new session , when Republicans will have the majority in both chambers . “ Democrat senators who just lost their seats should n't confirm ( a ) new Attorney General , ” he tweeted on Friday . “ ( They ) should be vetted by ( the ) new Congress . ”


WASHINGTON ( ███ ) - The U.S. Secret Service on Sunday denied a suggestion from President Donald Trump ’ s personal lawyer that it had vetted a meeting between the president ’ s son and Russian nationals during the 2016 campaign .\nDonald Trump Jr. has acknowledged that he met in New York with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya after he was told she might have damaging information about his father ’ s rival , Democrat Hillary Clinton .\n“ Well , I wonder why the Secret Service , if this was nefarious , why the Secret Service allowed these people in . The president had Secret Service protection at that point , and that raised a question with me , ” Jay Sekulow , a member of the president ’ s legal team , said on Sunday on the ABC news program “ This Week . ”\nIn an emailed response to questions about Sekulow ’ s comments , Secret Service spokesman Mason Brayman said the younger Trump was not under Secret Service protection at the time of the meeting , which included Trump ’ s son and two senior campaign officials .\n“ Donald Trump , Jr. was not a protectee of the USSS in June , 2016 . Thus we would not have screened anyone he was meeting with at that time , ” the statement said .\nAccording to emails released by Trump Jr. last week , he eagerly agreed to meet Veselnitskaya , who he was told was a Russian government lawyer . Veselnitskaya has said she is a private lawyer and denies having Kremlin ties .\nOn Friday , NBC News reported that a lobbyist who was once a Soviet counter-intelligence officer participated in the meeting , which was also attended by Trump ’ s son-in-law , Jared Kushner , and the president ’ s former campaign manager , Paul Manafort .\nThe meeting appears to be the most tangible evidence of a connection between Trump ’ s election campaign and Russia , a subject that has prompted investigations by congressional committees and a federal special counsel .\nMoscow has denied any interference and the president and Trump Jr. have denied any collusion .\nSekulow ’ s comments about the Secret Service drew quick criticism , including from Frances Townsend , who advised former Republican President George W. Bush on homeland security .\n“ Ok let ’ s try to deflect blame & throw those in @ SecretService who protect @ POTUS @ realDonaldTrump @ FLOTUS & family under the bus , ” she said on Twitter .\nThe Secret Service ’ s mission is to provide physical protection for the U.S. president . The agency also protects major presidential candidates . But its role in vetting people who meet with a U.S. president or candidates is limited to ensuring physical safety .\nTrump himself has said he was unaware of the meeting between his son and the Russian lawyer until a few days ago .\n“ The president was not aware about this meeting , did not participate in this meeting , ” Sekulow told the CBS program “ Face the Nation . ”\nSekulow added that Trump was not aware of any meetings between his campaign staff and Russians .\nA federal special counsel and several congressional panels are investigating allegations by U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to hurt Clinton and help Trump . They are also investigating potential connections between Russian officials and the Trump campaign .\nSenator Mark Warner , the top Democrat on one of the panels investigating the matter , the Senate Intelligence Committee , told CNN : “ The level of credibility from the senior level of this administration really is suspect . ”\nWarner said he wanted to hear from everyone who attended the June 2016 meeting .\n“ Whether we will be able to get the Russian nationals to come over and testify is an open question , ( but ) those people that our committee has jurisdiction over , the Americans , I sure as heck want to talk to all of them , ” Warner said .


House Minority Leader Nacy Pelosi remains the most successful non-presidential political fundraiser in U.S. history , raising more than $ 560 million for House Democrats since she became leader in 2003 . | Getty Congress Pelosi faces growing doubts among Dems after Georgia loss There 's a lot of grumbling by rank-and-file members , but no leadership change is imminent .\nHouse Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats put a brave face on Wednesday morning after a disappointing loss in the Georgia special election , yet there is no disguising the unhappiness in the party ranks .\nThere is no challenge to Pelosi ’ s leadership , and none is going to happen at this point , said numerous Democrats . But it ’ s clear frustration is growing with the longtime Democratic leader following the extensive losses Democrats have suffered over the past half-decade .\nAnd the fact that Republicans spent millions of dollars on TV ads tying Democratic hopeful Jon Ossoff to Pelosi — and the brand of progressive policies she represents — shows that she will once again be an issue for Democratic challengers in the very districts that the party needs to win to make her speaker again .\nSome Democrats want to replace Pelosi atop their caucus , as they have since last November ’ s poor showing at the polls ; they say there is no way to get back in the majority with her as their leader . And others who backed her in last year ’ s leadership challenge have now flipped their stance .\n“ I think you ’ d have to be an idiot to think we could win the House with Pelosi at the top , ” said Rep. Filemon Vela ( D-Texas ) , who supported Pelosi in her last leadership race . “ Nancy Pelosi is not the only reason that Ossoff lost . But she certainly is one of the reasons . ”\nRep. Kathleen Rice ( D-N.Y. ) , who backed a challenge to Pelosi last year , said the results of the Ossoff race further underscore that Pelosi should let someone else take the reins .\n“ There comes a time when every leader has to say , ‘ For the good of the order and for the betterment of the party , it ’ s time for me to step aside. ’ And I wish that that would happen right now , ” Rice said in an interview . “ This is not a personal thing . I want to get back in the majority . ”\nRep. Tim Ryan ( D-Ohio ) , who challenged Pelosi for minority leader in November , wouldn ’ t comment directly whether she should step down , saying only , “ My position hasn ’ t changed . ”\n“ I think it ’ s very concerning that that tactic still has some punch , ” Ryan said . “ Again , it ’ s part of the broader national brand that average people don ’ t feel connected to the Democratic Party . Walk up the street and ask 10 people what the Democrats stand for , you ’ ll get 10 different answers . That ’ s no way to build a national party . ”\nSign up here for ███ Huddle A daily play-by-play of congressional news in your inbox . Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from ███ . You can unsubscribe at any time . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply .\nPelosi told her members in a closed-door meeting on Wednesday morning that Ossoff was “ a candidate who was young and enthusiastic , and attracted national support , ” according to Democratic sources . Pelosi also pointed out that Ossoff lost by only a small margin in the 6th Congressional District race — 3.8 percent — far smaller than the previous Democratic candidate for the seat lost by in November .\nPelosi , though , admitted : “ A loss is a loss . It is a setback . Unfortunately , a loss for us . But not good news ” for Republicans . Pelosi also cautioned her members not to overreact to the results of this specific race .\nPelosi didn ’ t talk to members about the GOP ads focusing on her . No members brought up the issue of her leadership or said she should step aside .\nPelosi pointed out that Democrats won the special-election fights during the 2009-10 cycle , only to lose 63 seats in November 2010 , while in 2005-06 — when Democrats won the House — they lost several special elections .\nAnd Pelosi talked about how the recent shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise ( R-La . ) may have aided GOP candidate Karen Handel . Republican outside groups tried to tie that shooting to the frenzy of anti-Trump rhetoric among Democratic supporters , as the shooter posted strongly negative comments about President Donald Trump on his Facebook page .\n“ Republican voters don ’ t get to select the leaders of the Democratic Party , ” said Drew Hammill , a spokesman for Pelosi . “ Since [ Newt ] Gingrich , the politics of personal destruction has been a GOP hallmark . They will do this to any and every Democratic leader because the only thing sustaining their majority is desperation . ”\nSome Democrats said they left the meeting surprised and disheartened that the GOP ’ s Pelosi attack ads weren ’ t addressed in some way .\n“ It was probably one of the more disturbing caucus meetings that I ’ ve ever been in . And everyone pretty much sat in silence , and I ’ d like to think that they were as shocked as I was that they were hearing the spin that was being put on this loss , ” Rice said .\nWith President Barack Obama out of office , Pelosi is once again the Democrat that Republicans most love to hate . She has been on the national scene for 14 years , and Republicans have long made the phrase “ San Francisco values ” a pejorative for any Democratic challenger .\nAnd Democrats — despite the fervor among their base — are being forced to acknowledge that an anti-Trump message is not going to be enough by itself to win in 2018 . Trump may have historically bad poll numbers for this point in his presidency , but Democrats are likely to need more than that to get back in the majority .\nPelosi still has a lot going for her . She remains the most successful nonpresidential political fundraiser in U.S. history , raising more than $ 560 million for House Democrats since she became leader in 2003 , even though critics say all the money doesn ’ t matter if they keep losing . There ’ s also no question Pelosi remains popular with many House Democrats , despite her detractors .\n“ I think she ’ s one of the best speakers ever , and I am glad to support her , ” said Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota , a leading progressive who lost a race for Democratic National Committee chairman earlier this year .\n“ This is nothing new , ” Democratic Caucus Chairman Joe Crowley of New York said of the GOP ’ s Pelosi bashing . “ I think we ’ ll have an opportunity to look at all the ads on all sides that were ran , all the issues , all the warts that existed in evaluating the results of this election . But the day after is a little too soon . ”\nSome Democrats who are running statewide — either for governor or Senate — say the party must not try to nationalize every race . Instead , they say , it must focus on local issues in order to reach voters . And official Washington ’ s obsession with the Trump-Russia probe , while vitally important , is not something average voters are focusing on daily .\n“ I think what people are looking for is that they want to believe someone knows where they are coming from . They want to believe that you ’ re a decent person , ” said Rep. Tim Walz ( D-Minn. ) , who is running for governor . “ I think the race in my district , I think that President Trump would still win it , although it would be closer . That ’ s totally on him , and really doesn ’ t have to do with us . ”


Eric Holder and Darrell Issa had appeared close to a deal late last week . | AP Photos Holder contempt vote up in the air\nGOP Rep. Darrell Issa warned Attorney General Eric Holder late Monday that if the Justice Department failed to turn over documents he is seeking , the California Republican will go ahead with a contempt vote against Holder as planned later this week .\nIssa , chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee , has been battling with DOJ since last year over documents related to the failed Fast and Furious program . The two sides had seemed close to making a deal late last week , but Issa cautioned Holder that he will only delay the contempt vote — set for his panel on Wednesday — if DOJ makes the Fast and Furious material available by Tuesday .\nIssa and Holder are scheduled to meet Tuesday afternoon in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee ’ s offices in the Rayburn House Office Building .\n“ As the department has not yet produced these documents — and unless it does so tomorrow morning — I will not be able to offer you the committee ’ s assessment of them at tomorrow ’ s meeting , ” Issa said in his letter to Holder , the latest in a flurry of public missives between the two sides .\nIssa wants information related to a Feb. 4 , 2011 , letter from DOJ downplaying top officials knowledge of what occurred during the Fast and Furious operation . That letter was later withdrawn by DOJ as inaccurate , and Hill Republicans have been trying to determine how the incident occurred .\nIssa also dismissed what Holder has called the “ extraordinary accommodation ” made by DOJ in deciding to turn over “ internal deliberative documents ” to congressional investigators . DOJ had previously said such documents were not subject to congressional subpoenas .\n“ There is nothing extraordinary about an offer from a federal agency to fully or partially respond to a subpoena , ” Issa told Holder . “ I do , however , hope the department will decide to produce the documents that would justify a postponement [ of Wednesday ’ s vote ] and will use tomorrow ’ s discussion to better understand what steps it can take if it sincerely seeks an outcome other than continuation of contempt proceedings . ”\nDOJ officials met with Issa ’ s investigators last week to turn over some materials , and discussions between the two sides were ongoing throughout the weekend , GOP insiders said .\nMaryland Rep. Elijah Cummings , the top Democrat on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee , will be part of the session with Holder .\nIssa — backed by Speaker John Boehner ( R-Ohio ) and other House GOP leaders — has subpoenaed thousands of pages of DOJ documents related to the Fast and Furious “ gun walking ” program .\nThat operation , run jointly by DOJ and the Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms and Explosives , allowed thousands of guns purchased in the United States to reach Mexican drug cartels as federal agents attempted to track them .\nBut the effort failed and two U.S. law-enforcement officers were killed using Fast and Furious weapons , leading to outrage on Capitol Hill .\nIssa ’ s panel issued a subpoena last October for the Fast and Furious materials , particularly information related to the Feb. 2011 letter . Holder and other DOJ officials have refused for months to turn over those documents , arguing that previous administrations withheld similar “ internal deliberative ” information .\nYet with what Holder called a “ constitutional crisis ” looming over Fast and Furious , Issa and Holder appeared close to a deal to postpone the contempt vote late last week . Holder offered to turn over some — but not all — of the documents Issa has been seeking . In return , Holder sought a face-to-face meeting with Issa to resolve their dispute . Holder called the move an “ extraordinary accommodation ” to the demands of congressional investigators .\nThe battle with DOJ over Fast and Furious has become a test of strength for Issa and the House GOP leadership . Boehner and other top party leaders initially did not want to get into a showdown with Holder and the White House , fearing it would distract Republicans from the economic-based message that they have been pushing all year . Congress faces deadlines this month on highway and student loan funding , issues with far broader impact than the Fast and Furious debate , despite the seriousness of the DOJ-House fight .


Rep. Jim Jordan announced Thursday that he will try next year to become leader of the House Republican caucus , accelerating what ’ s likely to be a deeply divisive fight over the direction of the GOP .\nThe Ohio Republican is challenging Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California , the current majority leader and front-runner to succeed outgoing Speaker Paul D. Ryan , who is retiring at the end of this year .\nMr. Jordan said he will seek the post if Republicans manage to keep their majority in this year ’ s elections , vowing to be a firmer supporter of President Trump ’ s agenda .\n“ President Trump has taken bold action on behalf of the American people . Congress has not held up its end of the deal , but we can change that . It ’ s time to do what we said , ” he wrote in a letter to colleagues .\nLong a conservative lightning rod , Mr. Jordan quickly drew support from outside right-wing groups , while conservative lawmakers inside the Capitol were divided .\nSome of his closest allies said they ’ ll back him , but other conservative lawmakers said they want to focus on making sure the GOP still has a majority — and thus the speakership — next year .\nMr. Jordan has built a reputation as a right-wing brawler , willing to battle Democrats and GOP leaders alike .\nHe helped orchestrate the 17-day government shutdown over Obamacare funding in 2013 , though he later admitted that was perhaps too aggressive a stance . And he ’ s pushed for stiffer action on illegal immigration , deeper spending cuts and broader civil liberties protections from government snooping than party leaders have embraced .\nHe also attempted to impeach then-IRS Commissioner John Koskinen in 2016 .\nMr. Jordan is a former chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee and founding member of the House Freedom Caucus , and has taken in recent months to chiding GOP leaders for failing to live up to the promises they and Mr. Trump made to voters .\n“ Jim Jordan is a courageous conservative who has always kept his promises , ” said Rep. Andy Biggs , Arizona Republican . “ I believe that Jim Jordan would return to regular order and lead the House to execute our conservative objectives . ”\nRep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina , chairman of the Freedom Caucus , said he would “ fully ” support Mr. Jordan for speaker .\n“ I applaud all of those who are willing to put themselves out there . Certainly , Jim ’ s one of my better friends in Congress and I support his efforts and his leadership to do that , ” Mr. Meadows said .\nMr. Meadows also waved aside talk that Mr. Jordan launched the long-shot bid to be a “ spoiler ” for another candidate or to build himself up as a GOP kingmaker .\n“ The fact is that he was a two-time national champion , ” Mr. Meadows said of Mr. Jordan , a former college wrestler . “ I never knew him to get on the mat and try to lose , and I don ’ t expect this to be any different . If he ’ s going to get in , he ’ s going to be in it to win . ”\nGroups from the free-market Club for Growth to the Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund said they would rally to Mr. Jordan ’ s side as well .\nFreedomWorks , another group , said it will spend at least $ 500,000 to assist Mr. Jordan ’ s speakership bid .\nHowever , elections analysts are putting increasingly long odds on the GOP ’ s hopes of retaining the majority . Should Democrats win , they ’ ll pick the speaker and the GOP contest would be for minority leader .\nMr. Jordan ’ s letter to colleagues didn ’ t say what he would do in that case .\nThe outgoing speaker , Mr. Ryan , said he didn ’ t talk to Mr. Jordan before his announcement , but said he ’ s still backing Mr. McCarthy .\nAsked Thursday about Mr. Jordan ’ s bid , Mr. McCarthy told NBC : “ I ’ m spending the time keeping the majority . ”\nRep. Mark Walker , who chairs the Republican Study Committee , said the GOP needs to keep the majority first if they have designs on choosing the next speaker .\n“ That ’ s yet to be determined , ” he said . “ First and foremost , we got to keep the majority . ”\nMr. Jordan built a national profile using his seats on the House Judiciary and Oversight committees to fire tough questions first at Obama administration officials , and more recently at Trump Justice Department and FBI officials .\nThis week he joined with Mr. Meadows to introduce articles of impeachment against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein , arguing he ’ s the point man of a Justice Department effort to hide documents from Congress .\nWhile he won cheers from conservatives from those efforts , some moderate GOP members have started to lose patience with the Freedom Caucus and say those sorts of tactics are counterproductive .\nRep. Elise Stefanik , a New York Republican who is backing Mr. McCarthy , said that “ under no circumstances ” will she support Mr. Jordan for speaker .\n“ I would urge him instead to support his colleagues this November instead of focusing on his own personal leadership aspirations , ” Ms. Stefanik tweeted .